With opinion polls way down and the unions out for his head, will Premier Harris hold firm on his budget cuts and does he have a moral responsibility to do so?

Pro-family supporters are of mixed emotions following the Ontario government’s $6.3 billion cost-cutting measures announced in November. While some worry over the effect of the budget cuts on the most vulnerable members of society, others believe the province had to act to reel in spending that had simply gone out of control.

“After a decade when Ontario has lost its way, what I am setting out today will put Ontario back on the road toward a more prosperous and secure society for everyone,” finance minister Ernie Eves said in announcing the budget cuts. He said Ontario residents can no longer tolerate a situation where the government spends $1 million more per hour than it takes in. In fact, service on the province’s debt hit a whopping $9 billion in 1995.

As a chief plank in the Common Sense Revolution, which brought the Mike Harris government to power last summer, the spending cuts aim for a balanced budget by the year 2,000. The latest cuts include reduced spending for municipalities, school boards, universities and hospitals. They were preceded by another $1.9 billion cutback announced in July.

The Tories blame 10 years of lavish spending by Liberal and New Democratic governments for the current economic crunch. They say Ontario can no longer afford to leave future generations the task of cleaning up today’s financial problems.

Nonetheless, the cuts were immediately attacked by opposition party leaders, health care workers, educators, municipal leaders and some church groups. They accuse the Tories of shifting the cost-cutting burden directly on the backs of those least able to afford it—the poor, the elderly and the marginalized. Some fear that society’s most vulnerable members, the unborn and the terminally ill among them, would be more at risk in a society dedicated to bottom-line values.

Sister Margaret Laffey (Religious of the Good Shepherd) executive director of Rosalie Hall in Scarborough, is one who believes the cuts target the most vulnerable. Rosalie Hall, which provides shelter, health care, education and life skills to women dealing with unplanned pregnancies, anticipates a minimum 25 per cent reduction in funding.

“It’s difficult for us to make any plans right now, especially in terms of our day-care spaces,” Sr. Laffey said. She added that while most social agencies anticipated some cutting back, she was surprised by the severity. “The cutbacks seem to be hitting an extremely marginalized group,” she said. “I hoped that the government would have consulted more with the people who deal directly with these problems before it went ahead with these kinds of spending cuts.”

In a statement released in the wake of the July cuts, the Ontario Conference of Catholic Bishops called on Premier Mike Harris not to allow “an undue burden” to fall on the poor, the unemployed, the marginalized and young people as the province sets its financial house in order.

“All must share in prosperity when it exists and all must share in sacrifice when it is needed,” the bishops said. “Whatever the cause of Ontario’s debt, the wealth available must be justly distributed in the interests of the common good, taken in its broadest sense, to include the good of future generations.”

Other church groups, including the United Church of Canada, urged a “reweaving” of Canada’s social safety net based on justice and stewardship.

Business leaders and economists meanwhile, applauded the government cutbacks. They cite the importance of a balanced budget, reduced spending and tax breaks as key elements in the province’s economic recovery.

Colin Brown, president of Ontarians for Responsible Government, called the spending cutbacks an excellent start.

“This is exactly the kind of tough and determined action Ontario needs to get its government spending crisis under control,” Brown said in a statement.

Economist Robin Richardson of the Fraser Institute, said deficit and debt elimination should be top priorities if federal and provincial governments are to maintain the social welfare network. “Unless the debt problem is addressed everyone will suffer,” Richardson told The Interim. “No one likes to see social programs that they have grown used to cut back, but governments have to take some action or the entire social safety net is threatened.”

In a 1995 report, Inside Canada’s Government Debt Problem and the Way Out, Richardson said that in the event of major disruption of the Canadian economy, the country might be exposed to intervention from the International Monetary Fund. The IMF’s blueprint for economic recovery would likely be much more severe than the measures now being undertaken by provincial governments.

The cuts and the resulting criticism highlight the changing attitudes toward government and economic stewardship. Past perceptions of governments being all things to all people have been shaken by hard economic realities. The ever-increasing costs of social programs, coupled with a sluggish economy, have forced some to rethink the idea of government as the panacea of all social ills.

Church groups and charitable agencies have moved to pick up the slack as governments pare down the country’s social safety net. However as the Ontario Catholic bishops have pointed out, governments can never shirk their responsibility to provide basic needs for their citizens, particularly the disadvantaged and the vulnerable.