Michelle Rempel’s absence at candidates debates is obviously part of a pattern, particularly in electoral districts considered safe by the Conservative Party. Looks like the focus of the campaign is on the swig seats which are in areas such as Vancouver and urban southern Ontario; and not do much in the Calgary area, not taking risks of any misstatements.

In addition, there is a complete avoidance on Steve Harper’s part of any discussion of the vision he has for Canada or the values and ideology by which he would govern, should he get a majority (tightly scripted comments; focus on certain electoral districts; buzz words, phrases, and themes to both not upset the decided base and hopefully gain enough additional support for a majority; the “campaign bubble”; etc.). So Canadians are left to speculate on what would happen with a majority.

One indicator of the ideology and views by which Stephen Harper may govern with a majority, or even with a continued majority, is the preferences in appointments to the Senate, the Judicial Advisory Committees, and other bodies, the preferences of which have been off the radar screen but which will have a long term impact on the governance of this country.

Many people think part of his strategy has been to not do anything too controversial, keep a tight rein on and tightly script public comments, and keep the opposition off balance, which will hopefully be enough to remain either as a minority government or attain a majority, meanwhile quietly and off the radar screen go about appointments to the Senate etc that either way will leave a long term influence on governance.

Such questions should be asked during this campaign as there are some indications that an preference has been for people with track records of prolife, anti same sex marriage, “pro-family” activism and views, as well as members of evangelical faiths or ultraconservative groups such as Opus Dei. There is some evidence of that, consider the appointments of Doug Finley, Suzanne Fortin Duplessis, Don Meredith, Don Plett, and Bob Runciman to the Senate and Gerry Chipeur to the Alberta Judicial Advisory Committee. And many members of the Party openly talk about the value of appointing people of this profile to the Senate and the Courts in order to leave a lasting legacy.

If these indications are part of a definitive pattern, voters should know that in order to make better informed voting decisions, in particular since these views and ways of being do not represent even the majority of conservative or Tory opinion in this country much less Canadians in general, but could significantly change the manner in which Canada is governed.

Anyone have additional information to share? Suggest going to the Government of Canada Senate website, obtaining a list of senators appointed by Harper (38 of them I believe), and contributing to these comments by adding whatever you may know or can find out about the senators that have been appointed. And the same for the Judicial Selection Committees. Digging out information to confirm these patterns of preference and publishing would be of tremendous benefit to Canadians when making decisions of how to vote.

I am appalled that Calgarians would even consider voting for cowardly candidates who are fearful of debating their policies in public or who feel obliged to obey orders from the big boys in their parties not to attend public forums. Yet Calgarians vote for these people as their elected representatives, time and again.

Perhaps voters put up with such mousey behavior in their politicians because it matches the same fear for robotic authority and bosses that they feel in their own workplaces and lives. What else explains their tolerance for such unintelligent and disengaged political representation? When I was younger, it wasn't unheard of for independent candidates to be voted into parliament. Now, the public rarely, if ever, votes for independents who think for themselves. What we get, instead, are sheeple voting for other sheeple.

Many Calgary electors are too convinced by propaganda spewed by the CON party and the fascist rags that pose as daily newspapers. William Aberhart, as Premier of Alberta, said (1938) "If you haven't suffered enough, it is your God-given right to suffer some more." We live in a city of wilfully blind masochists. Unfortunately, they insist on trying to spread their misery across the nation.
In the past few years, my wife (a landed immigrant) and I have given though to emigration from Canada. The election of a CON majority government might prove to be the proverbial straw.

The real reason why few leaders have bothered to stop by and speak about their platforms in Alberta: Because Alberta's a lost cause. We all know what everyone there will vote anyway (with hopefully the sole sane exception of Edmonton-Strathcona).

Hi Subvertisement,

Alberta a lost cause? Whoa, buddy!

In Calgary Centre North, the Green Party GAINED votes over both the 2006 and 2008 elections, while the Liberals and NDP lost 1700 and 1900 votes each, and the Tories dropped almost 4000. That was with popular Tory Jim Prentice.

Now Heather MacIntosh is running twice the campaign than was done by the CCN Greens in 2008, with the enthusiastic support of the EDA and dozens of volunteers.

Can she bump Rempel? Of course she can.

Encouraging that the Green candidate is running such a great campaign, but at the end of the day the results will be the same.

Ok Rogerlg, I concede that Calgary Centre-North (my old riding) is a possible hopeful. But a possibly-maybe is not going to change the predictable vote in Alberta by any stretch of the imagination.

Nonetheless, despite my voting in every election since reaching the age of majority, I am happy to say that this is the first Canadian election I'm actually excited about - but it's unfortunately it's not because of Alberta.

"The riding was left wide open ..."

" ... Heather MacIntosh is running twice the campaign ... Can she bump Rempel? Of course she can."

" ... a possible hopeful. ..."

The election's over. And your predictions were as accurate chicken bones from the voodoo set.

To Ron: When are you emigrating? And to what socialist paradise are you going? Cuba? Venezuela? Libya? North Korea?

For our self-professed "Clairvoyant" - When am I emigrating? Probably May 2013, upon retirement. To what "socialist paradise" - who said I wanted to go to a socialist paradise? Destination is down to one of three places
1. Mallorca (Mediterranean island of Spain)
2. Munchen, Deutschland or general area
3. Magdeburg, Deutschland or genral area.

At the current moment, you may be high on Harper et al. and ringing your bells. But I assure you, very soon, and for a very long time, you will be among the many in this country who will be wringing your hands. When that time comes, do NOT say that nobody told you that there'd be a lifetime like the one you will then be suffering.

Ron: Thanks for the info. Those sound like great places for retirement. And undoubtedly the relative strength of Canadian Harper dollars will help. :)

What things do you think Harper will do that will have me wringing my hands and suffering? Certainly, I am concerned about high deficits, high debt, and high taxes, but I am a tad doubtful that Iggy, or Raeofontariario, or Jackal, or Duceit, or Mayflower would lower these. So what should I fear from Harper?

Clairvoyant:
1. You should fear the following from Harper et al. since you make a fundamental attribution error by giving credit to Harper et al. for the current strength of the Canadian $. It is strong vis-a-vis the U.S. because the U.S. is virtually bankrupt and its $ is thereby de-valued. Bush George II et al. made all the same errors Harper et al. propose. The result here will not be as drastic, but still disruptive. Look for higher taxes and living costs and fewer, more expensive government services.
2. Meanwhile, the Euro was $1.68C during a 2005 visit. It was $1.45C in 2008, and $1.25 in 2010. The later reductions were not due to anything in Canada, but to huge economic bailouts of failed economies of smaller European countries which all have corporate tax rates lower than Canada's. But Harper et al. want to lower Canada's corporate tax rate. Look again for higher taxes etc.
3. Harper the "economist" blew a $13Billion surplus BEFORE the recession began. This is evidence of a poor economic grasp, not of a good one. If his government cannot maintain solvency during stable times, its prospect of dealing with unstable times is dubious. Its record to date is most unimpressive. Do not blame the smaller parties - they voted for the budgets only because they did not want to force another election. Look again - etc.
4. No budget his lot has yet offered says how it aims to meaningfully reduce the deficit or to actually pay down debt. Mulroney et al had a similar "pro-business" agenda and in 9 years ran up more than half the current deficit. This is further evidence of the end expressed at the end of 1., 2., and 3. above.
5. Despite your doubt, the governments of Liberals had years of surplus and did pay down some of the debt. No federal N.D.P. government has existed to evaluate, so doubt here has no basis. Same for Green. And there never would have been a B.Q. government. To analyse the last 27 years:
1. CON = 100% deficits
2. Lib. = mostly surplus, some debt reduction.
3. Others = no relevant data
By what manner of pretzel logic can you therefore conclude CON is useful?
6. Then there are the various social changes Harper et al. propose. Sans specifics (due to time and space), all will increase costs and reduce individual safety and freedom. It is most difficult to set a monetary cost on these, but it would be high.
How ironic that I may move to one of two countries that once had fascist governments to avoid living in one which has just elected a crypto-fascist one!
Now, I COULD be wrong on all of this. But that would mean that all the history I have learned and all the personal experience I have lived are wrong. For your sake, I'd love to be proven wrong. We shall see.
Finally, an important reason (to me) for a move to Europe is so that my wife can be near her relatives and long-term friends while they are still alive to enjoy. Also, Mallorca is actually VERY cheap. Save for auto fuel, everything else is noticeably cheaper. And, no more of the damned 6- or 7-month Calgary winters.

Ron: Thanks.

For a starting point, Calgary does not have 6 or 7 month winters. Calgary has 8 months of winter, 3 and a half months of poor sledding, and two weeks of summer. This is the Great White North.

I agree that the Harper minority has a dismal record on deficits & debt. I expect that record will be better under a majority. We shall see.
And Mulroney was a budgetary disaster ... and his successor ended up with a grand total of two seats ... of which one is currently the leader of a Liberal government.

The Chretien-Martin surpluses were real ... but also came when Canada's financial position was not that different than the recent circumstances for the PIGS. And the fiscal conservatives of Reform were driving the public dialogue.

Liberals Pearson & Trudeau are not exactly icons of fiscal prudence.

Yes the NDP has not formed a federal government. But beyond historical policies of Lewis & Broadbent, and current policies of Layton, there have been a number of provincial governments, and Bob Rae's was classic. And there have been many NDP members such as Hawkesworth on city councils with an attitude of tax, spend, tax more, spend more.

Yes the Greens have not formed any government in Canada. But the policies are clear, and there is no doubt of the fiscal impacts.

For the B.Q., not a majority government, but certainly the opportunity to be part of a formal or informal coalition, yes. More taxes in the west (and Newfoundland), and more spending in Quebec.

Harper clearly operates in a controlling manner. But crypto-fascist? Nah. What's different from Chretien or Trudeau? Zilch. And if you want an anti-democratic control freak, try Liberal David Bronconnier. Should we blindly trust any government (or any organization with monopoly power)? Of course not.

Clairvoyant:
I'm from Windsor (great place to be FROM) and recall some snow-free winters. On 3 May, our yard was finally snow-free after 203 days. Friends on Mallorca called in February to whine about their 9C when we had -34C. I surrender. Kein schnee. No snow. Neige non.
I don't know whether to admire or deride your blind faith in Harper. He's a write-off to me since he was our Calgary Northwest M.P. circa 1990. For your sake and Canada's, may he find intelligence and ethics he has not yet shown. But I see no silk purse in that sow's - posterior.
Canada, born in debt, has done little about that. It has lived one step forward then 3 steps back. But with no more world wars to waste on, it should be in better shape. No excuse for the current mess.
Harper crypto-fascist:
1. powerful, continuous nationalism - symbols, mottos, songs, flags on clothing and public display.
2. disdain for human rights and dissent - the attitude on the Toronto Summit, homosexual and abortion rights, and 1st Nation concerns.
3. scapgoating - "attack ads," making false threats about liberals, socialists, terrorists, "foreigners".
4. supremacy of military - despite widespread domestic ills, the military gets disproportionate funding as other issues are neglected. The military and soldiers are glamorised.
5. sexism - largely male-dominated cabinets. Maxime Bernier o.k., Helna Guergis not. Negative to abortion, homophobic.
6. control of media - question limits, sympathetic media "stooges," unnecessary secrecy, etc.
7. obsessed with "national security" - fear used as a motivational tool - numerous examples.
8. corporatism - corporate power is protected. Rich and Industry put him in power. He is obliged to them. Lower taxes for them is more for us. Uses repudiated Friedman - Hayek - Strauss "voodoo economics."
9. disdain for arts and intellectuals - refused to fund arts in 2008 and almost lost all as result. Tried to belittle Ignatieff's obvious academic achievement.
10. obsessed with crime/punishment - wants to import failed U.S. "justice" policy to Canada.

- These are 10 of the 14 major characteristics of Fascism. All undeniably employed by Harper et al. from the outset. These are NOT Conservative" or "Reform" policies, and many who once supported those ideologies have no use for Harper et al. Their philosophy and acts are quite like the historical fascist governments of Mussolini, Hitler, Franco, Antonescu, Horthy, Peron, Pinochet, Suharto and others.
I call it as it is. NOT "Conservative." Fascist.
As you say yourself "should we trust any government (etc.) with monopoly power? Of course not. And I do not trust Harper AT ALL.

Arg.

So Calgarian voters are "brainwashed" by the Con's are they? Last time I checked Calgary and Alberta are doing quite well versus the rest of Canada. Unemployment under 6%, no debt, the lowest taxes in Canada, the brightest future in the country.

Unlike some of you I was around when the Liberals ruled the land. Here's what it looked like. 13% unemployment. Thousands of people leaving Calgary & many of them leaving the keys in the house the bank foreclosed on. 17th Ave was a filled with empty stores with For Rent signs on it. Skilled people with University degrees worked at 7-11 moping up the Slurpee mess.

Funny, everyone hates the Conservatives & Alberta yet they keep flocking here to find work and build a career. If you're unhappy, try living in Thunder Bay or Brandon.

For "antielvis": Presley or Costello? They both seem (mostly) alright to me. I have scanned the above comments and could not find "brainwashed" in any of them. To what do you refer?
Re: Calgary & Alberta current economic status, you are correct. But this has little to do with federal politics. In fact, Canadian federal governments are Constitutionally obliged to try to create equal economic opportunity across the country. This is the intent of the equalisation payments that so many in Alberta now begrudge (perhaps largely because the local newspapers tell them they should?), but which they gladly accepted before the petroleum industry got in gear.
I've seen every federal government since St.Laurent. All have done some good things and some bad. Often, this depends on perspective. Good for "A" can be bad for "B" and vice versa. Politics is another word for compromise solution.
It seems you speak of the early 1980's, but seem to misunderstand a great deal of what occurred and why. The 2d O.P.E.C oil embargo had again held the western democratic nations to ransom. - Got to run, but don't want to lose what I've started. Will continue later.

For "antielvis" - cont. - Because of this late 1979 embargo, in its new budget the minority gov. of J. Clark et al. wanted to greatly increase the tax on gasoline, which would have effectively doubled its cost at the pump overnight. The budget was rejected, and a new gov. of Liberals under Trudeau came in.
They recognised Canada had no clear idea of its oil reserves, and most of the supply was in the hands of foreign corporations. Texaco (U.S.- owned Texas Oil Co.) and Esso (Imperial Oil - owned by the U.S. Standard Oil) claimed the supply was less than 3-months worth.
In brief, the Petro Canada purchases and the National Energy Program were attempts to regain Canadian control of Canada's petroleum resources. The N.E.P. aimed to set a "made in Canada" price of 85% of World Price.
This was consistent with its power under S. 91 of the 1867 Constitution Act allowing the fed. to "make laws for the peace, order and good Government of Canada." Similar such actions had been upheld by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council of British Parliament (which served as Canada's court of last appeal until 1949.) and by the Supreme Court of Canada. It was also consistent with the utilitarian principle of "greatest good for the greatest number."
Alberta Premier Lougheed opposed this, claiming the fed. was acting "ultra vires [beyond (its) power]." He set a reduction in the amount of oil pumped in Alberta. Many producers rected by moving out. He - and his government ALONE caused the drastic recession that then affected Alberta.
Beyond that, I don't personally know of anyone who "hates the Conservatives." I do know of very many who find the current government to be anything BUT "conservative" in its acts or ideology. And if you study political science, you will note that it is actually espousing and trying to practice a fascist agenda.
I also do not know of anyone who "hates" Alberta. I do know of many - including many Albertans - who believe that it's government has spent decades trying to gain political capital by "fed bashing" as a way to distract the electors of Alberta from its own failings. Many also feel that this government has acted like in a very self-centred and greedy fashion that is not consistent with the national best interest.
And Alberta - and the rest of the nation - still has a lot of people who are university graduates who are working menial jobs. For that, global trans-national corporatism is the reason, not any government.

Ron.

Calgary and Alberta's current economic status has much to do with the folks in Federal power. Neither Jack Layton nor Ignatieff made any positive mention of the energy industry in the last election. In 2008, Layton flew over the oil sands and declared there would be an immediate moratorium on it. Ignatieff made it clear no tanker traffic would happen off the coast of BC, thereby shelving a pipeline & all the BC/Alta natural gas production with it. These are CLEARLY attacks on the energy business.

As for hating Alberta, I read comments daily in major newspapers where people either hate or envy Alberta. All of it is the fuel for the NDP and Liberals & they use it. I've also lived in all across Canada and there is an unfriendly view of the West.

I will make it quite clear. I don't like Harper at all. But he is a far better choice for the people of Alberta. He at least understands Western Canada. Perhaps you should remove your hipster wool cap, close the lid of your Mac and turn off your Death Cab records & go explore the world versus just reading about it.

And if you don't like the success and wealth of Alberta, don't let the door hit your ass on the way out.

"antielvis": Thank you for your very prompt reply. I will try to be as considerate.
Actually, Mr. Ignatieff made a large number of very positive statements about the petroleum industry in general and Alberta in particular. I am astonished that you seem to not realise this.
Mr. Layton voiced a view held by VERY many that there should be a moratorium on its development and certanly on its expansion. This has ZIP to do with "hate" or "envy" and everything to do with responsible and sustainable development of resources while protecting the environment and recognising the constitutionally entrenched and judicially enforced rights of all Canadians and, especially, its First Nations Peoples.
As for tankers off the B.C. coast, I do not believe that the residents there will ever allow that to happen. I know that I will resist that notion in the strongest possible terms. That is an environmental disaster of the first magnitude just waiting to happen. And happen it most definitely will sooner or later. To allow that would be an act of criminal negligence. The Alaska coast is still damaged from the "Exxon Valdez" fiasco of 1989.
The basic fact too many either cannot realise or choose to ignore is that with no viable environemnt there can be no society. With no society, there is no economy. So the "econocentric" view of life is - take out the O! NO! - eccentric.
So no, these are NOT "attacks on the energy business." These are defenses of the business of humanity.
It also seems that every newspaper in the country provides ample ammunition for every political party that has an interest in creating unnecessary dissent to further its aim of power acquistion. And that is the purpose of ALL political parties. They are, quite simply, brokerage groups to allow the group to gain control.
Any issue of the SUN newspapers, in its articles, its editorials and letters to the editor, reads like a Canadian edition of "Die Volkischer Beobachter." It should be required by law to be printed on yellow paper.
Now I will make it quite clear. I am deeply disturbed by Harper et al. and their obvious contempt for ALL Canadians and their savage lust for power. If you seriously think that he and his lot are a "better choice" for the people of Alberta, I question your logic and ask that you provide justification.
I am not interested in what is best for ALberta. I'm very interested in what is best for Canada. I am quite certain that Harper et al. and their cryptofascist ideology are NOT that best. And I can back up my argument with logic, not mere opinion.
Harper understands (and desires) only power. He doesn't give a damn where it comes from or who provides it. Prepare to suffer the slings and arrows of his continued reign of error.
As for most of the rest of your penultimate paragraph, I confess to not having a clue what it is supposed to mean. What is a "hipster wool cap" and, assuming that I had one, why should I remove it, and from what? What "Mac" am I supposed to have, and what function does its "lid" serve? "Turn off (my?) Death Cab records"? - You got me on that one. As for exploring the world, contrary to your enormous misconception, I have explored quite a part of it. However, there are some places I have not, and will not go to.
And WHERE did I ever say that I somehow did not like the wealth and success of Alberta - more precisely, of its people? I never begrudge wealth or success. I only begrudge thoughtlessness and waste. These are usually the products of intellectual laziness and haste. There is far too much of that in the world.
No doors "hit (my) ass", but I will leave this place soon for better climate, and will do so without a second thought. I also don't need snide comments, but if you wish to make them to me, be VERY assured that walk into the dragon's jaws. I dish out much better that I receive.
Meanwhile, I await your reply.