MISSISSAUGAWATCH
MississaugaWatch Mississauga Watch Dear Madam Mayor:
The McCallion Letters

“Mississauga” Council Code of Conduct, Bonnie Crombie, Justice Douglas Cunningham, George Rust-D’Eye: INTEGRITY *FAIL*!

August 27th, 2012  

UPDATE September 2, 2012

We should still have been on Maui til September 5th but we were called back to Mississauga because of a family emergency.

Right now we’re doing Elder Care 24/7 and have no idea for how long. Because my blogs require that I work up video and then video transcripts, I just don’t have the time or energy when “off shift”. Put simply I just can’t concentrate.

I’m keeping in touch through Twitter and if you’re interested, check out https://twitter.com/MISSISSAUGAMUSE  I’ve managed to find 563 government-relevant people/agencies to Follow. Their tweets alone are worth the visit.

Anyway… until whenever.


Back to my Aug 27, 2012 blog.

Well, I’m back in Mississauga.

Going from Aloha Blue to Concrete’nCars is more than I can take this time ’round. But fellow Boomers will understand that Home is Where your Parents are.

Since I won’t have time to work up a blog unless I do it today, here’s the primary political thing on my mind right now. It has to do with the “Mississauga” Council Code of Conduct.

Now the first thing you need to know about the “Mississauga” Council Code of Conduct is that right from the Get-Go the thing is deceptive. The “Mississauga” Council Code of Conduct is really the City of Vaughan’s  CODE OF ETHICAL CONDUCT FOR MEMBERS OF COUNCIL

So it’s always a laugh to hear the Mississauga Mayor and Councillors congratulating themselves about their leading edge “Mississauga” Council Code of Conduct. That’s right, “leading edge”.

But one of the most bizarre comments ever made about the “Mississauga” Council Code of Conduct came from none other than Mississauga’s next Mayor, Bonnie Crombie.

Shoveled directly onto the National Post’s Megan O’Toole.

Bonnie Crombie Media Interview

After Mississauga Council meeting November 9, 2011

VIDEO TRANSCRIPT

National Post reporter, Megan O’Toole.

And just speaking of the video –um, you know, in terms of this Governance Committee –obviously it’s going to be dealing with issues and something like this might be referred to the Governance Committee.

Um, last week we heard a lot of Councillors saying that the Inquiry was a waste of money, that it shouldn’t have happened.

But that has a lot of recommendations concerning good governance. And I’m just curious how that’s reconciled with this committee.

Councillor Bonnie Crombie

Megan, we’ve even exceeded some of the recommendations on our own before we even knew what the recommendations were.

In fact, I think that Justice Cunningham said we went too far on a Code of Conduct. And we should scale back.

So that’s something that the Governance Committee should look at.

I’ve been looking.

Re-reading Commissioner Cunningham’s “Updating Ethical Infrastructure” and simply can’t find where it’s said, “In fact, I think that Justice Cunningham said we went too far on a Code of Conduct. And we should scale back” (let alone any evidence of “Megan, we’ve even exceeded some of the recommendations on our own before we even knew what the recommendations were”.)

In fact, as in fact-fact, here’s what Justice Cunningham’s comments regarding the “Mississauga” Council Code of Conduct in his Commissioner’s Statement on the Public Release of the Report.

I believe that the Mississauga Code should be amended as well. Its language should be strengthened to make clear that members must avoid the improper use of the influence of their office and shall avoid conflicts of interest, both apparent and real. The Code should also make it clear that members of Council shall not extend preferential treatment to any individual or organization in the discharge of their official duties. Preferential treatment would be found to exist if a reasonably well informed person would include that the preferential treatment was advancing a private interest.

Cunningham has even more Code improvement recommendations in his “Updating Ethical Infrastructure” report. (So far they’ve been expertly ignored by the Mississauga Governance Committee)

So where did Bonnie Crombie’s “Megan, we’ve even exceeded some of the recommendations on our own before we even know what the recommendations were” come from?

Megan O’Toole didn’t ask.

Mississauga Liberal Councillor Bonnie Crombie slings pure bullshit in interview with Megan O'Toole November 9, 2011

As for Crombie’s “In fact, I think that Justice Cunningham said we went too far on a Code of Conduct. And we should scale back”, O’Toole et al willingly swallowed that one too.

Had to laugh at a tweet this morning from Dan Gardner, Ottawa Citizen columnist / author of Risk and Future Babble

Dan Gardner ‏@dgardner

One of the biggest reasons why politicians aren’t held responsible is the cynic who lazily sighs “but they all do it…”

Reply   Retweet  Favorite

Nope.

It’s because politicians crap out the worst kind of bullshit —even lies— as “fact” and lazy Traditional Media don’t respond with “Whoa! Where exactly is your evidence for your ‘In fact’?”

Observe. Here’s “Mississauga” Council Code of Conduct’s Rule 10.

Rule No. 10

Media Communications:

1. Members of Council will accurately communicate the decisions of Mississauga City
Council, even if they disagree with the majority decision of Council, and by so doing
affirm the respect for and integrity in the decision-making processes of Council.

Can you spot Rule 10’s real implication —a huge loophole so subtle that it shot right over my head back in January 14, 2012 when I’d last examined it?

Alerting Council and citizens to that loophole (and all others) was Justice Douglas Cunningham’s responsibility. The duty to advise Council —as well as exercise the will of Council also fell on George Rust-D’Eye.

INTEGRITY FAIL!

I’m reminded of Mayor Hazel McCallion’s comment at the March 17, 2008 Audit Committee:

So, I hope that the people we hire are sensitive to the fact that we are dealing with the public and we should give them every understanding possible.

Nope.

Sure Justice Cunningham made a good show of it. He had me fooled for the longest time.

As for Mississauga interim Integrity Commissioner, George Rust-D’Eye and “sensitive to the fact that we are dealing with the public and we should give them every understanding possible“?

Well. Let’s just say that $650.00 managed to confirm something that I’d already suspected.

Nope.

 

Signed,

MISSISSAUGAWATCH

MISSISSAUGA CITY HALL (AMO, OMERS, MYTHissauga Inc) ---morally beyond redemption

“…the system is CORRUPT and this is why there is youth violence this is why there are guns on the street and drugs in the hands of children
the youth are fighting with the system because it is CORRUPT there is no way to fix it because the people higher up are sitting nice in their
big leather chairs, driving their nice cars, living their perfect life when some people in this world have to work hard to get by and even by doing
so they get nothing, and after they realize how hard they have to work to get by they break down and no longer want to live life being part of the
system because they realize that living life by the rules of the system gets you no where because it is CORRUPT!”

—email from youth (age 19)

 

Sick of the usual take on Danzig/Scarborough shootings? Here’s the TRUEth about youth violence prevention

July 21st, 2012  

It’s either no one has a memory or there’s just more of the same Pretend going on.

Reminder to readers, since no one else seems willing to do this.

What follows is a partial Youth Violence Prevention chronology.

June 11, 2007 press release:  Premier Dalton McGuinty announced that he has asked former Chief Justice and Attorney General Roy McMurtry and former Speaker of the Legislature Alvin Curling to review what more we can do, together, to ensure Ontario’s young people and our communities are safe. “We’re launching this review because no parent should ever have to worry about losing their child to violence,” said Premier McGuinty.

Yes. That Premier McGuinty. The same McGuinty whose Finance Minister admitted their campaign team decided to scrap the Mississauga power plant when the Liberals trailed in the polls just days before last fall’s election. The $190 million cost to taxpayers has been described as vote-buying at its worst.

It’s also the same Dalton McGuinty whose Ontario’s health minister refuses to take responsibility for the “extravagant, reckless and incompetent” Ornge air ambulance clusterfuckshiteri.

And it’s the same Dalton McGuinty Liberals who lavished $2.7 million on the lame McMurtry/Curling “Review of the Roots of Youth Violence” —a study that relied exclusively on public documents and interviews. “Researchers” didn’t file a single Freedom of Information request to dig up the real story.

Willful blindness.

Here’s Premier Dad’s announcement on video.

Getting To The Roots Of Youth Violence Uploaded by on June 12, 2007 (2:30 min)

(Click here to go directly to the clip on YouTube)

Four months later, October 25, 2007, Mississauga Councillor, Pat Saito, trumpeted the “phenomenal” success of the Peel Youth Violence Prevention Committee’s less than two years of operation.

The Peel Youth Violence Prevention success was so “phenomenal” that Saito used the word “phenomenal” four times mixed in with two “amazing”s in less than three minutes of pure rancid bullshit.

Here she is!

Mississauga Councillor on Peel Youth Violence Prevention Network’s “phenomenal” success. (3:07 min)

(Click here to go directly to the clip on YouTube)

Bullshit galloping. I don’t call my city “MYTHissauga” for nothing.

You want to know why so many youth violence prevention programs don’t work?

Look no further than the likes of Mississauga Councillor Pat Saito who absolutely refuses to conduct authentic assessment of program effectiveness (Can you say “Deb Matthews”?). After all, it’s far more efficient just to lie about an entity’s accomplishments (can you spell “Ornge”?).

True story.

I sat in and observed the Peel Youth Violence Prevention Network’s “Education and Policy Working Group” meetings. (So many salaries seated around a table once a month). Yet our group made so little progress I decided to sit in on the Steering Committee meetings just to see what our Working Group’s Chair was actually reporting to The Steering Suits.

And oh my! Just as I suspected! She either fabricated or inflated our Group’s “successes”.

And that’s when I knew.

Youth workers, at least in Peel, are hired for their ability sling Positive Bullshit with evangelical zeal. And just like little municipal Deb Matthews, the Politicos accepted each verbal “update” as Truth.

Any doubters out there, I have most of these Peel Youth Violence Prevention Committee meetings on audio.

As I said I was part of the Peel Youth Violence Prevention Network’s “Education and Policy Working Group”. Then it folded.

Steering Committee Chair Gael Miles insisted however that our working group didn’t “fold” but rather “merged” with another group since we completed our mandate of educating and discussing policy!

That was the Fall of 2008.

Finished discussing policy?! Aside from part of one meeting to talk about the Safe Schools Act, that was it on Policy.

And get this.

It was only two weeks ago that I learned THE REGION OF PEEL HAS NO PUBLIC COMPLAINTS POLICY!

So why weren’t we, the Network’s “Education and Policy Working Group” informed of that back in 2007-08?

Deception. Lies. Persistent pretend. Fabricating success. And the funding money wasted! The hallmarks of at-risk youth programs.

And Peel can’t be the only one.

Which brings me to the greatest truth about youth violence prevention initiatives and our Governments of Pretend.

“…all I can say is of all the panels I sit on the first question that is asked is ‘Where are the young people? We are talking about them but they’re not with us.

Young people are very frustrated because there’s a lot of panels. Oh the reports that are written about “all the money we gotta spend!” and they’re very frustrated with the system right now. That’s why they don’t come to a lot of these things because the truth is because they don’t believe in what’s happening.”

—Pastor Andrew King, speaking on Youth Violence, Brampton, November 25, 2008

The Truth about Brampton and Mississauga Youth Anti-Violence Panels. Pastor Andrew King (Etobicoke) (0:47 min)

(Click here to go directly to the clip on YouTube)

“because the truth is because they don’t believe in what’s happening.”

And you can thank the Pat Saito politicians out there —because they’re the norm.

And “Super Mayor” Hazel McCallion and her  “We should concentrate on the 98 per cent that are good youth.”

Any wonder that the anthem for the 2% “bad youth” is “They don’t give a fuck about us”?

2pac – They Don’t Give A Fuck About Us . (5:37 min)

(Click here to go directly to the clip on YouTube)

“The truth is that we, as a society—all of us—simply don’t consider children very important. We talk a good game but we don’t think kids are as important as other things, like fixing the roads.”

—a quote by Jim Paul Nevins (Ontario Court Judge October 4, 2001 report)

ONTARIO MUNICIPALITIES: A MAJOR (unexplored) ROOT OF YOUTH VIOLENCE

Take it from someone who’s filed close to $4,000 worth of Freedom of Information. “The System is corrupt. There is no way to fix it”.

Signed,

MISSISSAUGAWATCH

MISSISSAUGA CITY HALL (AMO, OMERS, MYTHissauga Inc) ---morally beyond redemption

“…the system is CORRUPT and this is why there is youth violence this is why there are guns on the street and drugs in the hands of children the youth are fighting with the system because it is CORRUPT there is no way to fix it because the people higher up are sitting nice in their big leather chairs, driving their nice cars, living their perfect life when some people in this world have to work hard to get by and even by doing so they get nothing, and after they realize how hard they have to work to get by they break down and no longer want to live life being part of the system because they realize that living life by the rules of the system gets you no where because it is CORRUPT!” 

–email from youth (age 19)

Graffiti Mississauga Report: “FTP” (Fuck the Police), “FUCK THE WORLD”, “FREEDOM”. Is the message changing?

May 28th, 2012  

What follows is a long long overdue MISSISSAUGA graffiti report.

Graffiti Mississauga: “FTP” (Fuck the Police), “FUCK THE WORLD”, “FREEDOM”. Is the message changing? (7:48 min)

(Click here to go directly to the clip on YouTube)

[VIDEO TRANSCRIPT BEGINS]

MISSISSAUGAWATCH reporting from undisclosed graffiti study site in Mississauga, May 25, 2012

It is Friday May the 24th or 25th, I forget. And I’m coming back to a site that I had discovered a few days ago. All I can tell you about this site right now is that it is one of my graffiti sites.

And oh, in the Fall, the entire area had been completely buffed and erased. I mean completely obliterated. All the graffiti.

And on a hunch I returned last week and discovered quite a bit of it, including this particular truck. And of particular interest to me at that time was “FTP”. “FTP”. “FTP” —which means “Fuck the Police”.

And I didn’t recognize this tag here, but I think it might now be one that I noticed yesterday in a different location. But I’m not sure.

On this particular truck alone, you’ve got one, two —and I think that’s an “FTP” too. And then an “FTP” here.

So that’s, gosh, just in here alone, quite a few “Fuck the Police”.

And this is something new. Anti-police messages like “FTP” just isn’t part of Mississauga graffiti. And then it just kind of explodes on the scene right here.

Now you’ll recognize this as the side of the truck. But it’s also here with a tag and and an “FTP” right there.

Although just so that you know, I consider this one incident. Even though there might be six “FTP”s there. I consider it one event.

Now I just drove that way to check some of the other buildings where this material had been sprayed. And I swear it was this week —this week that I documented this—

MISSISSAUGAWATCH reporting from undisclosed graffiti study site in Mississauga, May 22, 2012

It is Tuesday, May 22nd, 2012 and I’ve returned to one of my graffiti study sites here at the City of Mississauga.

MISSISSAUGAWATCH reporting from undisclosed graffiti study site in Mississauga, May 25, 2012

—and it’s already erased.

And that’s why I say it’s really important for me to videotape and document graffiti as quickly as I see it because it can be erased as quickly —and it’s happened, as quickly as 24 hours later.

But I want to talk a little bit too about something that I noticed yesterday and I already put up on the Internet. There’s a different tone now to the kind of graffiti that is re-emerging after what I call “The Big Erase” which occurred back in the Summer of 2011.

So it’s taken a long time for example, for this area, to have the graffiti come back.

And what’s interesting and I cannot explain is to have so much “FTP”s —”Fuck the Police” here. Because that’s one of the things that made Mississauga/Peel so extraordinary compared to, for example, the graffiti in the City of Hamilton.

[photograph inserts of anti-police graffiti from the City of Hamilton September 13, 2009]

At the the City of Hamilton, my God, there was [sic] “FTP”s down one entire road, every telephone pole had “FTP”, every utility box.

And not just “FTP” but “FUCK THE POLICE” on sidewalks, on picket fences, it was everywhere!

And by contrast, you just didn’t see that here at the City of Mississauga.

MISSISSAUGAWATCH reporting from another undisclosed graffiti study site in Mississauga, May 25, 2012

Okay. Here’s the other one. Let’s show that to you.

And I’d mentioned there’s the interesting message, “FUCK THE WORLD”. And about the only thing that I will say is this is within a two minute/three minute walk from where we just were, where there were all those “FTP”s for “Fuck the Police”.

There just seems to be at this point, and I’m not sure, but there seems to be right now, a difference in tone, in the kind of graffiti that I am seeing re-emerge after what I call “The Big Erase of Summer 2011”.

So. I guess the only other thing I want to talk about this difference in tone—

—is we’re seeing protests emerging. And I’m looking at the anger that’s still out there for G20 which happened in June 2010.

Here it’s almost June 2012 and people are still upset about police-protester interaction and the arrests and the abuse of authority.

And I’m now following the Quebec student protest and the remarkable footage by CUTV —Concordia University livestreaming. Its fascinating and superb job that they’re doing —pretty much citizen journalism.

Traditional Media —forget about it.

The best commentary and coverage I’m discovering are such things like CUTV or TimCast in Chicago, who is covering the NATO protests.

It’s right on the ground and it’s real. and I can tell you it’s real because—

—I was providing video coverage of the G20 on, I think it was June 26, was it? And it’s real when you’re right there and you’re actually removed from the site and so on.

But I guess what I want to document and report on is: Will the nature of graffiti change as more young people and youth become more restless?

Will you get more messages like “FTP” and “Fuck the World”? I don’t know.

However, there is one site that I haven’t looked at for a while. And it turned out back in April 2009, when I first decided I was going to research graffiti.

It was actually the first site that I had —the first true graffiti wall. And I was so excited about it. That I actually found something. Anyway, let’s go there right now.

MISSISSAUGAWATCH reporting from yet another undisclosed graffiti study site in Mississauga, May 25, 2012

A tree got in the way. It says “ACID”. So that’s new —but again, that could be the name of the tagger.

This is new. “FREEDOM”.

There really does seem to be —look at this. I’ll just take that here. [throws car into Park]

“FREEDOM”.

There really does seem to be —a change.

As I said, we’re starting to get messages.

There’s something different happening.

[VIDEO TRANSCRIPT ENDS]

Signed,
MISSISSAUGAWATCH

GRAFFITI MISSISSAUGA "FREEDOM" documented May 27, 2012
Additional Resources

A related Mississauga graffiti video —May 24, 2012. Just for the record.

Graffiti Mississauga: “Fuck the World” (undisclosed location, Mississauga)  (0:56 min)

(Click here to go directly to the clip on YouTube)

Examining The City of Mississauga’s Council Code of Conduct. (Part 4) “providing persons…with an understanding and appreciation of the City of Mississauga or the workings of its municipal government”

January 9th, 2012  

This blog is a continuation of the following blog entries:

Examining The City of Mississauga’s Council Code of Conduct. (Part 1) Line by line, word by word. Pages 1 through 5 of the Code.

Examining The City of Mississauga’s Council Code of Conduct. (Part 2) “upholding both the letter of the law and the spirit of the laws and policies” Page 6 of the Code.

Examining The City of Mississauga’s Council Code of Conduct. (Part 3) Beware “community events”, “volunteer services”, “arm’s length”… Pages 7 through 10 of the Code.

Just a reminder that my goal is to go through The City of Mississauga Code of Conduct, line by line, word by word as preparation for future Council deputations.

Once again, I will cut-and-paste the City of Mississauga Code of Conduct directly into this blog entry and offer comment/criticism [bold italics square brackets] when the need arises.

Those interested in accessing the full version of City of Mississauga Council Code of Conduct April 2011 please click here.


The City of Mississauga Council Code of Conduct.

Council Code of Conduct April, 2011 (Page 11 begins)


Rule No. 3

Councillor Expenses:

There are a range of expenses that support a Member’s role in community development and
engagement activities within their ward. For federal and provincial elected officials, these
expenses are often paid for by Riding Association funds. Municipal elected officials do not
have this benefit. Subject to the Elected Officials’ Expenses policy, this section of the Council
Code of Conduct deals with community expense-events, will indicate allowable expenses for
reimbursement and provide guidelines for Members of Council respecting community
expenses related to a Member’s role in community development, and reflecting which
expenses are eligible for reimbursement from a Member’s office expense budget.

1. Raffle tickets, table prize tickets and other gaming tickets are not eligible for
reimbursement.

2. Sponsorship of teams or individuals, such as the provision of uniforms or equipment, are
not eligible for reimbursement.

3. Expenses incurred by Members working during normal meal periods serve a legitimate
public duty purpose, provided that the expenses incurred are reasonable and appropriate in
the circumstances. Reasonable and appropriate expenses are those that are incurred for an
official duty or function; are modest and represent the prudent use of public funds; and do
not involve the purchase of alcoholic beverages.

4. Official duties or functions include those activities that are reasonably related to a
Member’s office, and must take into consideration the different interests, the diverse
profiles of their wards, their different roles on committees, agencies, boards and
commissions. Municipal elected officials will be expected or required to extend hospitality
to external parties as part of their official duties and functions, and it is legitimate for
expenses to be incurred for this purpose. It is legitimate for Members to incur hospitality
expenses for meetings that include:

a. engaging representatives of other levels of government, international delegations or
visitors, the broader public sector, business contacts and other third parties in
discussions on official matters;

b. providing persons from national, international and charitable organizations with an
understanding and appreciation of the City of Mississauga or the workings of its
municipal government;

[With me having so much video, Freedom of Information and “workings” from the Mississauga Judicial Inquiry, I can only interpret Item b two ways. Either Item b is a lie and the City really doesn’t provide “persons from national, international and charitable organizations with an understanding and appreciation of the City of Mississauga or the workings of its municipal government” —or (horrid thought) the City of Mississauga does inform “persons from national, international and charitable organizations” about the City’s unethical corporate landscape of Fudge, Fabricate, Lie, Deny, Stonewall and that the “persons from national, international and charitable organizations” are okay with that!  Back to Page 11 of the Code.]

c. honouring persons from the City of Mississauga in recognition of exceptional public
service and staff appreciation events;

[Re: “honouring persons from the City of Mississauga in recognition of exceptional public service ” Here’s a fun way to spend a weekend. Scribble down the names of all the City of Mississauga’s “Citizens of the Year” hanging up in the gallery outside Council Chambers of City Hall’s second floor. (Say from 1980 to current) Google them, then examine all “Team Hazel” councillors’ election financial statements for 2006 and 2010.

Only then will you gain some insight into the deliberately deceptive silliness of the Code‘s references to “volunteers”, “volunteer services” and “campaign contributions”. Back to Page 11 of the Code.]

d. recognition events for various agencies, boards and commissions of the City;

[In yesterday’s blog, I alerted readers to the true meaning of “community events” —that the majority are simply political campaign events in non-election years. In Item d, the Code introduces the concept of “recognition events”.  The City of Mississauga’s “recognition events” are just like “community events” meaning “political campaign events in non-election years” except more lavish.

The best example of a City “recognition event” is the Mayor’s $350.00 90th Birthday Bash back in February 2011. Another would be the City of Mississauga’s Tribute Dinner to McCallion-Starr-Mahoney-Crombie-Team-Hazel supporter, Victor Oh.  Back to Page 11 of the Code.]

11

END OF PAGE 11 OF THE CODE. PAGE 12 BEGINS

e. ratepayers associations, minor league sports associations and other community groups.

5. Hospitality expenses may be incurred while extending hospitality in the course of
travelling on a duty or function or as a Member of Council, provided the expenses are
reasonable and appropriate in the circumstances.

6. As community leaders, Members may lend their support to and encourage community
donations to registered charitable, not-for-profit and other community-based groups
monies raised through fundraising efforts shall go directly to the groups or volunteers or
chapters acting as local organizers of the group and Members of Council should not handle
any funds on behalf of such organizations.

Members of Council routinely perform important work in supporting charitable causes and
in so doing, there is a need for transparency respecting the Member’s involvement. The
following guidelines shall apply:

a. Members of Council should not directly or indirectly manage or control any monies
received relating to community or charitable organizations fundraising;

[Notice how Item 6 deals only with money to community donations to registered charitable, not-for-profit and other community-based groups, and not moneys/contributions that could potentially slip unnoticed into the Mayor/councillors’s war chests through (say) as the Code puts it so well, “services provided without compensation by persons volunteering their time”? Back to Page 12 of the Code.]

b. Members of Council or persons acting on behalf of a Member shall not solicit or accept
support in any form from an individual, group or corporation, with any pending
significant planning, conversion or demolition variance application or procurement
proposal before City Council, which the Member knew or ought to have known about.

[Oh MY! “ought to have known about”! HAHAHAHAhahahah! Sorry, can’t help it. “ought to have known about”? You mean like how Hazel McCallion “ought to have known about” common law?… Back to Page 12 of the Code.]

c. With reference to member-organized community events, Members of Council must
report to the Integrity Commissioner, the names of all donors and the value of their
donation that supplement the event.

[Reminder from yesterday’s blog and the Code‘s Rule 2 d. “services provided without compensation by persons volunteering their time”.  The Power of Team Hazel’s Incumbency comes not so much from money donated, but her “Friends of Hazel” and their incalculable “services provided without compensation by persons volunteering their time”.  Back to Page 12 of the Code.]

d. Where a Member of Council sponsors and/or lends support to a community or
charitable event, this Code recognizes that all donations are subject to the Elected
Officials’ Expenses policy.

[Oooo, We can all feel so much better nowwwww. Back to Page 12 of the Code.]

e. No donation cheques should be made payable to a Member of Council or to the City of
Mississauga. Members of Council may only accept donation cheques made payable to
a Business Improvement Association, charity or community group and only for the
purpose of passing the cheques on to such group.

[CITIZEN ALERT! Making “cheques made payable to a Business Improvement Association, charity or community group” ensures they’re tucked safely from scrutiny of any kind. Exempt from Freedom of Information. Example, any cheques written to the annual Mayor’s Gala spring immediately to mind. Back to Page 12 of the Code.]

f. Members of Council should not handle any cash on behalf of any charitable
organization, not-for-profit or community group, and should always remain at arm’s
length from the financial aspects of these community and external events. If a Member
of Council agrees to fundraise on behalf of a charity or community group, the Member
should ensure that payment is received by a means that does not involve cash,
including bank draft, money order, credit card or cheque made payable to the
applicable group or organization.

[See previous comments regarding the non-unit of measure “at arm’s length”. The only thing that Item f accomplishes is to remind Mayor/councillors to have someone else handle the money. Perfect example. Councillor Ron Starr’s annual, Starr’s on the Credit annual fundraiser. Now Starr doesn’t touch the money but his daughter’s company, Elegance on the Move does! So now you know what the City of Mississauga’s Council Code of Conduct means by “arm’s length”! Back to Page 12 of the Code.]

7. Nothing included herein affects the entitlement of a Member of Council to:

12

END OF PAGE 12 OF THE CODE. PAGE 13 BEGINS

 

i) use the Member’s office expense budget to run or support community events subject to
the terms of the Elected Officials’ Expenses policy section relating to Community
Expense events;

[By now when you see “community events” you should automatically think “campaign events in non-election years”. Back to Page 13 of the Code.]

ii) urge constituents, businesses or other groups to support community events and advance
the needs of a charitable organization put on by others in the Member’s ward or
elsewhere in the City;

[Repeat. By now, when you see “community events” you should automatically think “campaign events in non-election years”. Back to Page 13 of the Code.]

iii) play an advisory ex officio, honorary or membership role in any charitable or nonprofit
organization that holds community events in the Members’ ward; and

[Again, translate “community events” into “campaign events in non-election years”. Back to Page 13 of the Code.]

iv) collaborate with the City of Mississauga and its agencies, boards or commissions to
hold community events.

[HAHAHAHAAhahaha. Who’d have thought reading the City of Mississauga’s Council Code of Conduct would be such entertainment! “(C)ollaborate with the City of Mississauga and its agencies, boards or commissions to hold community events.” That’s MYTHissaugaspeak for “conspire with the ‘Friends of Hazel to hold campaign events in non-election years, all in the best interests of the City (of course). Back to Page 13 of the Code.]


Commentary

By virtue of the office, Members of Council will be called upon to assist various charities,
service clubs and other non-profits as well as community associations, by accepting an
honourary role in the organization, lending their name or support to it or assisting in
fundraising. Transparency and accountability are best achieved in today’s era by encouraging
contributors to make donations to such organizations on-line through a website or where that is
not possible through a cheque made payable directly to the organization. Cash should never
be accepted.

[Regarding, the Code’s assertion that “Transparency and accountability are best achieved in today’s era by encouraging contributors to make donations to such organizations on-line through a website.” So how was making donations on-line directly to Michele Starr’s Elegance on the Move website going to best achieve transparency and accountability? Back to Page 13 of the Code.]

13

END OF PAGE 13 OF THE CODE.

Next blog deals with the Code’s Rule No. 4, Confidential Information.

As “homework” for the Code’s Rule No. 4, Confidential Information and evaluating the Code’s reference to “ought to have known about”, here’s video of an April 14, 2010 scrum where Mayor Hazel McCallion tells the Traditional Media Snoozers, “Well, I don’t think there’s —today, I don’t think there’s nothing confidential. There’s absolutely nothing confidential. Freedom of Information —you can get anything you want.

I created that title back in April 2010 and for the most part, I still think that Traditional Media SUCKS!

Video: HAZEL MCCALLION / CAROLYN PARRISH “BAD TO THE BONE” CATFIGHT! (plus Traditional Media SUCKS!) (5:45 min)

Click here to go directly to the clip on YouTube

 

Signed,

MISSISSAUGAWATCH

 

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES

1. The City of Mississauga Code of Conduct April 2011

2. Canada in the Making Common Law and Civil Law

Canada has inherited two systems of law: civil law from the French and common law from the English. This page will describe and give the history of each system as it relates to Canada

Related essays on this site:
The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council
The Sources of Law in Canada
The Written and Unwritten Constitution
Representative Government
Responsible Government
Canada’s Constitutional History
British Common Law

3. Video of MISSISSAUGAWATCH’s first (meandering and unsuccessful) attempt to merge the Mississauga’s Council Code of Conduct with the Mississauga Judicial Inquiry’s “Ethical Infrastructure” report.

As I watched it today, I winced at how unfocussed this video is —just all over the map. But it introduces the vital concept of “sanitized” reports. Sanitized reports/documents/communication is the Key to Mississauga’s success. It was the City of Mississauga’s sanitization efforts that prompted me to warn people today with:

Be it a Corporate Policy, Corporate Report, By-Law, Guideline, those drafting it meticulously weigh every single word. No word makes it on to a City document without Staff’s carefullest of scrutiny. Yes, “carefullest”.

The City of Mississauga’s wordsmiths are especially fond of vague words, like “transparent” and “accountable”. Fact is, words can be so vague as to become meaningless, become atrocities —like “transparent” and “accountable”. Like “appropriate”. Like “subject to confidentiality and disclosure rules”. Like “Trust, Quality, Excellence”.

BEWARE of TRAPS in Mississauga Code of Conduct if filing complaint with integrity commissioner (7:34 min)

(Click here to go directly to the clip on YouTube)

“To regain her power, expect McCallion to essentially build Team Hazel, for next year’s election. Team Hazel
would consist of four sitting councillors and seven candidates hand-selected by the Hurricane, who back the mayor.”

—Ted Woloshyn, Toronto Sun

Bonnie Crombie and “What parent waits almost three months to act upon concerns that her child is being cyber-stalked?

November 25th, 2011  

From the: I don’t call it “MYTHissauga” for Nothing Department.

Bonnie Crombie, “cyber-stalking”, Hazel McCallion scandal and other MYTHissauga MYTHteries (12:47 min)

(Click here to go directly to the clip on YouTube)

[VIDEO TRANSCRIPT BEGINS]

MISSISSAUGAWATCH parked at Square One with Mississauga City Hall in background, November 19, 2011

It is Saturday, November the 19th, 2011 and I’m parked here at Square One and you’ve got Mississauga City Hall in the background. And I just want to set the record a little bit straight, or at least follow up on events that happened on November the 9th, 2011 inside Mississauga Council Chamber, when McCallion-backed Councillor Bonnie Crombie accused me of “cyber-stalking”.

And I’m going to —there’s a printout of a National Post, Megan O’Toole’s article, “Mississauga councillor accuses watchdog of ‘cyber-stalking’ her children on Facebook“. And I just want to read part of it that says “she” meaning Councillor Bonnie Crombie

“was referring to an online video compilation featuring Facebook photographs of her three children that was uploaded by ‘MississaugaWatch’ this past August. The video primarily focuses on Alex Crombie, now 22, contrasting picture of his vacations and parties with a Facebook site he created to support his political ambitions.

But the video also highlights photographs of 14-year-old Natasha Crombie and 18-year-old Jonathan Crombie. The children were younger in some of the featured photographs, Ms. Crombie said.”

And at the time, I reacted, I was in total shock during the Council meeting. I —was aware that I had created a video but had not realized —not remembered that there was the younger Crombie’s Facebook page.

And upon reviewing it, I realized that yes, that was true.

[DIP TO WHITE]

The problem that I have is reference —the hot button word “cyber-stalked”. And again, read Megan O’Toole’s article. It says that it was the online video uploaded “this past August”.

It’s clear that Councillor Crombie knew since August that this video was online.

And I have to say that on November the 9th, the presentation, or the deputation that I made in front of Mississauga Council, I only decided to do because the week before —the Wednesday before, which was, yeah, November the 2nd, was a pretty big exchange of words between the McCallion-backed Councillors, all insisting that the Mississauga Judicial Inquiry was unnecessary. And that their $40,000 outside legal opinion was all that was ever needed.

And that there wasn’t much that the Inquiry revealed that wasn’t in that report. And you know that’s outrageous! Absolutely outrageous. And I thought I’d follow up on a video —and on a presentation.

The night before, which was November the 8th, the video was going so poorly that I almost bailed. I almost said forget it, I’ll do it the next week or some other time.

And you know, it’s left me to wonder, you know, having considered pulling out —I was that close! The question in my mind is how long would Councillor Crombie have taken to finally act on her concerns regarding “cyber-stalking”?

Mid-August and it was almost mid-November —we’re talking about almost three months! And only because I went up there.

I’ve had a lot of time to think. Like. Since November the 9th, I really haven’t done any kind of blog. I’ve been really thinking. And thinking. And thinking.

And again, there’s this thought that keeps skipping around in my head, like a record.

[DIP TO WHITE]

Councillor Crombie knew about that video since mid-August. And yet she waited until November the 9th —at a Council meeting, to act on those concerns. And she had plenty of opportunity in the meantime.

I remember seeing her —let me see, I guess the first would be her swear-in when she walked into Council for the first time.

Gave her oath of office. There was the Judicial Inquiry with Justice Cunningham giving his report. She was there for that too.

A couple of other things.

What if I hadn’t gone up there? When was she going to express this concern?

Who waits three months?

And I just don’t get that.

What parent waits three months —almost three months to act on a concern about “cyber-stalking”?! And I keep asking myself that. Like a broken record, “What kind of parent waits three months”?

[pointing to Mississauga City Hall in background]

That place doesn’t make sense. It’s toxic. It’s corrosive to the soul. And by the way, for the record, it was toxic and corrosive to the soul when I first started back in June 14th, 2006. There were already indications.

But it’s so much worse now.

Anyway. I have something else for the record.

And that’s regarding not going back to Mississauga Council.

October 2010, I already found it grim.

And it goes beyond corrosive to the soul to a point of being just —ashes.

I’m so desperately trying to make sense of this place. [Points to Mississauga City Hall] How it’s structured.

This Empire of Illusion.

About the malfeasance and the corruption in here.

The abuse of authority. And above all, the abuse of  —history. History. The revisionism.

And it was a very short comment by an online commenter at the Mississauga News who said, Mississaugans don’t care about optics.

And no sooner did this guy post that than a week or two later, the Toronto Star comes out with a poll that says that Hazel McCallion is the most popular mayor in Canada and that 78% of Mississaugans approve of her. And this was after all of these revelations came out with the Mississauga Judicial Inquiry!

And that really stung! That —was crushing to me!

That an online commenter, that Mississaugans don’t care about optics is true! I mean I have to accept that it’s true. You can’t fight that.

And already —I’m going to play two things. Comments that I made on September the 18th, just before residents of Ward 5 were to go to the polls. And at that point I had already announced that my research time was over.

MISSISSAUGAWATCH reporting while parked on street, Malton, September 18, 2011

I’ve often been asked, well, you’ve been doing this since 2006, when are you going to stop?

And I’ve always believed that there will be a signal. There will be a signal that your data collection time is over.

And my signal, regardless of whether this [by]election had been held or not, was seeing And seeing Victor Oh popping the champagne. That’s when it all came together. When you saw Sheldon Leiba, Mississauga Board of Trade, Victor Oh, Mississauga Chinese Business Association, Honourary President. And thank you Andrew, for your photographs documenting the Mississauga Chinese Business Association.

That was for me, The Signal.

MISSISSAUGAWATCH reporting while driving north on Hurontario, November 19, 2011

And also, an even more important one, I believe it was October the 9th [actually it was October 12, 2011]. And it was there, interestingly enough, that I had said that I would  —that my research time would be closing by mid-November.

MISSISSAUGAWATCH reporting inside Mississauga Council Chambers, October 12, 2011

I would think that by mid-November my research time here is going to be over.

There’s one more event that I have to monitor, cover, and beyond that I think you’ve got this closure.

That —I mean some can argue and say wait a second, now you need to document and follow how the Judge’s recommendations are going to be implemented. And of course, I will.

But I will predict now, that they will not be authentically implemented. And I’ll tell you why—

[DIP TO WHITE]

MISSISSAUGAWATCH reporting while driving north on Hurontario, November 19, 2011

Like there’s a lot that I don’t understand —that makes no sense.

And of course, always, you drive around and you ask yourself, “What parent waits almost three months to act upon concerns that her child is being cyber-stalked?”

[DIP TO WHITE]

Music: Living in the Past by Jethro Tull

And on one of these drives, a song came on by Jethro Tull. And it’s called Living in the Past.

And I realized that by not going to Mississauga Council anymore, that’s essentially what I’m doing. Is it’s like, I’ve cut my own political observation and ended it on November the 9th, 2011.

And it’s like I’m now Living in the Past.

That is, any interest that I have regarding Mississauga Council has a time-frame of say, May 6, [sic] 2006 when I first stepped into that Mississauga Council Chambers, to November the 9th, 2011, which was my last time.

So the song Living in the Past then is a way of focusing me now to those five years but also being a kind of discipline thing, to say, look, perhaps something new is coming up that you should be observing or researching, but no, your job now, is to Live in the Past and report on that Past.

And that’s going to be interesting. To become an expert on the Mississauga Council that was existing between May 2006 and November 9, 2011.

But I have to say it’s a relief.

Oh God, it’s a relief.

[DIP TO WHITE]

I think I’m like a lot of human beings, in that, you know you search for meaning, you search for —your world has to make sense? And right now it doesn’t. And as a result, I’m not sure where to go.

I know I have to file more Freedom of Information. That’s for sure.

And I know you don’t turn to the Traditional Media. That’s for sure.

Anyway, that’s more than enough. Turning camera off.

[VIDEO TRANSCRIPT ENDS]

 

As always I’d appreciate being advised of any errors in the transcript.

 

Signed,

The (“What parent waits almost three months to act upon concerns that her child is being cyber-stalked?) Mississauga Muse

Or misses these chances?!

September 28, 2011 media interview with me two feet away!

"Councillor Bonnie Crombie was right beside MISSISSAUGAWATCH as she was being interviewed by Toronto Star's San Grewal and National Post's Megan O'Toole! Funny she never leaned over to me during or after their interview to mention cyber-stalking  11/09/28
—and LEAVING with me just two feet away…

Councillor Bonnie Crombie was right beside MISSISSAUGAWATCH as she was being interviewed by Toronto Star's San Grewal and National Post's Megan O'Toole! Interview completed" "Crombie thanks Grewal and O'Toole ---AND LEAVES!  September 28 2011
—and Brian Crombie sitting behind me during release of the Mississauga Judicial Inquiry report, October 3, 2011

Brian Crombie was sitting right behind MISSISSAUGAWATCH  inside Mississauga Council Chambers during  the release of the Mississauga Judicial Inquiry report. Funny he never leaned over to me and mentioned "cyber-stalking"....
What parents wait almost three months to —ahhhh, never mind!

Email sent to Mississauga Judicial Inquiry Counsel asks the obvious question –and then asks who else asked it.

August 20th, 2011  

For the record, this email was just sent to Mississauga Judicial Inquiry Counsel, William McDowell and Naomi Loewith asking the obvious question about Mississauga Mayor Hazel McCallion’s Trade “Mission” to Brazil that delayed the release of the Judicial Inquiry’s report until after the September 19, 2011 Ward 5 By-election voting.

[EMAIL BEGINS]

From: MISSISSAUGA WATCH <mississauga_watch@yahoo.com>
To: William McDowell; Naomi Loewith; Gerry Timbers; Louie Rosella; Chris Clay; Megan O’Toole; San Grewal; Tom Urbaniak; Royson James; Crystal Greer; Peel Council; City of Brampton Council; John Stewart
Cc: mississauga_watch@yahoo.com
Sent: Saturday, August 20, 2011 10:53 AM
Subject: Two Questions regarding Hazel McCallion’s Trade “Mission” to Brazil

[To City of Brampton, Mississauga and Peel city clerks. I ask that this August 20, 2011 email to Mississauga Judicial Inquiry Counsel, William McDowell and Naomi Loewith be added to your earliest September 2011 Council meeting minutes as Correspondence. Thanks.]

Hi Mr. McDowell and Ms. Loewith,

As you know, I’m the citizen-journalist who appeared before the Inquiry requesting to videotape the proceedings. The Commission did one better and actually gave me access to the Inquiry Rogers Cable 10 feeds, and I thank you again for your commitment to the public’s right to know.

I’m writing because you’ve made the decision to delay the release of the Inquiry report until after the Ward 5 by-election.

I’ve got two questions, but first this time line for context:

* Jun 28, 2011 (Missisauga News) Inquiry report after Labour Day

– The much-anticipated final report from the Mississauga judicial inquiry, already delayed several times, will be released sometime after Labour Day.

* June 29, 2011 (Missisauga News) By-election set for September

– Ward 5 residents will go to the polls on Sept. 19 to fill the City Council seat left vacant when former councillor Eve Adams jumped ship to Ottawa.

* Jun 30, 2011 www.brampton.ca Business Headlines & BramFacts

– GTMA Plans Business Mission to Brazil – Brampton Companies Invited to Particpate [sic] …..The Greater Toronto Marketing Alliance (GTMA) is in the planning stages of a return mission to Brazil. The program will run for 5 days from September 12th – 16th and will focus on the Futurecom Conference which will take place in Sao Paulo.

* Jul 22, 2011 TWITTER. Greater Toronto Martketing Alliance announces Business “Mission” to Brazil. gtmatoronto GTMA

– Join the GTMA on a GTA Business Mission to Brazil! Inquire about the early bird special by July 29th > http://t.co/0dBRiNG22 Jul

* Aug 16, 2011 (Missisauga News) Inquiry report delayed

– The much-anticipated release of the Mississauga judicial inquiry report has been pushed back once again because Mayor Hazel McCallion will be out of the country next month….McCallion’s trip is part of the Greater Toronto Marketing Alliance Trade Mission to Brazil, which has been in the works since last fall, said the mayor’s lawyer, Liz McIntyre.

So that’s the sequence of events. Here’s my first question:

Given that McCallion’s lawyer, Liz McIntyre:

– would or should have known that the Mayor’s “Trade Mission” to Brazil had been in the works since last fall, and
– would or should have known by June 28, 2011, that the Inquiry report was scheduled for release after Labour Day, and
– would or should have known by June 29, 2011 that Ward 5 residents will go to the polls on September 19, 2011, then

On what date did McIntyre (or Hazel McCallion) first inform you and Justice Cunningham that she would be out of the country for the Business “Mission” to Brazil?

Second question:

Has anyone else (ie: Traditional Media, etc) asked you that obvious question?

Thank you,

Ursula Bennett
MISSISSAUGAWATCH

“‘And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed—if all records told the same tale—then the lie passed into history and became truth. “Who controls the past,” ran the Party slogan, “controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.”‘    –George Orwell, 1984

 

[EMAIL ENDS]

HAZEL MCCALLION'S LIE AT THE MISSISSAUGA INQUIRY. City Staff are "very professional and they follow the policies very, very, very diligently. "

Loathing authentic scrutiny, Hazel McCallion chastizes National Post’s reporter, Megan O’Toole regarding leaked emails

January 13th, 2011  

Last Blog I reported on Hazel McCallion’s “Friends of Hazel” and their Orwellian DELETION/ERASE operation of hundreds of readers’ comments at the Mississauga News. The “Friends of Hazel” Great e-Rase  continues unabated.

In this blog we deal with Hazel McCallion herself and her bullying and intimidation of reporters deemed to be “negative” and fueling controversy.

In his article, “Councillors compare leaked memo to Wikileaks” Toronto Star Urban Affairs Reporter San Grewal observed:

During Wednesday’s council meeting, Councillor Katie Mahoney, a McCallion ally, asked for an investigation into who forwarded the memo to the media. “I would ask IT (information technology) come do a search of all my equipment in my office and my home,” she said.

Mahoney went on to compare the situation to the recent Wikileaks controversy and suggested all members of council should have their homes and offices searched.

“In my opinion, it’s a cowardly act,” she said of the leak. “I ask if anyone wants to own up right now, publicly.” She then paused. “No one. I’m talking about a search of my staff’s equipment as well as my own.”

Councillor Ron Starr, another McCallion ally, continued the theatrics. “Within minutes, within minutes, the media has copies,” he said of Friday’s event. “It becomes a toxic environment because we’re looking over our shoulders the whole time. I think it’s totally unacceptable and we’ve got to stop this.”

Translation: Ron Starr’s reference to “toxic environment” is MYTHissaugaSPEAK for “authentic scrutiny”.

True to form, Hazel McCallion was not kind of scrutiny yesterday —this time going after National Post reporter, Megan O’Toole. O’Toole was in attendance inside Council chambers observing the General Committee meeting.

Like her cult-worshippers, “Friends of Hazel”, McCallion herself spit venom to malign the Press and media, accusing them of foaming up mistrust for government.

After Council went in-camera I filed this report. So, here’s the video and the transcript.

Dedicated to National Post reporter, Megan O’Toole.

Hazel McCallion chastizes National Post’s reporter, Megan O’Toole regarding leaked emails (3:57 min)

(Click here to go directly to the clip on YouTube)

[VIDEO TRANSCRIPT]

MISSISSAUGAWATCH (Wednesday, January 12, 2010, Mississauga Council Chambers)

It is Wednesday, January 11th, [sic] 2011. And I’m back at Mississauga Council after two months being a lot better elsewhere on the Island of Maui, Hawaii. And it’s the same thing that —the loathing that the City of Mississauga has for external scrutiny!

And this time [laughs] it’s Megan O’Toole that got the lambasting!

[DIP TO WHITE]

Mayor Hazel McCallion (Wednesday, January 12, 2010, Mississauga Council Chambers)

I sometimes wonder if I should call Megan O’Toole to find out what resolutions—

(Someone)

She’s up there.

Mayor Hazel McCallion (Wednesday, January 12, 2010, Mississauga Council Chambers)

She is? We would, [looking up towards Megan O’Toole] —maybe we should add you to Council because you know more about what’s going on. There’s resolutions in the National Post that has [sic] never come to Council on overturning the appointments, etc.

So, communication with Megan O’Toole is great. I think we should add her to an extra chair over there. [looking up towards Megan O’Toole] So at least you’ll be here to discuss the issues.

I think it’s sad—

MISSISSAUGAWATCH (Wednesday, January 12, 2010, Mississauga Council Chambers)

[whispers into camera] Yes, it’s called accountability, Hazel. You haven’t had it for thirty years.

[DIP TO WHITE]

MISSISSAUGAWATCH (Wednesday, January 12, 2010, Mississauga Council Chambers)

[chuckling] It’s a nice change from me getting shit all the time. So. Anyway.

[DIP TO WHITE]

MISSISSAUGAWATCH (Wednesday, January 12, 2010, Mississauga Council Chambers)

I returned from my two months on Maui to find that I no longer have the luxury of coming to Mississauga Council meetings —be here at 9 o’clock and stay for however long it takes.

So my data collection is essentially over and it’s now at a stage where I report what the video evidence has determined over, I guess, since December 2006 when I began videotaping Mississauga Council. Freedom of Information since January 2007.

And I will go on record now and say that City of Mississauga staff lie, and there is a genuine, substantiated reason why you mistrust government. Because government lies. And the staff right up to senior do. And I have that on video. That’s why I’m able to say that with —as a statement of fact, instead of allegation.

[DIP TO WHITE]

MISSISSAUGAWATCH (Wednesday, January 12, 2010, Mississauga Council Chambers)

The other thing I want to say is, I registered for office (of) Mayor just to see what it’s like to run against Hazel McCallion and the kinds of —the difficulty, just to understand the dynamics of the City of Mississauga. The Corporate Structure but also the powerful backing of developers right down to what are called “The Friends of Hazel”.

I’ve experienced it all.

[DIP TO WHITE]

MISSISSAUGAWATCH (Wednesday, January 12, 2010, Mississauga Council Chambers)

December 21st, I was on the top, in the crater-summit of Haleakala on winter solstice at exactly 1:38 pm Hawaiian time. And I gave own oath which is to tell the story about MYTHissauga from the very first utterance —or audiotape that I ever made, which was May 5th, 2006 —when the City Manager said, We don’t have, “We don’t just have pockets of Excellence in this organization. We have Excellence throughout.”

I spent four years saying, “Uh uh uh, that’s not the case at all.”

And that’s what I want to explain. That the mistrust that is occurring and it’s kind of bubbling up in the United States right now talking about mistrust of government and the heated rhetoric there. Yes, the rhetoric is heated, but make no mistake that the mistrust of government is justified!

And I can’t talk about Federal government. I can’t talk so much about Provincial government. But have I got the goods on municipal government.

You have to mistrust. Because otherwise [whispers] they’re gonna feel you up in your sleep!

Turning camera off.

[VIDEO TRANSCRIPT ENDS]

A reminder of the treatment Toronto Sun reporter Joe Warmington got from Hazel McCallion’s handler when she announced that she was running for Mayor.

HAZEL MCCALLION’S HANDLER TRIES TO GAG TORONTO SUN FROM ASKING MAYOR THE JUDICIAL INQUIRY (3:48 min)

(Click here to go directly to the clip on YouTube)

And on the October 25th election night inside the Great Hall, how a “Friend of Hazel” prevented the Mississauga News from interviewing McCallion

Did this charmer prevent the Mississauga News from getting an interview with Hazel McCallion? (2:25 min)

(Click here to go directly to the clip on YouTube)

HAZEL MCCALLION QUOTE ON STAFF NON-COMPLIANCE TO POLICIES (AUDIT COMMITTEE 090511) "There seems to be a complete disregard for policy."

“There seems to be a complete disregard for policy.” –Hazel McCallion, May 11, 2009 Audit Committee meeting

E MALAMA KAKOU. To Care For All.

MISSISSAUGAWATCH

"The TRIUMPH of MYTHissauga" "Justanopinion  Aug 12, 2010 6:12 PM       Face reality  Our mayor could be caught, in the library, with the candlestick in her hand, over the dead body, and she would still win by a landslide!  MISSISSAUGA NEWS READERS COMME

“The TRIUMPH of MYTHissauga” MISSISSAUGA NEWS READERS COMMENT:

“Justanopinion Aug 12, 2010 6:12 PM

Face reality Our mayor could be caught, in the library, with the candlestick in her hand, over the dead body, and she would still win by a landslide!

Hazel McCallion and “mega-builder” Harold Shipp strut their stuff at the Mississauga Judicial Inquiry!

September 22nd, 2010  

It was one remarkable week at the Mississauga Judicial Inquiry with Mississauga Mayor Hazel McCallion testifying yessirholyjumpin’.

Regular readers will know that the focus of MISSISSAUGAWATCH is to document the chronic (and callous) disregard of policies, procedures, guidelines, by-laws and even provincial legislation by City of Mississauga Staff. This isn’t idle allegation, but an evidence-based conclusion based of over $2,000 worth of Freedom of Information and audio/videotape that goes back all the way to 2004 —actually, even earlier.

So imagine my disgust when Hazel McCallion testified under that oath that her City Staff are:

 13  very professional and they follow the policies very,
 14  very, very diligently. 

And Commission Counsel have video submissions by me confirming flagrant violation to policies. Indeed isn’t that what the entire Inquiry has revealed?

I repeat. The City of Mississauga is morally beyond redemption.  Or—in the words of a youth who emailed me—the System is “CORRUPT there is no way to fix it.” And now this City of MYTHissauga is poised to hire their own integrity commissioner to ratch up The Pretend another notch!

So that’s been my week and I hope yours was better.

On to the videos.

The first features Hazel McCallion arriving, departing, avoiding answering pithy media questions on September 20, 2010 in and around the Burnthamthorpe Courthouse.

The second video gives the viewer an idea of what happened September 20, 2010—the Mayor coming, going, coming out of a pre-trial meeting with her lawyers, you know, the usual. Should you watch to the end, you get a special treat.

The last video, Harold Shipp demonstrates support of public transit at Hazel McCallion’s testimony is just a reminder to citizens that Harold Shipp owns Mississauga. With this video, we also provide a transcript.

Video: HAZEL MCCALLION Mississauga Judicial September 20, 2010 arriving, leaving etc (6:57 min)

(Click here to go directly to the clip on YouTube)

Video: HAZEL MCCALLION Mississauga Judicial September 21, 2010 arriving, leaving etc (7:27 min)

(Click here to go directly to the clip on YouTube)

Video: Harold Shipp demonstrates support of public transit at Hazel McCallion’s testimony (1:14 min)

(Click here to go directly to the clip on YouTube)

[VIDEO TRANSCRIPT BEGINS]

“Mega-builder” HAROLD SHIPP, threatening any Mississauga Councillors who’d vote for the Judicial Inquiry (October 28, 2009):

If I were sitting there among you, Ladies and Gentlemen, who serve on our Council today, I would be wondering what my position would be one year from now when an election is held and how many of you might have a chance for re-election —IF you proceed with the action you are contemplating now.

MISSISSAUGAWATCH as she watched “Mega-builder” HAROLD SHIPP, drive away after attending Hazel McCallion’s testimony at the Judicial Inquiry (September 21, 2010):

We now record Harold Shipp’s commitment to public transit.

(closeup) Yeah, this is a Mississauga Transit articulated bus here.

Yeah, developers do really really really well in this fine city. There he goes…

[VIDEO TRANSCRIPT ENDS

[Music: “Make a Move” courtesy Probangers.com]

Mega-developer Harold Shipp's commitment public transportation

No matter where you are in Ontario, MISSISSAUGAWATCH urges you to ask your municipal candidates:

Are you prepared, as part of your platform, to demand change in Provincial legislation and extend the investigative authority of the Ontario Ombudsman to include Municipalities (MUSH sector)?

Signed,

MISSISSAUGAWATCH

HAZEL MCCALLION'S LIE AT THE MISSISSAUGA INQUIRY. City Staff are "very professional and they follow the policies very, very, very diligently. "

HAZEL MCCALLION news conference: “THE *BEST* CITY IN CANADA” –AND WE “LEAD CANADA IN MANAGEMENT”

September 10th, 2010  

Another video on Hazel McCallion’s Hypocrisy-Democracy.  Special thanks to Peter Mansbridge and the CBC for their video footage.

Video: HAZEL MCCALLION news conference: “THE *BEST* CITY IN CANADA” –AND WE “LEAD CANADA IN MANAGEMENT” (2:31 min)

(Click here to go directly to the clip on YouTube)

[VIDEO TRANSCRIPT BEGINS]

MAYOR HAZEL MCCALLION (Mississauga Council meeting, February 28, 2007):

We are so well managed in this city. Lead Canada in management.

HAZEL MCCALLION’S HANDLER (Mayor’s “I am running again” Streetsville News Conference, September 9, 2010):

Well, I’m quite excited. At 2 o’clock today I registered. A formality because for many months I’ve been saying to the People of Mississauga that I was going to offer myself to them for another four years.

It’s quite exciting actually, to look forward to the 12th term as Mayor of the Best City in Canada —Mississauga.

MAYOR HAZEL MCCALLION (Mississauga Council meeting, February 28, 2007):

We are so well managed in this city. Lead Canada in management.

PETER MANSBRIDGE (CBC News, June 1, 2010):

Now to a story backed up with some video evidence.

It shows demeaning behaviour in a municipal government workplace. Michael Chung tracked down this exclusive story. Tonight.

MICHELLE CHEUNG (CBC News, June 1, 2010):

Believe it or not, this is happening at work. Two men, with their hands, torsos and legs duct-taped together, forced to lie face-to-face on a table. It happened here at the City of Mississauga’s Transportation and Works Department.

MAYOR HAZEL MCCALLION (Mississauga Council meeting, February 28, 2007):

We are very proud of the management here and the commitment of the employees because behind every successful operation is The Staff. And we are very proud of our Staff.

HAZEL MCCALLION’S HANDLER (Mayor’s “I am running again” Streetsville News Conference, September 9, 2010):

We have many exciting plans for the future and these plans will require a strong, stable team.

MISSISSAUGWATCH into camera (Mayor’s “I am running again” Streetsville News Conference, September 9, 2010):

Here it comes.

HAZEL MCCALLION’S HANDLER (Mayor’s “I am running again” Streetsville News Conference, September 9, 2010):

Working together with the dedicated Staff that we have at the City to make things happen.

MAYOR HAZEL MCCALLION (Mississauga Audit Committee, May 11, 2009):

I’m getting a little frustrated as Mayor as we set up policies and then they’re not followed. And that’s what bothers me. I was in the business —in the private sector and we had millions of dollars in contracts. And it’s been something I’ve been promoting  —is control of the contracts. And that policy was set up because we ran into one vendor who were [sic] behind two millions dollars, I remember.

Anyway.

So now we’re going to set up one up. Fine.

Someone:

Yeah.

MAYOR HAZEL MCCALLION (Mississauga Audit Committee, May 11, 2009):

If we set one up, it better be followed. That is the key. No use setting it up if it’s not going to be followed. You know, I don’t know why there’s such a disregard for policy.

MAYOR HAZEL MCCALLION (Mississauga Council meeting, February 28, 2007):

We are so well managed in this city. Lead Canada in management.

[VIDEO TRANSCRIPT ENDS]


HAZEL MCCALLION QUOTE ON STAFF NON-COMPLIANCE TO POLICIES (AUDIT COMMITTEE 090511) "There seems to be a complete disregard for policy."

MISSISSAUGA JUDICIAL INQUIRY –Commissioner J. Douglas Cunningham’s decision: “In balancing these three considerations, I conclude that citizen journalists should have access to unedited, raw footage of the Inquiry proceedings.”

April 26th, 2010  

YES! YES! YES! I’m so happy!

My favourite part is Commissioner Cunningham writing:

In balancing these three considerations, I conclude that citizen journalists should have access to unedited, raw footage of the Inquiry proceedings. This access will promote freedom of expression, and allow Mr. Barber and Ms. Bennett to report on aspects of the Inquiry that may not be covered by the accredited media.

That means he got my part about there not being any media in MYTHissauga.

The Mississauga News just came out with Split decision for citizen journalists. Not for me it wasn’t. I didn’t really want to videotape! I’d be forced to change batteries and I wouldn’t have a complete unaltered record that way. Plus I wanted to draw/sketch in court and you can’t do that and videotape too. All I wanted was the Rogers feed for historical records and got it!

This leaves me free to be court sketcher. Like this sketch I made on April 2, 2007 when Donald Barber had to fight off the Misstapo (rhymes with Gestapo) and the evil empire at Brampton Courthouse.

BRAMPTON COURTHOUSE COMMENT during DONALD BARBER COURT APPEARANCE APRIL 2, 2007

Commissioner J. Douglas Cunningham just helped UNstick public inquiries!

Thank you to Commissioner Cunningham but also to “friend of the court”, media specialist/lawyer Peter Downard, for speaking up on behalf of us-citizens and yet still providing that crucial “balance” that I define as “Canadian” and anti-evil-empire.

Okay. Enough from me.

Here’s Commissioner Cunningham’s decision letter.

You can access it directly at the Mississauga Judicial Inquiry website:  Decision of Commissioner Cunningham on Motion by Citizen Journalists for Permission to Record Inquiry Hearings (April 26, 2010)  (1,306Kb / 3 pages).

We’ve scanned the pdf file so Google can access it as HTML, people can do word searches in this document and of course, for ease of cut-and-paste. (The Commissioner’s words are a thing of Beauty.)

Last, if an eagle-eye spots an error, I’d appreciate being advised. Thanks.

[Decision Letter Begins]

City of Mississauga Judicial Inquiry

The Honourable J. Douglas Cunningham, Commissioner

Decision of Commissioner Cunningham

Motion by Citizen Journalists for Permission to Record Inquiry Hearings

The open court principle is a “hallmark of a democratic society”1. Public access to our courts allows all those who are interested to see that justice is administered in a non-arbitrary manner and according to the rule of law. As Mr. Downard explained in his submissions as amicus curiae, it enables justice to be done, and to be seen to be done. This principle is particularly important for public inquiries: open and public hearings instill confidence in the fact-finding, thoroughness and objectivity of a judicial inquiry.

While all who are interested can enter an open court, the reality is that most people will not be able to attend in person. This Inquiry will occupy many weeks and hearings will be held during regular business hours, making it prohibitive for the majority of people to observe the testimony themselves. As a result, they will depend on news organizations to report on the Inquiry’s events and progress.

Representatives of a range of accredited media organizations have attended and reported on the preliminary hearings to date. In addition, two Mississauga residents have been attending and reporting on the Inquiry. Donald Barber of the Democratic Reporter and Ursula Bennett of Mississauga Watch have demonstrated an interest in following and reporting on the Inquiry.

Non-accredited “citizen journalists” can play an important role in the reporting and analysis of events. As both Mr. Downard and Commission Counsel Mr. McDowell explained, the advent of social media and the proliferation of blogs have expanded the role of non-traditional journalists. Indeed, in 2007, the Supreme Court of Canada noted that in this age of electronic media and the blogosphere, it has become increasingly difficult to distinguish between media representatives and ordinary citizens.2 I recognize, of course, that this development is not without its dangers.3

The question before me today is whether, as citizen journalists, Mr. Barber and Ms. Bennett should be permitted to videotape the Inquiry proceedings. To date, Inquiry staff have arranged for Rogers Communications to videotape the entire Inquiry, on the condition that it provides feed to all journalists and media representatives with access to the media room.

In light of this, and in response to the request from Mr. Barber and Ms. Bennett, I must answer two questions. First, should Mr. Barber and Ms. Bennett be permitted to tape the Inquiry? Second, if not, should they be provided access to the Rogers feed? I answer these questions pursuant to the Rules of Procedure for the Inquiry, which provide that television cameras or other recording electronic or photographic equipment are permitted in the hearing room at my discretion.

The courts have identified three interests that I must balance to decide whether citizen journalists can record the proceedings. First, the interest in freedom of expression; second, the interests of the individuals directly involved in the proceedings; and third, the integrity of the process itself.

Freedom of expression includes the freedom to know what is happening in public proceedings, and to communicate about them. As well, as Mr. Barber noted in his submissions, for freedom of expression to be meaningful, members of the public should have access to a broad range of opinions and coverage. To ensure that a variety of perspectives is presented, journalists should have access to the raw footage of the Inquiry, and not only to edited videos.

Second, I must consider the interests of the individuals directly involved in the process. A public inquiry puts individual reputations at risk, and the procedures following at the Inquiry should manage these risks. Personal dignity and privacy should be protected. For example, while a witness’ evidence is a key part of the Inquiry and should be accurately recorded, it is not necessary to record that witness’ facial reactions throughout the other weeks of testimony .4

The third interest is the integrity of the inquiry process itself. This is a legal process, requiring appropriate decorum. Witnesses should not feel targeted or intimidated, and counsel’s written and oral communications should remain privileged. Our procedures should strive, to the extent possible, to prevent even inadvertent capturing of documents or conversations.

In balancing these three considerations, I conclude that citizen journalists should have access to unedited, raw footage of the Inquiry proceedings. This access will promote freedom of expression, and allow Mr. Barber and Ms. Bennett to report on aspects of the Inquiry that may not be covered by the accredited media. While the transcripts for each day’s proceeding will be posted on the Inquiry website, usually within five hours of the conclusion of that day’s hearing, I recognize that video footage is often more compelling and journalists have a legitimate interest in accessing it.

Citizens journalists will not, however, be permitted to record the proceedings with their own devices. Rogers has experience recording judicial inquiries, and is familiar with the protocols for doing so. As an accredited news organization, Rogers will be held to the standards of decorum and journalistic integrity that must govern the recording of any inquiry.

Mr. Barber and Ms. Bennett, the only two citizen journalists who requested permission to record these proceedings, are to be granted access to the media room and to the Rogers feed. They will make arrangements with Rogers to accept the raw footage, and they are encouraged to contact the Inquiry Communications Officer, Peter Rehak, for assistance with the technological requirements.

Rogers will provide its feed to the media room. All accredited news organizations, Mr. Barber and Ms. Bennett will have access to the media room and to the feed. For all news organizations and journalists, this privilege is subject to the following restrictions:

  1. All journalists and news organizations must comply with the Inquiry rules and with rulings that I may make during the course of the proceedings, including publication bans.
  2. Mr. Rehak will arrange an official photographing opportunity. Photographs are not to be taken in the Inquiry courtroom at any other time.
  3. No video recordings may be taken in the courthouse hallways, nor of individuals entering and exiting the courthouse.
  4. It is my hope that all journalists will report on the Inquiry in a fair and accurate manner. Our courts have developed guiding principles for responsible publication, and I encourage anyone not familiar with these principles to learn about them. By way of example, I note that to be protected under our law of defamation, a fair and accurate report must be balanced and must reflect both sides of an issue. It cannot leave out important information that would give a different view of what transpired, embellish with circumstantial detail or select only fragments of material for their “spiciness”. While I cannot prevent biased reporting, it is not protected by our law of defamation, and will not be condoned in this Inquiry.

If any citizen journalist or news organization fails to abide by these restrictions, I will entertain submissions as to whether I should cancel their access to the media room and the Rogers feed. (Of course, I recognize that individuals could record from the Rogers feed at home, albeit without the sanction of the Commission.)

It is a privilege to conduct this Inquiry in a democracy where citizens are engaged and eager to report on the events. I am grateful for the interest and involvement of citizen journalists, and believe that this ruling strikes an appropriate balance of the interests at stake.

1 Vancouver Sun (Re) [2004] 2 S.C.R. 332 at para. 23.

2 Named Person v. Vancouver Sun, [2007] 3 S.C.R. 252 at para. 153 (in dissent).

3 See, e.g., Crookes v. Wikimedia Foundation Inc., 2009 BCCA 392.

4 In this regard, see Justice Sopinka’s analysis in New Brunswick Broadcasting Co. v. Nova Scotia, where the Court upheld a restriction on hand-held cameras in the Nova Scotia legislature’s public gallery although the restriction may “on occasion detract from the atmosphere of what is going on and no doubt may from time to time deprive the public of a considerable source of amusement”. New Brunswick Broadcasting Co. v. Nova Scotia, [1993] 1 S.C.R. 319 at para. 163.

[Signature]
Cunningham, A.C.J.O. (Commissioner)
April 26, 2010

[Decision Letter Ends]

Oops. This just in from the Mississauga Judicial Inquiry.

Inquiry to hold hearing on Friday

MEDIA RELEASE
City of Mississauga Judicial Inquiry to hold hearing on Friday, April 30, 2010, on Mississauga News motion

Mississauga, Ont., April 26 /CNW/– The City of Mississauga Judicial Inquiry will hold a hearing on Friday, April 30, 2010, to hear a motion by the Mississauga News newspaper for an order that the affidavit of Peter McCallion regarding his ability to pay for counsel at the Inquiry and the cross-examination on that affidavit be made part of the Commission’s record.

The hearing will commence at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 1 at 950 Burnhamthorpe Road West.

Mr. McCallion was granted standing at the Inquiry on December 14, 2009. He also requested funding for legal counsel for the Inquiry. Mississauga City Council approved funding of up to $100,000 , on the condition that he provide evidence of his inability to pay, and only covering the time that Mr. McCallion was testifying.  On March 4, 2010 Mr. McCallion brought a motion before the Commissioner, asking him to request the City of Mississauga to reconsider the limit in order to give him the ability to fully participate in the Inquiry. The Commissioner ruled that further evidence was required in order to enable him to make such a recommendation.  The Commissioner ordered that Mr. McCallion swear an affidavit as to his ability to pay for legal counsel, and that Commission Counsel cross-examine Mr. McCallion on that affidavit.  That cross-examination took place earlier this month.

The affidavit and cross-examination transcript are currently confidential and have been provided only to Commission Counsel.  The Commissioner will review the affidavit and the transcript of the cross-examination and make a recommendation to Mississauga City Council as to whether Mr. McCallion should receive additional funding for counsel.

The City of Mississauga Judicial Inquiry is an independent judicial inquiry that was established under Section 274 of the Municipal Act 2001 by a vote of the Mississauga City Council on November 11, 2009. The mandate of the Inquiry is to investigate issues in connection with the acquisition by the City of Mississauga of approximately 8.5 acres of land in the city centre. Mr. Justice J. Douglas Cunningham, Associate Chief Justice of the Superior Court of Justice of Ontario, has been appointed Commissioner.

Further information about the Inquiry is available on its web page: www.mississaugainquiry.ca

————————–

For further information:

William McDowell, Commission counsel: 416-865-9500; wmmcdowell@mississaugainquiry.ca

Last. Peter Downard’s presentation is just so Perfect that I want repeat it all and end today’s Blog with it.

Video: Peter Downard (Lawyer/media specialist) addresses Mississauga Judicial Inquiry –On: citizen journalism

Click here to go directly to the clip on MISSISSAUGAWATCH Vimeo

COURT/VIDEO TRANSCRIPT

 23                 MR. WILLIAM MCDOWELL:  I would ask that we
 24  now hear from Mr. Peter Downard who's here acting as
 25  amicus on this suite of media issues.

24

  1                 COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS CUNNINGHAM:   Thank
  2  you.  Mr. Downard, thank you very much for assisting us.
  3
  4  SUBMISSIONS BY MR. PETER DOWNARD:
  5                 MR. PETER DOWNARD:   I hope I can,
  6  Commissioner.  Thank you.  Good morning.
  7                 Commissioner, the -- the law in this area
  8  primarily involving the openness of public proceedings
  9  has been subject to much careful review and analysis in
 10  the twenty-five (25) years, since the -- the courts have
 11  been rethinking issues of freedom of expression and
 12  public access to -- to justice under the Charter.
 13                 And I think it's fair to say that, in
 14  summary, the jurisprudence identifies that in such cases
 15  there are, essentially, three types of interests that
 16  have to be balanced in any particular situation.
 17                 Those are, first, the interests in freedom
 18  of expression; second, the legitimate individual
 19  interests of those directly involved in the process; and
 20  third, the integrity of the process itself.
 21                 And if I may first speak to the subject of
 22  freedom of expression briefly.  It is very clear that
 23  freedom of expression in our democracy includes the
 24  freedom to know what is going on in public proceedings
 25  and to communicate with others about it.  And to be able

25

  1  to communicate about that, it is necessary for there to
  2  be access to the proceeding.
  3                 Now, the reality is that the public at
  4  large necessarily depends on reporters to obtain that
  5  access for them and to re -- report what goes on to them
  6  because they just can't do it for themselves.
  7                 And in the modern world it is clear that
  8  access to means of mass communication has been extended
  9  far beyond the limits of traditional media organizations.
 10  To -- it has [correction: is] extended to -- to bloggers, to users of --
 11  of social media, the people who have websites.  And if
 12  freedom of expression is to be truly democratic and alive
 13  in the modern world, it must give way to their interests
 14  too.
 15                 Now next, though, I turn to the individual
 16  interests that have to be balanced in this sort of a
 17  situation.  And it was very interesting to -- to hear the
 18  references to 1984 in the submissions today and -- and
 19  the great Orwell since he is one (1) of the great writers
 20  about how the individual may become lost in -- in the
 21  wake of mass interests.
 22                 And in a democratic society, it's clear
 23  under our law that the interests of individuals directly
 24  involved in public proceedings can also never be
 25  forgotten, and reputation is of vital importance, and it

26

  1  is reputation that is often put at risk in public
  2  inquiries in particular.
  3                 Reputation is -- is so important in our
  4  society because it is closely linked to the building of
  5  people to participate in society itself.  And secondly,
  6  there is respect for the emotional security, the dignity
  7  of people involved in a -- in a process, which needs to
  8  be respected.
  9                 And there can be circumstances where a
 10  public process may intrude upon areas of life, of
 11  individual life, where there is a reasonable expectation
 12  of privacy, and that has to be considered too.
 13                 And third, after freedom of expression and
 14  individual interest, one has to consider the integrity of
 15  a process.  And it is indeed clear, and I think it's been
 16  said once today, that the principle that public
 17  proceedings should generally be [sic] open exists so that
 18  justice will be done and can be seen to be done.

MISSISSAUGAWATCH (whispers in unison): “Seen to be done, that’s right.”

 19                 An open process allows the public to
 20  scrutinize and, if they see fit, to criticize the process
 21  and its participants.  It allows the public also to be
 22  assured about the fair conduct of the process because
 23  they can see it for themselves.
 24                 Now that being said, a public inquiry is
 25  not a public scrum.  First, it is a legal process.  It's

27

  1  appropriate for the Commission to take appropriate steps
  2  to ensure suitable decorum of the proceedings, a suitable
  3  tone.
  4                 Second, witnesses must be respected as
  5  individuals and not be subjected to undue intrusions or,
  6  at worst, intimidation.
  7                 Third, as it is a legal process there is
  8  going to be much that occurs in the hearing room that is
  9  properly private.  There will be written communications
 10  or oral communications which -- among counsel that are
 11  privileged.
 12                 There will be a lawyer's documentary work
 13  product that is also properly confidential.  And any
 14  inadvertent or even intentional intrusion upon those --
 15  those rights of confidentiality should be prevented.
 16                 So those, in my submission, are three (3)
 17  general areas of considerations that have to be weighed
 18  in the balance, and -- and, of course, in this area what
 19  -- what the Supreme Court has said repeatedly is that one
 20  must try to give a reasonably equal weight to all of
 21  those values and not -- not privilege some over -- over
 22  others.
 23                 And in -- in my submission, I -- I would
 24  suggest -- I would suggest that as a -- as a
 25  recommendation perhaps that -- that it would be an

28

  1  appropriate balancing of these principles if persons
  2  could be allowed access to a single video feed, which I
  3  understand can be prepared, an unaltered videotape of the
  4  proceedings, to use words that have been used with you
  5  this morning, so that not only established media
  6  organizations but individuals acting responsibly can
  7  exercise their appropriate rights of freedom of
  8  expression.
  9                 With respect to the cameras, I would
 10  suggest that it will be consistent with decorum for --
 11  for there only to be one (1) video camera, one (1) video
 12  feed, and that there should not be roaming video cameras
 13  or roaming audio devices in the courtroom.  There may, on
 14  occasion, be times in a public inquiry when -- when any -
 15  - any reporter, any member of the media, will be allowed
 16  to take photographs for a brief time and it should be one
 17  (1) rule for all in my -- my submission.
 18                 And with respect to audio recording, there
 19  is a precedent for allowing unobtrusive audio recording
 20  in courtrooms.  One (1) solution that might be adopted
 21  there that would respect confidentiality interests would
 22  be that if audio recording were to be allowed, it would
 23  be -- to be from a stationary position and should be at a
 24  distance, a reasonable distance, away from counsel tables
 25  to avoid any inadvertent intrusion upon matters of

29

  1  confidentiality.

MISSISSAUGAWATCH (whispers): “This guy is good.”

  2                 So those are the suggestions I would make
  3  in light of the balancing of those factors.  And I -- I
  4  suggest also that it would be appropriate for -- for the
  5  Commission to -- in -- in seeking to provide appropriate
  6  scope for free expression is to -- it would be helpful to
  7  remind members of nonprofessional media -- who -- who may
  8  be more or less experienced in these matters, I'm not
  9  sure -- but it may be appropriate to remind them that in
 10  the modern law of reporting on proceedings such as this,
 11  there are important limitations upon what people can say
 12  properly.
 13                 There is a civil liability in defamation
 14  which can result in matters of -- in statements of
 15  opinion or comment.  In matters of public interest,
 16  they'll be broadly protected as long as they are based on
 17  fact and made without malice.  But if they are not based
 18  on fact and not made without malice, those expressions of
 19  opinion or comment can lead to civil liability.
 20                 And, similarly -- similarly, statements of
 21  fact on matters of public interest are protected as long
 22  as they are responsibly published, and in this sort of
 23  situation [cell phone rings] -- I beg your pardon.
 24                 In this sort of situation, it is very
 25  important to bear in mind that the legal protection for

30

  1  reports of public proceedings has had a fundamental
  2  principle, which is, that those reports of public
  3  proceedings must be fair and accurate [cell phone rings again]. They must be
  4  balanced.  Can you put that somewhere for me, please? They must be -- be balanced.  They must
  5  reflect both sides of an issue.  If someone is going to -
  6  - whether they're a large organization or a single
  7  individual, if they're going to report an allegation,
  8  they have to identify it as an allegation.  If it is
  9  disputed, or if it may be disputed, they have to say
 10  that.  They have to be fair.
 11                 And there -- there's no licence for
 12  biassed reporting.  If someone engages in biassed
 13  reporting to the public because of an axe to grind or --
 14  or a -- a malicious intent, that falls outside the law.
 15                 And so -- and, as well, one has to bear in
 16  mind in the age of the Internet, the audience for the --
 17  the Internet in a -- in a particular matter may, in fact,
 18  be very small, but it is always potentially very large.
 19  And if we have an -- an example of an Internet --
 20  Internet publication that somehow becomes terribly
 21  popular, or goes viral in the popular term, the damage,
 22  if it is a wrongful publication, can be very significant.
 23                 So, in light of all of that, I would
 24  suggest -- I put it -- I'd have to put an asterisk on the
 25  recommendations I -- I submitted previously.  I would

31

  1  suggest that the Commission reserve a discretion to deny
  2  any reporter, organized or not, in the -- in the business
  3  sense, access to the video feed if that were to be abused
  4  in any future interest.
  5                 And so, subject to any questions you may
  6  have, Sir, those are essentially my submissions.
  7                 COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS CUNNINGHAM:   Thank
  8  you, Mr. Downard.
  9                 Does any other... audio fade...

Court transcript cut-and-pasted from Mississauga Judicial Inquiry website and modified as a video transcript.

Signed,

The Mississauga Muse
MISSISSAUGAWATCH

The Mississauga Muse at the Mississauga Judicial Inquiry

Peter Downard (Lawyer/media specialist) addresses Mississauga Judicial Inquiry –On: citizen journalism

April 24th, 2010  

Apologies all.

It took far too long to post media specialist lawyer, Peter Downard’s excellent presentation on citizen-journalism which he gave at the April 12, 2010 Mississauga Judicial Inquiry hearing. Here it is, complete with court/video transcript.

Video: Peter Downard (Lawyer/media specialist) addresses Mississauga Judicial Inquiry –On: citizen journalism

Click here to go directly to the clip on MISSISSAUGAWATCH Vimeo

COURT/VIDEO TRANSCRIPT

 23                 MR. WILLIAM MCDOWELL:  I would ask that we
 24  now hear from Mr. Peter Downard who's here acting as
 25  amicus on this suite of media issues.

24

  1                 COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS CUNNINGHAM:   Thank
  2  you.  Mr. Downard, thank you very much for assisting us.
  3
  4  SUBMISSIONS BY MR. PETER DOWNARD:
  5                 MR. PETER DOWNARD:   I hope I can,
  6  Commissioner.  Thank you.  Good morning.
  7                 Commissioner, the -- the law in this area
  8  primarily involving the openness of public proceedings
  9  has been subject to much careful review and analysis in
 10  the twenty-five (25) years, since the -- the courts have
 11  been rethinking issues of freedom of expression and
 12  public access to -- to justice under the Charter.
 13                 And I think it's fair to say that, in
 14  summary, the jurisprudence identifies that in such cases
 15  there are, essentially, three types of interests that
 16  have to be balanced in any particular situation.
 17                 Those are, first, the interests in freedom
 18  of expression; second, the legitimate individual
 19  interests of those directly involved in the process; and
 20  third, the integrity of the process itself.
 21                 And if I may first speak to the subject of
 22  freedom of expression briefly.  It is very clear that
 23  freedom of expression in our democracy includes the
 24  freedom to know what is going on in public proceedings
 25  and to communicate with others about it.  And to be able

25

  1  to communicate about that, it is necessary for there to
  2  be access to the proceeding.
  3                 Now, the reality is that the public at
  4  large necessarily depends on reporters to obtain that
  5  access for them and to re -- report what goes on to them
  6  because they just can't do it for themselves.
  7                 And in the modern world it is clear that
  8  access to means of mass communication has been extended
  9  far beyond the limits of traditional media organizations.
 10  To -- it has [correction: is] extended to -- to bloggers, to users of --
 11  of social media, the people who have websites.  And if
 12  freedom of expression is to be truly democratic and alive
 13  in the modern world, it must give way to their interests
 14  too.
 15                 Now next, though, I turn to the individual
 16  interests that have to be balanced in this sort of a
 17  situation.  And it was very interesting to -- to hear the
 18  references to 1984 in the submissions today and -- and
 19  the great Orwell since he is one (1) of the great writers
 20  about how the individual may become lost in -- in the
 21  wake of mass interests.
 22                 And in a democratic society, it's clear
 23  under our law that the interests of individuals directly
 24  involved in public proceedings can also never be
 25  forgotten, and reputation is of vital importance, and it

26

  1  is reputation that is often put at risk in public
  2  inquiries in particular.
  3                 Reputation is -- is so important in our
  4  society because it is closely linked to the building of
  5  people to participate in society itself.  And secondly,
  6  there is respect for the emotional security, the dignity
  7  of people involved in a -- in a process, which needs to
  8  be respected.
  9                 And there can be circumstances where a
 10  public process may intrude upon areas of life, of
 11  individual life, where there is a reasonable expectation
 12  of privacy, and that has to be considered too.
 13                 And third, after freedom of expression and
 14  individual interest, one has to consider the integrity of
 15  a process.  And it is indeed clear, and I think it's been
 16  said once today, that the principle that public
 17  proceedings should generally be [sic] open exists so that
 18  justice will be done and can be seen to be done.

MISSISSAUGAWATCH (whispers in unison): “Seen to be done, that’s right.”

 19                 An open process allows the public to
 20  scrutinize and, if they see fit, to criticize the process
 21  and its participants.  It allows the public also to be
 22  assured about the fair conduct of the process because
 23  they can see it for themselves.
 24                 Now that being said, a public inquiry is
 25  not a public scrum.  First, it is a legal process.  It's

27

  1  appropriate for the Commission to take appropriate steps
  2  to ensure suitable decorum of the proceedings, a suitable
  3  tone.
  4                 Second, witnesses must be respected as
  5  individuals and not be subjected to undue intrusions or,
  6  at worst, intimidation.
  7                 Third, as it is a legal process there is
  8  going to be much that occurs in the hearing room that is
  9  properly private.  There will be written communications
 10  or oral communications which -- among counsel that are
 11  privileged.
 12                 There will be a lawyer's documentary work
 13  product that is also properly confidential.  And any
 14  inadvertent or even intentional intrusion upon those --
 15  those rights of confidentiality should be prevented.
 16                 So those, in my submission, are three (3)
 17  general areas of considerations that have to be weighed
 18  in the balance, and -- and, of course, in this area what
 19  -- what the Supreme Court has said repeatedly is that one
 20  must try to give a reasonably equal weight to all of
 21  those values and not -- not privilege some over -- over
 22  others.
 23                 And in -- in my submission, I -- I would
 24  suggest -- I would suggest that as a -- as a
 25  recommendation perhaps that -- that it would be an

28

  1  appropriate balancing of these principles if persons
  2  could be allowed access to a single video feed, which I
  3  understand can be prepared, an unaltered videotape of the
  4  proceedings, to use words that have been used with you
  5  this morning, so that not only established media
  6  organizations but individuals acting responsibly can
  7  exercise their appropriate rights of freedom of
  8  expression.
  9                 With respect to the cameras, I would
 10  suggest that it will be consistent with decorum for --
 11  for there only to be one (1) video camera, one (1) video
 12  feed, and that there should not be roaming video cameras
 13  or roaming audio devices in the courtroom.  There may, on
 14  occasion, be times in a public inquiry when -- when any -
 15  - any reporter, any member of the media, will be allowed
 16  to take photographs for a brief time and it should be one
 17  (1) rule for all in my -- my submission.
 18                 And with respect to audio recording, there
 19  is a precedent for allowing unobtrusive audio recording
 20  in courtrooms.  One (1) solution that might be adopted
 21  there that would respect confidentiality interests would
 22  be that if audio recording were to be allowed, it would
 23  be -- to be from a stationary position and should be at a
 24  distance, a reasonable distance, away from counsel tables
 25  to avoid any inadvertent intrusion upon matters of

29

  1  confidentiality.

MISSISSAUGAWATCH (whispers): “This guy is good.”

  2                 So those are the suggestions I would make
  3  in light of the balancing of those factors.  And I -- I
  4  suggest also that it would be appropriate for -- for the
  5  Commission to -- in -- in seeking to provide appropriate
  6  scope for free expression is to -- it would be helpful to
  7  remind members of nonprofessional media -- who -- who may
  8  be more or less experienced in these matters, I'm not
  9  sure -- but it may be appropriate to remind them that in
 10  the modern law of reporting on proceedings such as this,
 11  there are important limitations upon what people can say
 12  properly.
 13                 There is a civil liability in defamation
 14  which can result in matters of -- in statements of
 15  opinion or comment.  In matters of public interest,
 16  they'll be broadly protected as long as they are based on
 17  fact and made without malice.  But if they are not based
 18  on fact and not made without malice, those expressions of
 19  opinion or comment can lead to civil liability.
 20                 And, similarly -- similarly, statements of
 21  fact on matters of public interest are protected as long
 22  as they are responsibly published, and in this sort of
 23  situation [cell phone rings] -- I beg your pardon.
 24                 In this sort of situation, it is very
 25  important to bear in mind that the legal protection for

30

  1  reports of public proceedings has had a fundamental
  2  principle, which is, that those reports of public
  3  proceedings must be fair and accurate [cell phone rings again]. They must be
  4  balanced.  Can you put that somewhere for me, please? They must be -- be balanced.  They must
  5  reflect both sides of an issue.  If someone is going to -
  6  - whether they're a large organization or a single
  7  individual, if they're going to report an allegation,
  8  they have to identify it as an allegation.  If it is
  9  disputed, or if it may be disputed, they have to say
 10  that.  They have to be fair.
 11                 And there -- there's no licence for
 12  biassed reporting.  If someone engages in biassed
 13  reporting to the public because of an axe to grind or --
 14  or a -- a malicious intent, that falls outside the law.
 15                 And so -- and, as well, one has to bear in
 16  mind in the age of the Internet, the audience for the --
 17  the Internet in a -- in a particular matter may, in fact,
 18  be very small, but it is always potentially very large.
 19  And if we have an -- an example of an Internet --
 20  Internet publication that somehow becomes terribly
 21  popular, or goes viral in the popular term, the damage,
 22  if it is a wrongful publication, can be very significant.
 23                 So, in light of all of that, I would
 24  suggest -- I put it -- I'd have to put an asterisk on the
 25  recommendations I -- I submitted previously.  I would

31

  1  suggest that the Commission reserve a discretion to deny
  2  any reporter, organized or not, in the -- in the business
  3  sense, access to the video feed if that were to be abused
  4  in any future interest.
  5                 And so, subject to any questions you may
  6  have, Sir, those are essentially my submissions.
  7                 COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS CUNNINGHAM:   Thank
  8  you, Mr. Downard.
  9                 Does any other... audio fade...

Court transcript cut-and-pasted from Mississauga Judicial Inquiry website and modified as a video transcript.

Just wish to highlight Mr. Downard’s words:

It is very clear that freedom of expression in our democracy includes the
freedom to know what is going on in public proceedings and to communicate with others about it.  And to
be able to communicate about that, it is necessary for there to be access to the proceeding. Now, the reality
is that the public at large necessarily depends on reporters to obtain that access for them and to re -- report
what goes on to them because they just can't do it for themselves.

The Reality is that throughout my Judicial Inquiry submission, I blasted with:

For the record, there are no media in MYTHissauga… As for MYTHissauga’s only newspaper? Coverage of City Hall is a joke.

And boy, did the Mississauga News ever prove that coverage of their Mississauga Judicial Inquiry is an even worse joke. In their article that was supposed to cover citizen journalists’ access to media, the Mississauga News chose as their title, ‘Layers’ of land deal probed.

And what did the Mississauga News write about my appearance and that of Donald Barber?

“Both made their cases today, arguing freedom of expression.”

No, I argued that “there are no media in MYTHissauga… As for MYTHissauga’s only newspaper? Coverage of City Hall is a joke.” I also said, “Mississauga accredited media do not respect history enough to be Guardians of the Truth. As far as reporters at the National level, well… some of them are little more than stenographers.”

What I didn’t say to Commissioner Cunningham is that citizen-Bloggers can make better journalists than the paid crowd as I didn’t want to come off sounding arrogant and/or obnoxious.

I am saying that now: citizen-Bloggers can make better journalists than the paid crowd… and I submit the local media article ‘Layers’ of land deal probed as evidence once again that it’s tough to have Freedom of Expression when citizenry is hobbled by The Missing News.

Signed,

The Mississauga Muse
MISSISSAUGAWATCH

The Mississauga Muse at the Mississauga Judicial Inquiry

Citizen reporter/activist requests (and receives) permission to videotape Mississauga Judicial Inquiry

March 13th, 2010  

Well, Donald Barber won a victory for citizen-journalism on Friday, March 12, 2010 when he stood up before the Mississauga Judicial Inquiry and requested to be allowed to videotape the proceedings.

A small BIG victory for Alternate Media.

Mississauga Mayor Hazel McCallion's secretary, Carol Horvat (Mississauga Judicial Inquiry March 12, 2010) PHOTO: DON BARBER

So what follows is a cut-and-paste of the exchange (from the March 12, 2010 transcript provided at the Mississauga Judicial Inquiry website)

 1
  2
  3
  4                 MISSISSAUGA JUDICIAL INQUIRY
  5
  6
  7
  8
  9  Before:        Associate Chief Mr. Justice J. Douglas
 10                 Cunningham
 11
 12
 13
 14
 15
 16
 17
 18
 19  HELD AT:
 20                    Provincial Offence Court
 21                       Mississauga, Ontario
 22                         March 12, 2010
 23
 24                       Pages 1 to 36
 25

2

  1                        APPEARANCES
  2
  3  William McDowell                  )Commission Counsel
  4  Naomi Loewith                     )
  5
  6  Freya Kristjanson                 )For Mayor Hazel McCallion
  7
  8  Brian Gover      (np)            ) For Peter McCallion
  9  Lusia Ritacca    (np)            )
 10
 11  Clifford Lax, Q.C. (np)           )For City of Mississauga
 12  Tracy Wynne                       )
 13  James Renihan                     )
 14
 15  Michael Barrack                  )For OMERS
 16  John Finnigan  (np)               )
 17  James Roks     (np)               )
 18
 19  Alan Mark (np)                    )For Enersource
 20  Kelly Friedman   (np)            )
 21
 22  Don Jack         (np)            ) For 157 Square One
 23  Adam Goodman     (np)            )
 24
 25

3

  1                     TABLE OF CONTENTS
  2                                                       Page No.
  3  Discussion                                                  4
  4
  5  CAROL HORVAT, Sworn
  6   Examination-in-chief by Mr. William McDowell              16
  7   Cross-Examination by Ms. Freya Kristjanson                33
  8
  9  Certificate of transcript                                 36
 10
 11
 12
 13
 14
 15
 16
 17
 18
 19
 20
 21
 22
 23
 24
 25

4

  1                          EXHIBIT
  2  NO.              DESCRIPTION                        PAGE NO.
  3  1              Terms of reference                         15
  4  2              Carol Horvat's documents                   16
  5  3              Affidavit of Sean Acheampong               34
  6
  7
  8
  9
 10
 11
 12
 13
 14
 15
 16
 17
 18
 19
 20
 21
 22
 23
 24
 25

5

  1  --- Upon commencing at 10:06 a.m.
  2
  3                 THE COURT CLERK:   All rise.  Please be
  4  seated.
  5                 COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS CUNNINGHAM:   Good
  6  morning.  Mr. McDowell, I know, before we begin the
  7  matter that brings us here today, there are some
  8  preliminary issues that we should probably discuss.
  9                 MR. WILLIAM MCDOWELL:   Right.  Yes,
 10  Commissioner, the first one is the presence of various
 11  media in the room.  For the information of counsel and
 12  anyone spectating, we will have a media room set up when
 13  the hearings proper begin; we just don't have that set up
 14  yet.  And once we have that established, we will have a
 15  single source medial feed which goes into the next room
 16  and maybe carried on -- on television.  So in other
 17  words, we'll have one (1) camera, and then the other
 18  media will watch in that room.  We have two (2) cameras
 19  now because we haven't yet made that arrangement.
 20                 Now, it was drawn to our attention that
 21  last day, unbeknownst to us, there was someone taking
 22  video in the courtroom which was then place on a blog on
 23  the internet, and whatever the merits -- or demerits of
 24  doing that are, we hadn't realized that.  And it has not
 25  been the ordinary practice of inquiries to allow anyone

6

  1  who wants to to come in with a camera and take either
  2  still photos or video.  In fact, there's been a practice
  3  of -- of recognizing accredited media.
  4                 So this morning we have Mr. Don Barber in
  5  court.  He's been very candid with us that he intends to
  6  film the proceedings, or video the proceedings, and/or
  7  take still photos.  And I've raised the concern with him
  8  that I expect that you would want to follow the ordinary
  9  practice, which is to recognize accredited media.  He has
 10  indicated that he doesn't agree with that approach, and
 11  I've told him that if he wishes to address you briefly,
 12  he could do that.
 13                 Mr. Barber...?
 14                 COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS CUNNINGHAM:   Mr.
 15  Barber, good morning.
 16                 MR. DON BARBER:   Good morning, Sir.  I've
 17  been a citizen reporter for a number of years; I have a
 18  website, The Democratic Reporter.  I've been reporting on
 19  a number of things.  It's not really a blog site.  And
 20  it's -- I always put it up on YouTube.
 21                 I was using a little tiny camera, this one
 22  right here, to do the video, and I was doing it rather
 23  openingly out there, and the court reporter even noted it
 24  halfway through, and so I was, you know, not hiding
 25  anything of any nature.

7

  1                 As the -- the attorney did mention, that
  2  there is no media site set up at this point in time, and
  3  as far as I know there's no complaint as to regards to
  4  what or how it was posted, altered, or anything like
  5  that, so it's an accurate record.
  6                 I would raise some questions in regards to
  7  accredited media.  In this day and age, what exactly is
  8  that supposed to mean, and what are -- why would you go
  9  with a so-called accredited media?  Like, why -- why are
 10  they going to be given these privileges and other people
 11  who are in the community and serving the community's
 12  interest are not going to be allowed equal opportunity?
 13  I'm not here to create a fuss or cause a disturbance; I
 14  didn't last time.
 15                 And also, as a person who has been
 16  inspired by your words last time, in regards to the
 17  fairness of funding to parties before the courts and
 18  whatnot, I too have -- following a similar path with my
 19  particular circumstances with the City of Mississauga and
 20  the Region of Peel.
 21                 So, I would ask for the opportunity to
 22  discreetly make occasional picture, do some video with
 23  the small camera which doesn't cause any disturbance, and
 24  generally record the -- the proceedings for reporting
 25  purposes and my own efforts at trying to seek funding

8

  1  from the City of Mississauga and the Region of Peel.
  2                 COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS CUNNINGHAM:   Thank
  3  you.
  4                 Mr. McDowell...?
  5                 MR. WILLIAM MCDOWELL:   Well, Mr. Barber
  6  is right, that the distinction between the traditional
  7  media and ordinary citizens, or bloggers, is becoming
  8  blurred, and the Supreme Court of Canada in the Grant v.
  9  Torstar case recently addressed that, but nothing in that
 10  decision or any other authority -- authority of which I'm
 11  aware addresses the issue of whether the distinction has
 12  been completely obliterated.  It may have been blurred
 13  for liability purposes, but I say that you're still
 14  entitled to -- to say that you will treat accredited
 15  media differently than anyone who happens to come into a
 16  courtroom with a camera.
 17                 And I am respectful of the notion of
 18  citizen journalism, but it cannot be that we face the
 19  prospect of having ten (10) cameras in the courtroom,
 20  because it would be difficult to say yes to Mr. Barber
 21  and no to anyone else who -- who approached you on the
 22  same footing.
 23                 So there -- there may well be an issue
 24  there, but for -- for the present purposes, I think you
 25  should resolve it by not permitting Mr. Barber to take

9

  1  images.
  2                 COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS CUNNINGHAM:   Thank
  3  you.  Any other counsel wish to speak to this matter?
  4
  5                       (BRIEF PAUSE)
  6
  7                 COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS CUNNINGHAM:   Mr.
  8  Barber, what is it that -- I didn't frankly notice you at
  9  all the last time we were here.  I gather you were here,
 10  but I -- I -- I didn't notice you.  What -- what is it
 11  that you wish to do today?
 12                 MR. DON BARBER:   Well, yesterday I was
 13  asked to come here because Ursula Kent-Bennett -- the
 14  name would be familiar to you; she is -- was called by
 15  the Commission --
 16                 COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS CUNNINGHAM:   Yes.
 17                 MR. DON BARBER:   -- to present evidence -
 18  - because she could not be here, or be there, and she --
 19  I don't see her in the audience today either -- she asked
 20  me to come here and make a record of what was going on so
 21  that she could attend to her ailing parents.  And I'm
 22  prepared to do the same thing for her again today.
 23                 I was right over there in the corner, and
 24  I moved over the lectern and put my hat down and then put
 25  the camera on top of it.  And, as you noted, I was not

10

  1  disturbing anybody or making any particular presentation
  2  that would interfere with the court's activities.
  3                 As regards to anybody coming up here and
  4  taking pictures, I'm -- I am in a bit of a different
  5  class.  Yes, things are getting a little bit blurred, but
  6  I do have a history of years of -- as a citizen reporter,
  7  not as a blogger, per se, and I would ask that there be
  8  this discretion granted to people, and I do share it with
  9  Ursula, and she has been, as far as I know, making a
 10  meaningful contribution to this committee.
 11                 COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS CUNNINGHAM:   And
 12  that would involve, I take it, taping the proceeding, is
 13  that right?
 14                 MR. DON BARBER:   Taping.  I have a little
 15  video taper.  This thing here can make images like --
 16  have you seen what was on YouTube?
 17                 COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS CUNNINGHAM:   No.
 18  No.
 19                 MR. DON BARBER:   Okay.  She actually did
 20  the edited -- editing on that, and there's two (2) items
 21  up there.  And so --
 22                 COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS CUNNINGHAM:   Well --
 23                 MR. DON BARBER:   I have a camera over
 24  there just to make the occasional still picture.
 25                 COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS CUNNINGHAM:   Yes.

11

  1  All right.  Well --
  2                 MR. DON BARBER:   Non-flash.
  3                 COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS CUNNINGHAM:    Pardon
  4  me?
  5                 MR. DON BARBER:   Non-flash.
  6                 COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS CUNNINGHAM:    Non-
  7  flash, all right.  Well, thank you, Mr. Barber.  Have a
  8  seat.
  9                 As the Inquiry Commissioner, it is clearly
 10  within my power to set out the terms of media coverage so
 11  that witnesses, counsel, the media, and, of course, the
 12  public are -- fully understand the expectations.
 13                 Before we begin the evidentiary stage of
 14  this Inquiry, I intend to formulate some terms of
 15  reference, with respect to media coverage, which will be
 16  posted on the commission website.
 17                 It has been traditionally the practice
 18  only to permit accredited media representatives to record
 19  the proceedings, subject, of course, to the terms that I
 20  will be setting out, and, usually, no other forms or
 21  means of recording, or re-broadcasting, or photography,
 22  are permitted beyond those set out in the terms that I
 23  expect I will be establishing very soon.
 24                 I'm going to take your submissions under
 25  advisement, Mr. Barber.  It is Barber, is it?

12

  1                 MR. DON BARBER:   Yes.
  2                 COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS CUNNINGHAM:   Mr.
  3  Barber.  And when I'm formulating the terms of reference
  4  for the evidentiary portion of the Inquiry, I will take
  5  into account the submissions you have made, but I think
  6  for the purposes of today I'm going to permit you to do
  7  as you did the last time.  That doesn't guarantee you
  8  that that will continue, but I will certainly consider
  9  what you have said today when I formulate the terms with
 10  respect to media coverage.
 11                 MR. DON BARBER:   Thank you very much,
 12  Sir.
I too intend on making a submission to Commissioner Cunningham regarding the need to allow citizen-bloggers to videotape the proceedings.

Signed,
The (Bottomline, Traditional Media is failing us!) Mississauga Muse

MISSISSAUGA Conflict of Interest Judicial Inquiry VIDEO TRANSCRIPT COMPILATION-1: IN THEIR OWN WORDS, Councillors Corbasson, Dale, Carlson, Iannicca

November 6th, 2009  

At the October 28, 2009 Council meeting, despite blistering opposition from the “Our Hazel Can Do No Wrong” crowd, seven City of Mississauga Councillors voted for a judicial inquiry into the inner “murky” workings of the Trust, Quality, Excellence people.

While the traditional media have taken considerable interest of late, the reader/viewer is limited to reporters’ version of events which in some cases are as ghastly and non-researched as what is churned out by the “Our Hazel Can Do No Wrong” crowd.

Again, to repeat, I’ve been filing Freedom of Information on City of Mississauga Corporate Security conduct, operations and adherence to policies. If there are similar WThuh?! open cesspools like I’ve dredged up with $2,100 worth of Freedom of Information, this judicial inquiry was long overdue.

So MISSISSAUGAWATCH will turn today’s Blog over to a compilation of video transcripts of four Councillors as they explained why they voted for a judicial inquiry.

These transcripts appear in the order presented in previous Blogs: Councillor Carmen Corbasson (Ward 1), Councillor Frank Dale (Ward 4), Councillor George Carlson (Ward 11) and Councillor Nando Iannicca (Ward 7).

The reader who knows a thing or two about Mississauga will notice Councillor Carolyn Parrish (Ward 6) is not among these four and not addressed at all so far.  That’s because Councillor Parrish’s October 28, 2009 comments were extensive and will need more time to work up in video as well as provide transcripts.

The next Blog (and possibly a second) will deal exclusively with Councillor Parrish’s October 28, 2009 comments.

As I’ve said in my previous Blogs, all video and transcripts will be submitted to the Mississauga City Clerk for inclusion in the October 28, 2009 minutes because frankly, I do not want Future Mississauga 30-40 years from now to read only the Corporation’s side of the story (aka manicured minutes). (As a historical record it can’t get better than video and the transcript).

Here we go.

IN THEIR OWN WORDS

IN HER OWN WORDS

COUNCILLOR CARMEN CORBASSON:

Thank you Mr. Acting Mayor and I will be brief. Um, let me first say that this isn’t an easy time for any of us around this table just like it’s not an easy time for you. I don’t think we take comfort in any of the decisions we’ve had to make of late. But notwithstanding, we are elected to make some tough decisions and I think that’s the type of comment you’re gonna hear around this table today.

I am not at all overwhelmed by the number of people who showed up, Councillor Prentice. In fact, I’m surprised there wasn’t more.

And I’ll tell you why I’m surprised because we all know Madam Mayor is loved, admired and respected. And I for one moment am not going to take away that from her. For me, she has been a role model in many many ways. We both started here in the City in 1978 and I’ve learned an awful lot from her.

I— my biggest difficulty is, and I hope you can understand and appreciate that when we have in-camera sessions, we are privy to certain comments and information that the general public is not.

For me, the in-camera session on the judicial inquiry opened up more questions than it answered.

I— that Madam Mayor didn’t declare one Conflict of Interest for a 17-minute or a 17-second, whatever it was, I have no problem with that.

I do have a problem that official government documents got changed with no satisfactory explanation.

I do have difficulty that any member of Council, doesn’t matter if it’s Madam Mayor, or me, or anyone else, can have off-site meetings, with a landowner, who has an interest in the City of Mississauga, that is going to financially benefit a member of any one of our families.

That may not be against the Conflict of Interest Act. But in my opinion, I would hope, and it’s my understanding that a judicial inquiry can —and most probably would, depending on their findings —make some very strong recommendations to have either the Conflict of Interest Act or the Municipal Act changed.

That’s simply put, Ladies and Gentlemen, for me —I’m not going to speak, I’ll let the others speak for themselves.

This isn’t about Mayor Hazel McCallion. This is about Governance, how do we improve it. Not only for this municipality, but across the Province. And I don’t know what price tag you put on that. Is it ten thousand? Is it one million? Is it ten million? I don’t know.

But I would like to see this City in particular, and certainly Madam Mayor come out with credibility, integrity and that we all maintain our dignity.

I do thank you for coming out today, Ladies and Gentlemen and I will turn it back to the Acting Mayor.

Video: Councillor Carmen Corbasson  (3:50 min)

(Click here to go directly to the clip on YouTube)

IN HIS OWN WORDS

COUNCILLOR FRANK DALE:

Thank you Mr. Acting Mayor. I certainly just wanted to make a point, that I want to be clear as a member of Council that I always examine the facts that are before me and weigh them in any decisions that I make as the Councillor. And taking into, of course, the consideration, uh, taking into consideration, the best interests of this great city as well as the community in which I represent.

And I stand behind the position that that I took with respect to the inquiry primarily for the same reasons that Councillor Corbasson eloquently described.

And I do want to make it clear that this was not personal to the Mayor. This was just based on the facts that was presented before us and the recommendations that were before us by outside legal counsel —and reviewing that, and examining that, made that decision. And I stand by, and will support the recommendations that are before us today, with respect to the terms of reference.

I want to be clear though that the decision I make, the decision then—the decision I make today is for no one’s political gain.

Jeer from audience

I make this decision because I truly believe it’s the right thing to do.

Video: Councillor Frank Dale (1:58 min)

(Click here to go directly to the clip on YouTube)

IN HIS OWN WORDS

COUNCILLOR GEORGE CARLSON:

Thank you very much Mr. Acting Mayor. I appreciate the opportunity just to say a few words that may be a slightly different tone than some of the other comments made. I think it’s sad in a way that it’s looked as a win-lose here today.

This was a process because we really, as a governing body, find ourselves vexed by the issues we’re reading about here today. And they haven’t just started dogging us yesterday at noon. This has been going on for some years.

And we’ve spent a considerable amount of money trying in our own way to get to the bottom of many of these issues. And in my opinion, I don’t think we’ve been all that successful. And it continues to hang over Council .

And when you read of the divisions on Council, you’re mostly talking about Enersource and the issues associated with OMERS and partnerships. So to me, I’m delighted that the motion is to delete Madam Mayor from that minor Conflict of Interest, which she’s already said she accepts responsibility. That is a nothing-issue as far as this inquiry is concerned

And as far as I’m concerned, Explanation Accepted. Forgotten about. That part is a Big Zero to me.

So because it’s so obvious from the heartfelt response from the folks here today that this appears to be a first-class witch hunt —must be Hallowe’en, we’re too much into the witch stuff, that we need— This helps to de-focus that and gets us on the other issues which I’m afraid the media find a lot less interesting than going after dear old Hazel.

The kind of stuff about governance and ownership and shares puts most people to sleep. I have to agree with you. But, it’s Big Bucks and we have never properly settled that issue. And I don’t know how to do it other than this.

But I think another point of view as well too, the fact that we’re going to a judge, that speaks volumes to me as a Canadian. I love that we have a country where we can go to an impartial judiciary and say look, we’ve played with the damn thing for two years and we’re not lawyers, judges.

And as I said to one resident today, if there was anything going on here, I would not want this group, much as I love them all, to be sitting in judgment of me. This is a non-starter —reat group of people to work with but, this is not a court of law.

So I think sometimes when you’re stuck, you’re stuck and you’ve got to get some help from somebody. And for me, that’s all this is about and the speculation about politics and who’s the Mayor—

I would think, to be honest with you, Carolyn Parrish has lost 20 points in leading this thing because this is not helping her for Mayor at all. And she gettin’ a lot of advice that brought this because for sure this is costing her votes if she ever were to run for Mayor.

So you may get your wish in that she’ll never be elected Mayor but we still have to sort out these problems and that’s why I’m supporting — It has nothing to do with the Mayor. I’ve known her —I’m trying to think when I first met Hazel, I think I was probably three years old or something. I have no interest in any vexatious action against her.

But by golly, I don’t know what else to do. I guess you could hire a consultant —we’ve done all of the consultants. We’ve done, we’ve asked for outside lawyers and asked for —we need someone who can come in and sort out the stuff and say, here’s what you need to do and what/where you went wrong, if we did go wrong. And here’s how you can improve it for the future.

That’s all I’m voting for and if that’s bad, I guess that’s bad but that’s all I can say about it and I appreciate the opportunity, Mr. Chair

Video: Councillor George Carlson (3:53 min)

(Click here to go directly to the clip on YouTube)

IN HIS OWN WORDS

COUNCILLOR NANDO IANNICCA (Acting Mayor):

And if you don’t mind, as Chair, I would like to speak if someone would so move.

[Someone does]

COUNCILLOR NANDO IANNICCA (Acting Mayor):

Thank you, I—

MISSISSAUGAWATCH into camera:

Here he goes.

COUNCILLOR NANDO IANNICCA (Acting Mayor):

—have an obligation to my consitituents and I’ll be very very brief but I think Councillor Carmen (Corbasson) hit on the fundamental point that we’re all grappling with. This is not a fun day for us. This is a heart-wrenching decision.

The reason that I was one of the proponents of the Inquiry —the reason I stand by it emphatically needs all of ten seconds to explain.

Number One, I don’t have a crystal ball. I don’t know where this is going.

I do know that minutes have been altered —there some other things have gone on that I cannot explain to my taxpayers and I owe them an explanation.

Point Number Two, the Lady of Justice is blind for a reason. It matters not who she judges over —whether that’s your Mayor, whether that’s my brother, whether that’s the local parish priest. And I have to hold that close to my thoughts as well.

I also have a concern to be brutally candid with you of my understanding of some of the conduct that has been outlined —because, to be brutally candid with you, I would have grave concerns if I lived in a city where a Mayor and [inaudible] members of Council conducted their affairs in a somewhat similar manner.

It is not a city that I would want to live in. I’ve never conducted my affairs in that manner.

I’m shocked that anyone in the audience or anyone in this city would put the cost of such an exercise ahead of having to ensure you have Integrity and Accountability in your political system.

[Jeers and protests from the audience]

COUNCILLOR NANDO IANNICCA (Acting Mayor):

I beg your pardon.

And so to conclude, at the end of the day, I was not elected for my love of the Mayor. I was elected to do the right thing.

This, as difficult as it is on an emotional level —I want you to hear from me directly, from many of you that I’ve known for a long time, on an ethical, moral, and the-right-thing level, this is one of the easiest decisions that I’ve ever had to make though I’ve never regretted a decision more.

With that I now turn to the motions before me, I need the assistance of the Clerk to make sure…

Video: Councillor George Carlson (2:23 min)

(Click here to go directly to the clip on YouTube)

MISSISSAUGA CONFLICT OF INTEREST JUDICIAL INQUIRY RECORDED VOTE, October 28, 2009

Again, Councillor Parrish’s comments are on-deck and for historical reasons, transcripts and video of the Councillors who opposed the judicial inquiry will also be recorded here for posterity.

Signed,

The Mississauga Muse

LINKS TO PREVIOUS BLOGS of the October 28, 2009 CONFLICT OF INTEREST/JUDICIAL INQUIRY meeting

MISSISSAUGA JUDICIAL INQUIRY VIDEO VIGNETTE: Councillor Carmen Corbasson, “This isn’t about Mayor Hazel McCallion. This is about Governance, how do we improve it. Not only for this municipality, but across the Province. And I don’t know what price tag you put on that”

MISSISSAUGA JUDICIAL INQUIRY VIDEO VIGNETTE: Councillor Frank Dale, “I make this decision because I truly believe it’s the right thing to do.” November 4, 2009

MISSISSAUGA JUDICIAL INQUIRY VIDEO VIGNETTE: Councillor George Carlson, “I would think, to be honest with you, Carolyn Parrish has lost 20 points in leading this thing because this is not helping her for Mayor at all. November 4th, 2009

MISSISSAUGA JUDICIAL INQUIRY VIDEO VIGNETTE: Councillor Nando Iannicca, “I would have grave concerns if I lived in a city where a Mayor and [inaudible] members of Council conducted their affairs in a somewhat similar manner. It is not a city that I would want to live in.”

Best quotes for people to Get It.

“This isn’t about Mayor Hazel McCallion. This is about Governance, how do we improve it. Not only for this municipality, but across the Province. And I don’t know what price tag you put on that. Is it ten thousand? Is it one million? Is it ten million? I don’t know.”

—Mississauga Councillor Carmen Corbasson regarding the judicial review, October 28, 2009

I want to be clear though that the decision I make, the decision then—the decision I make today is for no one’s political gain. (Jeer from audience) I make this decision because I truly believe it’s the right thing to do.

—Mississauga Councillor Frank Dale regarding the judicial review, October 28, 2009

I would think, to be honest with you, Carolyn Parrish has lost 20 points in leading this thing because this is not helping her for Mayor at all. And she gettin’ a lot of advice that brought this because for sure this is costing her votes if she ever were to run for Mayor. So you may get your wish in that she’ll never be elected Mayor but we still have to sort out these problems and that’s why I’m supporting — It has nothing to do with the Mayor.

—Mississauga Councillor Frank Dale regarding the judicial review, October 28, 2009

And I also have a concern to be brutally candid with you of my understanding of some of the conduct that has been outlined —because, to be brutally candid with you, I would have grave concerns if I lived in a city where a Mayor and [inaudible] members of Council conducted their affairs in a somewhat similar matter. It is not a city that I would want to live in.

—Mississauga Councillor Nando Iannicca regarding the judicial review, October 28, 2009


Bear