castle

Wednesday October 26, 2016

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator Ð Wednesday October 26, 2016

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Wednesday October 26, 2016

The collapse of the EU/Canada landmark deal shows how the EU sets itself up for failure

The European Union is on the brink of witnessing a landmark free-trade deal crumble before its very eyes.

But the structure of the EU effectively allows the likelihood of these kinds of deals to collapse at the very last minute, said a trade expert to Business Insider.

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator Ð Thursday October 20, 2016 Trade minister Freeland meets with Wallonia leader in effort to save CETA deal Federal Trade Minister Chrystia Freeland met Wednesday with the head of Wallonia in an effort to save a trade deal with the European Union that could collapse if the small Belgium region does not support it by Friday. A spokeswoman for Freeland says she met with Wallonia President Paul Magnette, who earlier Wednesday said his region could not sign on to the deal by Friday, which has been set as a deadline to get the last of the 28 EU nations on board. Anne-Louise Chauvette says the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, also known as CETA, is a priority for the federal government and it is working hard with its European partners so that it can be approved and implemented next year. The Wallonia vote has created headaches for Belgium's national government because its constitution gives its three regional governments Ñ Wallonia being one of them Ñ a potential veto over CETA, which has been seven years in the making. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is scheduled to fly to Brussels next week to sign the agreement should it be unanimously approved by the EU. (Source: CBC) http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/ceta-wallonia-save-trade-deal-1.3812570 Canada, Belgium, Wallonia, Walloon, EU, trade, deal, CETA, Justin Trudeau, Chrystia Freeland,Êmanneken pis

October 20, 2016

CETA, a proposed free-trade arrangement between the 28-nation bloc and Canada, looks set to collapse after the Belgian region of Wallonia refused to support the deal on Monday.

The deal has taken over seven years to negotiate, with talks between the EU and Canada beginning in 2009.

Failure to push it through would be a serious blow to the Union, as it would cast serious doubt on its ability to strike any future trade deal, including with post-Brexit Britain.

Donald Tusk, the European Council president, hinted that failure to complete CETA would make striking a similar deal with Britain once it withdraws from the bloc almost impossible.

“If you are not able to convince people that trade agreements are in their interests … we will have no chance to build public support for free trade, and I am afraid that means that CETA could be our last free-trade agreement,” he said. (Source: Business Insider UK)

 

Monday September 26, 2016

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator - Monday September 26, 2016 Encroaching Monster Homes Communities change whether we like it or not. The question of whether they change for better or worse is a matter of opinion and interpretation. Meanwhile, growing pains are inevitable no matter how a community evolves. Sometimes, unchecked sprawl outward can lead to unaffordable costs for services in future. Sometimes, unplanned growth upward can lead to inner city problems Ð anything from increased traffic to a lack of sunlight. Sometimes infill projects are simply out of place. So thereÕs nothing wrong with considered management of change and thoughtful care in planning and redevelopment.Ê But too many homeowners are needlessly concerned with sameness in their communities. And too many are unwilling to accept change as inevitable. Just because a community is built with similar homes, on identical lots with homogenous landscaping, doesnÕt mean it has to stay that way. So the current debate in places such as Ancaster about the appropriateness of so-called ÒmonsterÓ homes in already well-to-do neighbourhoods may be a useful exercise, but residents and the city will need to remind themselves that the status quo will never be acceptable. After all, the lots in that area are already huge by most peopleÕs standards, and the existing houses are not exactly small, no matter how you measure it. HumanityÕs desire for something ever bigger, ever better is unlikely to be quelled by upset neighbours, well-meaning council representatives or dialogue, however useful, at a town-hall meeting. Neither are such forces restricted to places like Ancaster. Downtown Hamilton, indeed downtowns everywhere, are facing a massive influx of new residents with new ideas and new needs. Gentrification has somehow become a dirty word, but in fact it is neither bad nor good. It simply is inevitable. We can do our best as community builders to accommodate social housing, creat

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Monday September 26, 2016

Encroaching Monster Homes

Communities change whether we like it or not. The question of whether they change for better or worse is a matter of opinion and interpretation.

Meanwhile, growing pains are inevitable no matter how a community evolves. Sometimes, unchecked sprawl outward can lead to unaffordable costs for services in future. Sometimes, unplanned growth upward can lead to inner city problems – anything from increased traffic to a lack of sunlight. Sometimes infill projects are simply out of place.

So there’s nothing wrong with considered management of change and thoughtful care in planning and redevelopment.

But too many homeowners are needlessly concerned with sameness in their communities. And too many are unwilling to accept change as inevitable.

Just because a community is built with similar homes, on identical lots with homogenous landscaping, doesn’t mean it has to stay that way.

So the current debate in places such as Ancaster about the appropriateness of so-called “monster” homes in already well-to-do neighbourhoods may be a useful exercise, but residents and the city will need to remind themselves that the status quo will never be acceptable.

After all, the lots in that area are already huge by most people’s standards, and the existing houses are not exactly small, no matter how you measure it.

Humanity’s desire for something ever bigger, ever better is unlikely to be quelled by upset neighbours, well-meaning council representatives or dialogue, however useful, at a town-hall meeting.

Neither are such forces restricted to places like Ancaster. Downtown Hamilton, indeed downtowns everywhere, are facing a massive influx of new residents with new ideas and new needs.

Gentrification has somehow become a dirty word, but in fact it is neither bad nor good. It simply is inevitable. We can do our best as community builders to accommodate social housing, create mixed-use communities, and make neighbourhoods welcoming to everyone, but we cannot stop those who can afford it from fixing up old houses and making them unaffordable for low-income renters.

We can restrict heights, plan for careful placement and perhaps even design of high-rise towers, not stop condominiums from being built downtown. Indeed, such intensification is necessary if we are to continue to keep taxes affordable.

Hamilton, as much and probably more than most cities in the current era, is facing tumultuous change which many oppose simply because it is change. If Hamilton is to continue to thrive as a city and ride the current wave of prosperity that is upon us, we must all embrace change – and embrace the future. (Source: Hamilton Spectator Editorial)

 

Wednesday March 30, 2016

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator Ð Wednesday March 30, 2016 Ontario, the Wild West of Political fundraising Kathleen WynneÕs Liberals will rake in roughly $3 million in a single fundraiser Wednesday night. At their sumptuous Heritage Dinner, ÒVictory TablesÓ are priced at $18,000 for corporate high-flyers, and the biggest donors are feted at a private cocktail reception by a grateful premier. But thatÕs only half the story of how the governing party raises big money. In Ontario, the Wild West of fundraising, cabinet ministers are assigned secret targets as high as $500,000 a year, the Star has learned. The unsavoury spectacle of OntarioÕs politicians supplicating big business and big labour for events such as the Heritage Dinner is only a small piece of the fundraising puzzle glimpsed by the public. Beyond the showy hobnobbing, shadowy appeals by cabinet ministers for corporate money are the untold story at QueenÕs Park. Corporate and union contributions that Wynne persists in publicly defending create a demonstrable conflict of interest for cabinet ministers, which is why they were banned for federal parties in 2006, and are no longer legal in four other provinces. And yet, according to multiple sources, top cabinet ministers at QueenÕs Park are given financial targets that are typically in the range of $250,000 annually Ñ double that amount in some cases. These quasi-quotas are never written down, conveyed instead by the Ontario Liberal Fund through confidential meetings and phone calls. They are the price of admission to power, revealed here for the first time, and they are astonishingly high. The two most marketable ministers are Charles Sousa, the minister of finance, and Eric Hoskins, who helms the provinceÕs $52-billion health care budget. Both are expected to bring in as much as $500,000 a year, well-placed sources have confirmed. SousaÕs control of the provincial treasury, tax policy and auto insurance makes him a prime t

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Wednesday March 30, 2016

Ontario, the Wild West of Political fundraising

Kathleen Wynne’s Liberals will rake in roughly $3 million in a single fundraiser Wednesday night.

Fun with Queen’s Park

At their sumptuous Heritage Dinner, “Victory Tables” are priced at $18,000 for corporate high-flyers, and the biggest donors are feted at a private cocktail reception by a grateful premier. But that’s only half the story of how the governing party raises big money.

In Ontario, the Wild West of fundraising, cabinet ministers are assigned secret targets as high as $500,000 a year, the Star has learned.

The unsavoury spectacle of Ontario’s politicians supplicating big business and big labour for events such as the Heritage Dinner is only a small piece of the fundraising puzzle glimpsed by the public. Beyond the showy hobnobbing, shadowy appeals by cabinet ministers for corporate money are the untold story at Queen’s Park.

Corporate and union contributions that Wynne persists in publicly defending create a demonstrable conflict of interest for cabinet ministers, which is why they were banned for federal parties in 2006, and are no longer legal in four other provinces.

And yet, according to multiple sources, top cabinet ministers at Queen’s Park are given financial targets that are typically in the range of $250,000 annually — double that amount in some cases. These quasi-quotas are never written down, conveyed instead by the Ontario Liberal Fund through confidential meetings and phone calls.

They are the price of admission to power, revealed here for the first time, and they are astonishingly high.

The two most marketable ministers are Charles Sousa, the minister of finance, and Eric Hoskins, who helms the province’s $52-billion health care budget. Both are expected to bring in as much as $500,000 a year, well-placed sources have confirmed.

Sousa’s control of the provincial treasury, tax policy and auto insurance makes him a prime target for lobbyists in the banking and insurance industries. But Hoskins is also in high demand because of his regulatory authority over drug companies and nursing home conglomerates.

That’s why Hoskins was the big draw for the Ontario Long Term Care Association at an event organized with the Liberal Fund last year, which offered “an unprecedented opportunity only for OLTCA members” where they could “discuss the sector with the minister, up close and personal.” (Source: Toronto Star)