The celebrity Newmarket-Aurora Progressive Conservative MPP and foodie, Dawn Gallagher Murphy, filed an expense claim for her 22 October 2023 BBQ at Riverwalk Commons in Newmarket which comes in at $213.91 

This year’s modest claim contrasts with the extravagance of last’s year’s BBQ which was bankrolled by the taxpayers to the tune of $11,160. She believes this was money well spent and was absolutely appropriate. (Photo right: this year's vibrant and fun BBQ)


However, the $213.91 looks as if it has been filed in error as the expense figures published today by the authorities at the Ontario Legislative Assembly (OLA) only cover the period 1 July 2023 – 30 September 2023 and not expenses incurred in October.

The BBQ expense, in its glorious entirety, will be revealed in Gallagher Murphy’s claim for October-December 2023 which will be published by the OLA on 1 March 2024. These quarterly expenses do not show the cost of running her constituency office or the advertisements and flyers which are everywhere. These and other major expenditures are reported annually

On 1 November 2023 she told MPPs:

On Sunday, October 22, I hosted my second-annual community barbecue event for Newmarket–Aurora at Newmarket’s Riverwalk Commons. It was an eventful afternoon and I was thrilled to see so many familiar faces while meeting some new ones too from our vibrant community. This event is more than just an opportunity to enjoy good food and fun activities. It is about bringing people together, fostering a sense of unity, building relationships and celebrating the diversity that makes my community so special.

Casual with the facts

Dawn Gallagher Murphy describes herself as "a proud mother, wife and entrepreneur with 25 years in the secure payments industry”. She says her business served the Canadian and international banking industry. So how can she be so casual when it comes to financial reporting?  

Gallagher Murphy’s Statement of Expenses filed with Elections Ontario after the June 2022 election showed an expense of $5,228.60 for “Meetings Hosted” but in the supporting Schedule 6 the figure shown for the same “Meetings Hosted” amounts to $8,228.11. 

I have no idea where these meetings were. Or how many voters were treated to a free lunch. 

In February I asked Dawn to explain why there was a difference in the two figures. She didn’t reply so I wrote to the Chief Financial Officer, Blake Koehler, who signed off her Campaign Return to Elections Ontario and to the Riding President, Teresa Kruse. I didn’t hear from them either.

Incorrectly categorised.  

So I wrote to the auditors and was told that food expenses of $947.72 and $3,159.28 were incorrectly categorised as “Meetings Hosted” expenses and should have been reported under "Victory Party” expenses. I was told:

“We have gone through the file and supporting documents. $947.72 of food expenses from Wicked Eats and $3,159.28 of food expenses from A Million Mouthfuls should be reported under “Victory Party” expense instead of “Meeting Hosted” expenses in Schedule 6. This results in a total of $4,121.11 of Meeting Hosted reported in Schedule 6 and the remaining balance is expenses not exceeding $200 for each supplier.”

These adjustments would have changed the figures shown for Gallagher Murphy on the Elections Ontario website. But this proved to be unnecessary as I learn from the auditors that unnamed suppliers billed Gallagher Murphy for unspecified goods and services which conveniently balanced everything out. These individual bills came in below the $200 reporting threshold where suppliers have to be named.

Personally, I think candidates owe it to the public and to their fellow candidates to submit financial information in their election return which is squeaky clean and 100% accurate. 

And that's also true for MPPs claiming taxpayers' money for BBQs and other expenses.

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

I learned on Tuesday (28th November) that King Mayor, Steve Pellegrini, was the person who invited Southlake Chief Executive, Arden Krystal, to the hugely consequential meeting on 1 November 2022 when developer Michael Rice promised to gift land to Southlake for a new hospital, located in the Greenbelt’s protected countryside.  

Why should this simple fact be considered remotely newsworthy?

Because for the past year Arden Krystal has been insisting Southlake had no records of that meeting – not even the details of the invitation she received to attend it. 

She continues to insist no notes were taken on what happened during that one-and-a-half hour meeting at King Municipal Centre.

Hypothetical and High Level

Arden Krystal says:

“During the November 1, 2022 meeting, discussions remained hypothetical and high level with no commitment to action. It was merely a discussion of potential opportunities since the land in question was in the Greenbelt and, therefore, unavailable in its current state. Even if the land had been available, we were not in a position to provide meaningful commitment as Southlake had not even convened its formal strategic process for development.”

Krystal says that Pellegrini got in touch with her towards the end of September 2022 by phone and said he had a potential landowner she should speak with. This was Michael Rice whose people had been in touch with Southlake’s capital and facilities chief, John Marshman, eight months earlier in January 2022 suggesting they had land which might be suitable for a new hospital.

We know from his evidence to the Integrity Commissioner that on 27 or 28 September 2022 - after Rice met the then Housing Minister’s Chief of Staff, Ryan Amato, at his Markham head office - he (Rice) concluded that Government policy on the Greenbelt was going to change. 

No mention of a new hospital

In the package of materials Rice handed over to Amato there was no mention of a new hospital on the Bathurst lands. In his submission to the provincial government Rice, for his own reasons, proposed developing the land for housing.

On 17 October 2022 Pellegrini hosted a Southlake expansion pre-meeting at King Municipal Centre which involved Rice and his planning policy chief John McGovern as well as King’s Director of Growth Management, Stephen Naylor. The Township says it has no records of this meeting and what was discussed. 

The pre-meeting most likely rehearsed the themes for the 1 November 2022 meeting with Southlake.

Long Term Care

Rice told the Integrity Commissioner that he believed planning law would allow a new hospital to be built on prime agricultural land in the protected countryside in the Greenbelt. He further believed there was a possibility of building adjacent medical facilities and a long-term care home alongside, again in the protected Greenbelt.

It is likely these issues formed part of the agenda on 1 November 2022. But locating a long-term care home next to an acute hospital had never been flagged up in Southlake’s public consultation exercise nor in its Master Plan so far as I can gather. (The Master Plan is not available to the public.)

In her letter of 27 November 2023, Arden Krystal strenuously denies that any notes were taken following the 1 November 2022 meeting when Rice made the offer of land, essentially for free.

“After that meeting, I had an informal discussion about the potential opportunity with our Vice President of Capital and Facilities, John Marshman. Notes were not generated from this discussion given its casual nature. I reserved the opportunity for formal discussion and accurate note-taking to the more appropriate forum, which would be the formal evaluations required for any upcoming Land Acquisition selection process.”

Bathurst and Davis Drive Opportunity

On 16 January 2023 Southlake held a site selection meeting to review the “Bathurst and Davis Drive Opportunity” which may have been part of the land acquisition selection process. I don’t know. But the agenda (below) clearly raises issues which would have been discussed at the 1 November 2022 meeting, namely the location of the hospital, the acreage required and the LTC fit – which I take to be a reference to long term care. 

So the question arises: how was the discussion on 1 November 2022 reported back to the Site Selection meeting if not by notes? Perhaps it was all done by word-of-mouth. I simply don’t know.

On 30 January 2023 John Marshman emailed Nathan Robinson, Southlake’s manager, capital development, about the “preliminary concept plan” 

“Please share with the Architects etc asap. Recognising this is not a sufficient parcel to meet our preliminary assessment, it at least provides a general location and preliminary configuration to block from.”

We know that Rice was looking at making lands available in the south-east corner of his Bathurst lands but, on their own, did this meet Southlake’s requirements?

The "other lands"

The Integrity Commissioner interviewed Steve Pellegrini who told him 

"that other lands in the vicinity (of the Bathurst site) had already been discussed as a possible hospital site and that if Mr Rice contributed land from his recently purchased property he believed it would potentially be a viable option for the hospital and a significant benefit for King Township”.

I have long believed the proposed hospital site straddled the lands owned by Rice and John Dunlap, a former member of Southlake Board and the land agent who facilitated the sale of the Bathurst lands to Rice. The very familiar graphic (right) which was presented to the 1 November 2022 meeting by Michael Rice suggests as much. Dunlap’s lands are to the immediate south of the Rice lands and are contiguous.

Ten months ago, I asked King Township the name of the landowner who offered land in the vicinity of the Bathurst site and its precise location. Only now, after an appeal to the Information and Privacy Commissioner (IPC) and months of endless foot-dragging is King Township willing to disclose this information, telling me I can expect a response on 7 December 2023 (after the landowner has been consulted). If the landowner appeals, citing an invasion of privacy, the matter could drag on into 2024.

Similarly, I know that a Southlake Board member declared a conflict of interest which was reported to the Board meeting on 22 September 2022. Again, after the intervention of the IPC, Southlake is now prepared to disclose that information but the person in question has the right to appeal on the grounds that disclosure may affect their personal privacy.

After a year looking at the Greenbelt scandal in King we are only now getting close to a full understanding of what really happened when the protected countryside in the Greenbelt at Bathurst was opened up for development by the Ford Government.

Dr Paul Woods takes over from Arden Krystal as Southlake’s Chief Executive on 3 January 2024.

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

I laughed out loud when I read in this morning’s Toronto Star that the Progressive Conservative government at Queen’s Park was not going to hold public hearings on its new Greenbelt protection law because Ford believes most Ontarians “don’t give two hoots about that”.  

How does he know what Ontarians think? 

We are told he gets thousands of calls to his personal cell phone every week, keeping him grounded and in touch with ordinary folks. This is "buck-a-beer" fiction.

Ford’s consigliere, Municipal Affairs and Housing Minister, Government House Leader and Minister of Legislative Affairs, Paul Calandra, also believes listening to the public is unnecessary.

And this from the comedian who has been telling us for the past month that in opening-up the Greenbelt for development the Ford Government:

“made a policy decision that was not supported by the people of the Province of Ontario”.

Two Hoots

So where is Ford’s evidence that people don’t give two hoots about his legislation that returns land to the Greenbelt?

I can think of lots of people who would wish to give evidence to MPPs on the Heritage, Infrastructure and Cultural Policy Committee who are examining the Bill.


What about the tenants who were evicted from their homes on the lands in the Greenbelt’s protected countryside at Bathurst in King Township? If they were forced to leave on the grounds the lands were to be developed can they now go back? What remedy, if any, do they have?

Unless the Government opens-up legislative committees to the public and outside experts – and that’s the way the system is supposed to work – Ford and Calandra won’t know what they are missing. 

Entertaining Guy

Yesterday when NDP MPP Sandy Shaw protested about the absence of the public in the one hour of committee hearings allocated to Bill 136, the Greenbelt Statute Law Amendment Act, Calandra quipped:

“I’m a pretty entertaining guy when I get up there. I add value to the hearings. I think that the members opposite would want to hear from cabinet ministers.”

I think I’d prefer to hear from people with knowledge of the issues rather than this cast of clowns.

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Update on 23 November 2023: From the Toronto Star's Noor Javed: Doug Ford Government'd sudden reversal on boundary expansion leaves municipalities scrambling

Update on 28 November 2023: From the Toronto Star: Ford says he'll turn over phone records if the RCMP asks

On 16 January 2023 Southlake convened a site selection meeting to review the “Bathurst and Davis Dr Opportunity”. (see graphic right) 

The meeting considered the land requirements for the hospital complex itself and the associated parking. There is also reference to an “LTC fit” which I take to mean long-term-care.

Intriguingly there is a reference to requirements that may need to be built into an MZO. (The Auditor General is currently conducting an inquiry into the Government’s use of Minister’s Zoning Orders)

"Just a conversation"

Last month, in response to a Freedom of Information request, Southlake’s Chief Executive, Arden Krystal, explained why she had no record of the consequential meeting on 1 November 2022 when developer Michael Rice offered Southlake some of his Greenbelt lands at Bathurst for a peppercorn:

“At an initial meeting such as this, we listen to ideas, but do not conduct any form of negotiations or even get into specifics. As such, it isn’t customary to take notes - it is essentially just a conversation. 

If opportunities appear to have some merit, we would then begin more intentional or formal meetings in such cases, where minutes or notes could or would be taken. 

However, because we were about to embark on a formal land acquisition process, we opted to consider this opportunity along with the other potential lands available, which resulted in fair evaluations of all lands in question.”

The “Bathurst and Davis Drive Opportunity” is clearly part of that wider evaluation she talks about.

Land use planning consultants

We now know that Southlake commissioned land use planning consultants who contacted King Township in August 2019 to give them a heads up on the hospital’s Master Plan which was to recommend a two-site solution to the Ministry of Health.

King’s Director of Growth Management, Stephen Naylor, was a participant in that meeting on 9 August 2019. He would have talked to Mayor Pellegrini about it. So, ever since, Pellegrini has been telling the world he has been looking for a site for a second Southlake. However, the Township insists it has no records of ever having conducted a search for a site suitable for a hospital.

Pellegrini was interviewed by the Integrity Commissioner, David Wake, who tells us:

[288] The mayor explained that other lands in the vicinity had already been discussed as a possible hospital site and that if Mr. Rice contributed land from his recently purchased property, he believed it would potentially be a viable option for the hospital and a significant benefit for King Township. 

I shall find out after 6 December 2023 if King Township is prepared to tell me where these other lands are and who owns them. 

Elsewhere… On 21 July 2023 I filed an FoI with the Township asking for sight of all records: 

generated and authored by staff arising from the resolution moved by Mayor Pellegrini and seconded by Cllr Cober on 7 November 2022 which directed them "to work with the landowner, Province and Southlake Regional Health Centre to expedite development approvals for the lands identified for the expansion of Southlake hospital”.

Tomorrow (20 November 2023) the municipality is due to tell me what actions it took to expedite the required approvals. 

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

See also: Timeline: Southlake and the sale of the Greenbelt lands



The Ford Government is giving more funding to "for-profit" clinics to perform certain OHIP-covered surgeries than it gives Ontario's public hospitals to perform the same operations, reports the CBC.

The CBC says:

“…the rates being paid to the privately-owned Don Mills Surgical Unit Ltd. are noticeably higher than what the province provides public hospitals for the same procedures...

Last week, former health minister Christine Elliott registered to lobby the Ford government on behalf of Clearpoint. Her official registration says her lobbying goals are to "engage the government in updating and increasing the base funding amount available to Clearpoint." 

Clearpoint runs Don Mills Surgical Unit.

Lobbying former colleagues

Personally, I think it is quite wrong for a former Health Minister who left office as recently as June 2022 to be lobbying her friends and colleagues to boost the profits of her client, Clearpoint. Who thinks this is OK - other than former Progressive Conservative Cabinet Ministers?

Elliott, the former Progressive Conservative MPP for Newmarket-Aurora, is a “consultant lobbyist” which the Integrity Commissioner interprets this way:

As a consultant lobbyist, you are lobbying when you communicate with anyone in government to try to influence a law or regulation, government policy or program, transfer of a Crown asset, good or service to the private sector, government grant, contribution or other financial benefit, or government contract, or arrange a meeting between a public office holder and anyone else.

And “Lobbying” is defined as being paid to communicate with government in an effort to influence decisions. 

The 12 month rule

Former Ministers are subject to lobbying rules which are way too lax. Former Ministers like Elliott cannot lobby for 12 months after leaving office:

“For 12 months after you leave government, you cannot lobby: (a) the minister (or ministers) of the ministry where you worked in the preceding 12 months; (b) ministers' staff who work in that ministry or ministries; or (c) public servants who work in that ministry or ministries.”

In the UK (which has its own issues with former Ministers) there is a two-year ban on lobbying which, on all the evidence, is still too permissive:

On leaving office, Ministers will be prohibited from lobbying Government for two years. They must also seek advice from the independent Advisory Committee on Business Appointments (ACoBA) about any appointments or employment they wish to take up within two years of leaving office. Former Ministers must ensure that no new appointments are announced, or taken up, before the Committee has been able to provide its advice. 

Elliott targets Gallagher Murphy

Bizarre as it may seem, Elliott could now be lobbying her successor as MPP for Newmarket-Aurora, Dawn Gallagher Murphy - assuming that DGM has any influence whatsoever in Government decision making.

Gallagher Murphy was hand-picked by Doug Ford who proclaimed her the official PC candidate for the riding within 24 hours of Elliott making her shock announcement that she would not be running again.

Nurses' pay held down

Back in July I wrote that nurses' pay was being deliberately held down. And the Ford Government was turning to agency nursing where costs are going through the roof.  

As Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Health, our local MPP, Dawn Gallagher Murphy, has done absolutely nothing to ensure nurses get a fair deal.

The vacuous Dawn Gallagher Murphy MPP congratulates people for what they do. After observing her for 17 months as our MPP this is her defining characteristic.

Getting nurses a fair deal? Forget it.

But will she listen to what the consultant lobbyist Christine Elliott has to say about the virtues of her client Clearpoint?

You bet.

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Click "Read more" below for Christine Elliott's view on lobbying by public bodies such as hospitals. In 2010 she called on the (then) Liberal Government "to prohibit all hospitals, local health integration networks, community care access centres, Cancer Care Ontario, eHealth Ontario and other publicly funded health care bodies from hiring consultants to lobby government officials". 

From the Register of Lobbyists: