Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, Unpublished – Friday April 18, 2025
A Disservice to Canadian Voters
April 19, 2025
In the throes of an election cycle, Canadian voters find themselves navigating a landscape devoid of fully costed party platforms. As advanced polls open, the absence of detailed fiscal plans from major political players like the Liberals and Conservatives is not just a minor oversight; it’s a reckless disregard for the electorate’s right to informed decision-making.
Party platforms serve as a blueprint for governance, offering insight into priorities and fiscal strategies. They are essential for holding future governments accountable. Yet, here we are, mere weeks from casting ballots, and the fiscal blueprints remain elusive. The Conservatives have pledged to collaborate with the Parliamentary Budget Officer, while the Liberals promise a release before the advanced polls close. However, these assurances come too late in the game, leaving voters with little time to digest and debate the implications of proposed policies.
The recklessness of this approach is underscored by the current economic climate. With Canada facing a third major economic shock in less than two decades—following the 2008 financial crisis, the 2020 pandemic, and now the 2025 US trade conflict—the need for transparent and credible fiscal planning is paramount. Proposals to cut taxes or increase spending should be weighed against the backdrop of economic uncertainty and potential deficits. The lack of detailed platforms raises questions about how these promises will be funded and whether they are fiscally responsible.
Despite this, the reality may be that the absence of costed platforms doesn’t significantly sway most voters. In an age where political campaigns often resemble theatrical performances, filled with grand promises and vague assurances, the specifics of fiscal policy may take a backseat to broader ideological alignments and emotional appeals. Many voters prioritize immediate concerns over long-term fiscal sustainability, trusting party rhetoric over detailed economic assessments.
However, this complacency is a gamble. Without clear plans, voters are left to speculate on the sincerity and feasibility of campaign promises. It allows parties to make grandiose claims without accountability for their financial implications, potentially leading to governance that prioritizes short-term gains over sustainable economic health.
While the absence of costed platforms may not deter most voters, it represents a significant dereliction of political responsibility. It denies Canadians the opportunity to engage in meaningful debate about the future direction of the country. As citizens, we must demand more from our political leaders, insisting on transparency and accountability in their fiscal promises. The stakes are too high to accept anything less.
As the leaders of Canada’s major political parties prepare to take the stage for tonight’s crucial debate, the spectre of Donald Trump’s influence looms large. While domestic issues such as affordability, healthcare, and housing remain critical to Canadians, it is the external pressure from an increasingly autocratic U.S. president that has captured the national focus. Trump’s imposition of tariffs and withdrawal from multilateral agreements has not only strained Canada’s economy but also reshaped the global political landscape, leaving Canada in a precarious position.
The recent comments by White House Press Briefing Room spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt, reiterating Trump’s desire to annex Canada as the 51st state, have only added fuel to the fire. What might seem like bluster or a strategic distraction has tangible effects on Canadian society and politics. This rhetoric, highlighted by Susan Delacourt’s column, underscores Trump’s metaphorical presence in the Canadian election, influencing both policy and public perception.
The implications of Trump’s policies and rhetoric are far-reaching. Canadians are increasingly cashing out their U.S. vacation homes, driven by fears of economic penalties and a sense of unwelcome. As reported by the Wall Street Journal, the political uncertainty has altered shopping patterns and investment decisions, with many Canadians reconsidering their ties to the U.S. This shift is not merely economic but deeply personal, as Canadians grapple with the erosion of goodwill and trust with their southern neighbour.
Tonight’s debate offers a platform for leaders like Mark Carney and Pierre Poilievre to articulate their visions for addressing this complex relationship. Carney’s economic expertise and diplomatic finesse will be tested as he seeks to reassure Canadians of their sovereignty and stability. Poilievre, known for his aggressive stance, will need to demonstrate his capability to handle Trump’s unpredictability while advocating for Canada’s interests.
The stakes are high. Trump’s rhetoric and actions have inserted themselves into the very fabric of Canadian politics, creating a sense of urgency and existential threat. The leaders must confront not only the immediate economic impacts but also the broader implications for Canada’s identity and autonomy.
As Canadians tune in to the debate, they will be looking for leaders who can stand firm against external pressures while fostering a resilient and prosperous nation. Tonight’s discussion will be pivotal in shaping the narrative of Canada’s future, amid the challenges posed by a shifting global order and a neighbour whose policies and rhetoric demand serious consideration. The time for decisive leadership is now, and Canadians will be watching closely to see who can rise to the occasion.
Karoline Leavitt steps into the spotlight from a podium marked “The White House, Washington,” boldly proclaiming, “The President maintains his position that Canadians would benefit greatly by becoming the 51st state.” As Canadian leaders Mark Carney, Jagmeet Singh, Yves-Francois Blanchet, and Pierre Poilievre exchange worried glances, the scene becomes a satirical jab at U.S. influence on Canadian politics. With Trump’s policies already creating economic ripples and Leavitt’s reputation for stirring controversy, the debate feels more like a theatrical performance. Her knack for mixing up pronouns, historical events, and even dinosaurs adds a layer of comedic absurdity, leaving everyone wondering if the true spectacle is the debate or the delightful chaos of her statements.
Check out my making-of animated editorial cartoon for April 17, 2025, below! If you haven’t yet, please subscribe to my Substack newsletter, where I share weekly editorial cartoons every Saturday morning. Substack is a crucial platform for me amidst the uncertainties of being a staff cartoonist, especially given recent layoffs and newspaper closures affecting our field. As long as I hold my position, subscriptions will remain free. Thank you for your support! This “note” helps craft my weekly posts and showcases animated versions of my cartoons. Enjoy!
April 17, 2025 | Trump in the Debate https://youtu.be/7YzWH2iEwYY
Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Wednesday February 19, 2025
The Training of the Seals
February 14, 2025
In our democracy, debates and open conversations are vital. They help ensure that politicians are accountable and transparent. However, in Ontario, there’s a worrying trend: Progressive Conservative (PC) candidates, including their leader Doug Ford, are avoiding public debates and media interactions. This behaviour raises concerns about the health of our democratic process.
Recently, it’s been noted that PC candidates in areas like London are skipping public forums, choosing instead to campaign door-to-door. This strategy denies voters the chance to hear from those who aim to represent them, effectively stifling the democratic process that thrives on public exchange and scrutiny.
Even Doug Ford himself has been absent from media engagements after debates, despite participating in media sessions during a trip to Washington, D.C. This absence is particularly troubling in an election where crucial issues like healthcare and climate policy are at the forefront.
The party’s decision to limit exposure and tightly control messaging may be an attempt to avoid missteps. However, it also suggests a lack of confidence in their candidates’ ability to speak freely and defend their positions. This control creates the impression that candidates are more like puppets, directed by unseen handlers rather than their own beliefs.
This approach is unfair to voters, who deserve representatives willing to engage openly and honestly. It undermines the core of democracy, which relies on diverse viewpoints and rigorous debate for informed decision-making.
Without open engagement, voters are left with a watered-down version of political discourse, lacking the depth needed to address complex issues. This not only limits voters’ ability to make informed choices but also erodes trust in the political system.
As voters, we need to demand more from those who wish to lead. Politicians who avoid scrutiny and debate should face consequences at the polls. Our democratic process isn’t served by candidates who operate behind the scenes, guided by hidden forces.
It’s time for a change. We must insist on transparency, engagement, and accountability from our political leaders. Only then can democracy thrive, providing the insight and debate we need to tackle today’s challenges. As the election approaches, let’s remember the power of our voices and the importance of demanding a political arena where free thought and genuine engagement are the norm.
Will your vote go to the local candidate who doesn’t show up for anything?
It’s pretty disheartening to see so many local candidates skipping out on the all-candidates debates; it’s a clear indicator that the standards in our democratic process are slipping. What’s even more frustrating is that most of these candidates are from the ruling Progressive Conservative party. Ask yourselves: Do you really want someone who’s just toeing the party line representing your interests? It seems like candidates don’t even get the opportunity to demonstrate their capabilities to the local voters anymore. Add to that the lack of political flyers, no door-knocking from candidates or even volunteers, hidden election signs, and minimal media engagement, and it feels like we’re witnessing one of the most invisible election campaigns in Ontario’s history. Maybe this is part of Premier Doug Ford’s plan for the PCs, but it still doesn’t explain why the other parties are so quiet in the 2025 election. Honestly, from where I’m drawing, I haven’t seen much of anything.
Anyway, enjoy my making-of video for February 19, 2025. The Ontario election is just 9 days away…
Kamala Harris Schools Trump in a Debate for the Ages: Why She Emerged as the Clear Winner
July 23, 2024
Kamala Harris didn’t just step onto the debate stage in Philadelphia to spar with Donald Trump; she came to show America why she’s ready to lead. From the opening handshake, when she corrected Trump on the pronunciation of her name, Harris commanded the night with a blend of poise, strategic wit, and prosecutorial precision. By the end of the debate, the contrast between the two candidates couldn’t have been starker.
Harris used the platform to present herself as a leader who understands the weight of the presidency. In an election marked by frustration and fatigue, she spoke to voters yearning for a return to stability and progress. Trump, on the other hand, recycled familiar grievances, doubling down on the rhetoric of a country supposedly in ruins, a narrative we’ve heard before. But Harris wasn’t going to let him off the hook with hyperbole and distortions.
Throughout the debate, Harris gave voters much-needed clarity on her policy vision. She laid out her stance on issues like abortion rights, making an impassioned defence of women’s autonomy. She pointed to her record and articulated plans for the future. Trump, meanwhile, squandered the opportunity to press her on why these proposals weren’t realized during her tenure as vice president. By saving those critiques for his closing remarks, he missed the chance to frame the debate in his favour.
Instead, Trump leaned heavily on apocalyptic themes and inaccurate claims, like when he falsely suggested that migrants in Ohio were “eating people’s pets.” Harris didn’t just respond; she deftly turned his wild statements into opportunities to underscore his penchant for misinformation. When Trump parroted conspiracy theories, she labeled them extreme, reminding voters that Trump represents a brand of chaos that’s all too familiar.
August 24, 2024
One of Harris’s most effective strategies was her ability to reframe the conversation away from Trump’s talking points. Rather than getting bogged down in his falsehoods or allowing him to define her, she kept the focus on his failings as a leader. She pointed to the real-world consequences of Trump’s authoritarian tendencies, his undermining of democratic norms, and his numerous legal troubles.
This was most evident when she spoke about January 6th, saying, “We don’t have to go back.” It was a line that captured her broader message—that America can’t afford to return to the chaos and division Trump represents. While Trump rehashed the past—relitigatting the 2020 election and the indictments against him—Harris offered a vision for moving forward, emphasizing rule of law, democracy, and unity.
Another striking element of the debate was the body language on display. Harris, composed and assured, frequently looked at Trump as she spoke, but he refused to return the gaze. Instead, he stared straight ahead, visibly uncomfortable in her presence. It was a moment that spoke volumes: Trump, the self-proclaimed strongman, appeared rattled, almost unwilling to acknowledge Harris on an equal footing.
Even when she baited him—mocking the dwindling attendance at his rallies and referencing his meandering speeches—Trump couldn’t resist. It was classic Harris, using subtle jabs to throw Trump off balance. And it worked. Trump, more than once, lost his cool and stumbled into defensiveness, exposing his deep insecurities and making it clear that he remains more aggrieved by personal slights than concerned with leading the country.
Perhaps the most brilliant aspect of Harris’s performance was her ability to use her prosecutor skills to box Trump in. She meticulously laid out the case against his presidency, from his admiration for dictators like Viktor Orban to his role in the January 6th insurrection. It wasn’t just a critique of his policies—it was a reminder that Trump has been on trial, literally and figuratively, for his conduct in office.
Her legal training shone through as she baited Trump into defending himself rather than discussing his plans for the future. The more she highlighted his indictments and authoritarian tendencies, the more he floundered, unable to offer voters any tangible vision for a second term. While Trump could have questioned Harris on the Biden administration’s shortcomings, he instead played defence, spending most of his time justifying his past actions.
The debate laid bare a fundamental contrast: Harris represented hope, stability, and a chance to move beyond the chaos of the Trump years. She reminded voters that, while imperfect, democracy is worth defending. Trump, on the other hand, doubled down on the divisive, grievance-driven politics that have defined his career.
Harris’s final message was clear: the future doesn’t have to be a rerun of the last four years. She offered voters a chance to turn the page and move forward, while Trump seemed stuck in the past, clinging to old narratives and old battles. Her calm, collected demeanour underscored this point, contrasting sharply with Trump’s agitated, defensive posture.
By the end of the night, the winner was clear. Kamala Harris not only held her ground against Donald Trump but exposed his weaknesses for all to see. She reminded voters of what’s at stake in 2024: a choice between the chaos of the past and the hope of the future. While Trump’s performance may have fired up his base, Harris spoke to a broader electorate, one tired of the toxic behaviour and eager for a leader who can offer solutions instead of relitigatting old grievances.
Harris didn’t just win this debate; she made a compelling case that she’s the steady hand America needs right now. And in doing so, she reminded everyone that the era of Donald Trump doesn’t have to define America’s future. (AI)
2024 Trump-Harris Debate: Key Takeaways and Implications for the Presidential Race
The first and only scheduled presidential debate between Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump offered a high-stakes showdown, highlighting their stark contrasts. With a tight race and uncertain voter sentiments, this debate provided crucial insights into how the candidates are positioning themselves. Here are four key takeaways that define the debate’s significance:
1. Harris Dominated the Debate by Making It About Trump
Vice President Kamala Harris successfully turned the debate into a referendum on Donald Trump, keeping him on the defensive throughout. Rather than spending much time defining herself, she reminded voters of Trump’s controversies, including his criminal trials, Project 2025, and January 6th. Trump struggled to counter, focusing more on defending himself than attacking Harris or offering detailed policy solutions. This played into Harris’s hands, allowing her to present a vision for stability and less chaos, while Trump seemed to be reliving his past presidency rather than proposing a future.
2. Trump’s Fact-Checking Problems
Trump’s debate strategy was riddled with misinformation. He perpetuated numerous debunked claims, including exaggerated statements about abortion, crime rates, and undocumented immigration. Perhaps most notably, he shared a baseless rumour about Haitian immigrants stealing pets in Ohio, which his own running mate, J.D. Vance, had already walked back earlier in the day. Trump’s reliance on far-right conspiracies and discredited information only widened the perception gap, as Harris called out these extremes.
3. Harris’s Impassioned Case on Abortion
One of Harris’s strongest moments came when she spoke on abortion. She addressed Republican-controlled states banning abortion with no exceptions for rape and incest, describing the impact on young girls and working-class women with palpable passion. Trump, by contrast, pivoted to false claims about Democrats’ stance on late-term abortions. Harris’s empathetic and direct approach on this divisive issue resonated strongly, contrasting Trump’s evasions.
4. Immigration: Trump’s Singular Focus
Trump dedicated a significant portion of the debate to the issue of undocumented immigrants, consistently bringing the conversation back to crime and illegal immigration. However, his claims, including allegations of rampant crime by immigrants, were undercut by misinformation. Harris responded by highlighting Trump’s failure to pass immigration reform, accusing him of preferring to campaign on the issue rather than solve it. Her endorsement of a bipartisan Senate immigration bill that Trump opposed could signal a potential advantage with moderates.
What This Debate Means Moving Forward
June 27, 2024
This debate was a crucial moment for both candidates. For Harris, it was an opportunity to show leadership and articulate her vision, especially as many voters are still getting to know her. She used Trump’s weaknesses effectively, positioning herself as a stabilizing force for the future. Meanwhile, Trump’s performance leaned heavily on defending his past record and stirring his base, but the misinformation and over-reliance on grievances may not help him expand beyond his core supporters.
As the race moves forward, the key question is whether Harris’s strategic emphasis on “turning the page” will resonate with a fatigued electorate or whether Trump’s focus on immigration and his chaotic energy will still capture enough voters to reclaim the presidency.
Here are five standout comments from each candidate during the 2024 Trump-Harris debate: Kamala Harris:
1. On Trump’s presidency: “We don’t have to go back. Let’s not go back. It’s time to turn the page.”
2. On January 6: “If that was a bridge too far for you, well, there is a place in our campaign for you to stand for democracy.”
3. On abortion rights: “A survivor of a crime does not have the right to make a decision about her body? That is immoral.”
4. On Trump’s chaotic style: “We are tired of the chaos.”
5. On immigration: “Trump prefers to run on a problem instead of fixing a problem.” Donald Trump:
1. On immigration: “They allowed criminals, drug dealers to come into our country.”
2. On Harris’s political stance: “They’ve destroyed the country with policy.”
3. On inflation: “We’ve had the highest inflation, perhaps, in the history of the country.”
4. On abortion: “Democrats support executing babies after birth.”
5. On border security: “Bad immigration is the worst thing that can happen to our economy.”
