You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘Conservative Party of Canada’ tag.
– Evidence from the Harper Era in CanadaIn Canadian political discourse, it’s a common trope—often repeated in partisan debates—that “Conservatives hate the poor.” This accusation implies that conservative governments prioritize the wealthy at the expense of low-income families, offering little to no support for those in need. However, a closer look at the record of Stephen Harper’s Conservative government (2006–2015) reveals a different story: a series of targeted policies designed to put more money directly into the pockets of low-income Canadians, working families, and vulnerable groups.
This was powerfully illustrated in a recent X post by user@GreatBig_Sea, which directly refuted the claim in response to another user’s assertion that “Conservatives have always hated the poor and working class.” The post compiled a detailed, evidence-based list of 15 major Harper-era initiatives, backed by official records and Statistics Canada data showing measurable reductions in poverty and low-income rates during that period.Key Harper-Era Policies Supporting Low-Income CanadiansThe Conservative approach emphasized tax relief, direct cash transfers, and incentives to encourage work and family stability—rather than large-scale institutional programs. Here are some highlights from the post:
- 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.
Yet the Harper policies empowered parents to choose how to use the money—whether for childcare, essentials, or work incentives—while avoiding bureaucracy. As one reply to the X post noted, Conservatives focus on growing the economy and providing targeted relief to encourage participation, rather than broad welfare expansion.The original X post (available here: https://x.com/GreatBig_Sea/status/1982121517665137029) serves as a valuable, fact-checked resource in heated debates, reminding us that policy differences aren’t about “hating the poor” but about differing philosophies on how best to help them.
References:
- 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.
The media in Canada often frames voting Conservative as a dangerous shift toward regressive policies, economic stagnation, and social division. This narrative frequently highlights fears of cuts to social programs, environmental neglect, and a rollback of progressive values, as seen in coverage of leaders like Pierre Poilievre or past figures like Stephen Harper. However, this portrayal overlooks key facts: Conservative governments have historically presided over economic growth—Harper’s tenure saw Canada weather the 2008 global financial crisis better than most G7 nations, with a GDP growth rate averaging 1.8% annually from 2006 to 2015, compared to the OECD average of 1.2%. Moreover, claims of slashed social programs are exaggerated; Harper’s government increased healthcare transfers to provinces by 6% annually, reaching $40.4 billion by 2015. The narrative also ignores that Conservative platforms often adapt to public sentiment—Poilievre, for instance, has emphasized affordability and housing, issues resonating with younger voters typically dismissed as outside the party’s base.
Beyond disputing the media’s alarmism, there’s a strong case for why switching governments every decade or so benefits Canada’s democracy. A prolonged grip by any single party—Liberal or otherwise—breeds complacency, entitlement, and policy stagnation. The Liberals, under Justin Trudeau since 2015, have faced criticism for unfulfilled promises (e.g., electoral reform) and scandals like SNC-Lavalin, suggesting a fatigue that sets in without fresh competition. Historical shifts bear this out: Brian Mulroney’s Progressive Conservatives (1984–1993) broke a 20-year Liberal dominance, introducing the GST and NAFTA—policies initially vilified but later credited for economic stability. Similarly, Harper’s 2006 win ended 13 years of Liberal rule, forcing a recalibration of priorities like accountability (via the Federal Accountability Act). Regular turnover keeps governments responsive, preventing the calcification of power and ensuring policies reflect evolving public needs rather than entrenched agendas.
The media’s tendency to paint Conservative victories as a threat also dodges the reality that Canada’s system thrives on balance, not perpetual one-party rule. Voter turnout data supports this: elections with clear alternation potential—like 2006, when turnout hit 64.7% after years of Liberal governance—show higher engagement than landslides like 2015 (68.5%), where momentum favored Trudeau’s Liberals but later waned. A Conservative government, far from being a monolith of destruction, often acts as a corrective force, challenging orthodoxies (e.g., Harper’s focus on deficit reduction post-recession versus Liberal spending). Changing government every decade isn’t just healthy—it’s a safeguard against complacency, corruption, and the echo chamber of uninterrupted power, ensuring Canada remains dynamic rather than dogmatic.
It is scaremongering pure and simple.
The claim that the Canadian Conservative Party will make abortion illegal in Canada lacks substantial evidence and ignores the party’s historical and current stance on the issue. While some individuals within the party may hold personal anti-abortion views, the Conservative Party as a whole has not included banning abortion in its official platform. For instance, during recent leadership races and party conventions, the Conservatives have consistently avoided committing to reopening the abortion debate. Leaders like Andrew Scheer and Erin O’Toole explicitly stated that their governments would not legislate on abortion, emphasizing that the issue remains settled since the 1988 Supreme Court decision in R v. Morgentaler, which struck down Canada’s abortion law as unconstitutional. The party’s 2021 election platform made no mention of restricting abortion access, focusing instead on economic recovery, healthcare funding, and other priorities.
Additionally, the legal and political landscape in Canada makes it highly unlikely for any party to successfully ban abortion. The Morgentaler decision established that restricting abortion violated women’s Charter rights to security of the person, and subsequent attempts to introduce restrictive legislation have failed. Even if a Conservative government wanted to revisit the issue, it would face significant hurdles: introducing new abortion laws would require a parliamentary majority willing to vote for such a measure, surviving inevitable Charter challenges in the courts, and overcoming fierce public and political opposition. Abortion access enjoys broad public support in Canada—polls consistently show a majority of Canadians favor maintaining or expanding access. The Conservative Party, aware of these dynamics, has little incentive to pursue a policy that would alienate voters and risk electoral backlash, especially in a country where coalition-building and centrism often define electoral success.
Finally, the narrative that the Conservatives will ban abortion often stems from fear-mongering or misrepresentation of individual MPs’ views as party policy. While some backbench MPs have introduced private member’s bills on issues tangentially related to abortion—like Bill C-225 in 2016, which aimed to recognize fetuses as victims of crime—these bills rarely gain traction and are not reflective of party priorities. The Conservative Party operates on a “big tent” philosophy, accommodating a spectrum of views but not endorsing fringe positions as official policy. Current leader Pierre Poilievre has also dodged committing to anti-abortion policies, focusing instead on populist economic messaging. Without a clear mandate or unified party push, claims of an impending abortion ban remain speculative at best, ignoring both the party’s strategic pragmatism and the broader Canadian context that protects reproductive rights.
This is such an important step in regaining female rights and boundaries in Canada. I hope the CPC actually does something with this and gives female voters a home within the Canadian polity.
The burning legion of stupid, led by Harper and his Conservative clown government balefully plods on toward making Canada’s prison system a mirror image of the failed system present in the United States. Do we really need to frack things up Canada-Harper style to get the message that this is a gigantic mistake?
The next election Canadians had better wake up and get this farcical excuse of a governing party out of power.
Can you imagine if we had the sort of hand grenade type budgeting for the social services of Canada? It would be like OH!, nationalized day care??? we thought it was like only 5 billion, but it turned out to be 7 billion, damn I guess that’s just ‘mission creep’. Or, hey we are not going to rely on wisdom from the dark ages and build more prisons but rather, front-load the services that keep people above water and obeying the law instead. OH no, oh no no no.! The only area where we have the flexible budgets and creative accounting seems to be military, and all they seem to do is buy shiny new murder vehicles designed to kill poor coloured people in far away lands.
Woo! Canada F-Yeah!
Our job, fostering democracy and stability in the Middle East, doesn’t come cheap, or even measurable when it comes to budgeting.
“Defence Minister Peter MacKay is defending the government’s accounting of the costs of Canada’s military mission in Libya, following the release of new figures by the Department of National Defence that lay out the final cost of the deployment.
And the total cost of the operation — a figure that includes everything from jet fuel to pilot salaries, including the salaries of military personnel — comes in at $347 million.
Last October, MacKay told CBC Radio’s The House the Libyan mission had cost taxpayers less than $50 million.
“As of Oct. 13, the figures that I’ve received have us well below that, somewhere under $50 million,” MacKay said.
“And that’s the all-up costs of the equipment that we have in the theatre, the transportation to get there, those that have been carrying out this critical mission.”
Well thanks Peter, you missed it only by about 300 million. In the war department, that must be what they call a “slight oversight” or an accounting irregularity. 
“The director of the military’s strategic joint staff was called on to explain duelling figures at a hastily-assembled news conference at National Defence headquarters on Friday afternoon.
Maj.-Gen. Jon Vance said MacKay did not mislead the public and pointed out senior military leaders referenced the figures publicly during Senate committee hearings.
But he concedes the minister would have known the estimated cost at the time and did not speculate on why MacKay chose to go with the lower figures exclusively.”
What? Conservatives lying to the Canadian public? I am completely shocked, especially over war spending and democracy promotion.
“Peter’s got problems with his math yet again and this government’s got problems with trying to figure out how to cost things,” said NDP foreign affairs critic Paul Dewar. “I suppose he just thinks that if he can lowball it, people won’t be concerned about the costs. But, you know, in the end, the costs add up and it caught up to Mr. MacKay.”
The solution is just to get Mackay into the right portfolio. With his math skillz we should be able to rejuvenate the social democratic fabric that makes Canada such a fantastic place to live.
There seems to be a lot of chatter in the blogosphere about abortion lately. I’m thinking it could possibly maybe be about CPC MP’s motion to discuss when life starts. This motion is, without a doubt, no matter what the detractors say, a backdoor attempt to try and take away Canadian women’s hard won human right to their own body. Attempts to paint this as anything but that are either disingenuous or misinformed. The only result of Woodworth managing to redefine when life begins at anything before birth is for him to carry on and propose a bill to then introduce limitations on abortion. Supporting this discussion is to support the attack on women’s reproductive freedom.
I bring this up because of what I’ve been seeing on other blogs I frequent, namely Dammit Janet and Unrepentant Old Hippie. They’ve both left progressive bloggers because it seems that suggesting that human rights, in particular a woman’s right to bodily autonomy, is not up for debate is worthy of calling said people idiots and shrill.
My response to said “progressives” is simple.
It’s regressive to think debating the merits of a particular group’s human rights is a good idea.
Stop playing Woodworth’s game.
It makes you a bad person.
Stop it.
Trust Women.
bleatmop
Mystro
The Arbourist
Dead Wild Roses 
Your opinions…