drum

Saturday February 29, 2020

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Saturday February 29, 2020

Blockades have exposed the contradictions of Justin Trudeau’s ambitious reconciliation agenda 

The on-again-off-again rail blockades in support of a handful of Indigenous hereditary chiefs have demonstrated how easy it is to bring Canada to a halt. They have also underscored the contradictions of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s ambitious reconciliation agenda.

June 3, 2015

Trudeau came to power five years ago vowing to make reconciliation with Canada’s Indigenous people his No. 1 priority. And to some degree, he delivered.

Under his Liberal government, more (but not all) First Nation reserves gained access to potable water. A commission of inquiry was set up to look into why so many Indigenous women and girls went missing or were murdered in recent years.

But the centre point of the reconciliation agenda was political. The Trudeau Liberals vowed to establish respectful nation-to-nation relationships with Indigenous peoples, one that would eventually redefine their legal relationship to the Crown.

July 13, 2017

Among other things, the Liberals promised to write the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which in its present form is an unenforceable statement of general principles, into Canadian law.

However, exactly what was meant by a nation-to-nation relationship was left unclear. Did the Liberals mean nation in a vague cultural sense, in the way that Quebec is viewed as a nation inside Canada? Or did they mean something more substantive?

More to the point, with whom would the federal government have this political relationship? Elected band councils? Hereditary chiefs? Or both?

July 23, 2019

In much of Canada, this question is moot. But in British Columbia, Southern Ontario and Quebec — where traditional clan-based governments remain strong — it is not.

In B.C., there is a second wrinkle. Unlike the rest of Canada, few treaties have been signed with First Nations in that province. To whom then, does the land not covered by treaties belong?

Many First Nation leaders, including the hereditary chiefs of the Wet’suwet’en, argue that since this land has never been ceded, it belongs to them.

If that were true, the argument goes, then the hereditary chiefs alone have the right to decide who enters this land and who, if anyone, polices it.

For the governing Liberals, committed as they are to respectful nation-to-nation relationships, this is a hard argument to counter.

But if the Wet’suwet’en have the right to keep outsiders from their traditional lands, then surely so do other First Nations — including the Mohawks of Tyendinaga near Belleville, Ont.

February 13, 2020

That, at least, was the logic behind the decision of some Mohawks and their allies to block the CN Rail main line for days on end, an action that threw much of the country into an economic tailspin.

The Liberal government tried to resolve that blockade by sending Indigenous Services Minister Marc Miller to Tyendinaga to engage in a respectful, nation-to-nation political relationship.

That took nine hours and accomplished nothing.

Eventually, with Ottawa’s implicit blessing, the Ontario Provincial Police went in and arrested protestors. That, in turn, provoked more rail blockades. (Toronto Star) 

 

Tuesday September 26, 2017

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Tuesday September 26, 2017

Donna Skelly seeks Conservative nomination

Ending months of speculation, Coun. Donna Skelly says she is seeking the Conservative nomination for the new provincial riding of Flamborough-Glanbrook.

“It’s been a tough decision. I love what I do, and I’m really proud of what I’ve done so far on council,” Skelly said.

“The truth is I think I can do more for the entire city at the provincial level.”

Skelly, who was elected to Hamilton council in a March, 2016, byelection, says she submitted her nomination paperwork and was interviewed by PC officials last week.

“At this point, I haven’t been approved as a candidate yet.”

It’s widely believed the party has been courting the high-profile former CHCH TV broadcaster with the intention of either acclaiming or appointing her.

PC riding association president John Demik could not be reached. But would-be candidates Nick Lauwers and Dan Sadler have previously said the party told them it would not back their bids, strongly suggesting there was a preferred choice in the wings.

“I am not being appointed, I can tell you that,” Skelly said, adding she has no idea how many nominees the party might approve.

Skelly notes that the waning popularity of the Liberal government means a lot of people want to run for the Conservatives.

If Skelly doesn’t have to face an open nomination contest, she’ll definitely be squaring off against fellow Coun. Judi Partridge in the June 2018 election.

Partridge was recently acclaimed the Liberal candidate for the same riding.

Skelly represents Ward 7 on the central Mountain. Partridge represents east Flamborough’s Ward 15.

Both reside within their wards and the boundaries of Flamborough-Glanbrook, a sprawling riding encompassing part of Hamilton south of Rymal Road, some of the Mountain brow, parts of Ancaster, all Waterdown, Carlisle, Glanbrook, Binbrook and upper Stoney Creek.

Skelly says the media might have fun reporting on the battle between the two councillors but she and Partridge get along “really well” and will conduct themselves professionally.

“It will be a healthy competition, put it that way.” (Source: Hamilton Spectator) 

 

SaveSave

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)