Regina Mayor Pat Fiacco was on morning radio defending his support for the Buzz Hargrove-NDP-Liberal government, in order that they ensure budget passage. A caller had challenged him on the deeper ethics of supporting a corrupt government.
Fiacco was strenuous in his defence. Indeed - he took his support for Paul Martin far beyond the question of the budget, talking in detail about how desperately the cities required the funds, how the Conservatives had not unequivocally pledged to leave the agreement intact. (Fiacco, it should be noted, is a Liberal, so it should come as no surprise to learn he can be bought. It may however, come as a surprise that "cash strapped" Regina reportedly has 6 lawyers on the city payroll.)
The problem with phone in shows is that the callers are always at a disadvantage - especially with high profile guests that often have hosts ready to cover their backs before questioning becomes to aggressive.
It would have been enlightening to have someone explore his argument, by asking how much corruption Pat Fiacco accepts in his own civic government.
Pat Fiacco has clearly indicated that government corruption is tolerable, so long as the dividends continue to be shovelled towards his own city - enhancing by extension, his own political popularity. Does it not beg the question as to whether the Fiacco defence of "benevolent corruption" might extend to the governance of the City of Regina?
Surely, he cannot be holding himself to a higher standard than that of his federal counterparts! That would be so ... counterintuitive. I'm not suggesting that anything untoward is occuring in his administration, but now that he's opened the door, I wonder - would Pat Fiacco tolerate a civic employee who solicits bribes, so long as his interference in the bidding process brings the project in under budget?
How about a police chief who cuts the crime rate by 5% while shaking down small business for "protection" services?
Would Fiacco pull strings with the province for grants to benefit inner-city businesses, in exchange for their "donations" to his re-election fund?
When he gave the thumbs up on federal Liberal corruption, he should have been asked to elaborate - is his level of tolerance for theft and graft based on "greater good"? On "whats in it for me"? Or, is it simply a matter of scale - ie: if $100 million of corruption at the federal level is an acceptable budget line item, does the City of Regina take their cue from that, and budget for $60,000?
I think these are legitimate questions.
So, don't keep us waiting - tell me Mayor Fiacco - is it "yes"? Is it "no"? Is it "depending on the circumstances?"
After this morning's interview, we learned you do have some tolerance for corruption in government. That having been established, we're just trying to find out how much?
Yes I too heard this shameless partisan talking this morning with his lacky from Saskatoon Don Atchison. I am not sure what Atchison is in terms of political stripes, but he came across in the election as a big tax cutting conservative who pledged not to raise taxes if he became mayor. What is the first thing he does when he gets elected? Raise taxes.
No wonder Fiacco and Atchison want the federal money to come their way this year, they are getting lambasted as they haven't done anything in their cities so if they get it, it might take the heat off of them for a while.
What a couple of snakes that epitomize what is wrong with our society. They are willing to support a corrupt government just to make sure they get their piece of the pie to make them look good. Why aren't they out there questioning why it took the Liberals 14 years and the threat of a minority government to come up with more funding for cities? Because they are just as bad as the mafia in Ottawa. What ever happened to just do what is "right"?
Looks like a case of the "end justifies the means"
Almost looks like the mafia is running Canada except we call it our govt,and of course corruption breeds more corruption to the point where eventually everybody is on the take in one way or another to the extent where it takes over complete countries if its not rooted out.Very dangerous indeed in its final outcome.
I would liken it to terminal cancer,a slow and final death.
"I'm not suggesting that anything untoward is occuring in his administration"
Nope, just hinting like crazy.
You're pretty fired up today! Remind me not to piss you off, Kate.
Great post! You could have been talking about London — or for that matter, Sarnia, Vancouver, and likely other Canadian municipalities — where a Liberal mayor is pleading for safe passage for the Martin government so she can get credit for increasing the city's revenue from the federal revenue.
It's all too likely to be a successful ploy as well, because local voters — here, anyway — seem to regard this redistribution of tax money as a windfall, as if the federal budget was a magic pot of money instead of coming from their own pockets in the first place. Here in London, the city government and our docile media encourage this view — responsible governance can be put off for yet another year, and besides nobody in this bread-and-circuses town can bear to say anything bad about the city. Everything is just okey-dokey — well, as long as the Liberals stay in power.
I must say that it appears the federal Liberal strategy of cutting transfers and running up surpluses is paying off now. Take things away from people and make them grateful when you give some of it back. With provincial premiers and city mayors all rushing to sign agreements and expecting precious federal money these days, I expect we'll see politicians at every level pimping for the Liberals this year. Redistribution doesn't work economically, but it sure pays off politically.
What like Belinda Stronach?
What a putz.
Biggest political story here in T.O.
No corruption going on here, the MSM thinks she is the biggest story saying her riding needs money too, and maybe we should'nt have an election.
Saw Scott B'treason on cpac quoting her.
You have to wonder if maybe you can be too blonde?
As an addendum: This post could have been as easily directed to Saskatoon mayor Don Atchison, who shared air time with Fiacco.
What really caught my ear about Pat Fiacco's response was how he described the Conservative plan for the cities. I went to the Conservative Party website and I couldn't find anything about it. Where did he hear that? What is the Conservative position on federalism and funding for municipalities?
Somebody should ask Pat Fiacco how much money he raises and spends to get himself re-elected as Mayor of Regina and why he was not in favour of setting spending limits on Civic Election Candidates in the City of Regina?
Answer that one.
It's all too likely to be a successful ploy as well, because local voters � here, anyway � seem to regard this redistribution of tax money as a windfall, as if the federal budget was a magic pot of money instead of coming from their own pockets in the first place.
That's what I don't get about this money for cities deal. Everyone seems to regard it as an unambiguously good idea. But if we're taxing everyone and giving the money to the cities, isn't this just a transfer of wealth from rural to urban Canadians? I can see why the cities would like it, and it may even be a worthwhile plan, but why aren't groups like SARM raising hell over it? Why hasn't the "taxing farmers to give money to Toronto" card ever been played?