Wednesday February 6, 2019

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Wednesday February 6, 2019

Knuckling under pressure to the U.S. won’t win battle of steel tariffs

What was Ontario’s economic development and trade minister thinking when he publicly called on Canada to surrender in the trade war with the United States?

March 3, 2018

On Monday Todd Smith said Canada should remove tariffs put in place in response to Donald Trump’s imposition of 25 per cent tariffs on steel imports and 10 per cent on aluminum. Canada’s tariffs match those dollar for dollar, and are used in part to support companies and workers in the affected sectors.

Further, Smith said his boss, Doug Ford, wanted the same thing. “I know that the premier has suggested this to the federal government that they should remove their tariffs as a first step in removing tariffs overall.” As far as we know Ford hasn’t spoken on the matter, but if that’s how he feels, he should go public.

June 15, 2018

Why on earth would anyone, Ford or his minister, believe that Donald Trump would respect capitulation? Has Trump shown in past behaviour that he respects weakness? We must have missed that newscast.

Smith’s suggestion is so patently ridiculous it took only hours for steel and aluminum companies to pipe in with their support for Ottawa. A tweet from the Canadian Steel Producers Association, said: “The federal government’s retaliatory action against the U.S.A. is vital in protecting businesses and steelworkers.” The Aluminum Association of Canada said the Trudeau government should “maintain all tariffs on U.S. imports and support Canadian businesses as long as U.S. tariffs are in place.”

June 28, 2018

Analysts and pundits from all quarters were equally mystified and distraught. Why would the Ford government side with Trump against Canada? More than one suggested it might be linked to Ford’s oft-expressed respect and affection for Trump’s leadership. But suggesting Canada should surrender?

It turns out, if you believe the updated position of the province, that wasn’t behind Smith’s play. He really meant to say we should revisit tariffs on things other than steel and aluminum, like Kentucky bourbon and playing cards. That, he says, will demonstrate to Trump that Canada is willing to deal. This new position — if it can be called that — isn’t nearly as damaging, but it’s equally stupid. Do Smith and his boss really think Trump will come to the table based on bourbon and playing cards?

June 6, 2018

He won’t. He thinks his tariffs, broadly, have been a huge success and a sign of his historic greatness. Yes, they’re hurting Americans as they’re hurting Canadians, but Trump isn’t one to worry about his own citizens welfare. In his view, measures like these are signs of strength and dominance.

Tariffs are a real and growing problem for steel and aluminum companies. High steel prices have cushioned steel producers to some extent, but the impact of tariffs is already being felt in Sault St. Marie, and will eventually hit Hamilton as well.

Canada continues to work trade and diplomatic channels to see tariffs lifted. Some have suggested the prime minister shouldn’t give final approval to the new NAFTA agreement without resolution, and that might be worth considering. Trump sees NAFTA as a major accomplishment, and the fact that it might be stymied due to his nonsensical tariffs will trouble him. His own Congress has said it won’t support the new trade pact until tariffs have been lifted, and that might be worth Ottawa’s consideration, too. Much more work remains to be done.

But please, no more suggestions that Canada take a knee to the biggest bully in the free world. That’s embarrassing, and would only make dealing with Trump more difficult. The Trudeau government has walked a fine line to date between working with Trump and not being pushed around. That should continue to be its strategy. (Source: Hamilton Spectator Editorial) 

 

Tuesday February 5, 2019

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Tuesday February 5, 2019

Jagmeet Singh questions Canada’s recognition of Venezuelan opposition leader

NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh is questioning Canada’s decision to recognize a Venezuelan opposition leader as the country’s interim president, after prominent members of his party lashed out at the Liberal government’s foreign policy move Thursday.

March 31, 2018 – retraction

In a statement to the Toronto Star, Singh said it should be up to Venezuelans to decide who leads their country, which was roiled by deadly protests this week as the socialist regime led by Nicolas Maduro tries to cling to power amidst economic collapse and a mass exodus of migrants from the South American nation.

Canada’s foreign affairs minister, Chrystia Freeland, announced Wednesday that Ottawa will recognize Venezuelan opposition leader Juan Guaido as interim president and support his “commitment to lead Venezuela to free and fair presidential elections.” Canada was among the “Lima Group” of countries that called on Maduro to step down earlier this month, declaring that he seized power through “fraudulent and anti-democratic elections” last year.

Freeland’s decision came after U.S. President Donald Trump recognized Guaido as Venezuelan leader, prompting the Maduro regime to cut diplomatic ties with the United States.

Animated!

The NDP leader, however, is calling for a United Nations-led dialogue to “avert a disaster” in Venezuela, and said Thursday that all countries deserve to choose their leaders without “authoritative pressure or foreign interference.” He also condemned military action against protesters by the Maduro regime.

“Canada should not simply follow the U.S.’s foreign policy, particularly given its history of self-interested interference in the region,” Singh said.

“The question of who is to lead Venezuela should be in the hands of Venezuelans.” (Sourec: Toronto Star) 

 

Saturday February 2, 2019

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Saturday February 2, 2019

No victory for U.S. as it leaves Afghanistan

The long and pointless Afghan War may finally be coming to an end. If so, this will be a relief for the U.S. and its coalition allies operating there. It certainly won’t be a victory.

June 21, 2013

The broad strokes of a deal in principle between the United States and Taliban insurgents were released this week. They are not likely to bring much solace to the families of soldiers — including Canadians — who fought and died in the 17-year-old conflict.

There is no mention of ensuring that girls can go to school, which at one point was given by Canada’s government as the rationale for this war.

There is no mention of defeating the “scumbags” as Canada’s then top general Rick Hillier described the Taliban. Indeed, it seems likely that the Taliban will be guaranteed a major political role in the country.

There is no mention of bringing democracy and development to Afghanistan — another of the Canadian government’s ostensible reasons for the war.

 

March 11, 2009

The essence of the deal, as described to the New York Times by chief U.S. negotiator Zalmay Khalilzad, is simple and familiar.

The Taliban will ensure that terrorists don’t use Afghanistan as a base to attack the West. The Americans, along with the 38 allied nations still operating there, will withdraw their troops.

Ironically, the agreement in principle bears a marked resemblance to the offer that Afghanistan’s then Taliban government made to the U.S. in 2001 after the 9/11 terror attacks.

Don’t invade, the Taliban said then. And in return we will expel terror mastermind Osama bin Laden to a third country. (Continued: Toronto Star) 

 

Friday February 1, 2019

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Friday February 1, 2019

1,000 Ontario hospital patients a day being treated in corridors: Report

Roughly 1,000 hospital patients in Ontario are getting medical attention in corridors instead of proper treatment spaces on “any given day,” Dr. Rueben Devlin says in his first report to Premier Doug Ford on improving health care and ending “hallway medicine.”

While the retired head of Humber River Hospital notes there is “much to be proud of” in the provincial health care system, his report found it is “too complicated” to navigate after hearing from more than 340 patients.

“People are waiting too long to receive care and too often are receiving care in the wrong place; as a result, our hospitals are crowded,” Devlin, an orthopaedic surgeon, wrote in the 32-page document titled “Hallway Health Care: A System Under Strain.”

“There needs to be more effective co-ordination at both the system level, and at the point-of-care. This could achieve better value (i.e. improved health outcomes) for taxpayer money spent,” he added. “As currently designed, the health care system does not always work efficiently.”

Animated!

One problem is people with mental health and addictions troubles often go to hospital emergency rooms when they could get better care from a family doctor or community agency, but wait too long and reach a “crisis point.”

According to one survey last year, 41 per cent of Ontarians who went to hospital emergency departments, and 93 per cent who went to walk-in clinics, were treated for conditions that could have been handled by a family physician or nurse practitioner in a primary care setting. This is often because hospitals are the only health care centre open 24 hours a day. (Toronto Star) 

 

Thursday January 31, 2019

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Thursday January 31, 2019

Trump is the most polarizing president on record — and almost nobody’s opinion of him is changing

Gallup’s Jeffrey Jones put things succinctly.

November 3, 2018

“Extreme partisan views of presidents are the new norm in politics,” he wrote in presenting new data on the partisan gulf in approval of President Trump. “The past 15 presidential years account for 14 of the top 15 most polarized years since Gallup began regularly measuring both job approval and party identification in the 1950s.”

The exception? 1996, when President Bill Clinton had an approval rating of 85 percent from Democrats and 24 percent from Republicans. To which the natural reaction is: His approval rating among Republicans was that high?

Since 2010, the average presidential approval rating from an opposing party in a year hasn’t topped 13 percent — and that was in 2010, when President Barack Obama’s approval rating was still slipping from his post-inauguration high.

The gap now is 79 points, 21 points shy of the maximum possible gap.

Who knows. Maybe we’ll get there.

But there’s another interesting aspect to Trump’s approval ratings that is worth isolating. The gap in 2017, according to Gallup, was only slightly narrower. Unlike Obama, Trump didn’t enjoy a period of broader support at the time of his inauguration. Views of Trump have been remarkably consistent by party since he took office.

There’s some movement, but not a lot. Data released Tuesday by Quinnipiac University make that clear. In Quinnipiac’s first poll of Trump’s favorability, taken less than a week after his inauguration, about a fifth of Americans had no opinion of his job performance. In the next poll, taken in early February 2017, 42 percent approved of his performance (including 88 percent of Republicans), and 51 percent disapproved (including 90 percent of Democrats). In Tuesday’s poll? Forty-one percent approve (including 86 percent of Republicans), and 55 percent disapprove (including 93 percent of Democrats).

Polar Vortex Animated Version!

What’s more, we’d normally expect some movement within those groups, as people who strongly supported the president became less enthusiastic or those who opposed him a bit grew more fervent. But while there are some isolated examples of shifts within each group in Quinnipiac’s polling, how strongly people view Trump has been steady over the course of the presidency. (Washington Post)