Conservative Party leader Pierre Poilievre’s criticism of Prime Minister Mark Carney’s response to the cost-of-living crisis is hypocritical given that his policy values are antithetical to defending the stability of the working class.
Poilievre returned to Parliament on Sept. 16 following his successful run in the Battle River—Crowfoot byelection with fresh critiques of the Liberal government.
Namely, Poilievre attacked Carney’s deficit spending decisions, saying that the newly formed Liberal government spends “100 per cent more than even Trudeau.”
Following this statement, Poilievre began to examine “the real human consequences” of irresponsible government spending, determining that the government’s “empty promises” to tackle the issue of grocery inflation led to “empty stomachs” for Canadians who cannot keep up with the high cost of living.
When speaking with reporters following his return to Parliament, Poilievre expanded on these sentiments:
“Our purpose as Conservatives is to make [Canada] a country where hard work is rewarded, food and homes are affordable, streets are safe, borders are solid and we’re all united under a proud flag,” said Poilievre. “Our priorities for the session are very clear.”
This is a completely valid statement on its own; neglecting the cost-of-living crisis leaves many working-class Canadians incredibly vulnerable to food insecurity, poverty and labour exploitation. The contradiction comes when Poilievre conflates these goals with the ideals of the Conservative Party.
It is no secret that the federal Conservatives have historically cut back on meaningful social services and instead focused on protecting the financial security (or, in some cases, excess) of wealthy Canadians.
As we are immersed in a chronic cost-of-living crisis — rampant with unemployment and financial insecurity — proposing a snapshot of a Canadian labour market where hard work feels adequately valued and compensated for is appealing.
In advance of this year’s election, Poilievre went on a campaign tour around blue-collar work environments across Canada. Despite the optics of his tour arguably being meant to loosen his ties (both literally and metaphorically) and associations with corporate elites, many of Poilievre’s proposed policies remain embedded in maintaining harsh wealth divides.
To “reward hard work” and tackle expenses for Canadians, the Conservative party often advocates for widespread tax cuts — so much so that Poilievre’s sweeping cut proposals ahead of the last election were praised by the Canadian Taxpayer Federation (CTF).
Though tax cut promises are initially appealing, as they would bring some immediate relief to struggling Canadians (and perhaps the wealthy classes of Canadians too, as Poilievre seems against taxing the rich), taxes ultimately support the integral social services that protect Canadians from vulnerability and poverty.
Although it is clear that social services are not as enriched as they could be — for which neoliberal-born structural issues like “workfare” layouts requiring recipients to build employable skills to receive financial assistance and declines in income support are to blame — villainizing taxes as the Conservative Party has done strips financially vulnerable Canadians of their stability. In his lack of advocacy for thriving social programs, Poilievre clearly communicates his stance against the working class — solidifying that his “defence” of the working class encapsulates the “empty promises” he accused Carney of bringing to Parliament.
The Conservative approach to other main “priorities” that Poilievre lists, like crime, are often dealt with using similar quick-fix approaches.
The Conservative Party often advocates for longer and harsher prison sentences for those violating the law. This strategy has faced criticism as it ignores the root issues of crime — like poverty or the lack of adequate mental health support — and isolates criminal acts as though they are solely the product of an individual’s will and not indicative of broader social issues. As seen with tax cuts, this approach does not remedy crime, it just makes it more punishable — masking the real social issues it derives from.
Just as enriched social programs are needed to support working-class Canadians, the same goes for truly deterring people from crime.
By latching onto core issues Canadians are struggling with in a classic populist manner and framing quick fixes as the way to protect citizens, Poilievre demonstrates that he does not really want to advocate for working-class Canadians or communities rampant with crime; Poilievre simply wants the power he had before the devastating loss he faced in April’s election.
Poilievre does not want to do the real work of reviving social programs and investigating why our tax dollars are not dedicated to enriching our communities entirely — that would mean he’d have to tax the wealthier classes, which isn’t going to happen anytime soon.
No, Poilievre’s absence from Parliament did not lead him to turn over a new leaf and become an advocate for working-class stability; he is merely ramping up his populist appeals to deceptively win back the praises of struggling Canadians.