Ontario

Wednesday May 5, 1999

By Graeme MacKay, Editorial Cartoonist, The Hamilton Spectator – Wednesday May 5, 1999

Common Sense Prequel

OK, you’ve found all 21 action figures, including the four scarce Battle Droid variations: clean, dirty, slashed and blasted.You’ve purchased all the posters, including the Jedi vs Sith battle scene and the circus-style pitch for pod races.

Welcoming plot “spoilers, ” you’ve amassed a complete set of the trading cards and begun reading the novel.

But do you have the comic books for “Star Wars: Episode One — The Phantom Menace?”

The fact is, George Lucas’ space saga owes much to comics, which fanned the flames of fan interest through most of the lean years between 1983’s Return of the Jedi and the wave of enthusiasm sparked by new “Star Wars” toys in 1995 and the first trilogy’s “Special Edition” in 1997.

From the lulls through the current storm, comics by Marvel and Dark Horse have adapted the films and expanded on Lucas’ universe. Now they’re attacking the prequel years with a comics adaptation of “The Phantom Menace.”

It’s sold as a single graphic novel costing $12.95 and also as a four-part series of comics, costing $2.95 each.

The graphic novel and the first issue of the comics are now in comic book shops. The final three comics will arrive weekly for three more weeks.

The comics have two cover options: a photo from the film, and an illustrated montage of characters by Hugh Fleming.

They were written by Henry Gilroy, who works in the comics/animation industry. He got a copy of Lucas’ script a year ago.

Translating the film to the static medium of comics is difficult, Gilroy said. “Lucas makes the most of motion and sound in his films.”

He tried to pace the story “so that every time the reader turns the page, they get a cool ‘reveal, ‘ which is what you get in a “Star Wars” movie. Every scene has something new in it.” (Source: Houston Chronicle)

 

Thursday November 6, 1997

By Graeme MacKay, Editorial Cartoonist, The Hamilton Spectator – Thursday November 6, 1997

Cleaner Lakes merit priority

There is a risk that Canada and the United States are treading water, and at risk of losing ground, in cleaning up the Great Lakes . The world’s largest freshwater ecosystem is cleaner and healthier 25 years after the signing of a landmark pollution control agreement in 1972. But much of the progress that’s been achieved could be squandered. Governments are cutting environmental budgets, weakening pollution laws and enforcement, and there’s reason to worry that politicians will become indifferent to a problem that defies easy solution. 

Marvellous Maps

The apathy that often relegates the Great Lakes to the bottom of the political totem pole is hard to understand. Some 37 million people live on either side of the Great Lakes . They draw heavily on Great Lakes water for their drinking water, recreation, fishing, manufacturing and many other uses. The stakes are extremely high. The economy and quality of life in the Great Lakes Basin hinges on the condition of this irreplaceable resource. 

There can be no complacency about past achievements — a fact that was driven home to government officials who gathered in Niagara Falls last weekend for the 25th anniversary of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. Three environmental groups issued a joint report which criticized governments on both sides of the border for allowing massive amounts of toxic substances to be released into the ecosystem every day. 

The watchdogs found that while a few successes have been achieved in reducing the threat posed by DDT, PCBs and some other toxic chemicals, governments are moving too slowly in accomplishing the goal of zero discharge in the agreement. Progress has been especially slow in phasing out chemicals that result in the generation and release of dioxins and furans, which pose some of the most serious threats to life. The risks to human health remain ominous. An American scientist reported on one study showing that children of women who ate Lake Ontario fish before they were born stand a chance of having lower IQs and other learning and behavioural problems later in life. Lakewide management strategies and remedial action plans for pollution hotspots are generally proceeding at what the environmentalists describe as a glacial pace. Only one of 43 areas of concern, Collingwood Harbour, has been delisted in the past 10 years. 

To be sure, there are encouraging signs. The Double-crested Cormorant, a large fish-eating bird, has made an incredible recovery after being devastated by toxic chemicals. There are now more cormorants on the Great Lakes than at any time in recorded history. But the threats to the Lakes are daunting. Dangerous levels of pollution which harm humans, fish and wildlife should never be accepted as the price of progress and prosperity. 

Governments must show leadership by making a renewed commitment to the ingredients of past success: cleanup plans supported with the necessary funding, an insistence on strong laws with strict enforcement, and timetables to phase out the use and production of toxic chemicals that put everyone at risk. The disturbing fact is that many politicians are, of late, going in the opposite direction. They are making short-sighted decisions which will come back to haunt this generation, and the next. Political and business leaders must accept their responsibility and mobilize an effort in which we all do our fair share to protect the Great Lakes. (Source: Hamilton Spectator editorial)

 

John Snobelen Meets With the Board of Trustees

Pen & Ink caricature by Graeme MacKay (Hamilton, Ontario, Canada). Illustrated in 1997.

Why Ontario teachers went on a province-wide strike in 1997

Back in October 1997, a strike kept teachers and students out of the classroom for two weeks.

The 1997 strike was not about wages. It was about the Mike Harris-led PC government’s proposed overhaul to education.

On Oct. 7 that year, a crowd of 20,000 teachers gathered inside and outside Toronto’s Maple Leaf Gardens for a rally opposing Bill 160, which introduced legislation for Progressive Conservative Premier Mike Harris’s changes to education.

“If he does not move off his legislative agenda, every school in this province will be shut down,” Eileen Lennon of the Ontario Teachers’ Federation told the rally. “We will not back down.” 

Reporter Steve Erwin outlined some details of the bill.

A Meeting of the School Trustees – By Robert Harris

It would give the province control over the levying of school taxes, the ability to dictate school funding, set class sizes and teacher prep time, and allow non-certified teachers to instruct.

Erwin said the government’s stated purpose was to “improve the performance of Ontario schoolchildren.”

But teachers saw it as a pretext to cut $1 billion from the system and lay off up to 10,000 teachers.

Education Minister John Snobelen, himself a high school dropout, dismissed the “union bluster,” according to the reporter.

“I wasn’t surprised by the turnout or the rhetoric from last night,” he said. “I think that was all pretty predictable.” 

Snobelen would be replaced as education minister in a cabinet shuffle two days later. (Continued: CBC News) 

 

Friday August 15, 1997

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)