Quebec – mackaycartoons

Thursday December 13, 2018

December 20, 2018 by Graeme MacKay

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Thursday December 13, 2018

‘Dirty’ oil finances Quebec’s schools, hospitals, Alberta reminds Legault

December 15, 2015

Alberta Premier Rachel Notley on Tuesday invited Quebec Premier François Legault to “get off his high horse” when it comes to what the latter dismisses as “dirty” energy, reminding Legault that her province’s oil revenues help pay for Quebec’s social programs and infrastructure.

“He needs to look at what’s in the ground, and he needs to understand that not only is our product not dirty, but that it actually funds the schools, the hospitals, the roads and potentially even some of the hydroelectricity infrastructure in Quebec,” Notley told reporters.

October 13, 2016

The Alberta premier was reacting to comments made last week by Legault during a speech to the first ministers meeting in Montreal. Legault said there was no “social acceptability” to the idea of running a pipeline that would carry “dirty energy” through his province, particularly when Quebec could offer “clean” hydroelectric energy at a competitive price.

Legault’s comments took on a bitterly ironic aspect on Monday during a meeting with provincial finance ministers, when it became clear that despite posting a budgetary surplus, Quebec would receive the lion’s share of federal transfer payments for 2019-2020 — more than $13 billion.

Ottawa will pay a total of $20 billion in equalization payments to five provinces to ensure a uniform level of public services across the country. Apart from Quebec, cheques will also be sent to Manitoba, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick.

Alberta, considered a rich province when it comes to equalization eligibility, complains it is going through an economic crisis because of the weak price for oil. The Notley government is forecasting a $7.5-billion deficit for the current financial year. (Source: Montreal Gazette)

Some Social Media jousting over this cartoon…

Tuesday November 13, 2018

November 20, 2018 by Graeme MacKay

November 13, 2018

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Tuesday November 13, 2018

The good, the bad and the ugly of corporate welfare

Federal government investment in private business — disdainfully called “corporate welfare” by critics — can raise the blood pressure of even the most Zen taxpayer. Consider:

April 4, 2017

Last month, Ottawa wrote off a loan and other subsidies granted to Chrysler for $2.6 billion. The interest is also in the wind. Or how about the Ontario government’s $220 million investment in Toyota to create some 450 jobs (which works out to a $488,888 subsidy per job). And then, of course, there is Bombardier, the grandmother of all corporate welfare recipients.

The Quebec-based transportation company got its first government handout in the mid-1960s. By now, depending on who you believe, Bombardier has received something like $3.7 billion from Canadian taxpayers. And just to add insult to injury, the company isn’t exactly prospering.

October 13, 2016

Last week, it announced it was cutting 5,000 jobs, including 500 in Ontario, and it sold off one of its aircraft divisions. It also announced a new contract to provide rail cars to the City of Montreal, but that good news didn’t offset bad news about its stubborn corporate debt. Analysts are again speculating that Bombardier’s turnaround may be wishful thinking, and its share prices took the expected nosedive at that news.

Most galling is the reality that those billions, just like the billions in Chrysler bailout money Ottawa just wrote off, are never coming back to public coffers.

February 18, 2016

What can we do, other than get all red in the face and grind our collective teeth? It’s not like you can vote for a different party to avoid these so-called investments. All parties do them, in Bombardier’s case, pretty much equally.

Or, we can try and do what makes sense but is typically very hard for average taxpayers struggling to get by in this challenging world — look at the big picture, and look at it over time, not in the moment.

First, so-called corporate welfare is far from new. It goes back as far as the days when Canadian railroads were getting royal treatment in the form of prime pieces of real estate. But what if, back in the ’60s, the government of the day had said no to Bombardier and set the tone for the future? (Continued: Hamilton Spectator)

Wednesday October 25, 2017

October 24, 2017 by Graeme MacKay

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Wednesday October 25, 2017

Trudeau, Scheer and Singh do the math in Quebec and none champion an anti-racist stance

The tepid response from federal leaders to Quebec’s ill-conceived and offensive Bill 62 tells us three truths about Canadian politics.

They are not comfortable truths.

September 14, 2013

It tells us that all three major party leaders may harbour suspicions that the bill forcing face coverings to be removed while accessing public services may be more popular both inside and outside Quebec than what might be expected.

They may be right. This has all the trappings of a Donald Trump presidential run or a Brexit referendum in that the louder the protestations and the deeper the indignation of the mainstream pundits, editorial boards and the elite, the more popular the candidate or the legislation.

Secondly, it tells us that the further from power one is, the easier it is to be the champion of rights and liberties.

And thirdly, because it is Quebec, we know that any federal intervention is seen as a political third rail, which would not be the case if, say, a government in Manitoba or Nova Scotia had passed such legislation.

This is particularly true when the Quebec premier is a federalist.

No one wants to poke the hibernating PQ bear, everyone is leery of meddling in provincial jurisdiction, particularly when you have opposition parties who believe Premier Philippe Couillard’s absurd bill does not go far enough. (Source: Toronto Star)

SaveSave

Thursday October 13, 2016

October 12, 2016 by Graeme MacKay

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Thursday October 13, 2016

Federal Liberals signal desire for ‘meaningful investment’ in Bombardier

The federal government investing in aerospace giant Bombardier is not a matter of if but how, Innovation Minister Navdeep Bains said Tuesday.

“We want to be a partner,” Bains said after announcing up to $54 million in funds for a Bombardier-led aerospace-research consortium.

“We want to find a solution and we want to continue to make meaningful investments. We want to be a partner, we are at the table, we want to find a solution. It’s not a matter of if but how we want to make the investment.”

His comments are the clearest the Liberals have been to date regarding whether they’ll accept the Montreal-based company’s request for $1 billion in federal funding.

In early September, Bombardier (TSX:BBD.B) received the second of two instalments of US$500 million from the Quebec government.

Quebec now owns 49.5 per cent of a new limited partnership of the CSeries aircraft program, including larger versions of the plane beyond the CS100 and CS300 should they be developed.

Bains wouldn’t give details as to exactly how much Ottawa will invest or where the money will be targeted.

He did reiterate the conditions his government will place on any future funding.

Ottawa wants Bombardier to keep its head office and the jobs connected to its research and development activities in the country, he said. (Source: Financial Post)

Published in the Leader-Post (Regina, Sask)

Saturday August 8, 2015

August 7, 2015 by Graeme MacKay

By Graeme MacKay, Editorial Cartoonist, The Hamilton Spectator – Saturday August 8, 2015

Thomas Mulcair’s Clarity problem

At about the midpoint of last night’s debate, during an otherwise necessary chat about the state of democratic institutions, things veered into a constitutional abstraction of the sort that has obsessed this country’s political class for a half century. It lasted about five minutes and was prompted by Justin Trudeau, who looks younger than his 43 years but, at that moment at least, could have passed for pater Pierre Elliott circa 1968, shaking his fists at the evil Quebec separatists in our midst.

“One of the things that really frustrates a lot of people is when they see politicians pander, when they say one thing in one part of the country and a different thing in another part of the country. One of the things that unfortunately Mr. Mulcair has been doing quite regularly is talking in French about his desire to repeal the Clarity Act, to make it easier for those who want to break up this country to actually do so. And in doing so, he is actually disagreeing with the Supreme Court judgment that said one vote is not enough to break up the country.”

The Clarity Act was wrought by Jean Chrétien’s government in 2000 to try and address the question born in 1995’s Quebec referendum, which the No side won by all of 54,288 votes: would it have been enough to separate the country had the Yes side won by as many (or fewer) votes? The Supreme Court’s answer was no: a province would need a “clear majority.” Except no one defined what, exactly, constituted this clear majority. The resulting lack of clarity has obsessed Canada’s political class and legions of its journalists ever since.

Three things usually happen whenever this issue is brought up in a federal campaign. First, chest puffed, each leader will say what good Canadians they are. Then the others will say how irrelevant it is to talk about separatism, because Quebec’s sovereignty movement is stuck somewhere between cryogenic sleep and outright death. Finally, they do exactly that—talk about an apparently irrelevant issue. For over 50 years, it’s been our political quicksand: impossible to avoid, and even harder to escape. (Continued: MacLean’s)