Welcome to episode nine of Reporters Shop Talk. As always, I am Stu Campaigne, a reporter for BayToday with my colleague Dave Dale. Something Dave and I have talked about is the stories we've covered, high-profile stories or something, that we would like to one day write a book about. What book would you like to write, Dave?
Dave: Well, just recently, there was news about former Premier Mike Harris being named as a recipient of the Order of Ontario.
It was obviously divisive because he's made a lot of enemies along the way. And I've followed his career quite closely and covered him several different times for different outlets. So I thought maybe that might be a book. I would like to write the ‘Unauthorized Biography of Mike Harris.’
Initially, people think it's all about the Indigenous people that have a hate-on for them, and they do, and it's a longstanding one, deeply rooted.
He was actually the minister of natural resources in the early 1980s and when surveillance cameras were put up outside Nipissing First Nation, that wasn't taken very well and it was part and parcel to a long, drawn-out and continuing relationship, I would call it adversarial, an adversarial relationship.
I was with the Union of Ontario Indians when, as managing editor of the Anishinabek News, Dudley George was shot at Ipperwash. And that actually took place shortly after the Conservatives and the Common Sense Revolution. Mike Harris took over from Bob Rae and the NDP. The NDP government and Bob Rae had negotiated the terms for Casino Rama just outside of Orillia. And I was actually working in Orillia before I went to work for the Union of Ontario Indians. So I had some close association with that. And right when Harris took power, he basically scrubbed out the terms of that deal and reduced what the First Nations in Ontario were going to get.
They changed the deal in such a way that it was take it or leave it. And he basically took away some of the meat and left the bone for the Indigenous people to fight over. And then Dudley George was shot. Right.
And, during the course of the Common Sense Revolution, whatever that was, he hit a lot of different other sectors in the public, the public sectors revolted. First, he chopped down and reduced benefits for social services for people on welfare.
There was actually a death that was quite, quite famous from that because part of the rules stipulated that if you got caught in some type of fraud charge regarding welfare, you were banned for life or something like that.
And one mother, single mother or well, not sure if she was a mother before this, but she was trying to go to school in Sudbury and she didn't divulge that she was getting welfare when she was applying for OSAP. So they basically put her under house arrest and she died from different causes. And, it was a big stir.
And then there was Walkerton when they reduced the requirements and changed the public sector oversight of water plants and was privatized. We all know the disaster that happened in Walkerton and a lot of different things took place from there. And of course, he also took on the teachers and changed the rules for all that. And, that's why the teachers are up in arms every time his name is mentioned.
There's a whole sort of series of things that cascaded from his premiership that people forget. But I liked covering it. It's been branded in my mind as sort of the sequence. I'd have to do a whole lot of research to get it down. But, you know, he also privatized Hydro and that's been a disaster. It's led to all kinds of things and all those things add up.
And, he did download costs to municipalities that had, in exchange, they changed to a market-based assessment for taxes, which is what is driving up living costs, driving people out of their homes. They can't afford the taxes because the value is based on what they could sell it for rather than what it was and what they bought it for. So it's huge. I'd love to write that book.
Stu: It's not like there's a shortage of material, that's for sure.
Dave: It would be a fun thing to put together.
Stu: Well, I think you should do it. I really do. You’re very passionate about the subject. And I can tell by talking to you and as a colleague that it's, you know, you're able to, and I think this is important with these kinds of controversial ones, it's not personal to you beyond work. You don't want to write the book to defame the man. You want to tell the story. I guess what I'm trying to say.
Dave: There’s probably times during the course of that where, you know, I probably had more of an emotional response to what was going on and certainly writing about Mike Harris and mentioning the issues many, many times. I had some fun when they named the library at Nipissing University after him. But I tried to keep it sort of reflective of actual history and reminding people and, you know, with some pokes. I do believe he deserves the poking. But we thought it was funny that they’d name a building after him that he would probably never go to.
Stu: Well, he's definitely divisive. There's no doubt about that. Even in our community here, maybe especially in our community in North Bay, where he mostly grew up and lived before he went into politics, and now he's mostly just back to use the golf course.
But, you know, I have a question.
They can go through all this, especially, you know, with your decades of experience. Do you think it's more effective to write the book in the midst of it or to take a decade or two to reflect on it? What do you think would be more your style now?
Dave: Soon as I can, probably within the next five years.
I think you strike when the iron's hot. And if I had it all set up and ready to go right now, to come out with a book as he's in the news about the Order of Ontario, you want to do that for marketing purposes … to get the furthest reach, you'd want to do it when people are thinking about it. So I think that would be the key. You want to do something that's topical and timely.
Stu:
All right, well, I guess that is what I want to hear.
Dave: I want to hear about your plans.
Stu: So mine's a different sort of case and it is a little more personal. It has to do with the Tess Richey murder and the subsequent trial. Lots of interesting points with almost a made-for-TV style of report to be done.
Lots of strange details came out in the case about the man who's now been convicted of the murder.
But, it was a family I knew. I knew them growing up and I'm just removed enough from that family, like I would call one of the sisters a friend of mine, but the other sisters, I know a couple of them just kind of as acquaintances. So there's a connection there. But it's not like I was hanging out with Tess. She was the youngest and probably more like, you know, close to 20 years younger than me. So she wasn't at our high school, so to speak. And I didn't ever know or meet her as far as I knew. But, what it was for me was the effect it had on her, you know, on the surviving family and her mother and the other sisters. I saw it and I felt that as I covered it. I used to work at the Moose radio and I started covering the story while I was there. And it's just one of those ones that I'm sure you can agree, there are stories that you just can't seem to get away from. And, you know, and it's a fine line between exploiting the situation and knowing the family a bit. But I don't want to reach out and contact them. So I don't want them to think that's all I care about is to get the story.
I do care about that part. But it's a balancing act. And, as I was telling you when we talked about this another time, you know, that approach really paid off in this case. I'm not saying it was every time, but because of the trial and everything played out over weeks and months, there wasn't the immediate kind of spot news or breaking news with this trial and the investigation, as there is in other cases. So, because I was patient and I think respectful, it afforded me some opportunities that other journalists didn't get, including, as I told you, I was involved with a call when the family decided they were going to sue the Toronto police for misconduct. And they were going to sue the convicted murderer of Tess. And I was involved in that call and it was all national news. It was a great experience. But what I'm saying is I would have not gotten that experience if not for the way I approached the story. And I think I could only do it that way or not do it at all.
Those were the two choices. There was no halfway with this. So anyway, with all those experiences and my access to the family, which continues to this day, I'm still in touch with them.
And, you know, they're still going to be this civil lawsuit and possibly some kind of you know, there are other people looking to write these stories about everything that's going on. And I think I could easily sit down and write a book if I wanted to. And I'm sure once they're ready, their family would, at least some of them who are ready, would speak to me about the whole ordeal. So that's my story.
Dave:
What do you think would be the best time and best timing for something like that?
Stu: I think it would tie in with this civil case, could take years for it to be concluded as a draft. We don't know what's going to happen with it, but we know these things can take you know, they could take five years to do. But I think that would be the goal. Or, you know, maybe down the road, like the 10th anniversary of her death or something like that, something with some meaning to the family and also not exploiting the situation at all. But I think that's the way to go. So, I mean, I think there's some time to get it done. I don't know if I want to do it. That's the other thing. I don't know if I'm ready to do it. It's not part of my work, so to speak, what I do for a living right now. But it is something that I feel like I have a pretty good handle on because I covered it so closely that I don't know, maybe it would be better for someone like me who followed the story instead of somebody who just picked it up from other people.
If I was doing that story, it would definitely have a lot to do with how Toronto police handled it and police in general and how they deal with people they perceive as fringe or marginalized.
