health – Page 12 – mackaycartoons

Tuesday September 12, 2000

September 12, 2000 by Graeme MacKay

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Tuesday September 12, 2000

Ontarians have had it with classroom warfare; Education: Public won’t support disruptions

Ontario’s schools are once again in danger of becoming a labour relations battleground rather than a place for learning. The optimism that usually marks the start of the school year is missing, especially in public high schools, and there is concern for what lies ahead. Students and parents are worried about teachers working to rule; withdrawing extra-curricular activities, includi ng sports and after-school clubs; and taking other job actions, such as rotating walkouts and possibly even a strike in Toronto.

It is an understatement to say that Ontarians are tired of the continuing tension and uncertainty. What is most frustrating is the apparent inability of the Mike Harris government and Ontario’s teachers’ unions to discuss their differences, or at least agree to a truce until the next provincial election campaign is under way. It’s unrealistic to expect that relations between the Tories and the unions will be easily repaired in the wake of the government’s heavy-handed Bill 74, the Education Accountability Act, which among other things increases high school teachers’ course load and could mandate extra-curricular involvement. But it’s not asking too much of all parties to go the extra mile to start communicating with each other to avoid damaging, unnecessary disruption in schools.

Harris has an opportunity to take a more constructive direction by opting for a more moderate, less confrontational and more inclusive approach to education reform. Last week, the premier said that his government plans a more pragmatic, less ideological approach to governing — but he wasn’t specific. Education is an ideal place for Harris to show that he’s serious about adopting a Bill Davis, consensus-building style. He would send a good signal by slowing down to listen to what critics are saying. This government has assumed almost complete control of education from school boards, barging ahead on major reforms with relatively little concern for the views of teachers’ unions.

There is an equal onus on the union leaders to hold their noses and offer to dialogue with the Tories, starting with the Ontario Secondary School Teachers Federation. The OSSTF acted responsibly by returning to school on schedule this month. However, the union drew a line in the sand by pledging to battle the demands of Bill 74 in negotiating unsigned teachers’ contracts. In Toronto, 7,000 public high school teachers have set Oct. 2 as a strike date if negotiations fail. The OSSTF is walking a fine line. Job actions that detract from the quality of a student’s overall educational experience are ultimately self-defeating.

The OSSTF and the other unions have every right to oppose the Tory agenda, take their issues to the public, and campaign for a new government in the next election. But the battle shouldn’t be fought on the backs of students. Both sides must preserve the integrity of the classroom and all of the after-school programs that are fundamental to a good education. (Source: Hamilton Spectator Editorial)

Thursday February 25, 1999

February 25, 1999 by Graeme MacKay

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Thursday February 25, 1999

No food or drink in pool, breastfeeding mom told

A mother breastfeeding while swimming at a city recreation centre was ordered to leave because “no food or drink is allowed in the pool.”Shannon Wray, 25, was enjoying family swim time Friday morning at Huntington Park Recreation Centre on the East Mountain when her nine-month-old daughter Chyenne got hungry.

“I was sitting in the hot pool with my daughter in front of me and I pulled down my bathing suit strap, ” Wray said. “And I took my breast out and put her on it.”

A moment later, Wray was approached by the pool’s aquatic director, who advised the mother she would have to go into the change room to feed her child. Wray said she was told that it’s the culture and recreation department’s policy that there is no breastfeeding in the pool area.

“I’m very sorry you’re offended, ” Wray told the woman. “But that’s your problem. I’m nursing my baby and I’m not moving. You’re going to have to deal with it.”

Wray believes other swimmers complained.

When Wray refused to leave, she was told by the aquatic director that she couldn’t stay in the pool because of the state of “her attire.” Then, she said, a male lifeguard told her she had to stop breastfeeding “because no food or drink is allowed in the pool.”

Wray said she has breastfed her baby in public many times — including at the Huntington Park pool — but never had any complaints before now.

“It’s unfortunate that a natural act had to become some political brouhaha, ” said Wray. “This was very inappropriate and very humiliating.”

Alderman Mary Kiss, vice-chairperson of the city’s parks and recreation committee, said she was “appalled” that breastfeeding in public was still an issue for some people.

“It’s great to have mothers breastfeeding their children. I’ll definitely look into this.”

The lifeguard and aquatic director were just plain wrong, said Gary Makins, manager of the city’s east recreation district.

As far as the culture and recreation department goes, said Makins, mothers can nurse “at the pool, in the pool or on the side of the pool.

“I think our lifeguard or aquatic supervisor shouldn’t have asked her to leave, ” he said. Makins will send a copy of the city’s breastfeeding policy to each of the pools he supervises and he will write Wray a letter of apology.

As for no food or drink in the pool? “That doesn’t apply here, ” he said. “But if she was eating a sandwich in the pool, that would be a problem.” (Source: Hamilton Spectator)

Wednesday January 17, 1999

January 17, 1999 by Graeme MacKay

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)