On Thursday, voters have this choice to make

NDP, Tories have competent teams, the question is size of government

Thursday’s election offers choices that are in some respects discouraging, but still extremely important for the future of the province. When they pick either Andrea Horwath’s NDP or Doug Ford’s Progressive Conservatives, voters will be deciding between a substantial expansion of the scope of government, paid for with higher taxes and borrowing, or a modest brake on government, driven by tax cuts and spending reductions.

The context for the decision, although you haven’t heard much about it in the campaign, is that government is struggling to pay for the breadth of services that we have today, with a deficit that the auditor general pegs at $5 billion and rising.

Looking ahead, government revenue will increase modestly due to economic growth, but the pressures of inflation and an aging and expanding population will leave little cushion.

The NDP’s response is to add new pharmacare and dental care programs, plus a heavily subsidized child-care plan. On top of that, they will borrow an estimated $10 billion to buy back the portion of Hydro One that the Liberals have sold off.

In all, the NDP platform identifies new spending of nearly $16 billion a year by the end of their term. That doesn’t include the Hydro One buyback.

Ford’s platform is much more modest and addresses the inflation, higher gasoline prices and higher interest rates that are hurting Ontarians by letting them keep more of their own money. He is offering about $2 billion in new program spending, along with $6 billion in tax cuts. Those changes will be spread over four years.

He will also dismantle the Liberal cap-and-trade program, which brings in about $1.9 billion in revenue. The intent is to eliminate the spending programs associated with cap-and-trade, to create a revenue neutral situation. That’s achievable, but it won’t happen overnight.

Some analysts and media commentators will tell you that the NDP and the PC platforms are equally costly. That would only be true if one considered a tax cut to be spending, but it’s a definition that defies the ordinary meaning of the word. Even the technical term “tax expenditure,” refers to loopholes and special deductions, not the flat-out rate reductions Ford has proposed.

The risk with Ford’s approach is that it will reduce government revenue and perhaps leave insufficient money to meet our needs. The certainty of the Horwath plan is that it will create costly new social program entitlements that will be difficult to remove and reduce the chances of balancing the budget.

One plan puts money back in your pocket, the other takes more out in perpetuity.

In addition to the competing policy directions, voters must also consider the merits of the party leaders and their teams.

Neither Ford nor Horwath is an overwhelming choice as premier. Ford tends to speak in broad generalities and has only a few months of experience in provincial politics, along with one term on Toronto city council. It’s a light resumé. Horwath has much more provincial experience, but it’s all as a government critic, not as a person who has to make tough choices. Either one will be learning on the job.

The Liberals and PCs have bombarded us with information on the unusual views of a small group of NDP candidates. That doesn’t mean the NDP doesn’t have capable people, but the candidate group seems to be heavy on activists and light on those with experience in business, finance or law. Ford’s team has the core of a stronger cabinet, with people like Christine Elliott, Vic Fedeli, Lisa MacLeod, Steve Clark and Caroline Mulroney.

Horwath probably has a small edge as a leader, but Ford has a stronger team. The performance of the leader and the team are unknowns, however, which takes us back to the fundamental choice. Do we want a bigger, more costly government, or one that will modestly rein in its scope and cost? That’s the main question Thursday.