I have received many emails in support
of my position in opposing the spending of over $2 million tax dollars
for a judicial inquiry. I want to further clarify why I took this
position and why I truly believe this action is a waste of taxpayers’
money and serves no useful purpose. It has in fact been called nothing
more than a witch hunt.Council already received an independent legal
opinion at a cost of just under $47,000 on the matters involved. There
is no valid need to spend millions of dollars more to get answers that
we already have and on an inquiry that is fact finding only and will not
result in any action. Also, the inquiry requested by 7 Members of
Council to initially review a conflict of interest by the Mayor over a
land deal in the city centre has grown to include other transactions
that are not related to the land in question and may well exceed the
estimated costs. My position is also supported by Councillors Mullin,
Mahoney and Prentice.
The land in question was purchased this year by the City for the
construction of Sheridan College. It had previously been under an
agreement of Purchase and Sale (APS) to another company but that
agreement was ended by the seller before the City became involved. Any
actions of the purchaser/seller related to that agreement have no
relevance in the purchase by the City of the land. To further protect
the city from any liability however, we included an indemnification
agreement in our offer to buy the land. This issue was reviewed by an
external legal firm and Council made aware of the conclusions. Also
allegations that the price was inflated as a result of legal agreements
between the outside parties are unfounded. Council received multiple
appraisals on the land and it is very clear that we paid a fair market
value for it.
We did our homework before signing any agreements and Council
approved the action to proceed with the purchase.
The company who had the APS had proposed to build a first class hotel
on lands owned by Oxford Properties (Square One). The Mayor and Council
were very open on our support for this type of development and, in her
capacity as head of Council, the Mayor accompanied by City staff, met
with the proponents to tour a proposed type of hotel. The Mayor openly
declared a conflict of interest in the matter when it was on a Council
agenda as her son was involved in the real estate of the land and
Council was well aware of this. She did neglect to do so at one meeting
at which there was no decision made on the application. An error on the
part of the committee coordinator, a well respected long time employee,
showed a conflict was declared and those minutes distributed to and
approved by Council. In a recent report to Council this was clarified
and explained as an error yet the motion for an inquiry still alludes to
this as an "altering of the minutes". No minutes were "altered". Council
saw minutes that had an error and approved them. An inquiry will not
provide any more information on this than we already have.
The legal review made it clear that the Mayor had a conflict of
interest in the application and had to declare a conflict when it was on
Council agendas. It also concluded she had neglected to declare it at
one meeting having done so at prior meetings. While this was a
contravention of the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act, it stated that
it may have been committed through inadvertence or an error in judgement.
The report also concluded that any external meetings that may have been
held were not a conflict of interest under the act.
The inquiry also includes reference to the Enersource agreement that
was made by Council on December 6, 2000. This inquiry has already been
done and as a result, Council has been renegotiating the arrangement
with our partner and the final agreement was before us last month.
Unfortunately this inquiry has postponed or cancelled that agreement as
the issue has now been included in the inquiry and the relationship with
our partner jeopardized.
To clarify further the partnership with Borealis in Enersource was
very beneficial to the city as they would be able to bring in billions
of dollars for future expansion of the utility. It has never caused any
concern in the operation of Enersource.
If I had any concern that Council did not have all the information
and that we had not done due diligence by having an outside legal
opinion, I would have considered an inquiry. However the information is
before us. We have the facts and a review will not alter those. The
inquiry terms of reference have been greatly expanded to include things
that are not relevant to the issue that we first dealt with. It has
evolved to be nothing more than a way to discredit the Mayor and is a
waste of your money.
Those of us who opposed it have called instead for the appointment of
an Integrity Commissioner who would review all conflicts or potential
conflicts of Members of Council. We want to establish a code of conduct
that everyone would have to follow. This is more meaningful that what
was approved.
The recent actions have only served to cast aspersions on our Mayor,
a woman who has done so much for our City. It has also harmed the
overall reputation of our City. For those of us who have worked hard for
many years to build a wonderful city and who love Mississauga, it is a
very sad time in our history.
I would be pleased to further discuss this with anyone. Just
email me at pat.saito@mississauga.ca
Ward
9