Mississauga Mayor Hazel McCallion, in court on Monday, is the second high-profile GTA mayor in the last five months to face allegations of conflict-of-interest.
The other, of course, is Toronto’s Rob Ford. On the surface there are immediate parallels, but the two cases are not exactly the same.
“They’re similar only insofar as both involve an application under the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act indicating that the two members, in both Ford’s case and McCallion’s case, didn’t adhere to the obligations under the act by speaking and voting on a matter in which they had a pecuniary interest,” said John Mascarin, a Toronto Municipal lawyer.
Ford’s conflict was a direct pecuniary interest, meaning he stood to gain directly by not having to repay the $3,150 donated to his football charity.
But that isn’t the case with McCallion. She is alleged to have voted in a Peel Regional Council for the benefit World Class Development, a company her son is involved with.
“In this case you’re talking a deemed interest and under Section Three of the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act a member is deemed to have an interest if their spouse, their parent, or their child has the interest, but only if they know about it and that’s the key,” Mascarin said.
Get daily National news
That’s what McCallion is intending to argue, she’s stated that she had no idea her son would benefit.
While Ford also pled ignorance, this failed to carry any weight since he was the beneficiary and therefore assumed to know he would be benefiting.
The other main difference between the two embattled mayors is the amount of money involved.
“In the Mayor Ford case the amount was $3,150 dollars. He tried to make an argument that it was an insignificant sum of money and not likely to influence him,” Mascarin said.
Phyllis Morris, the now former mayor of Aurora, also recently found herself accused of conflict-of-interest. Mascarin thinks this is because the public is demanding more.
“They want to hold the elected officials to a greater degree of scrutiny and transparency,” Mascarin said. “The other part is a lot of them just don’t do what they’re supposed to and so they should be held accountable by somebody.”
Currently only individuals can bring forward a conflict-of-interest case, but the cost of launching such a legislative endeavour can be prohibitive. That’s why Mascarin predicts that the act itself may be looked at.
“I think there’s going to be a greater push to make changes to the act,” Mascarin said. “One of them is to allow organizations and other entities in the public interest to bring forward applications.”
Another is to allow for a greater flexibility in terms of punishment, so that removal from office is not the only penalty a judge can impose.
Comments
Want to discuss? Please read our Commenting Policy first.