Canada – Page 344 – mackaycartoons

Tuesday June 13, 2000

June 13, 2000 by Graeme MacKay

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Tuesday June 13, 2000

Mulroney settles old scores

By wading single-mindedly back into the pool of partisan politics, what did Brian Mulroney accomplish? Well, to start with, he settled seven years’ worth of old scores against Jean Chretien.

For a man who always said he’d never second-guess another prime minister in office, Mulroney sure tossed his old vow out the window.

For more than an hour, Mulroney delighted a clutch of long-time associates, such as ex-Tory ministers Sinclair Stevens and Tom Siddon, former aides and local Tory faithful, with as partisan a stump speech as any ex-prime minister has ever delivered.

By the time he was through, Mulroney had ridiculed Chretien for his performances on the international scene, called him a caddie of American President Bill Clinton for his golfing relationship with his U.S. counterpart, and described his successor’s national unity politics as providing a road map to separation through his clarity bill on Quebec secession.

Mulroney’s comments went well beyond his usually glowing self-evaluation of his own Tory policies, or Pierre Trudeau’s focused criticism of specific national unity initiatives.

At one point, the former prime minister actually urged Canadians to “axe Chretien” in the next election, a rare call from the mouth of one who has technically joined the ranks of elder statesmen.

But then, Mulroney sounded more like a campaigning leader than a political retiree throughout, even putting forward his idea of an agenda for the next Canadian government — with debt reduction, taxes and constitutional reconciliation with Quebec topping the list.

Until he came to talking about Joe Clark, an hour into his speech, anyone catching it might have had a hard time reconciling his partisan rhetoric with his current status.

Surely, no one unfamiliar with Canadian politics could have surmised that this was a man who was supposed to have watched the action from the safe distance of retirement for the better part of a decade. Retired he may be, detached he is not.

By reminding the Tories of their glory days, Mulroney probably also made party loyalists feel good about themselves, a rare feeling these days.

It took him an hour to finally come around to praising his successor and former rival, Clark, the man to whose rescue he was supposed to be coming to with this speech. When he finally did, Mulroney was generous and gracious. Indeed, one would be hard-pressed to imagine Trudeau ever having such kind words about either John Turner or even Chretien.

Whether his influence extends much beyond this tightly knit circle, though, very much remains to be seen. As opposed to Trudeau, Mulroney’s audience now that he is out of office seems to have shrunk.

Thus, for his first substantial Tory outing in years, Mulroney had to make do with the strictly local venue of a suburban golf club. And ultimately, precious few of the key figures of his two governments were on hand to witness his return to centre stage.

Minutes after Mulroney left Markham, Jim Jones, the MP at whose invitation he had spoken, would still not guarantee he would run as a Tory in the next election.

As for Clark himself, who will go out of his way for TV exposure these days, he was thousands of kilometres away, campaigning in Calgary Centre.

Even in his current predicament, the Tory leader has not come around to the notion that having his picture taken alongside Mulroney is a great career move. Whether he likes it or not, the message seemed to be that he is not quite that desperate yet.

But then, when all is said and done, Mulroney had come to Markham mostly to bury Preston Manning, rather than to resurrect Clark.

Throughout his speech, he purposely ignored Stockwell Day and Tom Long, the other two main Alliance leadership contenders; the better to drive home his point that Manning has done such irreparable harm to the Conservative party as to make consorting with him a non-starter.

Afterwards, he predicted that Manning had the race sewn up and said that was good news for the Tories.

In so doing, Mulroney probably helped Clark less than he did Day and Long. By saying if Manning becomes the new right-wing party’s leader that would be the best thing that could happen to the Conservative party, Mulroney probably gave his main rivals a bit of a lift as the Alliance campaign enters the home-stretch. – Chantal Hebert (Hamilton Spectator, C2, 6/12/2000)

*** Joe Clark: The Charlie Brown of Canadian Politics ***

Looking back on my 2000 editorial cartoon, portrayed Brian Mulroney earnestly attempting to rehabilitate his political image, a recurring theme I drew out in his post Prime Ministerial years, with a focus on his backhanded effort to support Joe Clark, then the leader of the Progressive Conservative Party, by repairing the shambles of the Progressive Conservative house he was fervently trying to restore.

The accompanying article by Chantal Hebert shed light on Mulroney’s return to partisan politics and his settling of old scores against Jean Chrétien. Despite the supposed mission to support Clark’s leadership, Mulroney’s partisan rhetoric and focus on other political figures overshadowed his praise for Clark, depicting the latter as the eternal “Charlie Brown of Canadian history.” This portrayal reflects the challenges and dynamics within the Progressive Conservative party during that period and captures a moment of political vulnerability for Joe Clark.

March 2, 2024

Fast forward to 2024, with Mulroney’s recent passing, the reviews of his life are mostly eulogized narratives of reverence bordering on glorification. Such is the tendency when significant national figures like Prime Ministers pass away – when the misty-eyed get their final say in mourning before it’s decent enough for historians to add their takes long after the burial ceremony. For myself, I feel a need to atone for any ridicule I may have directed towards these poor souls, so the humanist in me tends to join in with the reverence in the days following such a death. In my recent cartoon, Mulroney and politicians of his era are juxtaposed against the present, highlighting the claimed higher standards of the past. Of course, the notion that Mulroney could disagree without being disagreeable only adds to the giant crock of the current eulogized narrative.

In this reflection, two cartoons from different eras come together, showcasing enduring themes of political image management, challenges faced by leaders, and the tendency to selectively remember achievements. Joe Clark’s portrayal in the 2000 cartoon adds depth to the narrative, illustrating the complex interplay of personalities and politics within the Conservative party during that time. As we navigate the ebb and flow of political narratives, these cartoons serve as snapshots in the broader tapestry of Canadian political history. (Graeme MacKay – March 3, 2024)

Saturday May 5, 2000

May 5, 2000 by Graeme MacKay

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Saturday May 5, 2000

Known only to God, a soldier comes home

Who was he? Was he a child of 16, big for his age who had “borrowed” someone else’s birth certificate? Was he a battle-hardened veteran of 25, scarred in mind if not in body? Was he a farm boy? A bank clerk? Was he white or native? Was he an only child or a beloved brother? Was he married? Did he leave children to mourn him? Did he die in an obliterating shellburst? Did he lie bleeding and alone in a muddy crater in No Man’s Land as his life ebbed away?

The Unknown Soldier: Anyone and everyone

We know but this: Once upon a time, someone loved this Canadian. And he died while serving his country.

He is our Unknown Soldier and while it is true he could be any of these things, it is more important to realize that he is all of them. Canada’s soldat inconnu will be laid to his final rest tomorrow beneath the triumphal arch of the National War Memorial in Ottawa. As he has come home, so have all his comrades; as he is recognized, so are they all. He is honoured not for the mystery of who he is, but for the infinite possibility of who he was.

The concept of the Unknown Soldier is rapidly becoming obsolete, at least in this part of the world. Advances in DNA matching means that even the most brutally damaged remains can be identified today. In fact, Canada had to promise the Commonwealth War Graves Commission it would not try to identify these Canadian remains; an American Unknown Soldier was recently identified through testing.

Our Unknown Soldier died somewhere near Vimy Ridge, the crest of land where Canadian soldiers first fought as a national force on Easter Monday 1917. He is one of more than 116,000 Canadians who died in battle in the past century’s wars; one of almost 28,000 of them whose remains were never found or identified. He is one of them; he is all of them.

In the past few years, there has been a resurgence of interest in, and honouring of, the sacrifices of the Canadian men and women who served in the our armed forces. Remembrance Day was marked in this country last November in a more solemn and meaningful way than this country has seen in decades.

There is a remarkable synchronicity in the coming home this week of our Unknown Soldier and the full-honours burial in France a day earlier of David John Carlson, a soldier from Mannville, Alta., who died in the Battle of the Somme. Listed for 80 years as missing in action, his remains recently surfaced in a French farmer’s field. There is no one left alive who knew Private Carlson. Two grand-nieces attended his funeral but could only say they thought he was one of two men in a faded photo. They don’t know which one.

But just as a family tried to remember David Carlson, so Canada can try to remember all those who sacrificed everything — their hopes, their dreams, their futures — for their country.

And tomorrow, as the bones of a young man are interred in a granite sarcophagus in Ottawa, his maple coffin atop soil from each of the provinces and territories and from France where he gave his life, we can honour all those who are known only to God. (Hamilton Spectator Editorial, D6, 5/27/2000)

Friday November 26, 1999

November 26, 1999 by Graeme MacKay

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Friday November 26, 1999

Chretien’s gunslinger act is getting old; UNITY: Questions of style and timing

It is a sad critique of Jean Chretien’s leadership that his announcement on the rules of disengagement for Quebec has been greeted with suspicion of his motives, mystification over his timing and general dismay that the dozing baby of Quebec separatism is about to howl again.

When Chretien said this week Quebec would have to (a) have a clear question and (b) have significantly more than 50 per cent plus one to declare independence, it was widely seen as fanning the dimmed embers of Quebec nationalism. Why now? Why give such a gift to the opportunistic but increasingly lame-duck Lucien Bouchard?

It’s hard to argue with the substance of Chretien’s comments. Indeed, his suggestion that any future Quebec referendum should be on a question as simple as “Do you want Quebec to be a country” is the kind of clear declaration most Canadians want. Too, there’s little wrong with his suggestion that a negotiated split would require 60 per cent or more support in Quebec. It’s disingenuous for Bouchard to thump the tabletop and insist that 50+1 is the sole requirement of a democracy. To argue a country could be shattered on the strength of a single vote is absurdly arrogant.

But Chretien muddies his own waters. There is his own arrogance: “Quebec is my business, sir, ” he pontificated, “and this is the future of Canada.” The Prime Minister would be well-advised to remember that Quebec has been every Canadian’s business for too long. Canadians are suffering from separatism fatigue and Chretien setting himself apart will not rally us to his side. Then there is his unnecessary combativeness. Much of Quebec is accepting, if not embracing, the concept of a united Canada. He must have known his announcement would spark new anger.

Is this a case of building a patriotic legacy before his time as Prime Minister ends? Is this guilt over his “sleepwalking” performance in the last referendum?

Yes, when one spouse is talking divorce, the other spouse has to deal with it. There is never a good time to open an uncomfortable discussion. But we wish our Prime Minister had shown that this is not just another of his odd impulses, like wrestling with protesters and handing out peacekeepers. It’s hard to attribute this sudden burst of patriotic fervour to Chretien’s vision of 21st-century Canada when he has so far shown little sign of having any such vision. (Hamilton Spectator Editorial, A14, 11/26/1999)

Saturday October 2, 1999

October 2, 1999 by Graeme MacKay

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Saturday October 2, 1999

China’s Future Tied to Human Rights Progress

China has much to be proud of as it prepares for the new millennium with aspirations of world leadership. The emerging Asian giant is making remarkable progress in overcoming economic hardship, social turmoil and political isolation despite five decades in the grip of a totalitarian regime. It would be wrong to dismiss the significance of celebrations for the 50th anniversary of Communist rule, even if they are orchestrated by the state.

China is well on the way to wielding tremendous economic and political influence around the globe — a prospect that inspires both hope and fear in the international community. Will China’s leaders use their power to make the world a better place, or will they embark on a dangerous course of sabre-ratting abroad and continued repression at home?

While the Chinese government is kick-starting the once-moribund country by moving to a market economy, it’s not close to accepting all of the responsibilities of becoming a respected member of the family of nations. The paranoid, often ruthless regime maintains a shameful record on human rights, runs roughshod over freedom of the press and religion, and won’t implement democratic reform. Equally disturbing, China is taking an aggressive international posture. That’s evident in China’s bellicose and threatening rhetoric about Taiwan, its harsh criticism of United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan’s recent bid to make the UN the chief arbiter of international disputes, and the giant, Soviet-style parade of military hardware in Beijing this week.

The Western democracies, led by the United States with Canada a prominent member of the cast, must make healthy relations with China a cornerstone of foreign policy. A two-track approach, balanced between the carrot and the stick, is best. We can’t afford to shut the door on closer economic ties with the Chinese — for their sake and ours. But that’s no excuse to softpeddle our concerns about rampant human rights abuses.

The Chretien government, especially, consistently appeases China. Last month Can ada rejected the idea of broadening the scope of the trade-oriented Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation forum to include human rights. Canadian offic ials suggested China might leave APEC if it were criticized. Canada’s experience with Cuba demonstrates that hardline regimes don’t take our professed concerns about human rights seriously.

We shouldn’t hesitate to express our views candidly and publicly, and reinforce them with bold diplomatic steps. There are risks, but strong leadership brings rewards. Democracy and human rights are every bit as important as prosperity for China. Ottawa, and Washington, must send that unequivocal message to Beijing. (Hamilton Spectator Editorial, D12, 10/2/1999)

Saturday August 28, 1999

August 28, 1999 by Graeme MacKay

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Saturday August 28, 1999

The NDP Should Stand its Ground For All Our Sakes

If character can be judged on how well, how strongly, an institution holds to its fundamental beliefs in times of crisis, we fear for the future of the federal New Democratic Party.

So should its members, gathering in Ottawa today and tomorrow for the NDP’s national convention. There, they will argue calls from party leader Alexa McDonough and other party moderates for federal tax cuts and a more “business-friendly” approach by the party. It promises to be a raucous debate: Canadian Auto Workers’ head Buzz Hargrove has already proclaimed that McDonough’s call for tax cuts will “destroy” the party, while the Canadian Labour Congress’s Ken Georgetti says it is necessary to party renewal. We tend — and this might be a first — to agree with Hargrove.

A so-called strategic move to the right would move the NDP into the fuzzy, blurry space occupied by the ever-less-distinguishable Liberals and Tories. Not only would that be a shame, but it might sound the death knell of the party that, to many Canadians, has often seemed the real opposition to the government of the day.

We have never supported the New Democrats as a viable choice for government — old news to the Hamilton area’s labour community that has long been a friend of the NDP — but we have never underestimated the party’s value to Canadians.

The NDP has been far more than a gadfly party espousing contrarian positions. At its best, it has been a national social conscience, reminding Parliament, provincial legislatures and Canadians as a whole of what really matters, especially when times are tough.

Much of what Canadians value about our society and how we define ourselves — including large parts of the social safety net that protects society’s most vulnerable members (and there, but for the grace of God, go all of us) — came out of the windmill-tilting resolve and fervour of NDP leaders Tommy Douglas, David Lewis and Ed Broadbent.

It was most often when the NDP held the balance of power over minority governments that working-class Canadians best saw their needs recognized and met.

Having said that, we cannot blame McDonough and her advisers for looking for new ideas, new proposals, with which to reach out to Canadians. Much of the socialism of the past — nationalization, tax increases for the so-called wealthy that actually penalized middle-class families — simply won’t wash today. Canadians not only know they are over-taxed, but are increasingly demanding relief. They want less government, by and large, not more.

And that is precisely why the NDP — even while modernizing itself — must hold its philosophical ground. It is when Canadians risk becoming selfish — individually and as a society — that we most need the prod to wakefulness, the call to altruism, that the NDP has traditionally provided. Even a starving man needs an angel on his shoulder to remind him to leave something for the next hungry soul.

To cater to the populist, although justified, demand for tax cuts shows a disappointing lack of moral courage.

Yes, it is tough being a socialist these days. Yes, it is lonely always being the third, or fourth, party. No, being a national conscience is not as rewarding as being a prime minister or leader of the opposition.

But seeking party popularity by blurring distinctions can be fatal. The NDP is looking down a road that may well lead to its demise. And Canada would be much the poorer for it. (Hamilton Spectator Editorial, D12, 8/28/1999)