Tugas Individu

Nama : Edoardo Tondang

NIM : 0801112926

Mata Kuliah : Politik dan Pemerintahan Negara Amerika Utara

Dosen : Dra. Umi Oktiyari Retnaningsih, MA.

Jurusan : Ilmu Hubungan Internasional

POLITICAL CRISSIS IN CANADA

News Source : BBC News

Last Updated: Tuesday, 29 November 2005, 18:20 GMT

Q&A: Canada's political crisis

Canada is to hold a general election on 23 January 2006,
after its minority Liberal government lost a vote of
confidence in parliament. The crisis was triggered by the
party's involvement in a corruption scandal in the province
of Quebec.

What is the financial scandal all about?

In February 2004, Canada's auditor-general issued a report

which said that in the late 1990s, the governing Liberals
systematically channelled at least C$100m ($85m; £49m) from a
C$250m government programme to advertising and
communication agencies with ties to the Liberal Party, for little
or no work.

The money was earmarked to pay for advertising and

sponsorship of sporting and cultural events to promote Canadian
unity (the affair is referred in the
Canadian media as the
sponsorship scandal).

The fund was launched shortly

after the primarily French-
speaking province of Quebec
Mr Martin has lost a no-
voted in 1995 by only the
confidence vote
thinnest of margins to stay in
Canada.

Auditor-General Sheila Fraser said much of what she found was

a "shocking" waste of Canadian taxpayers' money, and that she
was "deeply disturbed" by what had happened.

The programme appeared to be designed to generate

commissions for these companies while hiding the source of the
funding and "true substance of the transactions", she said.

An independent inquiry set up by Prime Minister Paul Martin,

who was Finance Minister at the time, found that the party had
used the programme as a means of obtaining illegal election
funds.

Headed by Judge John Gomery, the inquiry is expected to issue

its final report and recommendations by February 2006.

Who was involved?

The Liberal Party said the corruption was the work of a few
isolated rogues. The opposition Conservative Party said there
was evidence of systematic corruption within the Liberal Party.

The Gomery interim report found implicated a number of

Liberal Party officials in the scandal - among them former
bureaucrat Chuck Guite, former Minister of Public Works
Alfonso Gagliano, and Liberal Party fundraiser Jacques
Corriveau.

Prime Minister Martin was cleared of any involvement, as was

then-Prime Minister Jean Chretien.

However, the inquiry said that as the programme was run from
Mr Chretien's office, he was responsible for "the defective
manner" in which its initiatives were implemented.

Mr Chretien has accused the judge of political bias and said he

would seek a judicial review.

What has been the impact?

Voters' anger over the scandal is believed to have cost the

Liberal Party its parliamentary majority in federal elections in
June 2004.

In a bid to appease voters, Mr Martin promised to call a general

election after the final results and recommendations of the
inquiry were made public in February 2006.

However, the opposition parties have repeatedly sought to

capitalise on public anger, and had been pushing for the
government to resign. In a no-confidence vote in May, the
Liberals survived by just one vote.

The Liberals needed the support of the opposition New

Democratic Party to survive confidence votes. The party
withdrew its support in November.

The Conservatives gave the government an ultimatum to

dissolve parliament in January and hold elections in February,
which Mr Martin rejected.

The government finally fell in a confidence vote on 28

November, setting the scene for a Christmas campaign.

How might the campaign unfold?

The three main opposition parties - the Conservatives, the New

Democratic Party (NDP) and the Bloc Quebecois - have said
they will focus on clean government in their campaign.

Observers say the campaign is likely to be bitterly fought, on the

evidence of the heated rhetoric flying around in recent weeks.

Conservative leader Stephen Harper said after four terms in

office, the Liberals have become a party of sleaze and privilege.

A recent poll in the Globe and Mail newspaper suggests the

Liberals have the support of 35% of voters - 6% ahead of the
Conservatives, but not enough to lead a majority government.
News Source : Care2 News

Last Update : December 03, 2008 5:48 PM

Political crisis in Canada

Well, they pre-empted my favourite British soap opera for this, so it MUST be important.

Actually, it IS pretty bizarre and virtually unheard of. Seven weeks ago, we had an election
and Conservative PM Stephen Harper got re-elected. His party fell short of the amount of
seats necessary to form a majority government, so once again, he's leading the country with a
minority government which means that on major confidence motions such as budgets and
throne speeches, etc. the opposition parties can declare a vote of non-confidence if they
really, really object to the content of those things. That means an election.

In a majority government, that can't happen. The PM of a majority government announces a

budget that gives $1 million to every guy in the country named "Steve"? Tough titties. The
opposition parties may disagree with it but that's all they can do. In a minority government
situation, the opposition can declare a vote of non-confidence and call an election over it.

That's been happening a lot lately.

Not the $1 million to every guy named Steve, the other thing.

But guess what happened the other day? The three opposition parties - at the urging of former
PM Jean Chretien and former NDP leader Ed Broadbent - got together and made a plan to
form acoalition government with the intent of overthrowing the Conservatives and turfing
PM Harper out of office!

The plan as I understand it: For the next few years, the Liberals and the NDP want to form a
coalition government, with the Bloc Quebecois agreeing to support them in every major
confidence motion. The Green Party is on board too. This will give the new coalition
government more seats than the Conservatives and make them the majority government.
They would then divvy up and share cabinet appointments between them. This would work
out swell for the NDP who are the perennial third party due to the fact that they're too left-
wing for most people and almost never get into power on a major level.

(note to Americans: the NDP really ARE "left-wing," possibly even LOONEY left, unlike the
Democrats in the states who are called left-wing but really aren't in the grand scheme of
things)

Some problems:

- The Canadian people did not vote for any of this coalition stuff and have no say. They voted
underwhelmingly for Harper and like it or not, in a true democracy, we should have to live
with it until the next election.

- The current leader of the Liberal Party, Stephane Dion, is already due to step down in May.
In this coalition scenario, he would become Prime Minister but only until May. Then,
whoever gets elected leader of the Liberal Party in May automatically becomes Prime
Minister. We don't even know who the fuk that will be yet. Three Prime Ministers in the
space of six months? Holy crap.

- Stephane Dion speaks English very poorly and with a very thick accent. He is very hard to
understand. That, and the fact that not many people have heard of him before is most likely
the reason he lost the last election. The reason he's having to step down as Liberal leader in
May is because he lost the election. Seems like a nice guy, but jeez.

-Stephen Harper wants to ask the Governor General to dissolve Parliament which could
trigger another election. The opposition parties want to ask the Governor General to call on
the new coalition to take over. No one knows what will happen yet. We might find out
tomorrow.

It's pretty hairy, and in all the time I've lived here, I've never seen anything like it.
European and other countries form coalition governments all the time and have been doing so
for centuries but this is quite a new thing in Canada from what I know. It's also being handled
quite aggressively from what I can see. The PM hasn't even released the new budget yet and
already there's a revolt.

Basically, what set this off was an announcement from the PM last week that he wanted to
get rid of taxpayer subsidies for all the political parties. In Canada, each party gets $1.95 for
each vote they get in an election. Obviously, for small parties like the Greens and the NDP,
this could wipe them out.

A ha!

The PM also wanted to roll back wages for public-sector unions while taking away their right
to strike.

Whoa-oh.

That's what triggered this brouhaha in the first place.

The PM just got on the TeeVee with an emergency "message to the people" (which is why I
missed my soap) and, with a sh¡t-eating grin, tried to convince The People that the current
Conservative government is doing the right thing and is on the right track and for us not to
fall for the antics of the coalition buffoons who just want to tear the country apart.

15 minutes later, Stephane Dion got on the TeeVee with his own heavily-accented, hard-to-
understand message about how evil the Conservatives are and what a great plan the coalition
has for fixing the economy and blah, blah, blah.

So I don't know what to believe. Personally, from what little I know and what little time I've
had to digest the implications of all this, I'm split 50/50 on the whole thing. On the one hand,
I would be most glad to see the Conservatives go, but on the other hand, no one voted for this
at all. It would be a case of a brand new, self-created government entity installing themselves
as leaders of the country without the people's consent.

News Source : CBC News

Last Update : Wednesday, December 3, 2008 | 3:26 PM ET

Anger, elation as Canadians debate political crisis

Canada's reputation for dull-as-dishwater politics is in jeopardy as people debate the

constitutional crisis in Ottawa with a lively mixture of confusion, disbelief, anger and delight.

The news from Ottawa has drawn overwhelming feedback to stories, blogs, forums and Your
Views on CBCNews.ca. Roughly 13,000 comments were posted to the site Tuesday — a
record for a single day.

That record was set the day Gov. Gen. Michaëlle Jean decided to cut short a European trip to
return to Ottawa.

Facing the loss of a confidence vote and a subsequent Liberal-NDP coalition with Bloc
Québécois support, Prime Minister Stephen Harper may ask Jean to suspend the
parliamentary session as early as Thursday.

A random sampling of comments since news of the coalition emerged less than a week ago
suggests Canadians are eager to share their views on the recent and rapid political
developments.

Affront to democracy

Many people writing to CBCNews.ca are angry because they feel the results of October's
federal election are being brushed aside. Many are debating whether the coalition's attempt to
gain power is undemocratic.

"Our country supposedly is a democracy, but the opposition is talking like any other country
that just overthrows the government because of disagreements," wrote Gloria Groom.
"Honestly, are we the same as other countries that act against what the people want?"
"Why should we even bother to vote if it no longer matters what the outcome? What a waste
of the $30 million we spent on the recent election!" wrote Pauline Gill.

Others are going further than simply calling the opposition parties' moves undemocratic.

The attempt to defeat the government and form a coalition is "nothing more than a bloodless
coup that does not in any way take into account the will or decisions made by the people in
Canada," wrote Joseph Greenlay.

"Why have an election? Why make light of Iran and other countries' abuse of power?"

Support for coalition

Other people are writing CBCNews.ca to express their satisfaction with the idea of a
coalition.

"Stop just one minute and consider the vast knowledge of men and women who are joining
together with our best interests at heart. This concept in government has been absent in the
House of Commons since the arrival of the Conservative-led government of Mr. Harper,"
wrote Karen Limacher.

James Harder said he has never seen Canadians so energized over politics.

"This is the most animated I have seen Canada. When I lived in the [United] States I saw this
kind of energy expressed on a regular basis, but a fire has been lit under our butts that, I
believe, is good for our country," he wrote.

"The Harper government won a minority government and, as such, had to tred carefully to
ensure the support of the House. Sixty-five per cent of Canadians did not vote for the
Conservatives. A coalition government is both legitimate and democratic," posted Kinney
Butterfield.

'It's the economy!'

Some commenters questioned whether the political instability is further hurting the economy.

"I, for one, hate witnessing the instability in the market but it was heard loud and clear today
that the market took yet another plunge. The weak economy is a worldwide issue and not one
that Harper created," wrote David Timeriski. "We still would have faced challenges, no
matter who would have been in power."

Michael Drosch wrote: "The latest news has been that the economy is holding steady and
gained slightly. Canadians want stability at this juncture."

Many comments echoed the call for steadiness.

"The worst thing that could happen right now is political disorderliness. The world is
watching. We're either a mature and stable country worthy of investment, or we are bypassed
and international investors will go elsewhere," wrote C. Krauss.

"Shame on everyone, playing political gamesmanship while families are struggling and
seniors are frantic about their future. Everyone should get back to work and abide by the
decision of the electorate until the next election," said Bill and Marion Edwards.

'Head to the polls!'

There's also growing interest in solving the issue with another election, seven weeks after the
last one.

"I will go to the polls a dozen times if necessary to prevent this from happening. The actions
of these three parties is entirely about political gain in a time of economic crisis," said
Rachael Bell.

Ralph Pharo said spending $300 million on another election is worth it "if we can get a
majority of any one party," while David Barnes recommends an election "if these are the
antics of our elected officials."
News Source : The Canadian Press

Last Update : 28/12/05

U.S. Oblivious To Political Crisis In Canada

James Blanchard, the onetime U.S. ambassador to Canada, once described his adopted land
as "the invisible world next door."
American oblivion about its biggest trading partner was evident again this week as scant few
Washington power brokers paid any attention to the historic political crisis raging north of the
border.
The New York Times, CNN and The Associated Press were among the few news
organizations that regularly reported on Prime Minister Stephen Harper's fight for his
political life against a hastily convened coalition of opposition parties.
Only in the immediate wake of Thursday's historic decision to prorogue Parliament did the
crisis get much attention from the international media, including The Economist, The
Christian Science Monitor newspaper and the International Herald Tribune.
"I Googled the word 'Canada' in some U.S. papers and they hadn't even had stories containing
the word Canada in three days, never mind stories about the political crisis," David Biette, the
director of the Canada Institute at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars,
said Friday.
An official at the Canadian Embassy was equally mystified that few in Washington seemed to
be aware that the Canadian government had been on the brink of being toppled.
"No one seems to have any idea," the official said earlier this week.
In the Washington Post mid-week, an item at the height of the crisis was buried in a
collection of foreign news briefs. The paper has run AP copy on its website, but many U.S.
newspapers and websites have contained no mention at all of the events.
The Times, on the other hand, gave the story prominent play throughout the week, and the
AP has had daily dispatches from Ottawa.
Biette points out that Americans are understandably consumed by their own historic events
right now. Barack Obama, the first black man to be elected president in U.S. history, will be
sworn in on Jan. 20, and officials in D.C. are busily preparing for the inauguration.
Spectator stands are already being constructed outside the White House and along the
inauguration parade route, security details are being worked out, and thousands of D.C.
residents are making arrangements to rent out their homes and apartments at top dollar when
millions of visitors flood to town for the events.
And Congressional leaders have been preoccupied this week with the plight of the Big Three
U.S. automakers. The CEOs of all three companies returned to the capital this week to plead
for a financial bailout after coming up with measures aimed at running their businesses more
efficiently.
Far from the Beltway and closer to the Canada-U.S. border, some were paying closer
attention to their neighbours to the north.
Vermont Public Radio host Mitch Wertlieb had a segment on the drama on Friday, talking to
a local political scientist about the chain of events.
"If you're one of those political junkies going through withdrawal now that the U.S.
presidential contest is history, you can turn to Canada to get a fix of serious political drama,"
Wertlieb told his listeners.
But for the most part, Biette said, Americans just aren't following the drama.
"It doesn't affect us, I guess," he said. "Right now it's their family problem, and we'll just wait
to see what happens."
The Woodrow Wilson Center established the Canada Institute with the stated purpose of
exploring "one of America's most important bilateral relationships, but one that gets far less
attention in Washington than it deserves."
Had the government actually fallen, Biette said, a conference of American politicians,
scholars and business representatives would have been held at the institute to discuss the
crisis.
Biette was in the process of organizing the event when Gov. Gen. Michaelle Jean threw
Harper a lifeline on Thursday by allowing him to suspend Parliament - a process known as
proroguing - until Jan. 26.
"I was getting my ducks in a row if the government had fallen, and you had this rogue group
of disparate politicians culled together, many of whom have dissed the U.S. in the past - there
certainly would have been some interest here if that had happened," Biette said.
"That would have been quite fascinating because we wouldn't have known here what kind of
situation Canada was getting itself into" - and may yet find itself.
Harper has until Jan. 26 to find a way out of the crisis, he added.
"That's six days after the inauguration, and Americans may indeed be paying attention then."
News Source : The Geek Culture

Last Update : December 02, 2008 07:49

I am more than a bit surprised that no other Canadian raised this question before. After all,
this is going to make history: it is highly likely that we will have our first coalition
government ever.

Harper tried to push irresponsible, even antidemocratic ideas on bluff (hoping other parties
wouldn't work together and wouldn't want to go back into election), and it didn't work. For
the non-Canadians, the main points in case are the end of public financing of political parties
(put into place to replace financing from companies and lobbies); removing the striking rights
for salary reason to public servants (who are pretty much all in negotiation) for three years;
cuts in many investments and perequation payments (that's the redistribution of wealth from
one province to the other - one of the basis of Canada as we know it), and no reinvestments in
cultural fields that were cut before, although they had promised otherwise; and close to no
investments to face the economic crisis.

So now, he tries all he can to avoid his government to be overturned: he called back the most
unpopular measures, delayed the vote on the proposis, delayed the opposition time (the
Liberal Party could have proposed a mistrust motion), and even threatens to suspend all
procedures until January. And then, he claims that a coalition governement (he is in a
minority situation) would be anti-democratic.

I don't know what other think, but I think this would, actually, be the most democratic thing
to do right now: defeating a government working against the will of the population. Although
I would love to know how someone could think "the population didn't vote for a coalition
government; so they have no right to take control of the Parliament".
How is a vote for a different party much more different from a vote "against" the main one?
Only 34% (IIRC) of the population voted for the current government - if the other parties can
work together (and it's not that much of a stretch: they are all more to the left than the ruling
party), put their divisions aside to work on their rallying points, aren't they doing the will of
the majority of the canadian population? And thus, don't they have a greater right to rule than
the actual government?

Anyone else has an opinion on the matter?

(Considering the subject, I have to add that this is my personnal opinion, and does not
represent in any way the opinion of my employer.)
 SIMPULAN

Dari semua data diatas dapat disimpulkan bahwa kehidupan politik di kanada,
mengalami krisis yang sangat pelik. Mulai dari protes rakyatnya mengenai pemerintahan
yang tidak tegas dalam memberlakukan suatu kebijakan sampai pada pejabat yang korupsi.
Sebenarnya krisi politik di Kanada disebabakan oleh badan konstitiusinya itu sendiri. Mulai
dari mengijinkan rezim asing masuk sampai pada keteledoran anggota pejabatnya yang
melakukan korupsi tanpa berpikir panjang. Beberapa data menunjukkan bahwa rakyat kanada
sendiri sudah mulai menolak untuk melakukan pemilihan terhadap pejabat negara. Hal ini
menunjukkan bahwa krisi politik di Kanada sudah mencapai taraf yang gawat dan harus
segera dibenahi. Tapi kembali lagi ke awal, bahwa krisis politik ini disebabkan oleh badan
konstitusi itu sendiri. Oleh karena itu pembenahan utama harus ada di badan konstitusi itu
sendiri.