training

Thursday June 10, 2021

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Thursday June 10, 2021

What happened in London should be a pivot point for Canada — and its politicians

In a speech in 2015, while reflecting on Canada’s treatment of minorities, Justin Trudeau said that the inclusive idea of liberty that typifies the best of Canada “requires Canadian political leadership to be sustained.”

Six years later, the killing of four members of a Muslim family in London, Ontario is a moment of reckoning for Canadians — but also for this country’s political leaders.

If it’s necessary for Canadians to reflect on themselves and their country, it’s equally necessary for politicians to consider what they could have done better in the past and what more they could do in the future.

In 2017, there was Motion 103. Tabled by Liberal MP Iqra Khalid, it asked the House of Commons to condemn Islamophobia and endorse a study of how the federal government could better combat racism and discrimination. It did not pass quietly or easily. Eighty-six Conservative MPs — including current party leader Erin O’Toole — voted against it.

August 25, 2020

O’Toole’s first response to the attack in London this week described it as an “Islamophobic act of terror.” He used the word “Islamophobia” in his remarks to the House of Commons the next day.

Maybe that counts as some small measure of progress, too. But even if O’Toole appeared to turn a page this week, should politicians ever be allowed to move on so quietly?

Does he regret his vote on M-103? How does he feel now about what the previous Conservative government — which he served as a cabinet minister — said and did in regards to the niqab? What about that same government’s talk of “barbaric cultural practices?”

February 16, 2017

In the 2015 election — during which Stephen Harper suggested he would consider extending a ban on the niqab to the public service — was hardly the last word on anti-Muslim prejudice in Canada.

Trudeau put himself ahead of other leaders on the issue of the niqab when he delivered that speech in 2015. Unfortunately, it was possible then to think he had taken a political risk in so loudly criticizing the Harper government’s ban. New Democrats ended up blaming their losses in that year’s election in part on the fact that Tom Mulcair eventually was compelled to condemn the policy.

October 3, 2019

If Trudeau is ahead of his federal counterparts now on the matter of Quebec’s Bill 21, which would ban public servants in the province from wearing religious headwear or symbols, he’s not ahead by much.

O’Toole deferred to Quebec when he was asked about the so-called “secularism” law last September — another thing he might be asked about now. NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh has criticized the bill but has stopped short of saying an government led by him would intervene.

Trudeau has criticized the bill but is still alone among federal leaders in saying that the federal government might someday need to participate in a legal challenge against it.

That wasn’t much — but then Trudeau seemed to move backwards this week. Asked by a reporter whether he thought Bill 21 “fosters hatred and … discrimination,” the prime minister responded, “No.” (Continued: CTV) 

 

Saturday November 7, 2020

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Saturday November 7, 2020

Biden Agenda To Face The Challenges Of A Closely Divided Congress

President-elect Joe Biden said Friday, as ballots were still being tabulated in states across the country, that voters had spoken loudly to embrace the policies and principles he campaigned on.

October 31, 2020

“They have given us a mandate for action on COVID and the economy and climate change and systemic racism,” Biden said in a late-night speech in Wilmington, Del. “They made it clear they want the country to come together — not pull apart.”

Biden followed Saturday night by calling on Democrats and Republicans to come together after the election and pledged to join them.

“And I believe that this is part of the mandate from the American people. They want us to cooperate,” Biden said. “That’s the choice I’ll make. And I call on the Congress — Democrats and Republicans alike — to make that choice with me.”

But Biden, who secured enough votes to win the Electoral College on Saturday morning, will face a narrowly divided Congress when he takes office in January. Biden’s significant lead in the popular vote did not translate to a Democratic wave in the House and Senate, leaving Biden without the votes necessary to pursue an aggressive legislative agenda in Congress.

Democrats maintained control of the House of Representatives but the GOP made gains, picking up at least five seats in the election. Control of the Senate will remain undecided until early January following a pair of runoff elections in Georgia.

November 6, 2020

Republican reaction to Biden’s victory has been muted as focus shifts to GOP efforts to defend incumbent Sens. Kelly Loeffler and David Perdue in those Georgia seats. So far, most Republican senators, including Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., have not congratulated Biden or acknowledged his victory.

But Democrats are already calling those races the linchpin that determines the success of Biden’s agenda. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., used Biden’s victory as a call to arms in the Georgia races.

Regardless of the outcome in Georgia, the victors will have a narrow majority in the Senate. And Democrats will be forced to contend with divisions within their own party on some of the biggest policy items on Biden’s list.

Among the most controversial is a plan to combat climate change. Democrats themselves are not fully unified on how to approach the issue. Divisions over how quickly and aggressively to move to limit carbon emissions have simmered within the party since progressive lawmakers like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., introduced the Green New Deal — a plan to eliminate the carbon footprint by 2030 — back in 2019.

Progressive activists are also calling for Biden to move on another issue that divides the party, Medicare for All. Biden and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., both oppose the plan and instead want Obamacare expanded with a public option. But progressives argue that the party has shifted to embrace widespread government-sponsored health care.

The COVID-19 Pandemic

Biden has consistently promised that one of his top priorities will be to take immediate steps to combat and control the spread of the coronavirus, which has surged in recent weeks. His plan includes investing in expanded testing with a Pandemic Testing Board and a vast Public Health Jobs Corps as well as better tracing capacity and greater production and distribution of personal protective equipment. His plan also includes a plan to boost jobs to aid in economic recovery.

Congressional leaders say they hope to pass some COVID relief before the end of this year but Democrats have long insisted that they expect the economy will need further support in 2021. (NPR) 

 

Saturday May 31, 1997

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Saturday May 31, 1997

Our hopes for the future

Our election ballot Monday must prepare our country for the challenges ahead. We must position our leaders, such as Jean Charest, where they will preserve Canada.The prospect of Preston Manning’s Reform Party forming the official Opposition after Monday’s federal election is deeply disturbing. Yes, Manning’s stance on separation better reflects the views of average Canadians, compared to the tired rhetoric of appeasement flowing from the Liberal and Progressive Conservative parties. But beyond that single issue, Reform offers no viable vision for a strong, unified country.

Yet, largely due to an inept, cynical Liberal election call and campaign, Reform as the official Opposition is a very likely outcome of the vote. That Manning’s party of western discontent is a better alternative than the destructive Bloc Quebecois is cold comfort.

A Progressive Conservative Opposition would be infinitely better for Canada, and for Ontario.

It’s true that the Progressive Conservative and Reform policy platforms are very similar. Both call for tax cuts, which are unproven as a job creation device. Both do little to address environmental concerns. Both propose accelerating government spending cu ts, but the truth is Canadians are happy for the most part with the progress made by Finance Minister Paul Martin in reducing the deficit and getting federal spending under control. Given that Tory and Reform policies are similar in so many ways, why install Jean Charest as Opposition leader?
Leadership.

Jean Charest has demonstrated he has more to offer personally than any of the other party leaders. His youthful energy and intellectual sincerity appeal to Canadians, but he offers more than a good sound-bite and an engaging television presence. Charest is passionate about a united Canada, and that devotion is going to be called upon in the near future. Another divisive, manipulative campaign will be launched by the separatists, probably right after the Supreme Court spells out the rules around secession. Charest has already pledged he will set aside partisan concerns and fight for a united Canada, just as he did last time we went through this frightening, tiresome exercise. He can be most effective in the unity battle if the Conservatives wear the Opposition mantle.

Charest’s Conservatives have a national philosophy, a rich history and a vision of the future that starts with the country being united. Even where Reform and Conservative policies overlap, Reform would go further, faster, with little regard for maintaining a strong federal voice. In the end, Reform is about protest.

Indignant Reformers will insist theirs is a national party. Reformers are anti-separatist, not anti-Quebec, they proclaim. But if Manning’s party is serious about inclusion, why are only 11 Reform candidates running in Quebec’s 75 ridings?
And what of the Liberals? Jean Chretien called an election at the wrong time, for the wrong reasons. His party will pay the price. Far from being the last national party, the Liberals could end up being Ontario’s party in a fractured Parliament. But it’s clear they will be returned to power for another term.

If that’s the case, one thing is abundantly clear.

The Liberals must begin to plan for Jean Chretien’s departure. He was the right politician for the time, when Canadians were dealing with the Mulroney government and its legacy of broken promises. Chretien has an uncanny ability to forge a connection and engender empathy if not trust.

But the Chretien era must end. He is not the man to lead us in celebrating the new millennium. He is certainly not the leader to guide this country through another ugly debate over Quebec’s future.

While there is no arguing Chretien’s contribution in the past, the sad fact is he is no longer appealing in Quebec, and so is among the best weapons the separatists have in their meagre arsenal. Chretien must gracefully step aside. Paul Martin, who has engineered the Liberals single biggest legitimate accomplishment by effectively managing the economy and reducing the deficit, is the logical replacement. Martin is respected for his fiscal conservatism, and may even be an asset in Quebec.

On Tuesday morning, the Liberals will govern. The question is, who will be second? If enough of us vote strategically and look seriously at credible Progressive Conservative candidates, perhaps Jean
Charest will be where he’ll do the most good for Canada. And Preston Manning will get the role he deserves, as a regional voice of discontent. (Hamilton Spectator, 5/31/1997, B4)