Mendalla, I think I heard about it a while ago.  I certianly hope so, or else there is more than one person who may have used funds for their child's wedding!

I haven't heard anything recently though, or if I did I wasn't really paying attention :P

....he just might make good company for Rob Ford......

Perhaps the two should have a chat?

Just a thought.....

Rita

It is not big news here (Montreal) and I probably know about it because of WC.  It is mildly interesting because it is about one of my home cities.

It is more interesting from the point of view of an epidemic of mayoralty resignations here : Tremblay in Montreal, Vaillancourt in Laval and Labeaume in Quebec City next to be examined - but these are related to the (construction) corruption inquiry going on here rather than to the Liberals.

The other mayor in the hot seat is Ford of Toronto whose case seems somewhat similar to Fontana's although again not Liberal-related.

I'd be afraid that Joe might take the wrong lessons from Ford. He's bull-headed but not in Ford's league in that department and I'd be loathe to see him follow that example.

Mendalla

Joe's scandal is hardly in the same league as what Quebec's been seeing though I'd say it is more serious than the Rob Ford thing (see my post in that thread).

Finance Committee held another vote to ask him to take a leave last night and it passed 3-1 but the 1 against keeps flip-flopping so who knows how she'll vote on Dec. 11 when it goes to full council.

Mendalla

What Ford did isn't in the same league as what Fontana did. Ford did nothing to enrich himself.  He just used the wrong stationary to raise funds for a football club.  

Fontana should end up in jail.  

I'll assume you mean "if he's found guilty", Mely. Personally, with none of the actual evidence on show yet, I see no reason to convict him and I'll wait to see what comes out in court. He may well get off which is why he's being asked to take a leave of absence rather than to resign.

As for Ford, he wasn't convicted for the misuse of stationery. He was convicted for participating in a vote in council on that issue, which is a conflict of interest. It is interesting to note that when Finance Committee voted on asking Joe to take an LoA last night, Joe abstained from both the debate and the vote, which is exactly what Ford should have done.

Mendalla

Hi Mely,

Not exactly true.  The Integrity Commissioner repeatedly warned Ford not to associate City Hall with his private interests.  Ultimately, because Ford stupidly made that association in soliciting funds from known lobbyists the Integrity Commissioner made a recommendation to Toronto City Council that Ford be directed to return the funds raised using the letterhead which connected him to the City.

Toronto City Council agreed that was appropriate.  Ford did not and Ford refused to comply with the Integrity Commissioner who was actually acting in Ford's best interests.

The Conflict of Interest allegation which was proven in court dealt with the fact that Ford spoke to and voted on a motion asking the Toronto City Council to reconsider the earlier decision which directed Ford to reimburse donors.  The Speaker, at that time warned Ford that if he voted he would be violating Conflict of Interest legislation.  Ford voted anyway.

By voting in favour of not reimbursing as he did Ford ensured that the money he was asked to reimburse donors stayed in his own pocket.  That is an advantage of $3000+.  If that amount was insignificant then it is likely that Ford would have paid it back.  Ford himself made the money significant by refusing to return it and participating in a vote which was a direct conflict of interest.

According to the Conflict of Interest Act what Rob Ford did was illegal and the verdict rendered affirmed that what Rob Ford did was illegal.  The punitive measures that the Judge is entitled to make are removal from office and a ban on running for public office for a period of up to seven years.

The mandatory minimum is removal from office and the ban on running for public office is set for the remainder of his current term and nobody is really sure what the judge meant by that at this point in time.

What Ford did is not the same as what Fontana is accused of.  Which is why there will be different outcomes should a guilty verdict be reached in Fontana's case.

Both were accused of acting illegally.  A judge found that Ford acted illegally and delivered the sentance that he felt was most appropriate.  Presumeably the same will happen in Fontana's trial.

That is Ford's first mistake.  That is not the conflict of interest that resulted in his being removed from office.  The conflict of interest was his voting on whether he should have to reimburse donors.

It could still happen.

What are your thoughts on Hazel McCallion and the conflict of Interest charges?

Grace and peace to you.

John

I haven't heard of this and as a kid who grew up in London, I do notice if London makes it to the news. I haven't been following my Twitter feed lately because I haven't had the time. If I had, I would have heard of it because I follow the LFP. I'll have to check it out..

Lucky you. One of the reasons I don't read the Free Press much (aside from the fact that most of the content is regurgitated Sun articles that I can get just as easily from Canoe.ca) is the local news is just so ... local. No sense of a big picture or vision coming from our politicians at any level whatsoever.

mendalla

Wow.  I went to Western (UofWO), and I loved living in London (felt very similar to Etobicoke, where I was born and raised)

 If not for WC, I would never have  known about the Fontana affair. 

Ford and Mayor Hazel, as she is affectionately called, have also revealed their true colours.  Fontana, just seems to be one of the herd.