- Universal Child Care Benefit (UCCB, 2006; expanded 2015): Provided $100/month per child under 6 (later $160), plus $60/month for ages 6–17. This universal payment went to all families, delivering $1,200–$1,920 annually per young child to help with living or childcare costs—directly benefiting low-income households without means-testing stigma.
- Working Income Tax Benefit (WITB, 2007; precursor to Canada Workers Benefit): A refundable credit topping up earnings for low-wage workers (up to $1,000 for singles, $2,000 for families), reducing the “welfare wall” and making work more rewarding.
- Registered Disability Savings Plan (RDSP, 2008): Government matching grants up to 300% plus bonds up to $1,000/year for low-income families with disabled members.
- Tax-Free Savings Account (TFSA, 2009): Allowed tax-free growth and withdrawals, helping low-income Canadians build emergency savings.
- Children’s Fitness and Arts Tax Credits (2006–2014 expansions): Up to $500–$1,000 per child, made partially refundable for low-income families.
Other measures included enhanced GST/HST credits, public transit tax credits, caregiver credits, and increased funding for First Nations child welfare. These weren’t trickle-down theories—they were direct transfers and credits that disproportionately aided lower-income groups.Measurable Impact: Poverty and Low-Income Rates DeclinedStatistics Canada data corroborates the effectiveness of these policies:
- Child poverty under the Market Basket Measure (MBM, Canada’s official poverty line since 2018) showed improvement during the Harper years, with overall poverty at 14.5% in 2015 (the benchmark year for federal targets).
- Low-income rates using the after-tax Low Income Measure (LIM-AT) fell from around 13–14% in the mid-2000s to 11.2% by 2015.
- After-tax incomes for the bottom income quintile rose approximately 17% from 2006 to 2015, driven by tax cuts and benefits.
While poverty dropped more sharply after 2015 with the introduction of the Canada Child Benefit (which built on and reformed some Harper-era programs), the Harper government laid groundwork with direct supports that helped stabilize and reduce low-income rates amid the 2008 global recession.Why the Myth Persists—and Why It’s MisleadingCritics often prefer expansive government-run programs (e.g., national daycare) over direct cash to families, viewing the latter as insufficient.
- Original X thread and policy list: https://x.com/GreatBig_Sea/status/1982121517665137029
- Statistics Canada Dimensions of Poverty Hub (MBM and LIM trends): https://www.statcan.gc.ca/en/topics-start/poverty
- Government of Canada background on Harper-era family measures: https://www.canada.ca/en/news/archive/2015/07/today-parents-get-child-care-payments-harper-government-1003359.html
- Wikipedia summary of Universal Child Care Benefit (with sources): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada_Child_Benefit
In the end, actions speak louder than slogans. The Harper record shows a commitment to practical support for low-income families—not indifference.



5 comments
Comments feed for this article
December 11, 2025 at 7:29 am
Steve Ruis
Conservatives do not hate the poor, in fact they want a great many more of them. They would like to see our society consisting of just the rich (them) and the poor (us). The poor can’t afford to be cheeky to their bosses (they need the wages and health insurance, if any), nor can they irritate their bosses by forming or joining labor unions. The poor can be bullied and conned into voting against their financial interests. The poor die young, forfeiting their Social Security wages they have saved up and freeing up housing for other poor folk.
All in all, the rich see the poor as a viable class in society and wish to see more of them, preferable pulling their forelocks or curtseying or tipping their hats and saying “Yes, boss” to every demand. And they also will sell their daughters services more cheaply.
LikeLike
December 11, 2025 at 9:47 am
The Arbourist
@Steve
I think there’s a pretty big mischaracterization baked into this comment, and it’s worth naming clearly: it attributes to “conservatives” (as a monolithic group) a deliberate, almost cartoonishly villainous desire to multiply and exploit an immiserated underclass for personal gain—“more poor people, preferably tugging their forelocks and selling their daughters cheaply.” That’s not a steel-manned version of any mainstream conservative position I’ve ever encountered.
Actual conservative arguments about poverty tend to center on things like:
believing that rapid economic growth (through lower taxes, fewer regulations, etc.) lifts more people out of poverty in the long run than redistribution does;
worrying that generous welfare without work requirements or time limits can create dependency;
thinking personal responsibility, family structure, and cultural norms play a big role in whether people stay poor;
favoring private charity and local solutions over large federal programs because they believe those are more effective and less bureaucratic.
You can disagree with all of those ideas—vigorous disagreement is fair game—but they are miles away from “we want a feudal society with a tiny rich elite lording it over a giant class of desperate serfs who die early so we can keep their Social Security money.” Painting the entire philosophy as a conscious plot to create more misery is the same kind of uncharitable caricature that leads people on the right to say the left wants everyone equally poor under socialism. Both caricatures feel good to repeat, but neither helps us understand what the other side actually believes or why.Happy to argue the substance of work requirements, safety nets, corporate power, whatever—but let’s at least start with what the other side says they want, not the Bond-villain version.
LikeLike
December 11, 2025 at 10:38 am
Steve Ruis
Re “believing that rapid economic growth (through lower taxes, fewer regulations, etc.) lifts more people out of poverty in the long run than redistribution does;”
I think the Chinese disproved this recently.
Actually, there are no real conservatives left. Modern conservatives fit no conservative profile from Edmund Burke down to William F. Buckley. Many are neoliberals, others just greedy capitalists.
LikeLike
December 11, 2025 at 1:44 pm
The Arbourist
@Steve
China didn’t disprove the growth-first argument; it proved it. The 800 million people lifted out of extreme poverty since 1978 came almost entirely from Deng’s market reforms—decollectivization, special economic zones, foreign investment, and export-led growth—not from redistribution. Pre-1978 Maoist redistribution without growth produced famine and stagnation; post-1978 explosive growth created the surplus that later allowed targeted anti-poverty programs. Every serious decomposition (World Bank, Ravallion, etc.) attributes 85–90 % of the poverty drop to growth, not transfers. Modern “conservatives” may lean harder into markets than Burke or Buckley liked, but the core idea they inherited—that rapid, broad-based growth beats slicing a static pie—still has rarely been vindicated more dramatically than by China itself.
LikeLike
December 12, 2025 at 9:56 am
sm
Tax credits work for the middle class. TFSA? Doesn’t work if all that comes in goes out. Same for those sports tax credits. My kids had absolutely no chance of benefitting from that — but they would have benefited from govt support to directly lower costs to join up to summer activity camps. You had to have the money to spend, and the high enough tax rate to get the credit. Good on paper. No help to lower income families.
LikeLike