The blogger speaks about PM Harper

Nearly a month ago, I listened to a seminar presentation by a student in my World Issues class about the foreign policies of Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, and how they have affected Canada's influence on the world around us, and the way Canada is perceived by other nations.

But while his policies have altered the world's perception of the second-largest country by land mass, Harper's neo-con ideology has also negatively impacted Canada itself, let alone what the rest of the world thinks.

Stephen Harper was first elected Prime Minister of Canada on January 24, 2006, when the Harper-led Conservative Party defeated Paul Martin's Liberals. Despite winning 127 seats out of 308, the most seats in Parliament, the first Harper administration was only a minority government.

On October 14, 2008, Harper won yet another federal election. In the 2008 election, the Conservative Party, led by Harper, won sixteen more seats, increasing their total to 143 (155 seats out of 308 are needed for a majority government), so Harper still only had a minority government.

Harper made it evident that he fears anyone who stands in the way of doing things his way when he asked then-Governor General Michaelle Jean to dissolve Parliament on December 4, 2008 in effort to avoid a confidence vote the next Monday.

Harper then asked Jean to prorogue Parliament once again on December 30, 2009 for the 2010 Winter Olympics. This dissolution of Parliament lasted until March 3, 2010, and Harper said that this move was “necessary for Canada's economic action plan,” according to Wikipedia. The reasons for the second prorogation were indeed questionable. Prince Edward Island Liberal MP Wayne Easter told CBC News that Harper was “shutting democracy down.”

Though I do not traditionally support or agree with the policies of the Liberal party, I do agree that Harper's second dissolution of Parliament in a year was highly undemocratic. It wouldn't be the only time Harper would behave undemocratically in his regime. I'll explain later.

The Harper regime was found in contempt of Parliament on March 25, 2011, when Conservative MP and Minister of International Cooperation Bev Oda directed one of her staff members to add a hand-written message to an already-signed Canadian International Development Agency document in 2009 that led to the ignorance of a funding recommendation. The word “not” was added to the recommendation line. The Harper administration being found in contempt of Parliament led to a non-confidence vote, which defeated the regime and triggered a federal election.

The success from this attempt to get rid of Harper was short-lived. Harper won his coveted majority in the May 2, 2011 federal election, earning 166 seats. This would be the first majority government won by a right-wing party since the last Conservative majority in 1988.

Proving that Harper isn't trustworthy is a piece of cake. He promised to avoid deficit spending, but Canada's deficit sits around $36 billion as a result of the Harper regime. Some political experts say that this is the largest deficit in Canadian history. However, Canada had the lowest debt-to-GDP ratio in the G7 countries, surviving the recent recession stronger than any other rich nation in the G7.

Harper was criticized by former Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff for cutting African foreign aid by $700 million. This move, combined with Harper's absence at the opening ceremonies of the 2008 Summer Olympics in Beijing, China, continued to make Harper's already-negative track record look worse, as far as the rest of the world is concerned.

However, this won't make me very popular with many people, but there are just as many people in Canada who need the help, so the money would be much better spent on our own soil.

Harper also promised an open, transparent, and accountable government. However, he has insisted that he have the right to choose which reporters ask him questions at press conferences. The Harper administration, whether they have a minority or majority, tend to be very secretive, when Canadians deserve and have the right to know what their government is up to.

Other strikes against his government's transparency record include the purchase of F-35 fighter jets for Canada's air force. The true costs of the jets were not released to the public. Instead, figures that were significantly lower than the true cost of the acquisition of the jets were shared.

It was also discovered in late 2011 that Harper's Minister of National Defense, Peter MacKay, had used a federal government search and rescue helicopter in July 2010 on a fishing trip, and that MacKay's helicopter use cost around $2 million.

In 2006, Harper announced that over the next ten years, all border security officials would be armed with weapons to track suspected criminals, including anyone possessing firearms, that may cross the Canada/United States border on either side. Harper also spent more than $100 million to increase border patrol staff by over 400 new officers.

The Harper regime committed to increase the budget for Canada's Department of National Defense by $5.3 billion over a five-year period in 2006. Harper's increases in military spending and border security have slightly changed the world's perception of Canada from a peacekeeping nation to an aggressor.

Most recently, the Harper regime has made drastic changes to employment insurance without consulting with any business owners to determine the impact on employees. His government encourages those who are unemployed or living in areas of high unemployment to relocate to where the jobs are. Harper is making it difficult for those who need employment insurance to access it.

He is also saying that those living on employment insurance should find jobs that pay little to nothing more than minimum wage, and that they should commute further for those jobs. Is it worth it to commute over an hour for a job that pays roughly $10 per hour (minimum wage in New Brunswick)?

Harper also changed the age at which Canadians can access old age pension from 65 to 67. This is estimated to rob seniors of $30,000 over the extra two years that they wait to collect a pension.

The Harper regime has also passed two omnibus bills. One of them is supposed to be “tougher on crime,” at a time when statistics show that crime in Canada is decreasing. The regime's Bill C-38 will crack down on smaller offenses. How is this move logical?

The other omnibus bill is the regime's most recent budget. But most of what Bill C-10 includes is irrelevant to the budget, including reductions in areas of environmental protection. The opposition parties proposed extensive reviews of the majority of Bill C-10, but the Harper regime worked effortlessly to limit the amount of debate the bill would receive in the House of Commons. A huge undemocratic move on the part of Steve.

A control freak, Harper has the mindset that he is representing the majority of Canadians. In fact, he is representing roughly only 5.8 million of 14 million people who voted in the 2011 federal election. (There were approximately 24 million registered voters in Canada in that election). Harper is also representing the interests of large corporations, clearly attempting to sell us out while behaving similar to George W. Bush.

Unless the Liberal, NDP, or Green parties (the Bloc was reduced to 4 seats in the 2011 election) manage to prove that they are better than Harper's Conservatives before the next election in 2015, I think I will spoil my ballot in the next federal election.