Leader of the Conservative Party Pierre Poilievre rises during Question Period in the House of Commons on Parliament Hill in Ottawa, Oct. 3.PATRICK DOYLE/The Canadian Press
Back in 2012, a young Pierre Poilievre, who was parliamentary secretary to the minister of transport in Stephen Harper’s government, gave a compelling address in the House of Commons defending his government’s decision to raise the age of Old Age Security (OAS) eligibility from 65 to 67.
He explained that people are living longer than when the program was first introduced; that as Baby Boomers retire, the country would see too many people collecting benefits and too few working-age adults to support them.
The government would have to make up the shortfall, Mr. Poilievre explained, and “that will mean less money for health care or higher taxes for working families in Canada.”
“It is clear that there is no political advantage to the prime minister in making this change,” Mr. Poilievre said of Mr. Harper. “He is prepared to accept the short-term political cost in order to advance the long-term national interest.”
Mr. Poilievre hasn’t suddenly become ignorant to Canada’s economic conditions in the 12 years since, but apparently, his priorities have changed. The Conservatives’ short-term political interest now takes precedence over the long-term interest of the country.
Last week, the Conservatives – along with the NDP – voted for a Bloc motion to give Baby Boomers a raise: an extra 10 per cent for seniors between the ages of 65 and 74. The Liberals, whom the Conservatives routinely accuse of spending recklessly with little regard for the financial burden they’re putting on future generations, voted against the motion.
This raise would be universal (you don’t need any Canadian work history to be eligible) and not means-tested (there are clawbacks over certain income thresholds, but seniors earning six figures still get thousands of dollars in OAS). It was not conceived because seniors in this country are struggling; on a population level, there is greater wealth and lower rates of poverty among seniors compared to working-age Canadians. And it’s not because there aren’t better, more targeted ways to get additional benefits to low-income seniors who need them; the Guaranteed Income Supplement exists for precisely this purpose. But it’s because seniors vote, and “free” money tends to earn those votes (polling shows that most Canadians support enhanced OAS benefits, but that’s likely because polls don’t tend to ask Canadians, “So, what are you willing to give up to give even well-off seniors more money?”)
It is, as anyone with the most basic economic literacy can see, patently atrocious policy; a regressive intergenerational wealth transfer that will cost the federal government an additional $16-billion over the next five years. Mr. Poilievre has said that if he becomes prime minister, he will pass legislation that will require the government to find a dollar in savings for every dollar in new spending, so with that in mind, it’s fair to ask the Conservative Leader: what would he cut to give seniors $16-billion-worth of extra money, off the backs of Canadian workers? Dental care? Child benefits? Or will he raise taxes on, in his words, “hard-working young Canadians who are 35 and living in their parents’ basements”?
The Conservatives might defend their actions by saying that the Bloc’s motion was effectively toothless – that the boost to seniors’ benefits won’t happen without a royal recommendation from the government – and that the gesture was simply a way to apply added pressure for an election, since the Bloc has said it will withdraw support for the government if the measure is not implemented. If that’s the case, I’d like to see the Bloc put forward a motion, with the same ultimatum, that says that carbon taxes are good, actually, and that everyone in the House should wear name tags with their pronouns. Would Mr. Poilievre and his party vote for that? No? Then why vote for a motion that asks Gen X, Millennials and Gen Z to pay for increased benefits for all seniors, even those who don’t need them?
The cynical answer is that as much as he likes to pretend otherwise, Mr. Poilievre is very much a typical politician whose instinct is to lean toward the politically expedient. One day, he’s marching around huffing about the high cost of groceries. The next, he’s voting for legislation to entrench Canada’s supply management status quo, which artificially inflates the price of some grocery staples. When he’s in front of a crowd, he’s wailing about how young Canadians can’t get ahead. But when he’s in the comparably insulated confines of the House of Commons, he’s voting for legislation that would make their lives even more expensive. This guy could learn something from the Pierre Poilievre of 2012. But then again, that guy wasn’t already measuring the drapes in the PMO.