Wednesday August 14, 2024

August 14, 2024 by Graeme MacKay

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Wednesday August 14, 2024

CBC’s Executive Bonuses Erode Public Trust and Bolster Calls for Defunding

April 15, 2023

The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) has long been a cherished institution in Canada, a bastion of national identity and public service broadcasting. However, recent actions by its leadership, particularly President and CEO Catherine Tait, threaten to undermine the public trust that the CBC has built over decades. The decision to award $18.4 million in bonuses to 1,194 employees, including substantial payouts to top executives, at a time when the broadcaster is cutting hundreds of jobs, has rightly drawn widespread criticism.

From the horses mouth: CBC paid out $18.4 million in bonuses in 2024 after it eliminated hundreds of jobs

September 29, 2017

Catherine Tait’s defence of the bonuses as “performance pay” and her assertion that the CBC is “one of the worst-funded public broadcasters in the world” may ring hollow to many Canadians. While she argues that these bonuses are part of standard compensation to retain talent and meet company goals, the optics of this decision are undeniably poor. This is especially true when some of these bonuses exceed the median family income in Canada. It’s a stark contrast that feeds into the narrative that the CBC is out of touch with the financial realities facing many Canadians.

The timing of these bonuses has also played into the hands of critics like Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre, who has been a vocal proponent of defunding the CBC. Poilievre’s rhetoric about turning the CBC’s downtown Toronto headquarters into housing and his pledge to sell off federal buildings tap into a growing sentiment that public funds could be better allocated. His message is gaining traction not only among his base but also among those who have traditionally supported the CBC but are now disillusioned by its leadership’s decisions.

News: ‘I can’t wait to defund the CBC’: Pierre Poilievre doubles down on plan to axe CBC after board approves bonuses

November 30, 2016

A reader’s comment aptly captures this frustration: “Another use for that $18.4M in bonuses could have been to pay those 141 people that were laid off $130k each in total compensation and keep them employed.” This sentiment reflects a broader frustration with the perceived mismanagement of public funds, which is pushing even CBC supporters toward Poilievre’s camp.

The lack of transparency surrounding the decision-making process for these bonuses further exacerbates the situation. As Richard Leblanc, a professor of governance, law, and ethics, points out, the CBC should have been “completely transparent about why it was paying the bonuses.” Without clear communication, the public is left to make adverse inferences, and opposition parties are quick to capitalize on the perceived opacity.

Moreover, the board’s refusal to disclose the exact amounts paid out to the 1,194 employees, despite repeated requests from members of Parliament, only fuels suspicion. The CBC, as a Crown corporation funded by taxpayers, has a heightened responsibility to be transparent and accountable in its operations.

News: CBC paid out more than $18 million in bonuses this year after slashing hundreds of jobs

April 11, 2014

The CBC’s situation is a teachable moment not just for itself but for all Crown corporations. The public’s reaction to the bonuses highlights a growing impatience with corporate behaviour that seems to prioritize executive enrichment over the well-being of employees and the public interest.

As Canada faces an election in the coming year, the fate of the CBC hangs in the balance. The increasing support for defunding the CBC reflects a broader dissatisfaction with how public institutions are being managed. If the CBC and its leadership do not take immediate steps to restore public trust, they risk alienating the very audience they are meant to serve.

It’s long past time for Catherine Tait and the CBC’s leadership to reevaluate their priorities and practices. The path they are on not only undermines the CBC’s mandate but also threatens its very existence. For the CBC to continue to be a relevant and respected institution, it must demonstrate a commitment to transparency, accountability, and a genuine regard for the public good. Otherwise, pulling the plug on the CBC might become an increasingly accepted reality among Canadians. (AI)

Wednesday February 6, 2024

February 7, 2024 by Graeme MacKay

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Wednesday February 6, 2024

Trump’s Assault on Democracy: A Dangerous Path Forward

January 27, 2024

Recent developments, as reported by both The Washington Post and The New York Times, shed light on the concerning trajectory of former President Donald Trump’s ambitions for unchecked power. The federal appeals panel’s ruling that Trump can face trial on charges related to his alleged plot to overturn the 2020 election results is a significant blow to his claims of immunity from prosecution. This decision, along with the broader plan outlined in The New York Times article to concentrate more power in the presidency, raises alarming concerns about the health of our democracy.

The court’s rejection of Trump’s immunity arguments for actions taken in the White House underscores the principle that no one, not even a former president, should be above the law. The legal battle ahead may reach the Supreme Court, setting the stage for a critical examination of whether former presidents can be prosecuted for actions related to their official duties. The argument that these actions were within the “outer perimeters” of a president’s official acts, as put forth by Trump’s legal team, is a dangerous justification that could erode the foundations of accountability.

Wapo Analysis: 4 takeaways from Trump’s loss in his immunity case

November 6, 2020

The prospect of Trump facing trial adds a layer of complexity to the political landscape, particularly with the trial date carrying significant political implications. As the Republican primary front-runner, Trump may seek to delay the trial until after the November election. If successful, he could exploit his position as the head of the executive branch to influence the legal proceedings, potentially ordering a new attorney general or seeking a self-pardon if elected.

The assault on democratic norms is not confined to legal battles alone. The reported plans to centralize power in the presidency, bringing independent agencies under direct control and impounding funds at the president’s discretion, raise red flags about the erosion of checks and balances. The proposed transformation of the civil service, removing employment protections from career officials, adds to the concern that Trump’s vision for a second term involves consolidating power and purging dissent.

NYT Analysis: Trump and Allies Forge Plans to Increase Presidential Power in 2025

January 20, 2021

Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold’s dismissal of Trump’s supposed “get out of jail free card” is a stark reminder that preserving the rule of law is paramount. The notion that the presidency grants a lifelong immunity from legal consequences goes against the principles of accountability and the checks and balances embedded in our democratic system.

As we navigate these challenges, it is crucial for the American people to remain vigilant and vocal in defence of democratic values. The resilience of our democracy depends on upholding the rule of law, ensuring accountability, and rejecting any attempts to undermine the very foundations that have sustained our nation. The road ahead is uncertain, but our commitment to a robust and accountable democracy must remain unwavering. (AI)

Wednesday March 14, 2018

March 13, 2018 by Graeme MacKay

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Wednesday March 14, 2018

Rex Tillerson just got brutally dumped from the White House

January 17, 2018

For the last several months, there have been rumors that President Trump was displeased with his Secretary of State and that he wanted to replace him with CIA Director Mike Pompeo. The White House has repeatedly denied that such a shakeup was in the offing, and Tillerson has repeatedly said that he doesn’t want to leave his job. But on Tuesday morning, Trump tweeted it out.

There is a lot going on here. Tillerson and Trump have never exactly jibed. The two have clashed over the Paris Climate Accords, North Korea, and the decision to move the United States’s embassy in Israel to Jerusalem. Most recently, Tillerson raised eyebrows by laying the blame on Russia for the poisoning of the double agent Sergei Skripal—something that Sarah Huckabee Sanders wouldn’t do.

August 12, 2017

All of that may be secondary to the fact that Trump has never quite gotten over being called a “fucking moron” by his secretary of state. Tillerson was caught unawares, with the State Department saying he “had every intention of staying. … The Secretary did not speak to the President and is unaware of the reason.”

Tillerson’s tenure was a disaster, marked by a historic gutting of his department, conflicts with the president that increasingly left him outside of major policy decisions, and a seeming hatred for the job. But perhaps Tillerson’s main problem was that he tried to act like a diplomat in an administration that hates diplomacy.

For those who are concerned about Trump’s erratic temperament, Pompeo and Haspel are alarming choices. Pompeo sees the War on Terror as a clash of civilizations and is a hawk when it comes to Iran. Haspel, meanwhile, played a “direct role” in the CIA’s extraordinary rendition program. With weeks to go before negotiations with North Korea supposedly start, Trump’s national security team just got a lot more hawkish. (Source: New Republic)

UPDATE: Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay – Wednesday March 26, 2025

March 26, 2025

Trump’s cabinet is characterized by loyalty-driven appointments, where fealty often overshadows expertise, raising concerns about governance integrity.

The Dynamics of Loyalty and Flattery in Trump’s Cabinet

In the political landscape shaped by Donald Trump, the dynamics of loyalty and sycophancy have played a defining role in his administration’s composition and functioning. Trump’s cabinet has been noted for its members’ pronounced loyalty and willingness to echo his policies and rhetoric, often prioritizing allegiance over expertise.

Many of Trump’s appointees and advisors were handpicked not only for their qualifications but also for their unwavering support and public praise of his leadership style. This environment fostered a culture where flattery and alignment with Trump’s views were seen as essential for maintaining favor and position within the administration.

Critics have argued that this dynamic led to a lack of critical debate and dissent, with cabinet meetings often resembling orchestrated sessions of praise. Notable instances include early cabinet meetings where members took turns lauding Trump’s accomplishments and leadership. This ritualized flattery mirrored gatherings hosted by Trump’s former lawyer, Roy Cohn, though with a more obligatory tone.

The emphasis on loyalty over expertise also contributed to frequent turnover within the cabinet. Those who failed to demonstrate sufficient allegiance or who challenged Trump’s views often found themselves replaced. This approach has raised concerns about the implications for governance and policy, with critics from both sides of the political spectrum expressing alarm over the potential erosion of institutional integrity.

As Trump continues to influence American politics, the legacy of his cabinet’s dynamics offers a cautionary tale about the balance between loyalty and independent counsel in the corridors of power.

For further insights, you can explore sources such as The New York Times, Washington Post, and Politico, which have extensively covered these aspects of Trump’s administration.

This cartoon has been re-purposed from a version that was originally published March 14, 2018

Tuesday November 3, 2015

November 2, 2015 by Graeme MacKay

By Graeme MacKay, Editorial Cartoonist, The Hamilton Spectator – Tuesday November 3, 2015

How Justin Trudeau picked his new cabinet

Memo to Liberal MPs: If you’re still waiting for Justin Trudeau to call and offer you a cabinet post, you can stop the wait.

That’s because Trudeau has already selected his new cabinet and made his last telephone calls to the lucky incoming ministers several days ago.

All of the ministers now know their new portfolio and all have been sworn to the utmost secrecy until Nov. 4 when Trudeau is formally sworn in as prime minister and unveils the full cabinet.

And despite all the post-election speculation about how difficult it would be for Trudeau to pick the cabinet from the “abundance of riches” that he was handed when the Liberals won a majority government and 184 seats in the Oct. 19 election, the job turned out to be surprisingly easy.

When Trudeau got down to work on the cabinet in the days immediately after the Liberals’ victory celebrations, he made his choices based on several key factors, according to Liberal insiders familiar with the selection process.

These factors include the size of the cabinet, gender equality, ethnic diversity, regional distribution and a balance of new and veteran MPs, but leaning to young and new versus old and experienced.

Some critics have suggested Trudeau is putting gender and regional concerns ahead of talent as the top priority in selecting the ministers.

In reality, though, any cabinet, regardless of whether it is Liberal or Conservative, “is never a pure and simple meritocracy,” says a key Trudeau adviser. “Obviously there are expectations if you are elected, such as every province gets a cabinet minister, and you look at regional balance, gender, and diversity as well as competence.”

On size, the new cabinet is expected to have 28 members. Trudeau wanted to keep the number below 30 to show he intended to run a leaner, more efficient cabinet team than did Stephen Harper. The last Conservative cabinet had 39 ministers, including 26 senior ministers and 12 junior ministers of state for such areas as sports, seniors and multiculturalism.

On gender, the new cabinet will be evenly split, with 14 women and 14 men, including Trudeau. A total of 50 Liberal women were elected on Oct. 19. (Continued: Toronto Star)

Published in the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix, November 4, 2015

Friday August 15, 1997

August 15, 1997 by Graeme MacKay

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Friday August 15, 1997

Jolting Hydro into action

The real danger at Ontario Hydro isn’t Candu reactors. The greater risk is in accepting at face value what the provincial government and the Crown corporation’s board of directors say about the troubled utility.The government and board of directors seem to want Ontarions to believe that the problems at Hydro’s nuclear division are in hand. President Alan Kupcis has sacrificed himself, which is appropriate under the circumstances. Managers have been let go, and more heads will roll in the days to come, says Hydro board chair William Farlinger. Seven reactors are being closed and Hydro will improve its performance beginning right away. The inference seems to be: Carl Andognini’s explosive report has exposed the rot in Hydro management, and we can rest assured problems in the nuclear power generating system are being dealt with.

But the truth is that some of the most difficult, sensitive questions about Hydro’s abysmal performance have yet to be answered or, in some cases, even asked.

– Where was Hydro’s board of directors during the years nuclear division management was growing more isolated and ineffective?

To date, the only board member to acknowledge responsibility is Kupcis, who was also chief operating officer. What about the remainder of the board? Were they unaware of the growing problem? Did directors know of the situation, and fail to act? Some of what was uncovered in the scathing review of Hydro’s nuclear operations is new, but other problems are longstanding and have been aired publicly.

Either the board of directors knew about the problems and didn’t act, or it was asleep at the wheel. Either way it’s remarkable and disturbing that this board is being allowed to continue operating the public utility. As corporate governance analyst Richard Finlay says: “The board has to assume responsibility for the enormity of the disaster that has occurred on their watch.”

At the same time as the Harris government oversees the rebuilding of management, it should put in place a capable board of directors. Traditionally, many Hydro board seats have been patronage appointments. Clearly it’s time that changed.

– Should Ontario Hydro reduce or eliminate its nuclear component over time?

When it comes to things nuclear, there are few objective opinions. Thanks to Hydro’s mismanagement, the anti-nuclear lobby has ammunition

for the foreseeable future in its quest to shut down the nuclear industry, but much of what we’ll hear from both camps in the months to come is nothing more than propaganda. Yes, there is reason to question the extent to which Ontario relies on nuclear power. Waste disposal costs, environmental threats, and lingering questions about effective long-term mainten ance on Candu reactors combine to throw a long shadow over the future of nuclear power. That said, most of the evidence points toward the Candu reactors being safe and efficient if properly maintained. Contrary to what some environmental groups claim, there is no immediate danger from nuclear operations if they are properly managed.

The government and private sectors should use this occasion to launch a research and development campaign to test alternate power generation methods with an eye to reducing Ontario’s reliance on nuclear power. Fossil fuels are not an alternative.

– Should Ontario Hydro be privatized?

No. We’re not confident that the private sector will regulate nuclear power properly, and there’s no evidence that the Harris government has the political will to insist on effective regulation. In any case, it’s unlikely a private sector investor would be interested in the financial swamp that is Hydro’s nuclear division.

That said, it’s obvious the time has come to end Ontario Hydro’s monopoly. The government should plan now to allow private sector power generating companies to compete with Hydro. (Source: Hamilton Spectator Editorial)