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.)

Tar baby: Unsticking Anti-Poilievre Propaganda (and sticking it to the Liberals)

 

Tar baby: Unsticking Anti-Poilievre Propaganda (and sticking it to the Liberals)           

By Hendrik van der Breggen

 

With Canada’s election looming in the near future (April 28, 2025), political discussion sometimes devolves into mud-slinging. Or tar-slinging.

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 “[u]sed the term ‘tar baby’ in the House of Commons.” The not-so-subtle suggestion is that Mr. Poilievre is a racist—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—and even backfires.

Yes, Poilievre said “tar baby,” but…

So let’s pause and carefully consider the claim that “[Poilievre] used the term ‘tar baby’ in the House of Commons.”

Yes, it’s true. Poilievre in fact used the term “tar baby” in the House of Commons.

But before the reader gasps, the reader should also notice it’s also true that by not providing context the claim makes it look like Poilievre was setting out a racial slur when in fact he wasn’t.

Poilievre was using the term “tar baby” appropriately. In fact, most appropriately.

Proper English meaning of “tar baby”

In proper English usage, “tar baby” means a difficult problem that is only exacerbated by attempts to solve it. It’s a problem that is sticky, like tar. The more you handle it, the worse your situation gets.

The term’s etymology goes back to a much-loved children’s story of the 1800s and has to do with a fictional doll made with tar and turpentine. In this story a fox attempts to catch a rabbit by using bait—a sticky, gooey, gluey tar baby. Brer (brother) Fox attempts to catch Brer Rabbit by tricking the rabbit into touching and getting stuck to the tar.

This children’s story is a classic folktale, especially in African American culture. (Spoiler alert: Brer Rabbit is the hero who, though he gets stuck, outwits the wily Brer Fox and his tar-baby trap.) The story is still popular today, at least in schools and families that value education.

All this to say that in the story, as well as in proper English, the meaning of “tar baby” is not a racial slur. Not at all.

Context is crucial

Back to Poilievre. When Poilievre used the term “tar baby” in 2009 (sixteen years ago, but dredged up by Liberals in 2025 as the federal election approaches!), the context shows he wasn’t using it or intending it as a racial slur.

Consider this report from CBC News dated May 29, 2009: 

Tory MP Pierre Poilievre came under fire in the House of Commons on Friday for using the term ‘tar baby.’

The controversy arose as Poilievre accused Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff of distancing himself from the carbon tax policy initiated by former party leader Stéphane Dion.

“On that side of the House, they have the man who fathered the carbon tax, put it up for adoption to his predecessor and now wants a paternity test to prove the tar baby was never his in the first place,” said Poilievre, the parliamentary secretary to the prime minister [Stephen Harper].

The Liberals and the NDP later asked Poilievre to withdraw the comment and apologize, saying the phrase carried racist undertones, but Poilievre refused.

“Tar baby is a common reference that refers to issues that stick to one,” he said.

While that is a dictionary definition of tar baby, the term has also been used as a slur to describe black children.

About the CBC’s last sentence, please notice this: While “tar baby” has been used in some contexts as a slur to describe black children, the relevant fact here is that in the context of usage in the discussion at the House of Commons—a context involving a truly difficult/ sticky tax problem having to do with the oil and tar sands industry, a sticky problem introduced/ birthed by a Liberal leader and then cast aside/ handed off to another Liberal leader—in this context the proper English dictionary definition of “tar baby” was in use.

And, significantly, if meaning arises via use in a particular context (or “language game,” as philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein famously argued), then Poilievre handled the term “tar baby” and its proper English dictionary definition with finesse.

A sticky problem remains

I will close by saying this: It seems to me that those who suggest Poilievre was intending or using “tar baby” as a racial slur show their ignorance of proper English and perhaps their lack of proper education.

So now I have a question for Liberals who in 2025 continue to suggest Poilievre’s one-time use of “tar baby” in the House of Commons in 2009 counts as a racial slur. Here is my question: What about Justin Trudeau’s countless episodes of blackface?

The fact is that these Liberals supported Trudeau as their leader for ten years. And Canada’s present Prime Minister Mark Carney supported Trudeau, too.

If anyone has a sticky problem, it’s the Liberals.[1]

 

Note

1. At this juncture, a Liberal might object that at least Justin Trudeau apologized for his racism but Pierre Poilievre did not. My replies: (1) Poilievre had nothing to apologize for whereas Trudeau did; (2) Trudeau’s apologies are a dime a dozen; (3) Liberals who make this objection continue to show ignorance of proper English usage (see my argument above). Again, if anyone has a sticky problem, it’s the Liberals.

 

---

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.)