Ontario

Thursday June 3, 1999

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Thursday June 3, 1999

Hold Your Nose if You Must – But Go Vote

Why bother? It has been a campaign of soundbites. Weeks of doubletalk, namecalling, diversion and trivia. Instead of rising above the din of negative rhetoric, the party leaders more often seemed to be competing in a game of How Low Can You Go. Candidates of all stripes, locally and provincially, were scarcely better as they ducked all candidate meetings in favour of shallow photo opportunities. Thanks to bad organization, voters today can expect lineups and delays. We’ve been lied to, and treated like fools. Who can blame frustrated, weary voters for wondering: Why bother?

Of course, the answer is: We have to. It matters. Avoiding the polling station isn’t an option. Much as we feel assaulted and corrupted by opportunistic and cynical politicians, by too many glib pollsters, by media pitchmen and special interests, one unalterable truth remains: Voting is probably the most important thing we’ll do today.

Consider the words of John Kenneth Galbraith: “When people put their ballots in the boxes, they are, by that act, inoculated against the feeling that the government is not theirs. They then accept, in some measure, that its errors are their errors, its aberrations their aberrations, that any revolt will be against themselves. It’s a remarkably shrewd and rather conservative arrangement when one thinks of it.” The act of casting our ballot is the best way we have of taking back the democratic process; of seizing it from the spin doctors and power brokers more attuned to ideology and self-interest than to public service.

“Who will govern the governors?” Thomas Jefferson asked, then answered: “There is only one force in the nation that can be depended upon to keep the government pure and the governors honest, and that is the people themselves. They alone, if well informed, are capable of preventing the corruption of power, and of restoring the nation to its rightful course if it should go astray. They alone are the safest depository of the ultimate powers of government.” By voting today, we invoke a contract with the people we elect. We empower them to represent us fairly and constructively. By not voting, we defer and opt out of our collective responsibility. Some, thoroughly disenchanted and disenfranchised by the political process, will argue not voting is a form of political action unto itself. But it’s not. It is nothing. Declining the ballot, as proposed by an author on today’s Forum page, may be marginally better in that it requires concrete action and expresses, to a point, the “none of the above” philosophy many have adopted. But in our view, declining the ballot still amounts to opting out. The stakes are too high for that.

This is our chance to express ourselves on the record of the incumbents. We can endorse or renounce on any basis we choose. We can base our decision on the relative adequacy of a local MPP, or we can hold our nose and vote for the least objectionable alternative. If nothing else, we can consider our ballot the permit that justifies and validates future complaints and criticism of the party in government.

H.G. Wells describes the election as “Democracy’s ceremonial, its feast, its great function …” Diminished and reduced as this campaign has been, that characterization still holds true. And if all else fails, and you just can’t summon a positive reason for that trek to the polling station, a constructive negative will do. Consider the words of American critic and pundit George Jean Nathan, who years ago wrote: “Bad officials are elected by good citizens who do not vote.” Amen to that. (Source: Hamilton Spectator Editorial)

 

SaveSave

Wednesday May 5, 1999

By Graeme MacKay, Editorial Cartoonist, The Hamilton Spectator – Wednesday May 5, 1999

Common Sense Prequel

OK, you’ve found all 21 action figures, including the four scarce Battle Droid variations: clean, dirty, slashed and blasted.You’ve purchased all the posters, including the Jedi vs Sith battle scene and the circus-style pitch for pod races.

Welcoming plot “spoilers, ” you’ve amassed a complete set of the trading cards and begun reading the novel.

But do you have the comic books for “Star Wars: Episode One — The Phantom Menace?”

The fact is, George Lucas’ space saga owes much to comics, which fanned the flames of fan interest through most of the lean years between 1983’s Return of the Jedi and the wave of enthusiasm sparked by new “Star Wars” toys in 1995 and the first trilogy’s “Special Edition” in 1997.

From the lulls through the current storm, comics by Marvel and Dark Horse have adapted the films and expanded on Lucas’ universe. Now they’re attacking the prequel years with a comics adaptation of “The Phantom Menace.”

It’s sold as a single graphic novel costing $12.95 and also as a four-part series of comics, costing $2.95 each.

The graphic novel and the first issue of the comics are now in comic book shops. The final three comics will arrive weekly for three more weeks.

The comics have two cover options: a photo from the film, and an illustrated montage of characters by Hugh Fleming.

They were written by Henry Gilroy, who works in the comics/animation industry. He got a copy of Lucas’ script a year ago.

Translating the film to the static medium of comics is difficult, Gilroy said. “Lucas makes the most of motion and sound in his films.”

He tried to pace the story “so that every time the reader turns the page, they get a cool ‘reveal, ‘ which is what you get in a “Star Wars” movie. Every scene has something new in it.” (Source: Houston Chronicle)

 

Friday January 22, 1999

Twenty-five years after an editorial cartoon warned of a housing crisis in Ontario, Canada, the persistent struggles of homelessness underscore the gap between promises and actions, demanding a renewed, collective commitment to secure affordable housing as a fundamental human right.

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Friday January 22, 1999

Homelessness is our problem

People who live outside Toronto generally have concerns other than worrying about the plight of the homeless in that city. But it’s hard to ignore the housing crisis in Canada’s largest metropolis. Toronto’s problems of homelessness and chronic shortage of low-cost housing are becoming Ontario’s problems. That much is clear after a new report urging substantial spending by the senior levels of government to ease the hardship.

The reluctance of the private sector to build housing for low-income people, a stark reality, is underlined in the report from a task force headed by Greater Toronto United Way president Anne Golden. Developers aren’t eager to provide affordable housing for very-low income households, at least without some government help. Cash-strapped governments face a daunting task in trying to supply all of the demand at the bottom end of the market. In fact, the federal and provincial governments have seen fit to withdraw from construction of social housing. It’s not surprising that homelessness is rising, together with waiting lists for affordable housing, and not just in Toronto. Drop-in centres, temporary shelters, food banks and similar social services are under serious pressure in Hamilton and most urban centres.

Golden’s task force leans heavily in the direction of public as opposed to private sector solutions. Urging action by all three levels of government, the report has sobering recommendations for hundreds of millions of dollars in new spending ever year. Projects for new and renovated low-income housing, and enriched shelter allowances for the working poor carry some of the highest price tags.

Public investment on this scale is a tall order, especially when governments have retreated from subsidized housing in order to fight bloated deficits. But the magnitude of the problem is equally massive. The visible hardship is reflected in the destitute who sleep on the street. The so-called hidden homeless, struggling to live in substandard accommodations, are often almost as desperate. The pressure on governments to act will only increase if the trend doesn’t improve.

While senior governments should accept more responsibility, fiscal reality sugge sts that it will be difficult to move as boldly as the report suggests. Better results might lie in addressing the root of the problem: lack of private sector involvement. Governments could find that it’s more cost-effective to attract private builders with a range of new incentives than to attempt a massive reinvestment.

There are many ideas to promote low-income housing. Suggestions include:

– more generous property tax incentives;

– more creativity in municipal planning and flexibility in zoning bylaws;

– requiring a percentage of affordable housing in new residential projects;

– rebates on provincial and federal sales taxes for developers of affordable housing;

– making publicly-owned properties available.

Accelerated, widespread incentives to investors will trim government revenues. B ut much of the expense will be offset by savings from reduced demand for social services. Of equal importance, finding decent housing for the poor will pay big dividends in sparing Toronto, Hamilton and other communities from the ugly social and economic problems that afflict many American cities. (Hamilton Spectator Editorial, A10, 1/22/1999)

* * * * *

Bridging the Gap from Cartoon to Crisis

July 21, 2023

Twenty-five years have elapsed since the ink of an editorial cartoon dried, imprinting a stark warning about a looming housing crisis in Ontario, Canada. The illustration portrayed the grim reality of homelessness juxtaposed with oblivious leaders, a visual narrative that echoed a prophetic call sounded by the Ann Golden task force. Yet, in the year 2024, the crisis has not just persisted; it has snowballed into a formidable issue demanding our collective attention.

In the political landscape, promises like Trudeau’s commitment of $15 billion for affordable housing emerge, but the reality on the ground remains starkly different. The winter of 2023 laid bare the inadequacies in the city’s response, highlighting gaps that threatened the safety of those already vulnerable. Matthew Cymbalisty’s  journey, from battling frostbite on the streets to finding stability in subsidized housing, encapsulates both personal triumphs and the systemic failures that still haunt our society.

April 7, 2017

Reflecting on the past reveals that the roots of homelessness in Canada can be traced back to policy shifts in the 1980s. The editorial cartoon served not just as a warning but as a call to action that unfortunately seemed to have fallen on deaf ears. The 2017 National Housing Strategy committed a substantial $72 billion, but the question looms: Is it being deployed effectively to address the urgent needs of the population?

As we mark a quarter-century since the publication of that particular cartoon, the signs of “vacancy” should not merely symbolize continued cluelessness. Instead, they must serve as a rallying cry for a profound reevaluation of priorities. Homelessness is not confined to Toronto or Hamilton; it is a national problem that requires urgent, collaborative action. The commitment must shift from merely funding homelessness programs to securing affordable housing—a fundamental human right that resonates through the 1948 UN Declaration of Human Rights and the 1976 International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights.

The 25-year milestone is not just an anniversary; it is a moment for introspection and renewed commitment. The cartoon’s warning is still relevant, and the signs of “vacancy” must be transformed into symbols of proactive leadership and compassionate governance. Homelessness demands not just financial commitments but a comprehensive, coordinated effort across all levels of government, industry, and non-profit organizations. It is time for Canada to rise collectively and turn this crisis into an opportunity for lasting change. (Graeme MacKay, January 16, 2024)

 

 

John Snobelen Meets With the Board of Trustees

Pen & Ink caricature by Graeme MacKay (Hamilton, Ontario, Canada). Illustrated in 1997.

Why Ontario teachers went on a province-wide strike in 1997

Back in October 1997, a strike kept teachers and students out of the classroom for two weeks.

The 1997 strike was not about wages. It was about the Mike Harris-led PC government’s proposed overhaul to education.

On Oct. 7 that year, a crowd of 20,000 teachers gathered inside and outside Toronto’s Maple Leaf Gardens for a rally opposing Bill 160, which introduced legislation for Progressive Conservative Premier Mike Harris’s changes to education.

“If he does not move off his legislative agenda, every school in this province will be shut down,” Eileen Lennon of the Ontario Teachers’ Federation told the rally. “We will not back down.” 

Reporter Steve Erwin outlined some details of the bill.

A Meeting of the School Trustees – By Robert Harris

It would give the province control over the levying of school taxes, the ability to dictate school funding, set class sizes and teacher prep time, and allow non-certified teachers to instruct.

Erwin said the government’s stated purpose was to “improve the performance of Ontario schoolchildren.”

But teachers saw it as a pretext to cut $1 billion from the system and lay off up to 10,000 teachers.

Education Minister John Snobelen, himself a high school dropout, dismissed the “union bluster,” according to the reporter.

“I wasn’t surprised by the turnout or the rhetoric from last night,” he said. “I think that was all pretty predictable.” 

Snobelen would be replaced as education minister in a cabinet shuffle two days later. (Continued: CBC News)