Will the Liberals Retain Power in Ontario?

BY SATHEESAN KUMAARAN  * 

Amidst speculations and rumours that the Liberals are maintaining a lead in the polls, it is worth addressing some political issues readers should know.  Throughout the history of provincial politics, Ontarians have failed to participate, in great numbers, in elections.  Voters, once again, have a say in whether they want, as their leaders, representatives of the Liberals, Conservatives, New Democrats, or Greens.  Let your voice be heard at Queen’s Park by voting for a representative of one of these parties.   

Either the Liberals or the Tories have retained power in Ontario for most of the time since Confederation, in 1867; the hegemony of these two parties is striking.  After one term presided over by John A. Macdonald and the Conservatives, the Liberals stayed in office from 1872 until 1905, a considerable duration of time.  Thereafter, the Conservatives remained in charge until 1985, except for short durations, such as the rule of Ernest Drury’s United Farmers, from 1919 to 1923, and that of Mitchell Hepburn’s Liberals, from 1934 to 1943.  The non-stop hegemony of the Progressive Conservatives, from 1943 to 1985, would be the envy of any totalitarian regime, in terms of its duration and its massive legislative majorities.  After 1985, a ten-year interregnum, almost evenly shared between the Liberals, under the David Peterson, and the New Democratic Party (NDP), under Bob Rae, ended with a renewed Conservative majority, inaugurated on June 10, 1995.  Eventually, in 2003, the Liberals, under Dalton McGuinty, came to power.   

Ontario provincial politics have been dominated by one party because Ontarians lack interest in politics and because there is an absence of mass participation in government.  For most Ontarians, democracy is a slightly-boring spectator sport.   Political activity is perceived as the preoccupation of elites, increasingly ranged in single-issue pressure groups.  People adversely affected by the previous government go to polling stations to vote against that particular political party, but fail to remember all the other political alternatives; instead, they vote for the other dominant party, either the Liberals or the Conservatives.  The NDP and the Green Party are merely parties that agitate against legislation of which its members disapprove. 

Bob Rae did do his homework; he had the vision to capture power during the early 1990s; he joined in opposition with the Liberals, during the late 1980s, and managed to become the main opposition party in Parliament for a few years.  This made the NDP known among Ontarians.  Now, however, the situation is different.  The real election campaigning is between the two leading parties, the Liberals and the Tories.  The NDP and the Green party will retain some seats, but not in astonishing numbers.  While the Liberals and Conservatives have nominated primarily experienced and articulate candidates, the NDP and the Green party have failed to do so.  This means the NDP and Green Party will face the election less able to win more seats.   

Since the beginning of Ontario politics, it has been common for political parties to bring up issues such as religion, rural-urban friction, or the political landscape.  Once again, the political parties have brought these issues into the 2007 election.  During the campaigning, the Conservatives charged the Liberal government with breaking promises it made before the last election.  That is true, to some extent.  It is not a new concept in politics for an opposition party to charge the ruling government with having broken promises.  The problem occurs when the same party that once blamed the government comes to power and does not fulfill its own election mandates.  As I put it, as a political student: “Politics is the art of getting things done”. 

For instance, if the Tories come to the power they will not completely fulfill their mandates.  There are many reasons why this can occur.  For example, members of the new government do not know the exact budget the previous government managed.  If there are no finances available with which to implement the promises, the elected government must raise the revenue through other means, either by increasing the prices of commodities or using other revenue-collecting strategies.  This would take the government some years; so, the government could not completely implement their promises within a four-year term.   It can be done, however, if a government is allowed to govern for more than one term.   

One classic example involves the ability of the NDP to govern during the early 1990s.  Bob Rae had implemented promising social programs, which helped poor and working families.  He was instrumental in offering housing for low-income families.  He made the welfare system more flexible, so that the unemployed could receive the assistance.  These changes are a few of many.  All these measures, however, caused a financial downturn.  Rae’s successor, Mike Harris, had to work hard to fix the provincial debt created by Bob Rae.  Mike Harris raised the revenue for Ontario considerably, and he urged Ontarians either to go to school or to work.  The Conservative ideology is that a citizen should work and bring in income, so that he or she can afford food (whereas the Liberal ideology is that a citizen should eat and gain strength before getting a job).  So, in keeping with their ideology, the Conservatives saved the province from debt.  Mike Harris faced tremendous problems because he was a true conservative.  His policy, however, was harsh on teachers and others, such as health care workers.    

The case now, however, is totally different.  The Liberals, under McGuinty, are doing fine.  He has not caused a downturn in the fortunes of the province.  Although all his promises have not been kept so far, they could be accomplished if the party is re-elected.  That, however, is up to the voters.   

It is worth noting what happened during the last election, held in 2003.  Throughout his campaign, McGuinty said: “It’s time for a change that will make our economy stronger, our education system more successful, our health care more responsible – and our province the envy of the world”.  His opponents now argue, during the 2007 campaign, that he has not kept these promises. 

McGuinty has done a good job of improving the educational system, but that does not mean that the educational system is revamped enough to meet the high expectations of Ontarians who wish to see a system accessible to all Ontario sectors, without discrimination.  In addition, the government should offer more aid to schoolchildren who happen to be born in poor families.  Although the government is offering daycare facilities to the children of working families, these families face financial burdens because they pay such a large amount of money. 

With the Liberal Party projected to sweep to victory with 72 of the legislature’s 103 seats, McGuinty highlighted his promise to reduce class sizes in the junior grades.  As promised, he did so.  Limiting the change to one grade will minimize the impact on schools that do not have the space to accommodate extra classes.  He has to do the same to other grades, train newly-graduated teachers, and place all these teachers in positions.  There are many frustrated teachers who have not been able to find jobs in teaching wandering the streets in search of greener pastures.  Many now work in other fields, fields in which they have no knowledge or experience.  

Many Ontario students were optimistic that the Liberals would freeze post-secondary tuition fees forever, but McGuinty proved himself a true politician by freezing the tuition fees for only two years.  Thereafter, tuition fees skyrocketed.  The colleges and universities increased tuition fees more than ever before.  In effect, the Liberals failed to continue to make students happy.  This is a horrendous mistake in Ontario politics.  

Health care is always a subject of intense debate.  Beginning in the late 1970s, the federal and provincial governments found that the financial commitment to medicare and other cost-sharing programs was greater than they believed governments could afford.   This problem led to “restructuring”, which meant closing hospitals and hospital beds, reducing access to various diagnostic programs, and limiting the acquisition of new equipment.  These measures, in effect, introduced “rationing by the queue”.   

In addition, Ontario and Canada as a whole has had a problem with the supply of health professionals, including nurses and doctors.  Medical schools and nursing schools are not easy places for students to get into.  In an interview with this writer, Dalton McGuinty said he had had ambitions to get into medical school; that is why he studied biology.  He then changed his mind about getting into medical school; instead, he went on to study law.  So, in effect, he knows the reality on the ground, but he cannot make all these changes with his party’s support alone.  Change will have to take place gradually, not suddenly.  Sudden change often leads to disruption.   

McGuinty promised, in 2003, that his government would set up 150 family health teams, comprised of doctors, nurses, pharmacists, and other health care professionals; this was designed to tackle the doctor shortage and provide more front-line health care services.  A typical family health team can care for 8,226 patients, on average; therefore, when all 150 are in place, they will serve more than 1.2 million people.  He further stated, in 2003: “We expect that the Ontario Liberals will give top priority to health care because the province is facing a severe shortage of doctors, particularly in rural areas”.  In addition, a McGuinty government promised to train more doctors by increasing medical school spaces by 15 per cent, to remove barriers that prevent highly-qualified, internationally-trained doctors from practising, and improve incentives available to doctors who practice in under-serviced communities.  McGuinty commented, in 2007, that he had done his best to do everything possible to improve health care, but he acknowledged that some of the promised measures have not yet been met.  He added that he would finish his health care mandate during the next term, if he is re-elected.   

In 2003, the Liberals promised that they would create the best workforce in Canada, attract the best jobs, build the strongest economy, and create opportunities for all.  They claimed that Ontario could be, and should be, the best place in North America to build a business and raise a family. The Ontario Liberal Plan for economic growth would balance the provincial budget, keep taxes down, create more and better jobs, and raise the quality of life.  These promises may sound good, but keeping them is not an easy task.   During this 2007 election campaign, McGuinty said he had create new jobs and his government had offered jobs to many Ontarians, but tens of thousands of people are still out in the streets looking for reasonable-paying job that meets their qualifications.  In effect, his last promise was not kept.   

While McGuinty is generally regarded as a modern fiscal conservative, whose first budget raised personal taxes and planned to eliminate the province’s tax on the capital of corporations, he holds progressive views on social issues --- supporting abortion rights and endorsing equal marriage for same-sex couples.  During an election meeting, in late September 2007, McGuinty stated that his government has put the issue of seniors into the forefront.  Emphasizing how important it is to help seniors remain in their homes, he said people older than 65, who own their own homes, would qualify for a grant, if their income is less than $50,000.  Those earning less than $35,000 would qualify for the maximum grant of $500.  "Everything we do today is only possible because of what our seniors have done before us and for us," McGuinty noted, adding that there is a societal "shared responsibility" to help the elderly. 

While that is the Liberal policy for the October 10 election, McGuinty maintained a different tone during the 2003 election, when he attacked then Conservative premier Ernie Eves for his attempt to woo seniors.  "When it comes to our seniors, we're not putting out some gimmick or bogus promise”, McGuinty noted on September 15, 2003, as he blasted Eves' promise to rebate seniors the education portion of their property taxes - a move that meant about $480 annually and would have cost $400 million a year to implement.  The latest Liberal Plan will cost the treasury $250 million a year. 

The Liberals, however, are not the only politicians making promises.  Even though Conservative Leader John Tory stated, in the election meeting held in late September 2007, that “McGuinty's record of promising one thing and doing another” was one of the main issues of the October 10 election, Tory himself is promising a 5 per cent cap on annual assessment increases to protect homeowners.  NDP Leader Howard Hampton is pledging to freeze assessments on primary residences until they are sold. 

Tory's proposal to publicly fund religious schools has become the other “focus of the October 10 provincial election campaign”.  The religious schools issue has hurt the Conservatives because many Ontarians feel a change is not necessary.  The issue has brought other aspects to the forefront, including religion, language, and demographics.  The main implications of religious distribution relate to the educational system.  The Constitution Act of 1867 guaranteed a Roman Catholic separate-school system in Ontario.   

Until the 1980s, Roman Catholics, after they completed Grade 10, could attend public or private high schools, but were required to pay taxes to the public system regardless.  In 1984, however, Premier Bill Davis responded to Catholic demands to extend full public support to that system, starting in 1985.  It was a controversial move that had major electoral consequences for the Conservative party.  Later, when the law was defined as discriminatory against other religions, the Supreme Court of Canada recognized that the Charter of Rights allowed the continuation of such pre-Charter constitutional protections for the Ontario Roman Catholic separate-school system.  Certain other religions tried, without success, to gain the right to mount their own publicly-supported school systems; failing that, they can at least try to ensure that the public system is genuinely non-discriminatory.  The voters do not appear to favour Tory’s proposal.  Support for the Conservatives declined after the religious school funding issue was revealed. 

In any event, the election results of October 10, 2007 will decide whether Ontarians want the Liberals to remain in office for another term or the Conservatives to control the government and make Ontario the first province in Canada to allow all religious schools funding.  Overall, the Liberals are doing their best to remain in power and the Conservatives have done their homework for the October 10, 2007 election.  Ontarians are hoping that any political party or political parties that form the government at Queen’s Park keep in mind that Ontarians have real problems and aspirations, that their problems must be solved by the new government, and that their aspirations must be fulfilled, regardless of who wins the election.  Let us go to the polling stations on October 10 or to the advance polling stations that are now open and create history by casting our votes.  Do not allow others to speak for you.