Who Speaks for Ontario?

(This article was orinally written in 1999)

In the wake of his second electoral victory, does Mike Harris speak for Ontario?

In our political culture, the customary answer to that question is a resounding Yes. But Harris is not a customary Canadian political leader and the election that just ended was no run of the mill affair.

Despite his vague offer of an olive branch to those who disagree with him, what distinguishes Harris from former Ontario premiers is that he takes pride in enacting his agenda, his whole agenda and nothing but his agenda---no matter what anyone else thinks. How often during the election campaign did we hear Harris proclaim that he does what he says and that's why the people trust him?

The trouble is that 45 per cent of the people trust him, but 55 per cent do not. In a highly polarized society, which Ontario has become, the fact that the majority is in staunch opposition to the government is no small thing.

In the pre-Harris political culture, Ontario's three political parties were centrist. They had their disagreements, but they occupied a political terrain in which they had much in common. It was normal for political leaders like Bill Davis, Stephen Lewis and Bob Nixon to borrow ideas from each other.

In an atmosphere of give and take, the distortions of the first-past-the-post electoral system were not so onerous. Now it really matters that the party that won 45 per cent of the votes got almost 60 per cent of the seats. Harris has deliberately polarized us through his repeated and calculated attacks on teachers, trade unionists, young people and the poor. When the Premier takes pride in not listening to the other parties---even though they won the votes of the majority---that leaves the majority effectively unrepresented.

What lies in store for all of us, the minority who voted for Harris and the majority who did not?

Phase two of the Common Sense Revolution is what we are going to get. My assumption is that we will get it raw, without effective consultation, the way we got phase one.

At the core of Harris' thinking is the highly dubious proposition that the government's tax cut has underlain Ontario's enviable rate of economic growth and that a further twenty per cent cut in the provincial income tax will ensure growth for the future. Harris is a firm believer in the 1980s supply-side doctrine of Ronald Reagan that tax cuts for the rich promote capital investments and economic growth which, in turn, ensure a strong flow of tax revenues. Reagan's application of this doctrine resulted in record high deficits and an enormous expansion of the U.S. national debt.

Harris' illusions aside, most observers agree that the main generator of Ontario's growth in recent years has been the continued expansion of the American economy, the source of the province's rising exports to the United States.

During Harris' first term, tax revenues climbed, even though he was cutting taxes.

The trouble is that the American expansion, already the longest in history, has been going on for eight years. When that expansion falters---highly likely over the life of Harris' second term---the faulty assumptions of Tory thinking will be put to the test, with predictably negative consequences for the people of Ontario.

In the event of a recession, tax revenues would fall and a further Harris tax cut would make matters worse. If Harris insisted on going ahead with the tax cut---remember he always keeps his promises---the government would be faced with a choice between rising deficits and a new round of draconian cuts to programs, including health care and education.

And don't forget, the full effects of the Harris government's downloading of services from the province to municipalities has not yet been felt.

Politics in Ontario is likely to get meaner and more polarized in the next couple of years. That is bound to highlight the question of who speaks for Ontario. Don't be surprised if the effectively unrepresented majority is forced in desperation to find novel ways to challenge the legitimacy of a government that has raised speaking only for a minority to a matter of principle.