Search

The article presents the author's opinions on the speaking style of Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper. Arguments are presented which suggest that the messages harper is so capable of delivering can be incendiary and can make anything said by any other prime minister in memory seem mild by comparison.

The article focuses on Canada's televised political debates. The networks have overhauled the way the four federal leaders will debate. The debates in last year's election were criticized for allowing too many frustrating interruptions, with leaders speaking over leaders. Organizers have tried to fix that problem: in this campaign's debates, when one leader is answering a question, the microphones of the other three will be switched off. Rebuttals and give-and-take will, at least in theory, be more orderly. The source of the questions could also force a shift in tone. Instead of being quizzed by journalists, the politicians will take queries from ordinary Canadians.

The article presents comments made by members of the Canadian Conservative Party and then provides arguments for whether or not the speaker was engaging in hyperbole. Topics discussed include a quote from Canadian Prime Minster Stephen Harper regarding Jihadi terrorism, a quote by Canadian Finance Minister Joe Oliver about Canadian greenhouse-gas emissions, and a quote about the impact of the Canadian federal budget on the environment made by Canadian Environment Minister Leona Agluk-kaq.

The article presents the author's views regarding the payment of politicians and members of parliament (MPs) in Canada for public speaking events. Topics include the fee collected by Justin Trudeau, leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, for speaking at an event sponsored by a nonprofit organization in 2012; the legal aspects of political fundraising; and a proposal by PM Brent Rathgeber for annual public salary disclosure.

The article notes that the number of televised debate viewers in Canada has been dropping. Last year the combined audience was nowhere near the 1968 number. Concerning the 2005-2006 debates, it is noteworthy that everyone has agreed the old formats haven't worked to inspire informative and interesting discussion. So there have been changes. First, there will be two sets of debates. There are two other noticeable changes: no panel of journalists, and no universal open microphones. Leaving the questions in the hands of one moderator should make things smoother, and more productive. Keeping all the microphones closed except that of the person talking is a trickier proposal.

This article looks at the way Paul Martin of Ottawa has dealt with serious economic issues by not discussing or dealing with them. Recently Japan and Germany held election campaigns that focused primarily on economics and business. Picture Paul Martin taking a serious stand on economic reform. Financial issues have become this country's most powerful political taboo. The latest initiative to fall into the government abyss of procrastination is the next round of corporate tax cuts. One could reasonably argue that tax rebates for technology investment, or even targeted gas tax relief, would make more sense than an across-the-board cut to corporate income tax. Talking raises the possibility that someone might disagree, and disagreement leads to turmoil. Back in 1993, Kim Campbell's political career crumbled when she said election campaigns are a bad time to debate serious issues.

Presents a commentary on Prime Minister Paul Martin's desire for a speedy election. Belief there is a big distance between his talk of governing and the way he actually governs; Comments on what he has done so far: Promises he has kept; His style of governance; Relations with Parliament and his efforts of parliamentary reform; Belief that the only one surprised about the shortfall of federal dollars is Martin; His record on international relations.