MIKE HARRIS: HIS POLITICAL LEGACY Introduction

In October 2001, to the surprise of many possible federal leader to replace or both inside and outside his Progressive . At times, he was touted as Conservative Party, Premier Mike the politician who could galvanize the Harris announced his intention to retire from country’s fractured political right into a force politics. Citing mainly personal reasons for that might one day be capable of presenting a his decision to quit public life, Harris left serious challenge to the governing federal office after having governed Canada’s largest Liberals. In the end, however, after over 22 province for over six years, in a way that years in provincial politics, six of them as never failed to arouse strong controversy. His Premier, Harris decided that he wanted to supporters hailed Harris as a leader who leave politics. possessed the courage and determination to Harris’s sudden departure initially left his reduce the role of government in society, party scrambling for a replacement who curb the power of public sector unions, cut would be able to lead it into a third term in taxes, foster individual initiative, and pro- office by the time the next provincial election mote investment and economic growth. But is called in 2003. The Conservatives quickly to his detractors, Harris’s legacy included an encountered a dilemma in the face of their autocratic approach to governing the prov- government’s sharp decline in popularity ince, crumbling health-care and public- against the surging opposition Liberals, led education systems, rising poverty and despair by Dalton McGuinty. In order to win another among marginalized Ontarians, questions campaign, should they adhere rigidly to over the police shooting of a Native pro- Harris’s hard-right approach to governing, or tester, and a lack of concern over environ- should they instead take the opportunity mental regulations that had allegedly and in afforded by choosing a new leader to soften part triggered the tragedy of Walkerton’s the edges of their neo-conservative ideology tainted-water scandal of 2000, which resulted as well? The two leading candidates to in seven deaths. succeed Harris epitomized this dichotomy Harris first became premier in 1995, perfectly. Former finance minister Ernie ousting ’s hapless and recession- Eves, who had left politics for private busi- plagued NDP administration, and led his ness and then made a sudden return to run for party to a triumphant re-election in 1999 Harris’s job, represented the pragmatic, despite massive opposition from labour, moderate position, and called on the party to environmental, and social-action groups reach out to groups who had become alien- across the province. His “Common Sense ated from it, in particular the province’s Revolution,” with its calls for lower taxes, teachers and health-care workers. On the less government, reduced social services, and other hand, , who had assumed the vigorous encouragement of the private Eves’s old finance portfolio, called for a sector as the engine of prosperity became the continuation of the Common Sense Revolu- rallying-cry for neo-conservative forces tion at all costs. On some issues, like law and across Canada. Along with Alberta’s Ralph order and homelessness, Flaherty appeared to Klein, Harris symbolized the reinvigorated be staking out positions that were, if any- right-wing approach to politics that had given thing, even more right-wing than Harris’s. rise to the Reform Party (later the Canadian In the leadership vote of March 2002, Eves Alliance). Some even looked to Harris as a won a comfortable victory, but Flaherty’s

News in Review — 31 — May 2002 strong showing indicated that for many in the Recommended Web Sites party, the Harris legacy was not something To add further perspective to this story, the they were readily willing to abandon, or even use of the following Web sites is recom- tone down. Whether Ontario’s Conservatives mended. would succeed, in time for the next provin- • www.ontariopc.on.ca (The Web site cial election, in healing the deep ideological of the Progressive Conservative divisions the leadership campaign opened up Party of Ontario) remains to be seen. But what was beyond dispute was the fact that during his six • www.gov.on.ca (The Web site of tumultuous years as premier, the Ontario provincial government) changed the face of government and its role • www.ontarioliberal.on.ca (The Web in Ontario society. Moreover, he left behind site of the Liberal Party of Ontario, him a controversial legacy whose conse- the official opposition) quences the province’s people would be living with for many years to come. • www.ontariondp.on.ca (The Web site of the of Ontario)

May 2002 — 32 — News in Review MIKE HARRIS: HIS POLITICAL LEGACY A Lasting Impression

This News in Review report provides an overview of the Mike Harris government in Ontario, including an examination of its major policies, the support and opposition they aroused when they were introduced, their lasting effects on the province, the future of his party after his departure from office, and his lasting political legacy.

Changing Times While watching the video make a list of the major changes the provincial government of Mike Harris introduced in Ontario between 1995 and 2001. Compare your list with that of others.

In the Face of Change Now form groups to discuss the changes you have identified and their effects on Ontario and perhaps all of Canadian society. In your groups, use the following questions to help guide your discussion: 1. Why did Harris believe that cutting taxes, balancing the budget, and reducing the size and cost of government were good policies for his government to follow? 2. What effects did the introduction of these policies have on Ontario residents? 3. Why did some groups in the province oppose the policies of the Harris govern- ment? Why did others support them? 4. How did Harris and his government respond to the criticism and opposition they faced from some people in the province? 5. Why were the changes Harris introduced in the areas of education, health care, and municipal government so important?

For a detailed understanding of this story, watch the video again. This time record answers to the following questions: 1. What was the name Mike Harris’s party gave to its policy program in 1995? 2. Who succeeded Harris as in 2002? 3. By how much did Harris promise to cut provincial income tax rates in 1995? 4. What major financial achievement did Harris’s government accomplish by 1999? 5. What important economic change in Ontario helped Harris win re-election in 1999? 6. What two provincial political leaders were significantly influenced by Harris’s approach to governing? 7. What major criticism did Harris make of the federal government of Prime Minis- ter Jean Chrétien? 8. Who did Harris appoint to head a commission that reviewed Ontario’s health-care system in 1996? 9. By how much did Harris cut the operating budget of the province’s health-care system?

News in Review — 33 — May 2002 10. How much money was the Harris government spending on health care by the time Harris left office in 2001? 11. What were the main changes Harris’s government introduced in the province’s education system? 12. How did Ontario teachers demonstrate their opposition to these changes? 13. What was the Omnibus Bill of 1996? 14. How did the Harris government promote its policies with the province’s residents? 15. What were the Days of Action? Change for the Sake of Change? Now consider the answers to the above questions. For each, suggest the impact of the change on the people of Ontario, or others.

1. The 2. 3. Thirty per cent 4. He balanced the provincial budget and eliminated the deficit. 5. An end to the recession and a booming American economy helped stimulate growth and prosperity in Ontario. 6. Conservative Premier Ralph Klein of Alberta and Liberal Premier Gordon Campbell of British Columbia 7. Harris criticized Chrétien’s government for underfunding the health-care system by reduc- ing the amount of money in federal transfer payments to the provinces for this sector. 8. Dr. Donald Sinclair 9. $1.3-billion 10. $23-billion 11. It introduced a new, standardized curriculum from Kindergarten to Grade 12, brought in standardized testing, increased the amount of time teachers had to spend in the classroom, cut the number of school boards, and changed how they received their funding. 12. Teachers staged a two-week protest against the Harris government in November 1997, shutting down the province’s schools. 13. The Omnibus Bill of 1996 gave the government new powers to restructure government services, which it used a year later when it announced major changes to education funding, welfare, public transit, and property taxes. 14. The government spent $8-million to promote its policies with the public by buying adver- tisements in newspapers and on radio and television. Opposition parties charged that during its time in office, the Harris government had spent $100-million of taxpayers’ money on such ads. 15. The Days of Action were protests called by labour and other social groups opposed to Harris’s policies, staged in major Ontario cities between 1995 and 1997.

May 2002 — 34 — News in Review MIKE HARRIS: HIS POLITICAL LEGACY Reviewing the Situation

In this report a number of significant points of view regarding the Harris legacy are expressed. Read each aloud and then discuss why you think the speaker holds the views he or she does. State whether or not you agree with the point of view expressed and why. • “Harris was talking about cutbacks. I liked the idea. Government was a bit too fat, and some cutbacks would be nice. And yes, he was doing drastic things, but I liked the sound of that at the time.” — Kevin Hewitt, Cambridge merchant • “Tax cuts were important because our tax rate was 58.5 per cent, the third highest in the country, and jobs were streaming out of Ontario in the early to mid 1990s. They had to provide that stimulus to ensure Ontario assumed its rightful place as the economic engine of Canada.” — Walter Robinson, Canadian Taxpayers’ Association • “Give Harris his due, whether it’s luck or whether it’s not, it worked out better than I would have thought because it just so happened to coincide that when tax cuts came in place, the U.S. economy started to boom, and in particular all of the Americans decided to buy cars, and a lot of those cars were built in Ontario.” — Don Drummond, economist • “What we faced was a government that tried to demonize teachers and educa- tional workers, and tried to demonize their representative unions, called them special interest groups, deliberately tried to suggest that we were enemies of the government, and went out of their way to use teachers and educational workers as scapegoats.” — Earl Manners, president, Ontario Secondary School Teachers’ Federation • “I think it’s important not to go ‘let’s throw the baby out with the bathwater’ here and get rid of everything because some of the changes had to be made. They were just made incredibly badly and they were made at the same time that they were taking hundreds of millions of dollars out of the system.” — Annie Kidder, People for Education • “We’ve never seen in this province a government quite like the Harris govern- ment. Not only was it a question of consciously avoiding consensus building and consulting with people and seeking some kind of middle ground which really had been the formula for success for the conservatives and their 40-year regime, in the Peterson government and so on. But the scope and the speed of change was just remarkable, and Ontario had never really seen anything like it.” — Graham White, professor of political science, University of • “So the resistance that welled up from groups on the fringe, like the Ontario Coalition Against Poverty, was very good for the government. It allowed them to show that they were being reasonable and proceeding, while toughly, but on a course they had set out and secured democratic support for, and people were trying to resist it.” — Graham Murray, publisher, Inside Queen’s Park • “You cannot please all of the people, all of the time. Because leadership is about making choices that, surely, some people will not always agree with.” — Premier Mike Harris

News in Review — 35 — May 2002 MIKE HARRIS: HIS POLITICAL LEGACY A Political Career from Start to Finish

Mike Harris, a one-time golf pro, elementary school teacher, and school trustee from the city of North Bay, rose to become premier of Canada’s largest and wealthi- est province, and one of the country’s major neo-conservative political leaders. His political career, the policies his government pursued, the confrontations it faced and enemies it made, and the enduring legacy of his “Common Sense Revolution” are a political case study that historians will refer to in the years to come.

The Years of Preparation, 1945-1995 Born in Toronto in 1945, Mike Harris grew up in North Bay, where his father established a successful resort business, taking advantage of the region’s appealing northern scenery and excellent fishing on Lake Nipissing. After dropping out of university and pursuing a brief career in teaching, Harris took over the management of a North Bay golf course in 1975. That same year he made his first run for public office, winning a seat on the city’s board of educa- tion. He allied himself with the Progressive Conservative Party, and was chosen to stand as its candidate for the Nipissing riding in the 1981 provincial election. Harris was successful in that race, and went to Queen’s Park as an MPP under Premier . However, it was only after Davis’s departure from office in 1985 that Harris received a position in the cabinet, when the new premier Frank Miller appointed him Minister of Natural Resources and Energy, and later as house leader. But Harris’s tenure in office was to prove short-lived, as Miller was defeated in the 1985 provincial election, which saw ’s Liberals form a minor- ity government with the support of Bob Rae’s NDP.

In 1987, Peterson called a new election, which resulted in a sweeping Liberal victory and the near destruction of the Conservatives led by Larry Grossman. Harris held on to his own seat, and the party’s defeat and the resulting leadership vacuum now presented him with the chance he had waited for since first arriving at Queen’s Park six years before. He was convinced that the party needed a clear change of direction, and that he was the person to provide it. Always suspicious of what he termed “big government,” viscerally opposed to high taxes, deficits, and powerful public-sector unions, and a strong advocate of a more businesslike approach to governing, Harris presented himself to the party as the “tax-fighter,” the man who would make tax cuts a policy appealing enough to restore its popularity with the voters and catapult it back into power.

In May 1990, Harris won a narrow victory over his leadership rival , who had opposed the hard-right-wing policies he had promoted as the party’s salvation. Only a few months later, Premier David Peterson called a , which he was confident he would win over both the untested Harris and the NDP’s Rae. However, to the surprise of almost everyone inside Ontario and across the country, on election night September 6, 1990, Rae led the centre-left New Democrats to a smashing victory. For his part, Harris’s call for tax cuts netted the Conservatives only a handful of seats more than they had won in the 1987 rout. To many observers, it appeared that Ontario politics were taking a decidedly left-wing turn, one that would leave Harris as a minor, bit-part player for many years to come.

May 2002 — 36 — News in Review However, the recession that hit Ontario almost immediately after Rae’s victory left his gov- ernment floundering as it faced rising unemployment, mounting deficits, and eroding public confidence, especially from the province’s influential business sector. Its decision to impose a policy of wage restraints on public-sector workers, whose unions formed the core of the NDP’s base of political support, proved ultimately self-defeating in terms of its re-election chances. At the same time, Harris and his team quietly polled voters on a number of what they were convinced were “hot-button” issues, including lower taxes, elimination of the provincial deficit, reductions in welfare payments, boot camps for young offenders, and an end to em- ployment equity policies that allegedly favoured women and minorities for employment in the public service. At the same time, Harris drew around him a highly committed group of neo- conservative advisors, who helped him hammer out what was to become the “Common Sense Revolution,” the uncompromisingly right-wing political agenda that would propel him into the premier’s office in June 1995.

With Rae’s government imploding, the provincial Liberals were convinced that they were poised to win back the government they had lost so unexpectedly five years before. Harris’s Conservatives were largely written off as too extremist and right wing to be serious contend- ers. But during the party leaders’ debates during the campaign, Harris scored well with many Ontario voters who wanted jobs, lower taxes, more emphasis on law and order, and an end to social policies that they believed promoted idleness and dependence on government. Harris’s folksy, populist image was packaged to maximum advantage for the party, and to the surprise of many his Conservatives won a solid majority victory on June 8, 1995, ending the NDP’s social-democratic experiment in governing Ontario, in all likelihood for decades to come, and in addition dealing a mortal blow to the Liberals’ hopes for a comeback under their leader Lyn McLeod. On election night, a triumphant Harris proclaimed that his “Common Sense Revolu- tion” was about to begin, and that his government would waste no time in implementing its core policies, whatever opposition it might face in the process.

Discussion 1. What qualities did Mike Harris possess that enabled him to succeed in political life and become leader of his party and eventually premier of Ontario in 1995?

2. What political and economic factors that were affecting Ontario during the early 1990s assisted Mike Harris’s Conservatives in winning election in the province? The First Harris Administration and its Opponents (1995-99) On September 27, 1995, amid the tightest security and police presence ever seen at Queen’s Park, Mike Harris was sworn in as Ontario’s 22nd premier. As thousands of demonstrators representing labour, student, environmental, anti-poverty, and social action groups massed noisily outside, the new Conservative government outlined its policy goals in its first throne speech. Among its initial steps were an immediate repeal of the previous NDP’s legislation that prevented strike-bound companies from hiring replacement workers, a 26-per-cent cut to provincial welfare rates, an end to employment equity programs, and a drastic reduction in the staff of the Ministry of the Environment. That same month, Harris faced the first of many controversies his government was to confront when a Native demonstrator, Dudley George, was shot by OPP officers during a dispute over land claims at a provincial park. To the day he

News in Review — 37 — May 2002 left office, Harris’s role in this shooting was to remain a sensitive issue, as the dead man’s family launched a lawsuit against him, and Harris replied by initiating his own legal actions against a Toronto newspaper he believed had libeled him over his role in the affair.

The Harris government’s first measures were fully in tune with the policies of the Common Sense Revolution, as were others that were quickly to follow. Significant public-service and health-care budget cuts were announced, affecting large numbers of government and medical workers. The province’s entire system of elementary and secondary education was to be overhauled. Large tax cuts were to be introduced at the same time as the deficit inherited from previous NDP and Liberal administrations was to be eliminated. Young offenders were to be sent to boot camps, and welfare recipients were to be compelled to participate in workfare programs if they wanted to continue to receive their benefits. Convinced that these policies enjoyed considerable public support among those who believed government had grown too big and was spending too freely during the Peterson and Rae years, Harris claimed that his Conservatives were not the government, but “the people who came to fix the government.”

Along with the radical right-wing substance of his government’s policies came what was for Ontario a very different style of governing. Previous premiers, like the centre-rightist Conser- vative Bill Davis, the centrist David Peterson, and the centre-leftist Bob Rae, had all governed “from the centre” of the political spectrum. This meant that despite the significant ideological and policy differences among them, they all shared the general view that their governments should adhere to basically moderate, middle-of-the-road positions on major public issues. In addition, they all believed in the importance of consultation with various interest groups and stakeholders before a major reform was implemented. For their part, though, Harris and his neo-conservative advisors took a diametrically opposite view of how the province should be governed. The Common Sense Revolution’s main policy planks were presented as a mani- festo to be implemented as much as possible during the Conservatives’ first electoral mandate. And these policies, no matter how distasteful to specific groups affected by them, were to be imposed quickly, firmly, and with a minimum of input and consultation, especially from those directly involved.

Harris’s government soon found itself facing a concerted opposition from the many groups whose members were opposed to its policies. While opinion polls continued to indicate significant support for the Common Sense Revolution, there were many Ontarians who mobilized against it. In a number of cities, including Toronto, labour and social-action groups organized mass “days of action” protests that brought tens of thousands into the streets in 1995 and 1996, shutting down schools, government offices, and public transport. In 1997, a two-week province-wide teachers’ political action was called in response to the government’s education reforms, which included an increased workload and mandatory testing for teachers, and a new education funding formula that reduced the amount of money available to school boards. Employees in the provincial health-care sector, including nurses, doctors, and hospital workers, also demonstrated, expressing their frustration over a massive restructuring of the system that involved significant budget cuts and layoffs. The six municipalities that had once composed were forcibly merged into one big “megacity” in 1997, despite strong opposition from local politicians and a massive “no” vote of the city’s resi- dents. But despite all these challenges, Harris’s government remained determined to stay the

May 2002 — 38 — News in Review course, convinced that its policies were not only right and necessary, but also that it had a large portion of the public on its side, and that is opponents could be largely marginalized, demonized, or ignored.

As the Conservatives approached the end of their first term in office, some in the party be- came concerned that the harsh approach to governing and the speed with which their contro- versial reforms had been implemented might jeopardize their electoral chances. But Harris entered the 1999 campaign with confidence. He could point to the fact that under his leader- ship there had been a significant increase in the creation of new jobs in Ontario. An end to the recession of the early 1990s and a booming U.S. economy stimulated the demand for con- sumer goods, reducing unemployment and boosting provincial tax revenues, despite the cuts and deficit-reduction measures he had introduced. Public sector unions, teachers, health-care workers, anti-poverty and environmental activists, student organizations, and others opposed to his policies had been dismissed as narrow, negative “special interest groups,” who did not share the values of the majority of hard-working, tax-paying Ontario families. And whatever his critics might say, no one could deny the fact that Harris had actually done what he had said he would do before being elected. Unlike many political leaders who promised one thing and did another after winning power, Harris seemed to a large number of Ontarians to be a man of his word, who could be counted on to keep his promises.

The political opposition, led by the Liberals’ McGuinty and the NDP’s new leader , while united in their mutual loathing of the Common Sense Revolution, could not agree on any effective electoral strategy that could have any realistic chance of toppling Harris as the 1999 vote approached. At the same time, some of Harris’s pre-election announcements indicated that his government might be prepared to soften the edges of its hard-right-wing policies if it won re-election, and was even prepared to restore some of the funding cuts it had made to health care and education, in response to growing public concern over their negative effects. Nonetheless, the opposition to the Common Sense Revolution mobilized for the 1999 provincial election campaign, hoping to prevent Harris from winning yet another term in office and continue with his policies.

Discussion 1. What were some of the major policies the Mike Harris government implemented in Ontario during its first term in office? Why did some groups of people in the province bitterly oppose these policies?

2. In what major respects was the Harris administration in Ontario a radical depar- ture from previous governments of all parties in the province? How did he use this new approach to governing to his advantage during the 1999 provincial election campaign? The Second Harris Administration: End of the Revolution? On June 3, 1999, to the delight of his many supporters and the shock and consternation of his many opponents, Mike Harris won re-election for another term in office. He was the first Ontario premier to win back-to-back majority victories since in the 1960s. This triumph represented a major achievement for Harris and his team, and a significant defeat for

News in Review — 39 — May 2002 those who had made up the core of the movements formed in opposition to his government’s policies. And although he had sent some signals during the campaign that he might be pre- pared to slow down the pace of his reforms and adopt a more conciliatory approach to groups that were negatively affected by them, his actions in the post-election period appeared to suggest the contrary. The tax cuts continued, as did additional changes to the educational system that further antagonized teachers and municipal school trustees, especially in Toronto. Work-for-welfare programs were extended, and a demonstration staged by anti-poverty activists outside Queen’s Park resulted in considerable violence when police forcibly evicted homeless occupants of a city park.

At the same time as his government appeared determined to continue with the second round of its Common Sense Revolution policies, believing with some justification that it had re- ceived a solid mandate from the voters to do so, Harris himself appeared to lose interest in his job as the province’s premier. He took more frequent and longer vacations, and did not often appear in the legislature. He left the defence of his government’s initiatives largely to his senior cabinet assistants, including Finance Minister Ernie Eves, Education Minister , and Health Minister . Public opinion polls began to register a signifi- cant shift against his government, as the Liberals saw their support grow—an indication of increasing unease about the consequences of the government’s cuts, especially in health care and education. With Harris adopting a hands-off approach, his government seemed to be losing the firm sense of direction that had guided it so forcefully during its first mandate.

Then in May 2000, Harris and his government faced the most serious assault on their policy record and credibility. An E. coli epidemic struck the Southwestern Ontario town of Walkerton, resulting in seven deaths and a much larger number of people who became seri- ously ill from drinking tainted water. Although Harris blamed the ineptitude of local water inspectors for the tragedy, it soon became apparent that for many the problem was at least in part the result of his government’s decision to privatize the inspection of local water supplies, and of major cuts that had been made to the staff of the province’s environment ministry. When public pressure for a full-scale investigation into this disaster became too great to ignore, Harris reluctantly called for a government inquiry into the Walkerton affair. Its final report, delivered by committee chair Judge Dennis O’Connor, indeed faulted the town’s local water inspectors for their sloppiness. But O’Connor also condemned the Harris government for ignoring warnings that spending cuts and staff reductions in the environmental sector would one day result in serious if not fatal consequences.

It is impossible to know whether the aftermath of the Walkerton tragedy, or the lingering after-effects of the Dudley George case exerted any influence on Harris’s decision to leave office in the fall of 2001. He stated at the time that personal reasons were the major motiva- tion for his retirement, but there was some speculation that he had grown tired of the job of premier, and that he feared his government would face a difficult challenge in winning re- election for a third term. Whatever the reason, there is little doubt that with his departure, Mike Harris leaves behind him a province that has been radically transformed by the actions of the government he led. Whether or not this transformation is ultimately beneficial or harm- ful to the citizens of Ontario remains a matter of considerable debate. But there is consensus on the conclusion that whatever political party forms the next provincial government, or even

May 2002 — 40 — News in Review the one after that, it will have to deal with the long-term consequences of the legacy of the Harris administration, many of which will be difficult if not impossible to reverse.

As reporter Caroline Mallan wrote on March 16, 2002, as a result of Harris’s years in power, “ ... tax cuts are the norm, talk of increasing taxes has been erased from the debate, Harris’s political party is overflowing with cash, and he has truly revolutionized government. Many of the changes he has made will remain long after he has gone. While the opposition parties say they will reverse some policies, the bulk of the legacy of the Harris years will remain. Those closed hospitals will not reopen, the city of Toronto will not be divided back into six municipalities, deficit spending is a thing of the past, and teachers’ workdays will not be shortened.” Like in Britain, in the United States, and in , Mike Harris was a conservative revolutionary, who radically altered the way government functions in Ontario. The changes he made will remain in effect for many years to come, and the province’s citizens will have to live with them, for good or for ill.

Follow-up Discussion What do you think are the most important aspects of Harris’s political legacy in Ontario? Do you think these will ultimately be viewed as positive or negative? Why?

News in Review — 41 — May 2002 MIKE HARRIS: HIS POLITICAL LEGACY Four Views of the Harris Legacy

The impact of the Harris government’s reforms on Ontario and the rest of Canada is likely to be debated for some time after his departure from political life. Below are summary points by prominent figures during the Harris government.

1. Bob Rae, former Ontario NDP premier (1990-95) has said that: the secret of Harris’s success lay in the fact that he inherited a provincial economy that was already entering a period of recovery after the deep recession of the early 1990s; he skillfully focused voters’ attention on “hot button” issues like welfare, crime, and immigration; he used negative cam- paign tactics appealing to self-interest and voters’ frustration over declining living standards; the Harris government’s rigid adherence to its neo-conservative ideology, plus its unwilling- ness to consult with those who felt the brunt of its policy reforms, led it into a series of pro- tracted and unwinnable wars, against the federal government, teachers, welfare recipients, public sector unions, and others; despite curbing provincial deficits, cutting taxes, and balanc- ing the budget, the negative effects of these fiscal reforms include a much higher rate of poverty among many of the province’s residents, despite almost a decade of strong economic growth.

2. Linda McQuaig, author and journalist, believes that: Harris was lucky to gain power when a long economic boom was increasing levels of employment and provincial tax revenues, reducing the deficit, and allowing his government to cut taxes; it was not the overspending of his predecessors that actually caused the recession of the early 1990s and points to other factors such as the ’s high interest rates at the time; Harris took credit for deficit reduction and balancing the provincial budget only after most other Canadian prov- inces had already done so; the support of the province’s influential business sector and media turned public opinion in his favour; reduced welfare payments and an end to the ban on strikebreakers were extremely popular with business; his tax cuts benefitted the rich far more than middle-income earners; the prolonged period of prosperity in the U.S. and low interest rates there favoured the Ontario economy; any government in power at the time would have enjoyed the political benefits of this.

3. Tom Long, former Harris advisor and leadership candidate, believes that: unlike most other Canadian politicians Harris stood for something, pursued his policies in a determined way; presented himself as an honest, “real” person to the voters; had the vision to initiate measures such as work for welfare, tax cuts, an end to employment quotas, and the repealing of labour legislation that favoured unions over business; Harris did not seek the political middle of the road but carved out a clear position on the issues, presenting a real choice to voters looking for new leadership during the recession; Harris has left Ontario in a very strong position; Harris’s successor should capitalize on his predecessor’s real achieve- ments and continue the policies his government had the courage to introduce, such as educa- tional reform, lowering taxes even more, privatizing public companies, and further shrinking the size of government.

May 2002 — 42 — News in Review 4. Andrew Coyne, journalist and editor concludes that: Harris failed to achieve what he had set out to accomplish—the real reduction in the power and cost of what he, Coyne, calls the “leviathan state”; Harris’s reason for leaving office lies in the fact that he knows that it is unlikely that he could lead his government to a third election victory; despite some major achievements Harris was unable to make a serious dent in the power of the state and groups like public sector unions who benefit from it; there should have been more privatizations, unions should have been brought under control, health-care and education spending should have been even further reduced, and the government should have made a real effort to intro- duce greater freedom for parents to send their children to the schools of their choice; govern- ment spending at the end of the Harris era is actually higher than it was when Bob Rae’s NDP government left office in 1995; Harris’s eventual failure to roll back the power and cost of the state is proof that even the most committed government will in the end run up against serious roadblocks if it takes this goal seriously.

Discussion 1. Read the assessments above a second time and as you do so, formulate a one- sentence statement in which you summarize how the individual has assessed Mike Harris’s political legacy.

2. Finally, formulate a one-paragraph statement in which you state clearly what your assessment of the Mike Harris legacy is.

News in Review — 43 — May 2002 MIKE HARRIS: HIS POLITICAL LEGACY Discussion, Research, and Essay Questions

1. Using information from Web sites, newspapers, magazines, or other sources in your school’s resource centre, prepare either (a) a retrospective visual display featuring some of the important events that occurred during Mike Harris’s years as Premier of Ontario, or (b) the race to succeed him as Leader of the Progressive Conservative Party in the province in March 2002.

2. Read one of the following books about the Harris years in Ontario politics and prepare a book report on it: Ontario Since 1985, by Randall White; Revolution at Queen’s Park: Essays on Governing Ontario, edited by S.J.R. Noel; Right Turn: How the Took Ontario, by Christina Blizzard; From Protest to Power: Reflections on a Life in Politics, by Bob Rae; Rae Days, by Thomas L. Walkom; Cycling to Saigon: The Conservative Transition in Ontario, by David R. Cameron and Graham White; Lost in the Suburbs: A Political Travelogue, by Stephen Dale; Promised Land: Inside the Mike Harris Revolution, by John Ibbitson; Open for Business, Closed to People: Mike Harris’s Ontario, edited by Diana Ralph et al.

3. As a class, conduct a formal or informal debate on the following resolution: “The legacy of Mike Harris’s government in Ontario will be viewed more negatively than positively in the years to come.” (See the resource guide for the March 2001 News in Review story “Diplomatic Immunity: The Issue Hits Home” for informa- tion on formal debating.)

4. Compare and contrast the policies Mike Harris’s government followed in Ontario with those of other provincial governments with a similar right-wing political philosophy, such as Ralph Klein’s Conservatives in Alberta and Gordon Campbell’s Liberals in British Columbia. What are the major similarities and differences that can be noted among these governments’ policies and approaches to governing?

5. Find out more about the role of one of the following organizations that took an active part in opposing one or more of the policies of the Harris government during its terms in office: Ontario Federation of Labour, Ontario Secondary School Teachers’ Federation, Ontario Nurses’ Association, Ontario Federation of Students, Ontario Coalition Against Poverty, or the Ontario Public Service Em- ployees’ Union.

6. Consult the Web site addresses listed of the three major Ontario political parties on page 32 of this resource guide, and prepare a report on one of them. Focus on the following: (a) the leader, (b) the main policies, (c) the party’s position on the initiatives of the current government, (d) the party’s readiness for the next provin- cial election.

May 2002 — 44 — News in Review