The image of the Harris government that most Ontarians now have is, sadly, not very accurate. This image is that of a "slash-and-burn, right-wing regime that is relentlessly pursuing a neoconservative agenda." Really?
Balancing our budget:
Most Ontarians would agree with the statement that our government has ruthlessly slashed spending in an effort to balance Ontario's budget. FACT: The government will spend almost as much in this fiscal year ($55.9 billion) as did the New Democrats under Bob Rae in their last full year in office ($56.2 billion). This is a difference of less than 1%. The federal Liberals, usually portrayed by the media as "moderates", have cut spending by 6%, mostly at the expense of the provinces, and are much closer to their goal of a balanced budget.
Health care:
Ontarians would also agree that the government has cut back funding for health care and wants to move towards a two-tiered system. FACT: Spending on health care has actually increased from $17.6 billion in the last full year of the NDP government to $18.4 billion this fiscal year—in spite of the $2 billion cut in the federal grant to Ontario for health care. Ontarians are angry that the Harris government is closing hospitals. FACT: In most cases, the hospital closings were long overdue, and would have been undertaken regardless of the party in power today. And opponents of the government in the Legislature charge that the Harris government is moving towards a two-tiered medicare system. FACT: Unlike the Klein government in Alberta, the Ontario Tories have embraced the principles of the Canada Health Act, including universal access.
Education:
Opponents charge that the government has created a crisis in our education system. They claim that "cuts hurt Ontario's children," a statement which appeared on Teachers' picket signs. FACT: Operating grants from the government have declined under the Tories, from $4.4 billion in 1995 to $3.97 billion in 1997, but almost all of the cut has been offset by rising property taxes imposed by school boards. The combined amount of money spent in 1997 on education by the boards and the province is $14.4 billion, the highest level in Ontario's history. And opponents of the government in the province's Legislature charge that the government will soon use charter schools and vouchers. FACT: Both the Harris government and the government-appointed Education Improvement Commission are firmly on the record against both of these approaches. These opposition charges are ridiculous.
Workfare:
Many Ontarians believe that the Harris government is tossing people off welfare, or forcing them into new workfare programs. FACT: The number of welfare recipients has been reduced by 244,000 since 1995, but this is mainly due to a substantially improved economy. Unlike many American state governments, the Harris government has not placed any time limits on welfare, and, subsequently, Ontarians may continue to receive benefits without time restrictions. Welfare rates were cut by 21 per cent soon after the Tories came to power, but they still remain the highest of all the provinces. The federal Liberal cut to employment insurance (EI), which forced many recipients out of the program, was quite clearly less "moderate" than the average Ontarian would expect of the federal Liberals, and yet the media, to a large degree, either remained silent on the issue or blamed the Ontario Tories. Some in the media have even proven their incompetence further by comparing the election of the Harris government to the rise of fascism in Germany, or comparing Harris with Hitler or Botha (the former president of South Africa). Their allegations are absurd, and they should be treated as such.
New Toronto:
Many Torontonians think of the Harris government as anti-Toronto because of its imposition of amalgamation on the former municipalities. FACT: Amalgamation has long been favoured by a wide range of Torontonians, including progressives like Richard Gilbert and David Crombie. The old structure known as Metro was clearly no longer working effectively. But previous provincial governments did not have the courage to act on amalgamation, fearing the creation of a rival power.
Privatization:
Many Ontarians believe that the Harris government is privatizing crown assets too quickly. FACT: The Harris government has privatized virtually nothing. The privatization of Ontario Hydro, the LCBO, TVO, and other crown assets is either on hold or under review. The federal Liberals are busily privatizing crown assets in Ottawa, though this has not been noticed by many. The federal Liberals have even privatized air traffic control.
Granted, the Harris government has done many conservative things. It has repealed the NDP's labour law reforms; rolled back employment equity; reduced workers' compensation; partially decontrolled rents; cut the public service by 14,000; and repealed the NDP's photo radar legislation. But neoconservatism is about reducing the size of government, as Newt Gingrich and others in the U.S. know, and Harris is not really delivering. His government is taking control back from local communities and centralizing it in the provincial government, in both our education and health care systems.1 This is not consistent with neoconservative ideology. And yet, Harris' government has acquired a right-wing, neoconservative image, primarily from Ontario's media. Of course, they do not mention that he's spending as much as did former premier Bob Rae's government.
Harris' government appears "right-wing" when compared to the New Democrats (but not when compared to the federal Liberals). However, the term "right-wing" in Canada does not necessarily mean the same thing as it does in other countries, for example, the United States:
"In comparison to American politics ... we are nowhere near the tradition of ... Newt Gingrich. In fact, I would even argue that in comparison to the Clinton administration, we are in many ways, most notably in the area of health-care policy, quite liberal."
"I think on the U.S. political spectrum, with one being the most arch-conservative and ten the most liberal, we are probably somewhere around four on the fiscal side and nine on the social program side."
- Ontario Finance Minister Ernie Eves
1. This centralization of control in the provincial government, it can be argued, was quite necessary. Ontario's civil service is the bitterest opponent of Harris' reforms. The premier was elected to cut taxes and reduce government. The bureaucracy wants to enlarge government and raise taxes. In the education system, unelected school board officials were able to raise municipal property taxes to offset both Harris' cuts in spending, and (partially) his 30% income-tax cut. This is not right, and it is not democratic. If a party makes a promise to reform any function of government and then gets elected, the bureaucrats underneath it should not be able to refuse to implement the reforms simply because they are not in the best interests of their bureaucratic empires. So, Harris' Bill 160 was justified, but the relevant contrast here is between this centralization of control and neoconservatism's tendency to decentralize control. For example, Newt Gingrich's Contract with America calls for the decentralization of federal powers. The GOP advocates passing more powers to individual states via a process that they call "devolution" in a truly centrifugal system, with power flowing out of Washington, devolving to the states.
In a mid-term report card on the government, the Fraser Institute recommended:
1. A freeze on government spending.
2. More tax cuts.
3. A further reduction of welfare benefits.
4. Elimination of the minimum wage.
5. Enactment of right-to-work legislation.
6. The introduction of two-tiered medicare.
7. Vouchers and and charter schools.
8. The privatization of Hydro.
Perhaps with an agenda like this, the Harris government would earn the reputation that the media has given it.