normanchateau

I don't know the answer to your question but Chretien was Prime Minster at the time and I suspect he required that the Liberal Cabinet voted as he wanted them to. Once Martin became Prime Minister, the Liberal Cabinet voted differently. Perhaps Chretien was homophobic. Martin and the entire Liberal Cabinet did vote for C-250, the bill to make gay bashing a hate crime. Harper and most of his party voted against C-250. Even Chretien supported C-250. You'd have to be remarkably intolerant not to.

Given that a social conservative with an established track record as a social conservative was able to sell himself successfully as a moderate on Monday, maybe the Liberals will need an even better salesman than Harper.

People are entitled to their opinions. To label others with an emotionally charged slur just because they don't agree with you is every bit the bigotry to pretend to oppose. YankAbroad acknowledged that people are entitled to their opinions by saying "...they've got a right to be homophobic." In any event, I don't believe homophobia is necessarily what motivates Harper. Religiosity is an alternative hypothesis. Social conservatism is another.

But Hugh Segal was appointed to the Senate last year by the same old federal Liberal regime yet he worked full-time as Harper's campaign co-chair and is currently working as his advisor while being paid for his appointed Senate position by all Canadian taxpayers. Does this mean that Segal is tainted as well? And what does it say about Harper's integrity that he's prepared to have Segal work for him even though he was appointed By Martin and is paid for by all taxpayers, even those who don't support the Conservatives? Segal was a conservative for years...Martin appointed him because he wanted to be "nice" (or because he wanted to buy him off because he knew Segal's ultimate allegiance would be to the conservatives). I respect Segal more for not just becoming another Liberal buy-out and I certainly respect him more for retaining his allegiances. Of course Segal retained his allegiances. Martin appointed him to the Senate as a Conservative, not a Liberal. Martin was a fool to appoint Conservatives to the Senate, especially since it subjects him to criticism such as "...he wanted to buy him off." I'm glad you see no double standard in one Martin appointee being tainted merely because he was appointed by Martin, i.e., McKenna, and the other not, i.e., Segal. I'm sure Harper sees no double standard here either since it would require pre-existing integrity.

Although you might be right, I'm not convinced that's what motivates Harper. In my opinion, he takes the Bible far more seriously than the average Canadian. If the Bible endorsed homosexuality, promoted homosexual family values and encouraged homosexuals to marry rather than live in sin, he might be a proponent of gay marriage.

But Hugh Segal was appointed to the Senate last year by the same old federal Liberal regime yet he worked full-time as Harper's campaign co-chair and is currently working as his advisor while being paid for his appointed Senate position by all Canadian taxpayers. Does this mean that Segal is tainted as well? And what does it say about Harper's integrity that he's prepared to have Segal work for him even though he was appointed By Martin and is paid for by all taxpayers, even those who don't support the Conservatives?

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that Harper was successful in blocking C-250. Actually C-250 passed overwhelmingly with the support of the Liberals, NDP and BQ. Even some of the social moderates in Harper's own party voted for it. It is now law despite Harper's quixotic attempts to block it. Gay bashing is now a hate crime and Harper's irrational fears that C-250 would result in the Bible being declared hate literature have not materialized.

Don't hold your breath. As I recall, the Reform Party opted out. Then they opted back in. Why would you expect the latest batch of Conservatives to be less selfish than their Reform predecessors (or Liberals)? Than you are recalling wrong, unless you are deliberately baiting. The Reform MP's opted back in because Chretien passed legislation making it mandatory - they didn't have a choice. But I suspect you know that. You are changing history. At least four MPs opted back in before the legislation was even proposed. But this wasn't the first broken Reform Party promise. Remember Preston Manning's promise not to move into Stornaway?

Yes, the BQ talked about issues but their percentage of the vote actually declined. Quebecers, like most Canadians, wanted a change so voted CPC at the expense of both the BQ and Liberals.

So why did Harper vote against C-250 if he's not a religious nut? Did you not read what I said, one doesn't have to be religious to be against it, if it makes you happy to reinforce your views with repetition - go for it. Whatever turns you on So why did Harper vote against C-250?

So why did Harper vote against C-250 if he's not a religious nut?

Don't hold your breath. As I recall, the Reform Party opted out. Then they opted back in. Why would you expect the latest batch of Conservatives to be less selfish than their Reform predecessors (or Liberals)?

I think Martin's defeat had relatively little to do with anything that Martin or Harper did. Enough people simply wanted a change and were tired of the Liberals. Sure other factors played some role but I believe that a desire for change was paramount. In any event, it was not exactly a revolutionary shift in voter preference. The Liberals dropped nation-wide by 6.5% from where there were in the last election while the Conservatives went up by 6.7% from where they were in the last election. Most of us voted as we had in 2004. History tends to repeat itself. Lester Pearson was elected as Liberal PM because enough people were tired of Diefenbaker. Joe Clark was elected as Conservative PM because enough people were tired of Trudeau. Brian Mulroney was elected as Conservative PM because enough people were once again tired of Trudeau. Jean Chretien was elected as Liberal PM because enough people were tired of Mulroney. Another Liberal will be elected when people tire of Harper. If it doesn't happen in the next election, it will happen in the subsequent one.

He already has changed Canadian politics. When did Canadians last elect a social conservative as Prime Minister? And what is your definition of social conservatism? From Wikipedia: "Canadian social conservatives...support...natural law, tradition and conservative family values and policies. Social conservatives believe in traditional morality and social mores and the desire to preserve these in present day society..." Examples of Liberal bills opposed by social conservative Stephen Harper: (1) The legislation tabled by the Liberals and supported by the NDP and BQ to decriminalize marijuana. (2) The legislation passed by the Liberals, NDP and BQ to make gay bashing a hate crime. (3) The legislation changing the traditional definition of marriage. If Harper has changed his position on these issues, he's certainly not said so.

You don't think China has an army? What's a left-wing neo-commie and how do they differ from right-wing neo-commies?

If Harper is not a religious nut, why did he vote against C-250? Before C-250 was passed by the Liberals, NDP and BQ, hate crimes were restricted to those motivated by hatred of a particular race, religion, colour or ethnic group. C-250 added sexual orientation to hate crimes legislation in order that gay bashing would be considered a hate crime. Harper argued against this addition claiming that such legislation would be used to deny religious freedom. Accordingly, amendments were put into C-250. As passed, C-250 has an escape clause which allows religiously motivated hatred. The C-250 text states that an individual is immune from prosecution under the act "if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion based on a belief on a religious text." Despite that, Harper feared that C-250 would eventually be used to declare the Bible as hate literature. That's what makes Harper a religious nut in my opinion. Had Harper merely stated that he opposes all hate crimes legislation because a crime is a crime whatever the motives, that argument would at least have made him appear objective. But he has no problem with hate crimes legislation per se. And if it wasn't religious motivation that prompted Harper to vote against C-250, what was it? Hatred of homosexuality? The other party leaders are religious, especially Paul Martin, but we don't see them using religious motives to deny homosexuals protection under hate crimes legislation.

So you're saying that Quebecers can be bought?

He already has changed Canadian politics. When did Canadians last elect a social conservative as Prime Minister?

A bit of sardonic humour in tha bite their norman? Hard to answer. What's "tha bite their"? "Harper would never appoint a politician to this important job." Who should he appoint? Someone as good as Frank McKenna.

Here's what Democratic Space projected on January 22nd: CPC 128 seats Liberal 94 seats BQ 56 seats NDP 29 seats Independent 1 seat Most of us would be pleased with ourselves if we'd been that close the day before.

A bit of sardonic humour in tha bite their norman? Hard to answer. What's "tha bite their"?

What asexist comment. Women members already have that right. :angry:

What corrupt MPs ran again?

Yeah, Harper would never appoint a politician to this important job.

Democratiic Space was remarkably close in their seat projections.