On the morning of May 3rd, 2011, I was walking to the bus stop on my way to work -a co-op position in the public sector, where most of the Ottawa-based positions were. It was dead silent until a school bus went by, and a young boy yelled gleefully out the window, “Harper won majority!” It echoed, and the effect was almost comically ominous.

The effects of this conservative electoral victory were felt immediately. I saw my coworkers, gravely silent and saying they didn’t get much sleep that night. I saw the effects of the hiring freeze –friends, co-workers, none of them able to move up from the student positions they occupied. Hundreds of people in my parents’ friend circles and mine getting letters informing them their jobs were at risk, stewing in anxiety for months until they were either let go or given the all clear. I heard of a single mother whose job was cut because she was seen as a liability. I saw people retire a few years early, rather than face a severance package.

But the yearly contribution threshold was raised for my Tax-Free Savings Account, so BONUS!

This is why I can’t trust our prime minister when he speaks about the economy. That and the fact that Canada has had $150 billion in national debt, and the Harper Government has run at least six deficits. In fact, Canada is close to a recession. One needs only to look at the trends in federal deficits/surpluses under the last few Canadian prime ministers to see that the conservatives’ campaign ads that promise economicsecurity are just another “brutally simple” and manipulative campaign tactic.

Another example of Harper’s saying one thing and doing another is Motion 312. While promising in previous campaigns that a woman’s right to choose would remain enshrined in Canadian law, in 2012, Mr Harper allowed one of his backbenchers to put forth Motion 312, which would open a discussion on fetal rights, and look in to expanding/changing the definition of when one could be considered a human being. This motion was struck down, and the discussion was never opened, however, the Minister for the Status of Women, a woman herself, was among those to vote in favour. I repeat: someone in charge of making sure that, among other things, the law protected a woman’s right to choose deliberately voted for opening a discussion that could diminish a woman’s bodily autonomy.



Recently Mr Harper has attempted to frame his position in favour of banning the Niqab as in the interest of women, calling it a symptom of a culture that is inherently “anti-woman". This was part of the racist campaign tactics that led to the Conservatives’ jump in the polls, tactics which saw hesitation to accept (chiefly Muslim) immigrants, the proposal of an RCMP tip line for “Barbaric Cultural Practices” and which indirectly encouraged public abuse of Muslim women in Toronto and Montreal.



If Mr Harper truly wanted to work in the interest of women, he would launch an investigation into the 1181 missing and murdered aboriginal women as per the UN’s request, rather than dismissing it as “not high on [his cabinet’s] radar”.



Furthermore, any future Canadian government would do well to attend to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, as well as address inequalities between aboriginal communities and the rest of Canada. This includes dealing with the effects of the physical and psychological trauma inflicted by the residential schools of the mid 20th century, and the poor quality of life offered on reserves such as Attawapiskat, whose shameful living conditions led to the Idle No More Movement. Future leaders would do well not to follow in Mr Harper’s footsteps and send body bags to reservations hit hard by the H1N1 outbreak and asking for medicine, or visit the Pandas in the Toronto Zoo instead of meeting with the Nishiyuu walkers, six Cree teenagers who had walked 1600 km in order to talk with the PM about issues facing First Nations.



Under the Harper Government, we may have new baby Pandas, but the number of protected waterways has dwindled from millions to a paltry 159. One of Mr Harper’s biggest moves once he assumed office was to withdraw Canada from the Kyoto Protocol. Government scientists were then muzzled, told they had to ask the PMO before speaking publicly. David Suzuki has even stepped down from his role at the Suzuki Foundation in order to be able to speak freely. The Canadian economy is now so dependent on oil that it’s dangerously close to recession since the price per barrel has gone down.



And amongst all this climate change denial comes Canada’s relations with the UN. Canada is no longer on the UN security council, and Canadian representatives have been known to absent themselves from UN discussions on the environment.



And then there is the dishonesty in the Conservatives’ election campaigns. In 2006, they sneakily overspent their campaign budget. In 2008, it’s possible that Mr Harper broke his own law in order to call an election, simply because he felt the time was favourable in order for him to get a majority government. He failed, though still won a larger minority government. He succeeded following a no confidence motion in 2011 due to lying about how much he spent on F-15 fighter jets and refusing to produce the paperwork. A no confidence motion is about the closest Westminster parliament gets to impeachment, and Harper bounced back with a majority. Was there foul play? Of course. This election saw Harper’s Conservatives commit electoral fraud in the form of robocalls, using their electoral database to target liberal ridings, telling voters their polling locations had been changed when they hadn’t. This won the Conservatives their majority by very small margins. Though these were reported in 261 of the 308 ridings, only those in Guelph could be substantiated. Still, it was enough to send Conservative staffer, Michael Sona to jail.



And in this campaign, there is the Fair Elections Act, which prevents the Chief Electoral Officer from reminding the public to vote, and no longer allows voter cards to be from as identification. This effectively restricts from voting those who wouldn’t likely vote conservative (students, Aboriginals, the elderly), due to the nature of the ID required. There have also been reports of people being removed from the voting register, or re-registered somewhere in Saskatchewan without their knowledge.



Which brings me to the reason I filmed my video in the first place –the expat vote. The five years rule that had been overturned in 2014 was reinstated a few months prior to the election following an appeal by the Harper Government. This states that Canadians living abroad for more than five years can no longer vote, a change which directly affects people like me and our democratic rights.

Voting is a fundamental democratic right guaranteed under Section 3 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. While the five year rule and social contract could conceivably fall under the reasonable limits mentioned in section 1, I ask you: If a citizen who lives abroad wants to vote in the country of their citizenship, wouldn’t it be reasonable to assume that they are doing so with the best of intentions? Would the country truly suffer from an extra 1.4 million votes?

I don’t think the solution is to stop people from voting if they have lived abroad for more than 5 years. All citizens have the right to vote and to participate in the democratic process. What is the point of citizenship if not to vote? If, however, an expat does not feel right about voting in a country they haven’t lived in for over 5 years, that person does not have to vote -voting is not mandatory in Canada. The choice should be the individual’s.

This continues in the trend of the Harper Government passing legislation that gives some citizens more rights than others. Under Bill C-24, any Canadian who commits an act of terrorism can be stripped of their Canadian citizenship. While obviously problematic in that it allows the state to drop its responsibility for punishment and imprisonment, it also creates two classes of citizens: “old stock” Canadians eligible for no other citizenship, and those whose citizenship is conditional. This law makes second-class citizens of dual citizens, anyone eligible for dual citizenship, and all Canadian Jews no matter how long their families have been in the country, due to Israel’s Law of Return.



In 2004, the Liberal Party of Canada ran this campaign ad. It concluded with “Stephen Harper says when he’s through with Canada, we won’t recognize it.” It is scary how many of these things came true –many of them mentioned above.



The Canada I grew up in prided itself on being a cultural mosaic, and would not turn away as many refugees as it has, or lie about taking more than have actually been granted asylum.The Canada I grew up in sent its military on peacekeeping missions, and stood its ground when the US and UK wanted to join forces in Iraq. The Canada I grew up in did not have a leader who would rebrand the Government of Canada as the Harper Government, and put the Conservative party logo on government cheques. The Canada I grew up in allowed people to vote without so many obstacles, so that due democratic process actually meant something. The Canada I grew up in did not have politicians who promised openness and accountability, yet told journalists they would only answer five questions a day , who muzzled scientists, denied climate change, and sacked people who were just doing their job, like Linda Keen, who reported that the Chalk River nuclear plant was not up to code.



Canada used to be a land of peace and tolerance, a place for everyone, a thriving centre of cultural exchange. Not this country that scapegoats Muslims, feels justified in creating two tiers of citizenship, and brings back practices like exile that went out with the middle ages.



If I don’t recognise Canada anymore, does that mean Stephen Harper is done with it? Please let this be a sign, because I’ve had enough. Haven’t you?