Untangling Anti-Poilievre Pension Propaganda

 

Pierre Poilievre on Jordan B. Peterson Podcast

 

Untangling Anti-Poilievre Pension Propaganda

 

By Hendrik van der Breggen

 

With Canada’s federal election coming soon (April 28, 2025), political “discussion” is often reduced to—and stymied by—memes.

Sadly, a meme/bullet-point-list titled “Pierre’s Record,” sponsored by the Liberal Party of Canada, led by present Prime Minister Mark Carney, is such a case.

It tells us that Conservative contender Pierre Poilievre “[r]eceived a government pension at 31 then raised the retirement age on hard-working Canadians.” The not-so-subtle suggestion is that Mr. Poilievre did a couple of really bad things—so he shouldn’t become Canada’s prime minister.

Whether we support Poilievre or Carney or whomever (or nobody), fair-minded Canadians should realize this Liberal talking-point reeks of political propaganda.

 

Receiving vs. becoming eligible

First, it should be noticed that Poilievre didn’t start receiving a government pension at age 31. Rather, at age 31 he became eligible for the government’s pension plan.  The government pension payments would kick in later, at retirement age.

In fact, it is standard policy for Canadian members of parliament—whether Conservative or Liberal or whatever—to qualify for the government’s pension plan, which begins payments at retirement age, after they have served as an MP for six years. Poilievre was 25 when he became an MP, so he became eligible at age 31.

Yes, Poilievre, Leader of the Official Opposition of Canada, is the youngest MP to do this, but that is because he was elected into parliament as a very young man—unlike most of his colleagues.

Yes, Poilievre’s pension is a lot. But that’s because Poilievre, now 45, has contributed a lot into it (MPs pay about 20% or more of their pay into their pension plan). Significantly, former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s pension is also a lot—and more than Poilievre’s.

MPs earn considerable incomes (at least compared to me and most other Canadians) and their pension plans are “gold plated” (unlike mine and most other Canadians). If we Canadians have concerns about MP pensions, it seems unfair to focus on Poilievre when we should put all MPs—and the former PM—into the spotlight. (And what about PM Mark Carney’s pension?)

Again, contrary to what Liberals would have us think, Poilievre hasn’t been receiving a government pension since he was 31. Becoming eligible is different from receiving—a distinction blurred in anti-Poilievre pension propaganda.

 

About raising retirement age

Now, consider the point about Poilievre raising the retirement age for Canadians (so their retirement benefits don’t kick in until later).

Yes, in 2012 Poilievre, along with then-prime minister Steven Harper, did pass a plan to increase retirement age (for eligibility for benefits) from 65 to 67 (to commence in 2023). And this plan was rescinded by Justin Trudeau in 2016 (Trudeau became PM in 2015 when he defeated the Harper Conservatives).

But it helps to know why Poilievre and Harper wanted to raise the retirement age. It turns out that they were concerned about Canada’s national debt. It was part of an attempt to cut back on costs. This is not a bad thing (though, understandably, many Canadians were not happy).

Trudeau, on the other hand, didn’t care about Canada’s national debt. Sadly, Trudeau’s record over his ten-year tenure as PM shows he spent like a teenager who had stolen his parents’ credit cards, and Canadians are the parents footing the bill. In fact, Trudeau increased national debt so much that our grandchildren and great grandchildren will be paying for the retirement benefits we enjoy.

Presently, Poilievre is promising to keep the retirement age at 65, but he is also working on plans to sell Canada’s clean energy to pay down the national debt. It helps to know this, but the meme doesn’t make this clear.

Don’t be fooled by the anti-Poilievre pension propaganda.

 

For additional thought

“Poilievre is wise to resist Canada’s weird security clearance law,” APOLOGIA, March 31, 2025.

“Tar baby: Unsticking Anti-Poilievre Propaganda (and sticking it to the Liberals),” APOLOGIA, April 2, 2025.

“Carney’s view on abortion is deeply problematic,” APOLOGIA, April 6, 2025. (I add this article in this list because Poilievre seems to hold a similar view on abortion as Carney and so my criticisms of Carney’s view seem to apply to Poilievre, too. I hate propaganda, regardless of which political party is espousing it. In other words, I am an equal-opportunity political offender, though I presently see a great deal more anti-Poilievre propaganda coming from the Liberals than anti-Carney propaganda coming from Conservatives.)

 

---                     

 

Hendrik van der Breggen, PhD, is a retired philosophy professor who lives in Steinbach, Manitoba, Canada. Hendrik is author of the book Untangling Trudeau: MAID, COVID, ABORTION, LGBTQ+. (Hendrik’s book may be helpful to Canadians for better understanding Prime Minister Mark Carney and those who have staunchly supported former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. Also, the book should be read by Conservatives and others who hold views similar to Liberals on medical assistance in dying, Covid mandates, abortion, and LGBTQ matters.)