fire – mackaycartoons

Monday June 9, 2025

June 9, 2025 by Graeme MacKay

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay – Monday June 9, 2025

Trump fiddles…

The cartoon of President Trump as Nero playing the violin on the roof of the White House can be contextualized by the 2025 Los Angeles riots. This satirical image implies criticism of Trump’s handling of various crises, including the mass deportations and the resultant civil unrest. By depicting him as Nero, the cartoon suggests that Trump is focusing on trivial matters or is indifferent, while significant issues, like the riots and their underlying causes, are left unaddressed. This reflects a broader critique of his leadership style and priorities during tumultuous times.

Originally published April 29, 2020 several weeks into the COVID-19 pandemic.

Wednesday March 19, 2025

March 19, 2025 by Graeme MacKay

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Wednesday March 19, 2025

Pierre Poilievre’s Plan to Undo Carbon Pricing: A Step Backward for Canada’s Climate Commitment

June 20, 2024

As the climate crisis intensifies, countries around the world are working hard to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and meet international targets. Many progressive industrial nations have adopted carbon pricing as a crucial part of their strategy to combat climate change. However, Pierre Poilievre’s plan to eliminate carbon pricing in Canada risks reversing the progress we’ve made and could harm our reputation on the global stage.

Carbon pricing is an important tool that encourages businesses to cut emissions by making it cost-effective to invest in cleaner technologies. By putting a price on carbon emissions, we motivate companies to adopt greener practices, ultimately benefiting both the environment and the economy. Poilievre’s opposition to this approach shows a reluctance to embrace the necessary steps for a sustainable future for Canadians.

News: Net zero by 2050 ‘impossible’ for UK, says Badenoch

July 21, 2022

A worrying trend among conservative leaders is emerging globally, as highlighted by Kemi Badenoch’s recent comments in the UK. Badenoch, leader of the Conservative Party, stated that achieving the UK’s net zero target by 2050 is “impossible” without harming living standards or bankrupting the country. This marks a significant departure from the previous political agreement on the importance of addressing climate change. By aligning with such views, Poilievre risks placing Canada among those countries that are stepping back from their environmental responsibilities.

It’s also worth noting that Canadian conservatives once had a more forward-thinking approach. Under Erin O’Toole’s leadership, the Conservative Party supported carbon pricing as part of a broader climate strategy. O’Toole recognized the need for a carbon pricing system to drive innovation and reduce emissions. However, with Poilievre now leading the party, it has shifted back to outright opposition to carbon pricing, which is a significant step backwards.

August 13, 2021

If Canada rolls back carbon pricing, we could find ourselves among the nations failing to meet their climate commitments. This move would significantly hinder our ability to achieve the net-zero emissions target by 2050, which is essential for tackling climate change. Without a solid pricing mechanism, businesses may lack the motivation to innovate or shift to lower-carbon options.

Moreover, eliminating carbon pricing would damage public trust in Canada’s commitment to international agreements like the Paris Accord. As other countries advance their climate policies, Canada risks being seen as disengaged from the global effort to address climate change. This perception could hurt our international relationships and competitiveness in a world that increasingly values sustainability.

The revenue generated from carbon pricing is also crucial for funding green projects, public transportation, and renewable energy initiatives. Poilievre’s plan to scrap this revenue would rob Canada of essential funding needed to transition to a low-carbon economy, jeopardizing job creation in the green sector.

News: Poilievre says he would repeal federal carbon pricing for industrial emissions

June 2, 2017

In contrast to Poilievre’s vision, maintaining and strengthening carbon pricing would show leadership in climate action. It would send a clear message that Canada is serious about its environmental responsibilities and is committed to a sustainable future.

Pierre Poilievre’s plan to undo carbon pricing is a step backward that could undermine our climate commitments and hinder our ability to meet global targets. It aligns with a troubling trend among conservative leaders who prioritize economic concerns over environmental protection, as seen in the UK with Badenoch’s remarks. It also represents a retreat from the more progressive stance taken by former Conservative leader Erin O’Toole, who understood the importance of carbon pricing. Canada must remain a leader in the fight against climate change, embracing policies that promote innovation and accountability. The time has come to stand firm in our commitment to a sustainable future and reject proposals that seek to undermine our progress. The future of our planet depends on it.

Make Canada a Climate Laggard Again

If there’s one thing we can say about Justin Trudeau’s legacy, it’s that he put a price on carbon—something that had been debated and denied for years, especially under Stephen Harper’s government. Choosing not to commit to carbon pricing put Canada on the global map of climate laggards, alongside countries that talk a big game about caring for the planet but never actually take meaningful action. It was a pretty embarrassing time for us, especially when we were aligning ourselves with the “drill baby drill” mentality of climate deniers in the U.S.

Now, it feels like we’re sliding back into that old mindset with our own Conservative Party. Just when Canada is trying to set itself apart from the U.S. and connect with progressive partners who genuinely care about climate action, Pierre Poilievre pushed hard to axe the consumer carbon tax, got what he wanted just last week when the new PM Mark Carney did that very thing. Now, Poilievre is calling for the elimination of the industrial carbon tax as well. It’s got people questioning: if there’s no price on carbon, what real action does the Conservative Party plan to take on climate change? This stance could very well make them unelectable come 2025.

– The Graeme Gallery

Read on Substack

Thursday October 17, 2024

October 17, 2024 by Graeme MacKay

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Thursday October 17, 2024

Link to the animated clip.

A Trump Tariff Surge Would Be Devastating for Canada

June 1, 2018

With Americans heading to the polls in under three weeks, the possibility of Donald Trump returning to the White House has Canadians justifiably on edge. His record on tariffs, coupled with renewed threats of sweeping trade barriers, points to an economic catastrophe waiting to unfold for Canada. Trump’s love affair with tariffs—declaring it his “favourite word” and promising levies of up to 20%, with some as high as 200%—signals a dangerous path for Canada’s industries and its broader economic relationship with the U.S.

During Trump’s first term, Canadians felt the impact of his trade policies. Steel and aluminum tariffs imposed under dubious national security pretences strained bilateral relations and cost Canadian exporters dearly. Trump’s obsession with tariffs, despite repeated warnings from economists about inflation and job losses, demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of how global trade works.

News: Trump vows to impose tariffs as experts warn of price hikes and angry allies

June 22, 2019

His latest proposals are even more extreme. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has warned that blanket tariffs could spark a global trade war, with Canadian oil, gas, and auto sectors bearing the brunt of the fallout. The Canadian Chamber of Commerce projects a $45 billion hit to Canada’s economy if Trump’s tariff plan materializes—equivalent to a loss of more than $1,100 for every Canadian. Entire industries could be thrown into chaos, with auto exports expected to drop 20% and energy exports shrinking by over 40%

Meanwhile, Trump’s rhetoric dismisses these economic realities, instead clinging to the notion that tariffs will magically bring factories back to U.S. soil. But his record tells a different story. In Springfield, Ohio, factories opened but struggled to find American workers, requiring legal immigrants to fill the gaps. Similarly, higher consumer prices resulted from his tariffs on household goods during his first presidency without spurring the domestic production boom he envisioned.

June 13, 2018

The situation grows even more perilous with the USMCA trade pact—renegotiated by Trump in 2018—up for review in 2026. Trump’s statements suggest he’s gearing up to demand tougher terms, adding more restrictions that could suffocate Canadian industries. Auto manufacturers may continue to pay tariffs to import parts from Mexico rather than adjust to the expensive North American content rules Trump imposed under the USMCA, undermining its intended benefits. Trump’s proposals also show no intention of sparing allies, lumping Canada in with the “enemies” of American industry and threatening tariffs across the board.

If Trump follows through, Canada faces severe challenges. The dairy industry could come under pressure as Trump revisits supply management policies, while Canada’s Digital Services Tax targeting U.S. tech giants may trigger retaliatory action. A reopened USMCA negotiation could unravel key provisions or, worse, lead to its collapse—plunging North American trade into uncertainty and dragging down economies across the continent.

Analysis: Tariffs, trade and tax credits: What the U.S. election could mean for Canada’s economy

November 18, 2021

To be sure, Kamala Harris’s platform isn’t entirely reassuring. Her continuation of Biden’s subsidy-heavy policies would require Canada to compete in funding industries like electric vehicles—a burden Ottawa is struggling to bear. However, Trump’s return would not just pit Canada against the U.S. financially—it could obliterate the framework of cooperation altogether. Trump’s chaotic, unpredictable style, marked by impulsive tariffs and disregard for allies, means Canada would constantly be in damage-control mode, scrambling to react to unilateral decisions that undercut trust and economic stability.

While some Canadians hold out hope that a potential change in Canada’s leadership might soften Trump’s stance, that is a dangerous gamble. His campaign and allies are already preparing policies that could be enforced without congressional oversight, using obscure legal mechanisms like Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930. Even if Trump’s actions are eventually struck down in court, the uncertainty and disruption would cause long-term harm to industries on both sides of the border.

News: Canadian support for Donald Trump higher than in last U.S. presidential election, poll finds

February 13, 2024

Ultimately, a second Trump presidency would mark a dangerous regression in North American trade. The promised tariffs would harm Canadian exporters, drive up consumer prices in the U.S., and undermine years of economic cooperation. Canada must prepare for the worst—but it’s in the hands of American voters to avoid this path altogether. A vote for Trump is a vote for higher prices, economic isolation, and shattered alliances, with Canada caught in the crossfire. The stakes couldn’t be higher.

Canadians need to brace for the impact—but we also hope our neighbours to the south make the right decision. A tariff war would leave both nations poorer, angrier, and less connected. And Canada, despite its strong economic ties, might not be able to withstand the full brunt of a reckless Trump trade policy this time around.

Wednesday October 16, 2024

October 16, 2024 by Graeme MacKay

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Wednesday October 16, 2024

Animated making-of clip here!

India-Canada Tensions Expose Fault Lines in Trudeau’s Troubled Leadership and the Limits of Multiculturalism

February 22, 2018

The current diplomatic standoff between Canada and India—sparked by allegations of India’s involvement in the assassination of Hardeep Singh Nijjar—has come at a difficult time for Justin Trudeau’s government. While the controversy rightly raises concerns about foreign interference and Canada’s sovereignty, the timing of the revelations is feeding speculation about political expediency. This incident also lays bare the less noble challenges of multiculturalism, exposing the tensions that arise when Canada’s embrace of diverse communities intersects with the political and ideological conflicts from abroad.

It is hard to ignore how the timing of this crisis aligns with domestic turmoil within Trudeau’s government. With the Prime Minister facing internal party rebellion, sinking approval ratings, and questions over foreign interference by China, the sudden escalation of tensions with India strikes some as politically convenient. Trudeau’s critics argue that the Khalistan issue is being used as a way to galvanize support among Sikh voters, who are a significant bloc in key Liberal ridings in British Columbia and Ontario. These theories echo broader concerns about Trudeau’s tendency to rely on identity politics to secure electoral advantages.

News: Some Liberal MPs are mounting a new effort to oust Justin Trudeau

February 22, 2018

The messy history between Trudeau and India doesn’t help. His disastrous 2018 visit to India, when a convicted Sikh extremist attended official events, strained relations. His support for India’s protesting farmers in 2020, perceived by New Delhi as meddling in domestic affairs, further soured diplomacy. India’s rejection of the current allegations as politically motivated reflects long-standing suspicions that Trudeau’s government is more focused on domestic gains than fostering strong international relationships.

Beyond the political theatre, this crisis exposes the underlying tensions in Canada’s multicultural framework. Canada prides itself on being a multicultural society that celebrates diversity. However, transnational conflicts—like the Khalistan movement—pose serious challenges to this ideal. When diaspora communities bring their political grievances from home countries to Canada, it complicates domestic governance and tests the limits of peaceful coexistence.

September 20, 2023

The Khalistan separatist movement is a prime example. While many Sikhs in Canada peacefully advocate for their cultural identity, the movement’s more extreme elements have long been a point of contention. The 1985 Air India bombing, orchestrated by pro-Khalistan extremists based in Canada, remains the deadliest act of terrorism in Canadian history. Today, the Indian government’s increasing frustration with the Khalistani diaspora reflects a fear that Canada is becoming a safe haven for separatists. This accusation—whether fair or not—illustrates the complex interplay between free speech and national security in Canada’s multicultural experiment.

News: Trudeau accuses India of supporting violent crimes in Canada

At the heart of this dilemma is the question: How should Canada respond when foreign governments accuse diaspora groups of supporting violence or secession? While it is Canada’s responsibility to ensure that all its citizens are safe from external threats, it must also guard against being used as a battleground for international political disputes. Balancing these competing imperatives is a difficult but necessary task for a government committed to diversity.

April 6, 2024

Canada’s domestic challenges only add to the complexity. At a time when housing affordability, inflation, health care, and foreign interference by China dominate public discourse, Trudeau’s focus on the India-Khalistan issue seems to many Canadians like a distraction from more urgent priorities. Critics argue that the government is spending too much time managing foreign conflicts while neglecting domestic concerns that directly impact Canadians.

This frustration is reflected in the growing chorus of voices saying that Canada should not be entangled in conflicts like Khalistan. Some Canadians express concern that the country is being used as a staging ground for separatist activism, and they resent the idea that Canada’s political landscape might be shaped by grievances imported from abroad. These sentiments highlight an important point: Canada cannot afford to lose focus on its internal problems because of external disputes.

News: India calls expulsions of diplomats from Canada ‘preposterous imputations’ driven by Trudeau’s agenda

The diplomatic fallout with India provides an important opportunity for Trudeau’s government to reassess its approach to both foreign policy and multiculturalism. Canada must make clear that it will not tolerate foreign interference—whether from India, China, or any other country—on its soil. At the same time, Trudeau must avoid playing identity politics to the detriment of national unity. The government should focus on strengthening social cohesion and ensuring that diaspora communities feel they belong as Canadians first without being drawn into the conflicts of their homelands.

In the end, multiculturalism is a noble ideal, but it requires careful management. Canada’s commitment to diversity must be coupled with strong domestic governance and clear boundaries around foreign influence. The India-Canada dispute is a reminder that while we celebrate diversity, we must also recognize its complexities. Trudeau’s government must navigate this crisis with caution—not only for the sake of diplomatic relations but also to maintain public trust in the Canadian multicultural project.

If the Trudeau government is to survive these turbulent times, it must address these challenges with transparency and resolve. Only then can Canada emerge from this moment not just as a multicultural nation but as a united one.

Tuesday July 30, 2024

July 30, 2024 by Graeme MacKay

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Tuesday July 30, 2024

Past Time for Thoughts and Prayers: Demand Action on Climate Disasters

June 20, 2024

The recent wildfire that devastated Jasper, Alberta, has left a profound sense of sadness and helplessness, resonating deeply with those who witness the increasing number of such catastrophic events. Chris Hatch’s commentary on the wildfire captures this sentiment, highlighting how the emotional toll extends beyond those directly affected. Similarly, Susan Riley’s piece on our persistent inaction in the face of climate change argues that we must move past the stage of offering “thoughts and prayers” and take concrete action.

Opinion:Jasper and the great sadness

May 14, 2024

Over the past decade, the frequency and intensity of wildfires have increased dramatically, a trend directly linked to climate change. Rising temperatures, prolonged droughts, and altered precipitation patterns have made forests drier and more prone to fires. As a result, fire seasons are longer, and the fires themselves are more severe and destructive. The devastation in Jasper, where over 30% of the town’s structures were damaged or destroyed, is a stark example of this growing phenomenon. The expansion of human settlements into wild land areas has also exacerbated the impact of wildfires. Towns like Jasper, nestled within forests, are particularly vulnerable. Decades of fire suppression policies have allowed combustible materials to accumulate, creating conditions ripe for larger, more intense wildfires.

July 29, 2023

The response to wildfires has been hampered by systemic issues such as budget cuts, bureaucratic inefficiencies, and prioritization of fossil fuel infrastructure over fire preparedness. These factors have left communities like Jasper ill-equipped to handle such disasters, leading to significant loss and prolonged recovery periods. Riley emphasizes the urgency of addressing the root causes of these disasters—primarily our continued reliance on fossil fuels. Despite the clear link between fossil fuel emissions and climate change, the oil and gas industry continues to expand, with government support. This expansion directly contradicts climate commitments and perpetuates the cycle of destruction and inaction.

Tuesday April 2, 2024

To break this cycle, we must reduce fossil fuel dependency by shifting away from fossil fuels and investing in renewable energy sources, implementing stricter regulations on emissions, and halting the expansion of oil and gas infrastructure. Enhancing fire preparedness and response by increasing funding for fire prevention and firefighting resources, improving forest management practices, and bolstering early warning systems and emergency response capabilities is essential. Comprehensive climate adaptation strategies are also necessary to protect communities from the impacts of climate change, such as building resilient infrastructure, protecting natural buffers like wetlands, and supporting community-based adaptation efforts. Holding leaders accountable by electing those genuinely committed to addressing climate change and ensuring that climate policies are implemented effectively is crucial.

Opinion: Pumping more oil while the house burns down: how long will the fantasy last?

February 6, 2020

The devastation in Jasper and many other communities affected by wildfires and climate disasters underscores the urgent need for action. Recent years have seen similar destruction in places such as Paradise, California, which was nearly obliterated by the Camp Fire in 2018; Santa Rosa, California, heavily impacted by the Tubbs Fire in 2017; and Lytton, British Columbia, which was largely destroyed by a fire in 2021. More recently, Lahaina in Hawaii faced severe devastation from wildfires in 2023. It is no longer enough to offer thoughts and prayers after each catastrophe. We must demand decisive action to address the root causes of these disasters and build a more resilient and sustainable future. As Susan Riley poignantly asks, “What will it take to shake us from our willful blindness?” The answer lies in our collective ability to push for meaningful change before it is too late. By recognizing the gravity of the situation and acting decisively, we can honor the memories of places like Jasper and ensure that future generations are not condemned to witness the same cycle of destruction and inaction. (AI)