There is a growing consensus regarding the legacies of retired Ontario Premier Mike Harris and current Alberta Premier Ralph Klein. One of the more popular adjectives associated with their terms as Premiers is ’radical’. For example, Sandra Rubin of the Financial Post described Mr. Harris’ reform plan in Ontario as a radical agenda of tax and spending cuts, and suggested that transformed Canadian politics with his aggressive U.S.-style tax cutting and deregulation policies, as well as deep spending reductions. Audrey Cormack of the Alberta Federation of Labour referred to Premier Klein’s fiscal policies as a radical plan of budget cuts and public-sector down-sizing, that would necessitate deep cuts. Kevin Taft, of the University of Alberta, in Shredding the Public Interest concluded that public programs in Alberta including health care have become the most poorly supported (funded) in Canada.

Radical plans with deep cuts, it all sounds quite menacing and ominous. But how accurate are these adjectives in describing the two most high profile Canadian experiments with less government? The accuracy of the records of former Ontario Premier Mike Harris and current Alberta Premier Ralph Klein are all the more important now as some provinces begin (British Columbia and New Brunswick) or have opposition parties contemplating (Quebec and Saskatchewan) replication of the policies enacted by Premiers Harris and Klein, namely tax rate cuts, spending restraint, and deregulation.

Contrary to the rhetoric regarding the fiscal records of Premiers Harris and Klein, the spending cuts were neither deep nor radical. In fact, as the following discussion will illustrate, in many cases spending increased, and increased substantially!

Between 1995, the year in which Premier Harris was elected and 2001/02, consolidated spending (meaning provincial and local) in Ontario, adjusted for inflation, remained nearly flat, increasing by 0.2 percent. Spending in Alberta, on the other hand, increased a whopping 11.8 percent between 1993, the year in which Premier Klein was elected and 2001/02. This is worth repeating real spending in both provinces increased over the time period between when the leaders were elected and the last fiscal year completed.

What about the so-called gutting of social services and healthcare? Well, Premier Harris, between the year he was elected and last year, increased real healthcare spending by 25.4 percent and reduced social services spending by 9.6 percent. However, the decrease in social services spending had more to do with the fact that the percentage of the Ontario population on welfare declined by 43.9 percent during Premier Harris’ reign.

Premier Klein, over the course of his stewardship increased inflation-adjusted healthcare spending by 37.0 percent and reduced social services spending by 42.9 percent. But again, the reduction in social services spending had more to do with the 70.0 percent decline in the percentage of Albertans collecting welfare.

It shouldn’t be all that surprising that spending increased in both provinces since both experienced increases in their respective populations. So, the question becomes: what happened to per person spending? Total real consolidated per capita spending decreased 7.5 percent between the time Mr. Harris was elected and 2001/02. Mr. Klein, on the other hand, decreased total real per capita spending by 2.6 percent between 1993/94 and 2001/02. It’s interesting to note that per capita real spending on healthcare increased 15.8 percent and 19.4 percent, respectively, in Ontario and Alberta during the leadership of Premiers Harris and Klein. The mixed bag of total spending increases and moderate per capita spending decreases seems to fail the test of an adjective like radical.

As the histories of Premiers Harris and Klein begin to take shape, it is important to focus on the facts and actual events of their leadership rather than the hollow rhetoric that makes for good headlines and news bites. Both Premiers tackled serious deficit problems through initial reductions in spending. Further, both pursued pro-economic growth policies based on tax relief. Both ushered in periods of high economic performance for their respective provinces. They also established a foundation upon which further reforms could be enacted. However, the notion that they gutted programs and left people without social support is simply not a factual or realistic depiction of what happened in either Ontario or Alberta.