Canada

Thursday April 1, 1999

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Thursday April 1, 1999

Canadian Map ReDrawn For First Time in 50 Years

Bitter cold didn’t keep revellers from enjoying traditional Arctic games during festivities in Iqaluit in honour of Nunavut, Canada’s new territory.  With games, feasts, pride and hope, people across the eastern Arctic said goodbye to the old Northwest Territories yesterday and took their place as residents of Nunavut, Canada’s new territory.”Let the rest of the world know that we have our own culture, and they’re going to get to know us, ” a beaming Sila Kelly said.

Subject of a scholarly presentation on Cartographic misrepresentations of Nunavut, Canada

In Iqaluit, the Nunavut capital, about 150 people braved bitter winds that chilled the air to -42 C as they gathered outdoors for traditional Arctic games such as harpoon tossing and nusuuraut, a four-way tug-of-war.

Smiles may have been a bit forced in the teeth of north winds gusting up to 60 km/h. But there was nothing forced about the joy.

“I think our culture and language will be strengthened, ” Ruth Kadlutsiak said, especially for her three children and the next generation of Inuit.

“It’ll build up their self-esteem. Everybody is so proud of what they’ve accomplished here.”

Joelie Sanguya, who travelled to Iqaluit from further up Baffin Island at Clyde River for the celebration, said this is what the Inuit have waited for for years.

“Inuit people have been put aside and have had everything done by the government. This sort of thing is where the Inuit will have some input.

“I’m looking forward to seeing it.”

Nunavut was born out of the 1992 Nunavut Land Claim Agreement, under which the Inuit agreed to give up any future aboriginal rights to their traditional land in return for the power to govern their own territory. The western half of the old territory will continue to be known as the Northwest Territories.

Iqaluit’s celebrations were being mirrored in communities throughout the North in festivals that will last several days.

Pangnirtung will stage a seal hunt. Grise Fjord will have a seal cleaning contest.

On the western shore of Hudson Bay, Arviat will hold dog sled races and an igloo-making contest.

But the main focus will be on Iqaluit. By the time festivities end today, Nunavut will have sworn in its judges and its MLAs, inaugurated its own division of the RCMP, and held its first session of the legislature.

Marvellous Maps

There will also be a full measure of pomp and ceremony. At a community feast, Prime Minister Jean Chretien and Governor General Romeo LeBlanc will get a chance to sample traditional northern delicacies including caribou and raw seal.

The formation of Nunavut is the first redrawing of the Canadian map since the entry of Newfoundland — which celebrated its 50th anniversary yesterday.

The new territory, formed from the eastern half of the old Northwest Territories, will cover 2.2 million square kilometres of tundra, ice cap and rock, frozen coast — more than twice the area of Ontario.

That vast expanse is populated by only about 25,000 people — not even enough to fill a football stadium. About 85 per cent are Inuit who face unemployment, poverty, low education and substance abuse. (Source: Canadian Press)

Part of a traveller Editorial Cartoon Expo organized by the Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami called Polar Lines. Profile by the Nunatsiaq News.  Post by Guy Badeaux at Bado’s Blog.

Letter to the Editor

April 8, 1999, The Hamilton Spectator

Trivial and Stereotypical Nunavut Cartoon

Letters were written complaining about my perpetuation of stereotypes regarding Canada’s far north and the people who inhabit the region. I think people took particular umbrage at my reference to the “Eskimo Pie Factory”. During my childhood my grandmother often offered my siblings and I “Eskimo Pies”, rectangular shaped chocolate covered ice cream wrapped in paper. What seemed to be inoffensive in 1979, caused some to bristle, as demonstrated in the letter to the editor in1999, and is completely accepted as offensive to Canadians in 2019.

As social science teachers we frequently use political cartoons as teaching tools.

Students come to appreciate that, in a democratic society such as ours, discussion, dissent and debate are encouraged and that the opinion pages of newspapers provide a forum for public comment.

Whenever students consider an editorial or political cartoon, they assess whether it is fair. In our view, cartoonist Graeme MacKay’s Nunavut cartoon published April 1 provides a prime example of unfair and inappropriate commentary.

As teachers, we must always strive to provide a balanced view of events while demonstrating a sensitivity to all those involved; this certainly is essential with the present situation in Kosovo.

Unfortunately, all that MacKay has accomplished in his cartoon is to provide a tired stereotype of Canada’s North as a barren and frozen wasteland (eg. Gawdforsaken Island) of little value (eg. affordable beach-front property) and only suited for “Eskimo Pie” making and “cryogenic cadaver storage.”

To trivialize the historic Nunavut agreement regarding land settlement and aboriginal rights in this manner is insensitive and insulting. In the final analysis, MacKay has provided students with an example of how some political cartoons can be humourless and tasteless.

K. Darby, J. Kerr-Wilson, J. Lindeman, S. Lindeman, M. Livadiotakis, D. Patterson, P. Shuttleworth, BZamojc, Social Science Department, M.M. Robinson High School, Burlington.

Commentary, By Graeme MacKay, August 2, 2006

I’ve always been fascinated by maps. When I was a kid I declared to anyone who would listen that when I grew up I was going to work as a “mapmaker”. To train myself I would copy maps out of atlases and try to squeeze as many place names and geographic features as possible. Then I later found out that the correct name for “map making” was “cartography” and that in order to become a cartographer you had to be a whiz in mathematics. Knowing myself to be one of world’s worst math students on record I knew my dream of drawings maps for a living would never pan out.

Cartoonists have followed in the steps of previous generations who have found amusement in combining satire with maps. So I can only admire them as an observer. Some examples of maps be found through these Pinterest pages. Many of the example are, or inspired by the engravings of William Harvey, an English satirist working in the 1860’s. Upon their first publication, the artist described these maps as “humorous outlines of various countries, with an introduction and descriptive lines,” intended to make geography enjoyable and accessible to children. By today’s standards, some of these pictures might appear stereotypical, and even slightly offensive. However, at the time, they were quite popular, and they reflect the contemporary conceptions (or misconceptions) of these countries. Here are my maps drawn in the past 6 or so years, inspired by the works of artists like William Harvey:

May 9, 2006
September 28, 2004
September 14, 2004
May 30, 2003
June 20, 2002
May 16, 2002
December 16, 2000

Wednesday January 17, 1999

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Wednesday January 17, 1999

Mr. Martin plays it safe

Paul Martin’s second straight balanced budget won’t thrill anyone, and that’s probably a good thing.

Once again, the finance minister and Liberal-leader-in-waiting has proven himsel f the consummate juggler by doing something for nearly everyone and not taking any risks. He and his government will be roundly criticized in days to come, but that’s to be expected. Let’s face it, government budgets are as much about spin and strategy as they are about substance. There is so much flexibility and interpretation in revenue and spending figures, the auditor general won’t even sign off on the budget. Federal finance ministers and their provincial counterparts routinely under- and
over-estimate to suit their political purposes, and Martin is no exception.

None of this is to suggest the budget isn’t important — it is. It speaks volumes about the Liberal strategy for governing. Based on what we saw from Martin yesterday, the Liberals are opting for the strategic status quo: Ultra-cautious management and very specifically-targeted new program spending.

Martin recognizes the need for tax cuts, health care reinvestment, research funding and support for the cash-strapped military, but he also recognizes that the single biggest threat to stability and prosperity is the national debt. When Martin took over as finance minister, 36 cents of every tax dollar went to pay interest on the public debt. Today, that figure has dropped to 27 cents. That’s significant progress, attributable to government spending restraint, a vibrant economy and low interest rates. However, we’re still spending more than a quarter of all public revenue to service debt. That’s about $41 billion per year, more than the feds spend on old age pensions, health care and unemployment benefits combined. This massive load will only get heavier with the passage of time, our aging population and increased demand on social services. So Martin is quite right to resist calls for drastic, across the board tax cuts and opt instead to maintain debt reduction as a priority.

He’s also right to recognize the increasing national anxiety about deteriorating health care. But here, Martin is less forthright with Canadians. Yes, the budget amounts to a considerable transfer payment increase that will go toward bolstering health care, provided provincial premiers keep their commitment made during social union negotiations. But as Martin admitted, this investment only restores health care funding to mid-’90s levels. It will relieve some pressure, but is nowhere near enough to completely restore levels of care. More importantly, this budget does nothing to accommodate the future. In the next decade, our rapidly aging population will place increasing demands on health care, and in the absence of less expensive, more effective forms of community-based care, this problem will not go away.

Martin’s critics will rail over the modest tax cuts in this budget. Their arguments have some merit. We are among the most taxed people in the developed world, a sad fact which makes our economy less competitive and Canadian families less prosperous. Could Martin have done more? Yes. Should he have done more, given other priorities like health care, debt reduction and global economic uncertainty caused by Asian and South American flu? No. There is modest tax relief in this budget, and there will be considerably more in next year’s. That’s an acceptable compromise.

We give mixed reviews to other initiatives unveiled in the budget. We welcome renewed investment in our military, but note the amount allocated is far less than what is needed to give our soldiers a decent living wage. Similarly, increases in research spending are welcome, but still leave Canadian researchers far behind their counterparts elsewhere. We wish Martin had announced spending cuts in some areas, like regional development, the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation and business subsidies. These are all areas better dealt with by the private sector, leaving Ottawa to direct the money saved to other more essential areas.

In the days to come, we’ll look in more detail at some of the programs announced in the budget. For now, we’ll retire to study Martin’s latest opus, and fervently hope that next time Canadians are subjected to a budget speech, it’s half the length of this one. (Hamilton Spectator Editorial, A10, 2/17/1999)

 

Tuesday January 12, 1999

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator Ð Tuesday January 12, 1999 Time for a new look at Cuba It has taken almost 40 years, but the United States is finally beginning to realize that its hard line toward Cuba has failed. President Bill Clinton, better late than never, is recognizing that the trade embargo against Cuba is an ineffective way to promote democracy and human rights in Fidel Castro's dictatorship. Sadly, however, prospects for a rapid thaw in the costly deep freeze between Cuba and the U.S. remain elusive. Two obstacles -- Clinton's reluctance to take bold action to ease the embargo, and Castro's hostility to even limited American overtures toward Cuba -- keep Washington and Havana in a no-win stand-off. It doesn't make sense. An end to American economic sanctions on Cuba can't come a moment too soon. Lifting the embargo has the most potential to force Castro's repressive regime to change. Clinton took a helpful, if modest, step to break the ice last week. He announced a further loosening of sanctions against Cuba, such as expanding direct charter flights to the island, allowing direct mail service, and encouraging exchanges of athletes, scientists and other professionals. Building on an easing of the embargo last March, Clinton is making a tacit admission that American policy toward Cuba is failing. The Americans are heading down the road of dialogue and engagement toward Cuba, as Canada has done for decades. But Clinton is moving too slowly, evidently for fear of upsetting the anti-Castro lobby in Florida and hardline Republican congressmen. A growing number of influential political and business voices want Clinton to take more dramatic action. A non-partisan commission, including Republican heavyweights such as former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, volunteered to study alternative policies toward Cuba. Clinton should take that opportunity. If the U.S. were to end the embargo,ÊÊCastro would be deprived of his most potent p

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator –  Tuesday January 12, 1999

Time for a new look at Cuba

It has taken almost 40 years, but the United States is finally beginning to realize that its hard line toward Cuba has failed. President Bill Clinton, better late than never, is recognizing that the trade embargo against Cuba is an ineffective way to promote democracy and human rights in Fidel Castro’s dictatorship. Sadly, however, prospects for a rapid thaw in the costly deep freeze between Cuba and the U.S. remain elusive.

Two obstacles — Clinton’s reluctance to take bold action to ease the embargo, and Castro’s hostility to even limited American overtures toward Cuba — keep Washington and Havana in a no-win stand-off. It doesn’t make sense. An end to American economic sanctions on Cuba can’t come a moment too soon. Lifting the embargo has the most potential to force Castro’s repressive regime to change.

Clinton took a helpful, if modest, step to break the ice last week. He announced a further loosening of sanctions against Cuba, such as expanding direct charter flights to the island, allowing direct mail service, and encouraging exchanges of athletes, scientists and other professionals. Building on an easing of the embargo last March, Clinton is making a tacit admission that American policy toward Cuba is failing. The Americans are heading down the road of dialogue and engagement toward Cuba, as Canada has done for decades. But Clinton is moving too slowly, evidently for fear of upsetting the anti-Castro lobby in Florida and hardline Republican congressmen.

In May 2014, Graeme and other Canadian editorial cartoonists travelled to Cuba

In May 2014, Graeme and other Canadian editorial cartoonists travelled to Cuba

A growing number of influential political and business voices want Clinton to take more dramatic action. A non-partisan commission, including Republican heavyweights such as former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, volunteered to study alternative policies toward Cuba. Clinton should take that opportunity. If the U.S. were to end the embargo,  Castro would be deprived of his most potent propaganda weapon, his litany of complaints about the U.S.

Castro is as much to blame for the paralysis as unsuccessful American policy. Apart from occasional public relations gestures, s uch as Pope John Paul’s visit last year,  Castro shows little interest in easing the harsh realities of his regime. He has long insisted that Cuba will not allow democratic elections. True to form,  Castro’s government denounced Clinton’s latest overtures. Castro would have reciprocated if he was truly interested in helping ordinary Cubans to survive the hardships of the embargo. The sanctions cost Cuba an estimated $800-million (U.S.) every year.

The aging dictator’s refusal to co-operate with the U.S. dampens hopes for an early transition to democracy. Perhaps he’ll listen to Canada, a big supplier of foreign investment and tourists. Foreign Affairs Minister Lloyd Axworthy last week urged Castro to release more political dissidents. Cuba freed several political prisoners after Prime Minister Jean Chretien visited last year. There was no immediate sign that Castro would budge this time.

Few leaders are as intractable and short-sighted as Castro. However, that doesn’t excuse the mistakes made by the U.S. in Cuban policy. As long as the American embargo remains,  Castro will continue a propaganda war that helps him — but doesn’t do anything for long-suffering Cubans. (Source: Hamilton Spectator editorial)

 

Saturday May 31, 1997

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Saturday May 31, 1997

Our hopes for the future

Our election ballot Monday must prepare our country for the challenges ahead. We must position our leaders, such as Jean Charest, where they will preserve Canada.The prospect of Preston Manning’s Reform Party forming the official Opposition after Monday’s federal election is deeply disturbing. Yes, Manning’s stance on separation better reflects the views of average Canadians, compared to the tired rhetoric of appeasement flowing from the Liberal and Progressive Conservative parties. But beyond that single issue, Reform offers no viable vision for a strong, unified country.

Yet, largely due to an inept, cynical Liberal election call and campaign, Reform as the official Opposition is a very likely outcome of the vote. That Manning’s party of western discontent is a better alternative than the destructive Bloc Quebecois is cold comfort.

A Progressive Conservative Opposition would be infinitely better for Canada, and for Ontario.

It’s true that the Progressive Conservative and Reform policy platforms are very similar. Both call for tax cuts, which are unproven as a job creation device. Both do little to address environmental concerns. Both propose accelerating government spending cu ts, but the truth is Canadians are happy for the most part with the progress made by Finance Minister Paul Martin in reducing the deficit and getting federal spending under control. Given that Tory and Reform policies are similar in so many ways, why install Jean Charest as Opposition leader?
Leadership.

Jean Charest has demonstrated he has more to offer personally than any of the other party leaders. His youthful energy and intellectual sincerity appeal to Canadians, but he offers more than a good sound-bite and an engaging television presence. Charest is passionate about a united Canada, and that devotion is going to be called upon in the near future. Another divisive, manipulative campaign will be launched by the separatists, probably right after the Supreme Court spells out the rules around secession. Charest has already pledged he will set aside partisan concerns and fight for a united Canada, just as he did last time we went through this frightening, tiresome exercise. He can be most effective in the unity battle if the Conservatives wear the Opposition mantle.

Charest’s Conservatives have a national philosophy, a rich history and a vision of the future that starts with the country being united. Even where Reform and Conservative policies overlap, Reform would go further, faster, with little regard for maintaining a strong federal voice. In the end, Reform is about protest.

Indignant Reformers will insist theirs is a national party. Reformers are anti-separatist, not anti-Quebec, they proclaim. But if Manning’s party is serious about inclusion, why are only 11 Reform candidates running in Quebec’s 75 ridings?
And what of the Liberals? Jean Chretien called an election at the wrong time, for the wrong reasons. His party will pay the price. Far from being the last national party, the Liberals could end up being Ontario’s party in a fractured Parliament. But it’s clear they will be returned to power for another term.

If that’s the case, one thing is abundantly clear.

The Liberals must begin to plan for Jean Chretien’s departure. He was the right politician for the time, when Canadians were dealing with the Mulroney government and its legacy of broken promises. Chretien has an uncanny ability to forge a connection and engender empathy if not trust.

But the Chretien era must end. He is not the man to lead us in celebrating the new millennium. He is certainly not the leader to guide this country through another ugly debate over Quebec’s future.

While there is no arguing Chretien’s contribution in the past, the sad fact is he is no longer appealing in Quebec, and so is among the best weapons the separatists have in their meagre arsenal. Chretien must gracefully step aside. Paul Martin, who has engineered the Liberals single biggest legitimate accomplishment by effectively managing the economy and reducing the deficit, is the logical replacement. Martin is respected for his fiscal conservatism, and may even be an asset in Quebec.

On Tuesday morning, the Liberals will govern. The question is, who will be second? If enough of us vote strategically and look seriously at credible Progressive Conservative candidates, perhaps Jean
Charest will be where he’ll do the most good for Canada. And Preston Manning will get the role he deserves, as a regional voice of discontent. (Hamilton Spectator, 5/31/1997, B4)

 

Wednesday May 7, 1997

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Wednesday May 7, 1997

NDP’s ideas may be old, but they’re not stale

The last time I recall my morning paper giving heartfelt advice to Alexa McDonough, the NDP leader, was on the occasion of the federal by-election in Hamilton East. The vacancy in Hamilton East was what is nowadays called a “virtual” vacancy in that it was created by the virtual resignation of the sitting member, Sheila Copps, who is the ritual deputy prime minister, mock minister of t he environment, and the government’s let’s-pretend-friend of the CBC. She was resigning her seat in order to seek official atonement for being unable to persuade, as promised earlier, to eliminate the GST by increasing mothers’ allowances and ridding the Great Lakes of conger eels.

Attired in the most fashionable of sackcloth haut couture, the first female deputy prime minister in Canadian history fell weeping upon the shoulders of the good voters of Hamilton East, beseeching their forgiveness for nothing, after all, more than an excess of zeal. And it was midst this thick mist of Liberal lachrymation that my morning paper proposed that the NDP leader test her voter appeal; kamikaze pilots have had better advice from their chaplains. McDonough chose not to run, but filed instead for the seat in her hometown and native province on the occasion of the next grand assize.

All this came to mind when, after the NDP met in Regina to produce its election manifesto, my morning paper filed an editorial complaint under the heading of “New Democrats, old ideas.” This suggested to me that relations between the NDP leader and the editorial board had further deteriorated since her abandonment of Hamilton East. Once into the text, this indeed proved true.

To begin with, the NDP leader has expressed the opinion her party was unlikely to form the next government. It would, however, like to win enough seats in the coming election to be a presence in the next Parliament – anything from a dozen to 40 would be nice, any more than that unlikely but welcome. Unaccustomed to the lack of puffery, critics of McDonough have come unnerved, my morning paper amon g them: “The problem is as long as the New Democrats aspire to Opposition, the longer they will remain there. . . Opposition demands a different calculation and generates a different expectation than government. It allows a less ambitious, less rigorous view of the world, unchallenged by the discipline of power.”

None of this is so, even in the most rudimentary sense. It is like saying the Liberals, in 1993, promised to eliminate the GST, revise the free trade pact with the Great Neighbor, stabilize the funding for the CBC, and do an incredibly better job of creating jobs for Canadians of all ages, and all this implausible promising which all turned out to be impossible of delivery was made because the Liberals had “a less rigorous view of the world” and secretly hoped to remain in Opposition. The NDP might not be able to do half what they say they would do, if elected to govern, but they would likely try harder than the Liberals to keep their word.

Indeed, the rap on the NDP platform is that it promises to make good on some broken Liberal promises. Old stuff, according to my morning paper, and its boardroom constituents. What’s new – as compared to what’s old – in the world of ideas is “reduced unemployment benefits, however imperfect” and reduced “abuses.” This latter is a reference to reform of benefits for the poor, which has been a new idea for the privileged since the Poor Law Amendments of 1834.

Back then – 163 years ago – public assistance to the poor was made conditional on their being put to work. Strong argument was made, by the intellectual forbears of today’s neo-conservatives, against the provision of meals for hungry school children. In the words of one of the neo-cons of that day, “To feed a child is to give relief to its parents – to undermine their independence and self-reliance.”

The difference between the Bleak House of Charles Dickens and the Common Sense Revolution of Mike Harris is that the latter has the endorsement of my morning paper, and three of the four principal political parties running candidates in the federal election to come. The Liberals, from fiscal 1996 to 1999, will cut almost $28 billion from the Canada Assistance Plan. As a result, the poor will be poorer still and their children at greater risk.

The NDP begins its campaign by admitting it is not likely to win it. This must be compared to the predictions of Preston Manning who has promised to win a majority of the seats, including a good handful in Quebec. Manning is my morning paper’s kind of politician, the familiar windbag. But he is as likely to become the next prime minister of Canada as, well, the Reverend Al Sharpton.

It seems to me the NDP’s value to the debate is that the party represents ideas about politics and government that have been absent since the electoral aberrations of 1993 and have been sorely missed. Some of the ideas are old, but as the Conservatives once believed, such was a good part of their virtue. Even so, for those who like their ideas old – as in cheese – some of those being retailed by other parties in today’s contest predate the Industrial Revolution and the invention of income tax. (F3, 4/20/1997, Toronto Star by Dalton Camp, political commentator and broadcaster.)