fbpx
Saturday, July 26, 2025

OP-ED: Pragmatism mattered more than Ideology to Mike Harris

The “Common Sense Revolution” of Mike Harris, Ontario’s premier from 1995-2002, continues to loom large as a recurring motif in Canadian politics. Many conservatives see it as a principled case to emulate. But to opponents it was neoliberalism at its coldest – a series of ruthless spending cuts, privatization and attacks on labour rights.

Both sides typically see the Harris years as a stark exception to Ontario’s record of moderate, gradual and unexciting government. The popular view is that the 1995 election marked a decisive break from the Red Toryism of the past, the moment when a new leadership, drawing inspiration from Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan, began pursuing a transformative “neoliberal” vision of small government and individual self-reliance. This ushered in a polarizing and controversial era that continues to be felt today.

As the new book The Harris Legacy: Reflections on a Transformational Premier (Sutherland House, 460 Pages) confirms, Harris’ tenure was indeed impactful. After a sweeping electoral victory in 1995, his government moved quickly to implement its main policy goals.

It followed through on its promises to cut total government spending by 20% and to reduce income taxes by 30%. It comprehensively reorganized the administration and funding structures of social assistance, education and healthcare, introducing “workfare” and standardized testing.

At the same time, it rolled back labour provisions for public-sector employees and implemented a range of accountability measures like the “sunshine list.” It sought to shrink and streamline both government and administration, reducing the number of MPPs and amalgamating municipalities and regions across the province.

The government also managed to deliver a few balanced budgets, and the economic statistics strongly suggest it returned Ontario to a track of strong, consistent economic growth and job creation.

Throughout, it generated considerable controversy and pushback from a range of opponents, most notably bitter and publicized battles with nurses’ associations, teachers’ unions and progressive social activists. Arguably the worst such event was the “Queen’s Park Riot” of June 15, 2000, in which protesters from the Ontario Coalition Against Poverty violently clashed with police.

It is inaccurate and misleading, however, to evaluate Harris and the Common Sense Revolution predominately through a neoliberal revolutionary lens. The reality that the contributing authors to The Harris Legacy – all of them credible policy experts and/or former senior political operators – amply portray was more nuanced and presents a government that was more conventional and pragmatic than is popularly perceived.

The Harris government’s more drastic behaviour was less the product of ideological commitment than it reflected the prevailing mood of a broken status quo. Rather than emerging from a conviction that neoliberalism was a universal prescription for government, Premier Harris’ drastic actions were a mainly pragmatic – or “common-sense” – response to Ontario’s dire situation.

By 1995, Ontario had been suffering under a sustained recession and spiralling government debt at high rates of interest – what Harris dubbed the “lost decade”. While these were challenges across Canada, the situation was particularly problematic in Ontario as the province – historically Canada’s economic and manufacturing centre – was also struggling to adjust to global market shifts.

Amidst this economic stagnation, Bob Rae’s NDP government from 1991-1995 failed to find balance between its promises of increased social spending and an increasingly unsustainable expense-generating cost structure. The NDP were undone by a double bind: even as they raised taxes, the faltering economy delivered progressively less revenue, all while unemployment and welfare claims soared.

Progressive Conservative party polling showed that most Ontarians favoured major change over mere tinkering, their urgency motivated by a sense that the NDP and Liberals before them had equally failed to bring about serious reforms.

At the same time, a diverse range of voices across the West had been advocating substantial decreases in the size of the public sector to reduce interest rates and spur economic growth. The general corporatization of public service delivery had come into fashion, emphasizing efficiency, administrative consolidation, market incentives and customer satisfaction.

So in pursuing fiscal responsibility, the Harris government was following what many governments of that period were doing, not only the aforementioned Reagan and Thatcher during the 80s, but the Clinton Democrats in the early 90s and, right around the same time as the Common Sense Revolution, the Chretien Liberals in Canada.

This more modest ideological orientation entailed that, beyond this relatively narrow scope of fiscal restraint and economic competitiveness, the government was far more pragmatic. While it drew upon abstract conservative policy principles in some cases, it followed prevailing expert wisdom in others. For instance, its approach to healthcare, infrastructure development and the environment was highly technocratic and driven by expert opinion.

At the same time, there were highly publicized examples of privatization alongside several points when the government opted against market-based measures. By the time of Harris’ resignation in 2002, the government’s spending had gradually returned to the more conventional practice of increasing per capita spending to match growth in revenue.

Put simply, the Harris government – while loosely conservative – got on with the business of governing. It embodied, as does every administration, the tensions between political theatre and pragmatism. It is – for better or worse – an illustration of the relatively narrow scope of political discourse in Canada that Mike Harris, a right-leaning moderate by global standards, is habitually placed at the far end of our ideological spectrum.

The original, full-length version of this article was recently published in C2C Journal.

Sam Routley is a PhD Student in Political Science at the University of Western Ontario.

The Rupa Subramanya Show | Are we witnessing the END of free speech?

Last week, True North’s Rupa Subramanya testified before the U.S. Congress, cautioning lawmakers about the decline of free speech in Canada and urging them not to adopt the policies of the Trudeau government.

While free speech, even expressing the most deplorable views, is still valued in the U.S., the same cannot be said for other Western countries, particularly in Canada. Here, the government can freeze your bank account if you express certain political views, and news publications are banned on social platforms due to Bill C-18.

In this episode of The Rupa Subramanya Show, Rupa recounts her experience at the U.S. Congress and elaborates on how we are witnessing the erosion of free speech in Canada and beyond. Tune in now!

SUBSCRIBE TO THE RUPA SUBRAMANYA SHOW

OP-ED: Reforming health care will save lives

Source: Wikipedia

Should we be proud of a health care system where governments are abandoning patients to die? Obviously not. 

The Canadian health care crisis has been steadily getting worse over the past decades. Covid didn’t help the situation, but our country has had a problem with wait times since well before the pandemic. 

New SecondStreet.org research highlights one of the most tragic consequences of a poorly-run health care system – death.

The fifth annual Died on a Waiting List report uncovered data from across the country through freedom of information requests on cases where surgeries and diagnostic scans were canceled due to patients having died. Sadly, it’s no surprise that the numbers have risen once again.

Over 17,000 Canadians died while waiting for surgery or a diagnostic scan in 2022-23. Since many provinces and health bodies didn’t provide complete data, we estimate the true total to be nearly double that figure. These numbers are up substantially – data suggest a 64% increase since 2018.

It’s important to distinguish the two types of deaths on waitlists. First, there are those who die while waiting for procedures that could have saved their lives – things like heart or brain surgery. Second, there are those who die while waiting for scans or surgeries that would have improved their quality of life, like a hip operation.

Critics might be tempted to dismiss the second type of case, but would you like to spend the final years of your life with a bad knee, unable to walk around and play with your grandchildren? Or with cloudy vision from cataracts, unable to even step outside on a bright day without being blinded?

You’d have to be rather dishonest to answer ‘yes.’

Unfortunately, most health bodies do not give enough data to distinguish between these two types of waitlist deaths.

Nova Scotia is a rare exception. The Atlantic province noted that, of the 532 surgical waitlist deaths, 50 were waiting for procedures that could have saved their lives. 


Kudos to them for transparency, but this is still a tragic statistic.

For the first time, Ontario provided data on the number of patients who died waiting for cardiac surgery. Since 2013, there have been 931 patients who died while waiting for heart surgery. Of those, 244 died after waiting longer than the maximum recommended wait time.

To be blunt, this is unacceptable. 

Many Canadians pride themselves on our health care system. But are the tens of thousands of deaths really something to be proud of?

Consider the case of Allison Ducluzeau. As Global News reported, the B.C. woman was diagnosed with cancer last year. She was told by the health system that the chances of her survival were too low, so they wouldn’t treat her. They said she had two years to live, and offered her assisted suicide.

Luckily, Allison was able to travel to the U.S. and get life-saving care. 

But is that really a choice Canadians should have to face? Wait to die, have the government help you commit suicide, or travel to another country? 

Canada has been throwing money at the system for decades and hoping for the better. Over the past 30 years, government spending on health care, per person, has increased at nearly double the rate of inflation. Despite this care has only gotten worse. Governments need to implement major health reforms now. 

For one, allow patients to pay for private care if they so choose. Sweden, Australia, Denmark – basically any other developed country with a universal health system allows this option and has better outcomes than Canada. This approach helps reduce wait times every time a patient decides to pay for private care.

Shaking up the way hospitals are funded could also help. Instead of giving hospitals a large cheque at the beginning of the year and hoping for the best, governments could pay them based on their output. This way, patients aren’t treated as someone the hospital ‘has’ to treat – they’re seen as a customer that results in more government funding once the patient has been treated.

These are a couple of the many potential options that can help fix Canadian health care, but it’s clear that something needs to be done.

Throwing money at the system hasn’t worked. The families of loved ones who died will tell you that.

Dom Lucyk is the Communications Director with SecondStreet.org, a Canadian think tank.

Canada-U.S. border a human smuggling hotspot: RCMP

Source: RCMP

The RCMP is warning of a surge in human smuggling activities across the border with the United States, particularly in the areas of Ontario and Quebec that border New York and Vermont. 

According to Chief Supt. Mathieu Bertrand, who oversees border policing, criminal groups are exploiting the “vulnerability” of people who want to enter the U.S. illegally and charging them thousands of dollars for the risky journey.

The U.S. Border Patrol reported a 550 per cent increase in the number of people apprehended after crossing illegally from Canada in the Swanton Sector, which covers 295 miles of land and water boundaries. 

Between October 2022 and September 2023, agents arrested 6,925 people from 79 different countries, mostly from Mexico and India. 

Just in the last weekend of November, 71 people were detained in this region.

The RCMP said it is working with its U.S. counterparts and other law enforcement agencies to disrupt and dismantle the smuggling networks. 

Despite this, the RCMP faces challenges in preventing people from reaching the border. U.S. court documents show that smugglers charge between $3,000 and $6,000 US per person and use vehicles, boats and trails to evade detection. 

The RCMP said these operations pose a threat to national security and public safety, as well as to the health and well-being of the smuggled individuals.

Republican presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy is advocating for the construction of a border wall along the 49th parallel to address concerns about illegal immigration and crime spilling over from Canada. 

Ramaswamy supports this proposal following New Hampshire Republican Governor Chris Sununu’s announcement of a Northern Border Alliance Task Force to patrol the state’s 58-mile border with Canada.

U.S. authorities have charged three members of a human smuggling network that operated between Montreal and New Jersey. The network transported dozens of people across the Quebec-Vermont border for a fee, using drivers in both countries.

The alleged leaders of the operation were reportedly Jhon Reina-Perez, a Colombian residing in Drummondville, Quebec, and Simon Jacinto-Ramos, a Guatemalan living in Montreal. 

Jacinto-Ramos, wanted by the U.S., remains in Canada and is accused of coordinating the departures, pickups, and payments related to the smuggling activities.

In a separate incident, Reina-Perez purportedly utilized a Quebec-registered vehicle in New Jersey, enlisting three drivers to transport 30 individuals who had been smuggled into Vermont. Reina-Perez was apprehended in October and is currently in custody. 

The proceeds from the illicit operations were divided among network members, with occasional recruitment of additional drivers. 

One such driver, Elmer Bran-Galvez, was identified through Facebook videos he shared while driving towards the border. Bran-Galvez was arrested in June in Vermont, near the Canadian border, with four Guatemalan individuals in his vehicle.

Canadians will see less in their paycheques in 2024 due to new tax hikes

Canadians are about to take home less from each paycheque starting in January, as income taxes are set to increase. 

Federal Employment Insurance (EI) and the Canada Pension Plan (CPP) will have changes made to them in 2024 that will lessen the amount of how much Canadians will ultimately take home. 

The Canadian Federation of Independent Business (CFIB) provided a breakdown of what the new year will look like for both employees and employers.

Beginning on Jan. 1, the EI premium rate will go from $1.63 to $1.66 per $100 earned for employees and from $2.28 to $2,32 for every $100 earned by employers.

Additionally, the rate for Maximum Insurable Earnings (MIE) will be increased from $61,500 to $63,200. 

The MIE is the maximum threshold that employees have to pay into EI, meaning that the annual maximum for EI will increase for employers to $1,468.77 per employee, a $65.34 difference compared to last year. 

CPP contributions, which have an annual ceiling of 5.95%, will have its maximum contribution raised from $3,754.45 to $3,867.50.

The maximum pensionable earnings under the CPP will also increase from $66,000 to $68,500 next year, according to the federal government. 

In 2024, a second CPP ceiling will also be introduced that will require a 4% contribution from middle-income employees and their employers on incomes from $68,500 to $73,200, which makes for a maximum contribution of $188 for both the employer and employee. 

These changes will make for an increase in payroll taxes for employers by $366 per employee, according to the CFIB. 

Total employer contributions with CPP and EI combined could add up to $5,524 per employee in 2024. 

Depending on where a business is located in Canada, an employer could wind up paying anywhere from three to seven various payroll taxes. 

The CFIB released a statement in October expressing their discontent with the federal government for not utilizing the opportunity to reject the hike for the EI premium. 

“When a government increases payroll taxes, it increases the cost of labour, forcing many business owners to make tough decisions,” said Christina Santini, CFIB’s director of national affairs, in a statement to Daily Hive.

“It may require some business owners to review their wage and hiring plans, decrease expenditures, or increase the price of their products and services. But businesses can only raise prices so much while remaining competitive.”

“Payroll tax increases make it less affordable for employers to raise wages and create new jobs,” added Santini.

Canada faces longest healthcare wait times ever recorded, research shows

Source: Wikipedia

Canadians are waiting longer than ever to see a healthcare specialist and receive treatment in 2023, according to a recent Fraser Institute report. 

The Fraser Institute polled physicians from 12 specialties and ten provinces for almost three decades.

This year, the data collected from January to June consisted of 1,269 physicians responses. The report, titled Waiting Your Turn: Wait Times for Health Care in Canada, 2023 Report, showed the results of this year’s survey. 

A median wait time of 27.7 weeks between referral from a general practitioner and receipt of treatment was reported in 2023. This is longer than the 27.4 weeks reported in 2022. This year’s wait time is the longest recorded in the survey’s history and is 198% longer than the 9.3-week wait time documented in 1993.

The 27.7-week total was broken down into two segments – a referral by a general practitioner to consultation with a specialist takes 14.6 weeks, followed by consultation with a specialist and receiving treatment, which takes 13.1 weeks.

The report also revealed that the differences in wait times across provinces are substantial. Ontario reported the shortest total wait time of 21.6 weeks. Nova Scotia reported the longest wait time of 56.7 weeks, almost triple Ontario’s.

An even bigger variance was found in the difference among specialties. Patients wait the longest between a general practitioner’s referral and plastic surgery (52.4 weeks), while those waiting for radiation treatments begin treatments in 4.4 weeks.

Canadians waited 6.6 weeks for a CT scan, 12.9 weeks for an MRI scan, and 5.3 weeks for an ultrasound. 

Cardiovascular surgery had a median wait time of 13.1 weeks, with general surgeries having a median wait time of 21.7 weeks.

Orthopaedic surgery and neurosurgery experienced notably lengthy wait times, with the report indicating that Canadians faced median wait times of 44.3 weeks for orthopaedic procedures and 43.5 weeks for neurosurgery. 

Additionally, those requiring gynecological specialist care encountered an average wait time of 37.4 weeks in 2023.

“This survey also reveals that wait times in Canada are longer than what physicians consider to be clinically reasonable,” said the report. 

Canadians were waiting 4.6 weeks longer than physicians consider clinically reasonable (8.5 weeks).

An estimated 1.8% of patients received elective treatment in another country during 2022/23, according to the survey results. 

“Despite provincial strategies to reduce wait times and high levels of expenditure on health care, it is clear that patients in Canada wait too long to receive medically necessary treatment,” concluded the report.

CANTIN-NANTEL: Dutch commentator predicts end of Trudeau in next election

Dutch conservative political commentator Eva Vlaardingerbroek says she is hopeful that Canadians will vote out Justin Trudeau in the next federal election.

Vlaardingerbroek made the comments in an interview with True North’s Elie Cantin-Nantel. They also discussed the recent Dutch election, the Dutch farmers’ protest, and cancel culture.

Vlaardingerbroek was in Canada for a cross-country tour with German MEP Christine Anderson aimed at encouraging increased civic engagement. 

Albertans divided on proposed pension plan: engagement panel

Following a series of telephone town hall meetings, the Alberta Pension Plan Engagement Panel, led by former provincial treasurer Jim Dinning, reports that approximately half of the participants oppose the proposed Alberta Pension Plan.

Initially planned for December, the panel postponed in-person engagements until the release of the federal report. This decision aims to ensure that further public engagement is grounded on comprehensive and precise information.

In a recent update by Dinning alongside Finance Minister Nate Horner, the panel revealed that over 76,000 Albertans participated in the telephone town halls and more than 94,000 completed an online survey.  

Dinning summarized the public response, stating, “It’s fair to say that we heard from many Albertans who oppose the idea of exiting the Canadian Pension Plan and moving to an Alberta plan, many of them passionate.”

Some Albertans were mailing back their APP flyers, with “no to the APP” and “hands off my CPP” written across some of them, with several containing personal notes, as previously reported by The Edmonton Journal. 

However, Dinning noted that others were “entirely in favour” of a provincial pension plan.

During the provincial update, Dinning indicated that about 50% of participants from the telephone town halls currently oppose the APP. Meanwhile, 20-25% were in favour and 25-30% felt they needed more information to decide. He clarified that some opposing the APP could change their viewpoint in the future.

Dinning and Horner indicated that the future of the APP hinges on the awaited report of the federal government’s chief actuary.  

The federal report is pivotal to the future of the APP as it’s expected to provide critical data on Alberta’s share of the Canada Pension Plan (CPP) assets.

Horner said he had sent a letter to Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland asking for the chief actuary’s report. He added that the chief actuary has better data than the publicly available data that LifeWorks had to use, where they determined that Alberta’s share of the CPP is $344 billion, as previously reported by True North. Horner hopes to gain clarity next week when he sees Freeland in person.

Amidst the ongoing discussions, Horner reassured Albertans about the security of their pensions, irrespective of the APP’s outcome. He referenced the Alberta Pension Protection Act, which promises that Alberta’s government will not move forward with a provincial pension plan unless it is approved by Albertans in a referendum. 

When questioned on whether the eventual referendum would be binding, Horner said that only constitutional referendums are binding; however, he said that the government should be prepared to follow through on the wills and wishes of Albertans. 

“We’re focused on the engagement and the consultation, and we’ll see if this initiative has enough support to take to a referendum,” he said. Horner added that the number received from the chief actuary could determine whether an APP should be pursued or not.

Trial of Tamara Lich and Chris Barber adjourned until 2024

The trial of Tamara Lich and Chris Barber, two organizers in the Freedom Convoy protest, have had their trial adjourned following over 30 days of evidence and arguments. 

The trial is expected to resume next month. 

First beginning in September, the trial was initially scheduled to finish by Oct. 13, however it will now continue well into 2024. 

Both Lich and Barber are accused of mischief, intimidation and several other charges in relation to counseling others to break the law.  

The protest, which took place for several weeks in February 2022, saw massive crowds of people from all across Canada demonstrating against Covid-19 mandates.

A number of Ottawa residents have also testified in the trial about their experiences during that time. 

Defence lawyers for Lich and Barber maintain that their clients did not engage in any form of counseling of others to commit acts of mischief. 

They allege that in all video evidence presented of the two defendants, they’re only shown to be asking protesters to remain peaceful, respectful to law enforcement and to the residents of Ottawa.The trial is expected to resume on Jan. 4, however no additional dates have been scheduled, according to CP24.

Canada pledges to triple nuclear power production by 2050 at COP28

Source: Crude Oil Prices Today

The Canadian government announced plans to substantially increase its production of nuclear energy by signing a pledge to triple its nuclear capacity by 2050, along with 22 other countries at COP28.

“This is very significant. Canada is joining 22 countries in signing a pledge to triple its nuclear capacity by 2050,” said Chris Keefer, co-founder of Canadians for Nuclear Energy.

COP28, the United Nations Climate Change Conference is taking place in the United Arab Emirates, which began on Nov. 30 and will continue until Dec. 12.

Canada had previously left nuclear energy out of its 2022 Green Bond program, which is aimed at supporting clean energy projects, however, it’s now planning on using the source as its primary energy source towards reaching its 2050 Net Zero emissions targets.

“This represents, I’ll call it a U-turn, in Canadian policy. We’ve gone in the last two years from a very lukewarm approach to nuclear to a very warm embrace,” said Keefer.

Keefer, who also founded Doctors for Nuclear Energy, said that it’s the reliability of nuclear energy that led to the government’s change in policy, as green, solar and wind sources lack consistency by comparison.  

“I work in a hospital. My son was in an incubator for five weeks. I take the stability of our electricity grid very seriously,” Keefer told CTV News.

Keefer has now been a participant in the United Nations Climate Change Conference three times. 

Other participants disagreed with the pledge, suggesting instead a combination of battery storage with wind and solar. 

Quebec also proposed a hydroelectric production option which is highly beneficial for Ontario and other parts of Canada, when compared to nuclear reactors that currently only supply about 15% of the electricity Canada requires. 

In August however, Hydro-Quebec said it was considering reopening the Gentilly-2 nuclear power plant in Becancour as a possible avenue to meet the province’s electricity demand. 

“It doesn’t make any sense to build more nuclear reactors when there are much cleaner, safer, and lower cost options to keep our lights on,” said Jack Gibbons of Ontario’s Clean Air Alliance.

Ontario will be at the forefront of tripling Canada’s nuclear production should the pledge come to fruition, already being home to 18 of Canada’s 19 operating nuclear reactors. The province also has plans to build more. 

“We are looking towards an announcement, I think later this month, that the government will proceed with refurbishing most of the reactors at Pickering. There is 4800 megawatts of new nuclear capacity being planned at Bruce Power. We’ve got the Small Modular Reactors going in at Darlington, but there is a role right across the country,” said Keefer.

Related stories