A brief history of not being great at this
Pierre Poilievre built an aura of inevitability. Until January.
1. Leaping pensions
In 1997 Pierre Poilievre was 17. He wrote an op-ed for the Calgary Herald that carried the headline “Ripping Off Young People.” The subject was a major reform to the Canada Pension Plan, newly agreed by the federal and provincial finance ministers. Young Poilievre’s goal was to deride the reform and to blame journalists for being soft on the Liberals.
“One would expect that the introduction of a $10 billion tax increase over a month ago would cause a storm of opposition,” Poilievre wrote. “However, when Paul Martin mentioned that contributions to the Canada Pension Plan would leap from 5.85 per cent to 9.9 per cent, the finance minister felt little more than a gentle breeze.”
The kid from Henry Wise Wood High School said the problem was all the old people in Parliament and “in the media, which is instrumental in assisting a movement develop momentum.”
Andrew Lawton wrote about Poilievre’s youthful op-ed in his 2024 biography of the Conservative leader. Lawton presents the anecdote as proof of the lad’s pluck, and fair enough. But on closer reading, little Pierre was making a terrible argument that found no takers among the old people, including in the Conservative Alberta government of the day.
An aging population had put the CPP on a straight road to disaster. Payroll contributions were lower than benefits. The program’s unfunded liability was larger than the national debt. So the feds and every province agreed to increase contributions.
But contributions wouldn’t “leap” from 5.85 per cent to 9.9 per cent. For individuals, the number was never 5.85 in the first place. Employers pay half the program’s cost. So employee contributions — call it a tax, sure, that’s close enough — actually only grew from under 3% of wages to under 5%. And that “leap” took place over six years of increases, less than half a percentage point per year.
Once the contribution rate finally reached 4.95% of wages in 2003, it stayed at that rate for sixteen years. Which meant that it remained in place for every year of the Stephen Harper government in which Poilievre served, as a backbencher and then as a minor cabinet minister.
The pension reform of 1997 saved Canada’s public pension program for a generation, which is why Stephen Harper and Pierre Poilievre didn’t have to think about it during their decade in power. It was obvious in 1997 that it would have this effect. That’s why Ralph Klein and his finance minister Jim Dinning signed off on the plan in the first place. It’s why Dinning’s successor Stockwell Day, after making populist hay out of the reform for a few weeks, calmed down by the end of 1997.
As for the media, which failed to “assist a movement develop momentum,” that’s because the media, like Klein, Dinning, Day and even the Pierre Poilievre of 2006-2015, had to operate in the real world, instead of in the world of collegiate movement-building.
Before you ask: Yes, I do feel ridiculous debating a 17-year-old boy who lived in a previous century. I wouldn’t bother, except I’ve come to believe Pierre Poilievre would make the same terrible argument today, if he thought it might get him an admiring Instagram comment, or an “I’m with you!” from somebody who would never consider voting for anyone else.
He bragged to Jordan Peterson that he’s never changed his mind about anything. This sort of thing is a strength until it’s a weakness. I’ve changed my mind about most things since I was a child. This weekend Poilievre will apply for adult responsibilities. He’s spent years chasing adults away from him. It’s a problem.