The Harris Government’s approach was to introduce major cuts to government programs (often those affecting the least fortunate) and extensive downloading of responsibilities and costs to local governments. For example, the province cut social assistance rates by 21.6%, laid off hundreds of nurses, and imposed numerous hospital closures. The harsh actions were mirrored in the cruel remarks of Premier Harris. He famously justified cutting a food allowance for pregnant mothers because they might otherwise just spend the money on beer and he suggested that hospital workers being laid off were similar to those who lost their jobs when the hula-hoop craze was over (and manufacturing of them ceased).
Initially, the province planned to download to municipalities greater responsibility for public housing, public health, homes for special care, long term care, and general welfare assistance. Faced with growing criticism and evidence of the financial disparities that would result, the province agreed to a provincial-local review and modified the extent of the download. The net result, however, was still increased costs for the municipal level, and that was acknowledged in subsequent years with the gradual uploading of responsibilities and costs.
While the public debt had increased some $50 billion under the NDP, as it struggled with an international recession largely beyond its control, it is striking to note that total debt increased again almost by half (some $22 billion) during the Harris period because of the major tax cuts that were introduced.
The Ford Regime
Within months of taking office, it became clear that the government for “all the people” did not extend, for example, to those with autism or those seeking help for drug addiction – just two of the programs that had their funding cut. The new regime also channeled the derogatory and belittling language that Mike Harris had used. When the Ontario Association for Behavioural Analysis expressed concern about the funding for those with autism, the Conservative Minister then responsible (Lisa McLeod) told the Association to get on board or face “a long four years.” When the Minister of Education announced the planned increase in class sizes in Ontario, she tried to promote this as a positive step that would make students more resilient. But, the most outlandish – and despicable – example of the actions and rationalizations of the Ontario Government relates to the funding of drug treatment centres. A press release from the province proclaimed that its commitment to those struggling with drug addiction was evident from the approval of 15 consumption and treatment sites in communities with high need. Not mentioned in the release was the fact that the government was cutting funding for four heavily used overdose prevention sites and rejecting two others – actions that will almost certainly lead to more drug-related deaths.
Also cruel and thoughtless were cuts in funding to children’s aid societies and legal aid, which will leave abused children and women more vulnerable. Faced with a growing public outcry and plummeting popularity, Ford backpedalled on some of the cuts temporarily, but will still be introducing – in the coming year – damaging cuts in support for child care and public health. Reducing public health programs is spectacularly shortsighted, since without these preventive initiatives we will end up spending far more on sickness care. Once again, one of the results of the various cuts that have been introduced will be downloading, as municipalities and local boards try to make up some of the financial shortfall and keep needed programs going.
Like Harris before him, Ford has also introduced tax cuts that will rob the province of much needed revenues if it is to reduce its annual deficits. For example, Ford cancelled a planned surtax on high-income earners planned by the previous Liberal Government, one that would have raised $275 million in revenues. Just like Harris, Ford is slashing programs that are needed by Ontario residents to help in offsetting the loss of revenues from tax cuts. For decades much of Ontario’s budget shortfall has stemmed from insufficient funding, not out of control spending. Ontario has long had the lowest per capita spending of all 10 provinces. There isn’t extensive fat; there aren’t all sorts of efficiencies that can be introduced to save money, as Ford claimed on the campaign trail.
It is said that those who don’t learn from history are condemned to repeat it – and that is certainly the case in Ontario with these two Conservative regimes.