What should you do if the first leader of your country discriminated against the people in our country? John A. Macdonald is a complicated person to study. He may have had a hand in building this country but he also damaged it. Now the real question is whether we should have reminders of what he has done, bad and good, or if we should eradicate him from the entire public sphere? This is the debate that is happening from coast to coast. Yet, due to Macdonald’s progressive ideas towards women rights and the effectiveness of his business skills, Macdonald’s name and likeness should continue to be in the public sphere.
The path to equality with women and men has always been a long and hard task to accomplish, simply getting the right to vote for women was a struggle in itself. Yet, Macdonald
…show more content…
Justifying themselves that the upbringing of Canadian Pacific Railway(CPR) created the platform that made it possible for Canada’s first political scandal, that surrounded Macdonald. Yet, when looking back at Macdonald’s mistakes, we seem to forget that this was just simply how business was and is still done. “It was not the first time a politician fighting for the life of his government and public policy solicited financial support and it will not be the last” (SYMONS). Often, people will have a great idea but can’t get it out into the world. This is where investors come along. They support your idea and therefore support you, often giving you money to aid you with your future goal. The sad thing is, these investors usually want something back, and you're obliged to give it to them. This is just how business works. Macdonald was merely just doing business. When choosing who would get the coveted contract to construct the CPR he chose a company who first believed in and supported him. Being a good businessman should not be a reason as to why we shouldn’t keep him in the public
In Canada, women make up slightly more than half of the population. However, throughout Canadian history and modern day, women are needing to stand up for themselves and other women to bring about change. Canadian women are strong and have the power to work together and bring about change. Jennie Trout stood up for Canadian women that wanted to be in the medical field, women during WWI made a difference in their lives by entering the workplace and standing for their right to work, Nellie McClung was a leader for women’s suffrage, and The Famous Five campaigned and won The “Persons” Case allowing women to be considered persons under the Canadian Constitution. These women were instigators of change. Change for women only occurs when ambitious and courageous women stand up for a difference that they deserve.
William Lyon Mackenzie King, Canada’s longest serving prime minister, is known for both the great contributions he brought to Canada and for the scandals he was involved in. The one event that makes him most famous to Canadians is the King-Byng Affair of 1926. During this event, Mackenzie King asked Lord Byng to dissolve parliament in order to force a new election as he had lost with a minority. Because King’s intentions were to regain a majority government, Byng refused out of distrust for King’s plans and King was replaced in power by the Conservatives. While William Lyon Mackenzie King’s actions were in accordance with all the laws regarding his power as Prime Minister, he acted for selfish reasons thus putting him in the wrong. Mackenzie King’s and Lord Byng’s histories will be quickly analyzed to understand their actions in the affair. Right after, King’s options and reasons for dissolving parliament will be analyzed. Thirdly, Byng’s options and reasons for refusing King’s request will be researched. Once enough evidence has been collected, the end results of this affair will be discussed and the conclusion as to whether or not King was right to go against responsible government will be made.
In the year 1957, Canada elected its first Prime minister without English or French root, John Diefenbaker. While growing up in the city of Toronto, because of his German name, he was often teased. [1] He grew up as an outcast, and so he was able to relate to the discrimination and inequality many of the minorities in Canada felt. This essay will attempt to answer the question: To what extent did Prime Minister John Diefenbaker help promote equality to the minority communities. . The minorities in this time period were the women, aboriginals, and immigrants. During his time as the Prime Minister, he was able to help protect the rights of this group because many of their rights were being abused by the society. Diefenbaker also helped the minorities to stand up for themselves and other groups. Diefenbaker was able to bring positive change to the minority communities by making an official Bill of Rights and appointing people of discriminated groups to the parliament while other members did not.
Before World War I, equality for woman and men were very unfair. Woman weren’t even legally “persons”; they weren’t allowed to join parliament or the senate because they weren’t legally “persons”, therefore these jobs were occupied by men only. During World War I and World War II, many men had left for war, thus meaning there were many job openings that needed to be occupied as soon as possible, women then began to take on stereotypical male jobs which men thought women couldn’t do or couldn’t do as well. Women showed their capabilities and realized they shouldn’t be considered less than men. In retaliation of not being considered “persons”, women decided to take action. The famous five brought the persons case upon the supreme court of Canada in 1927, which was finally determined by Judicial Council of Britain's Privy Council in 1929. The “persons” case involved women not legally being “persons”. After the famous five won the case, women were legally considered “persons” then women began to join important jobs such as members of parliament and the senate. Along with becoming “persons”, women were beginning to get their right to vote in provinces slowly. In 1916, four provinces gave women the right to vote provincially and, finally, in 1940, the last province (Quebec) gave women the right to vote provincially. Later, in World War II, there was another change in
John Diefenbaker was the last “old Tory” to be the Prime Minister of Canada. He was a member of the Conservative Party with deep values as well as being a British loyalist who supported the Queen. Diefenbaker was also a man that was well known for not supporting anything he thought was anti- British. This sentiment was most evident when Diefenbaker criticized the Liberal’s refusal to support Britain in the Suez Canal crisis and sided with the Americans. This loyalty the Diefenbaker had to the British Commonwealth would not serve him well as Prime Minister of Canada. In 1958, Diefenbaker would win the largest majority government in Canadian history upsetting the new leader of the Liberal Party, Lester B. Pearson, who had taken over for St. Laurent. In the election Diefenbaker would win 208 seats out of a possible 265 seats. The Liberal Party, led by Pearson would only be able to obtain 48 seats making them the Official Opposition. Five years after this historic win, John Diefenbaker would once again rewrite history by losing the largest number of seats in Canadian history. Historians who have written about Diefenbaker are confounded when they try to unravel the puzzling actions of Diefenbaker in his dealings with others concerning foreign and domestic policies. Many historians look at a few major mistakes that Diefenbaker committed during his term as Prime Minister from 1957 until 1963 which led to his collapse of power. The major events that led to the downfall of his government in 1963 included; the amount of spending and tax cut bills his government passed immediately after the election, the Avro Canada planes which Canada was building to become the leader in aeroplane technology, the Bomarc Missile Crisis in the 1960s in whi...
The prime minister at that time, Mackenzie King, was unprepared to deal with the crisis at hand. His thoughts were that the depression was only a fluke, and that given time, the economy would prosper once more. King never answered the pleas for aid by his citizens, and told ...
In fact the place of Sir John A. Macdonald in this country was so large & so absorbing that it is almost impossible to conceive that the politics of this country, will continue without him. His loss overwhelms us. (Swainson, 149)
The Indian Residential schools and the assimilating of First Nations people are more than a dark spot in Canada’s history. It was a time of racist leaders, bigoted white men who saw no point in working towards a lasting relationship with ingenious people. Recognition of these past mistakes, denunciation, and prevention steps must be taking intensively. They must be held to the same standard that we hold our current government to today. Without that standard, there is no moving forward. There is no bright future for Canada if we allow these injustices to be swept aside, leaving room for similar mistakes to be made again. We must apply our standards whatever century it was, is, or will be to rebuild trust between peoples, to never allow the abuse to be repeated, and to become the great nation we dream ourselves to be,
Systemic discrimination has been a part of Canada’s past. Women, racial and ethnic minorities as well as First Nations people have all faced discrimination in Canada. Policies such as, Charter of Rights and Freedoms, provincial and federal Human Rights Codes, as well has various employment equity programs have been placed in Canada’s constitution to fight and address discrimination issues. Despite these key documents placed for universal rights and freedoms Aboriginal and other minority populations in Canada continue to be discriminated against. Many believe there is no discrimination in Canada, and suggest any lack of success of these groups is a result of personal decisions and not systemic discrimination. While others feel that the legislation and equality policies have yet resulted in an equal society for all minorities. Racism is immersed in Canadian society; this is clearly shown by stories of racial profiling in law enforcement.
“Honey, you’re not a person, now get back in the kitchen and make me a sandwich!” If a husband were to say these words to his wife today, he would likely receive a well-deserved smack to the face. It is not until recently that Canadian women have received their status as people and obtained equal rights as men. Women were excluded from an academic education and received a lesser pay than their male counter parts. With the many hardships women had to face, women were considered the “slave of slaves” (Women’s Rights). In the past century, women have fought for their rights, transitioning women from the point of being a piece of property to “holding twenty-five percent of senior positions in Canada” (More women in top senior positions: Report). The Married Women’s Property Act, World War I, The Person’s Case, and Canadian Human Rights Act have gained Canadian women their rights.
The horrors of racial profiling during World War II had always seemed to be distant to many Canadians, yet Canada was home to several xenophobic policies that were a violation of many rights and freedoms. One of the cruelest instances of this was the Japanese Canadian internment. At the time, the government justified the internment by claiming that the Japanese Canadians were a threat to their national defense, but evidence suggests that it had nothing to do with security. The government made illogical decisions in response to the mass panic and agitation in British Columbia. To aggravate the situation, Prime Minister William Mackenzie King reacted passively to these decisions, as it was not in his best interests to be involved. Moreover,
Canada likes to paint an image of peace, justice and equality for all, when, in reality, the treatment of Aboriginal peoples in our country has been anything but. Laden with incomprehensible assimilation and destruction, the history of Canada is a shameful story of dismantlement of Indian rights, of blatant lies and mistrust, and of complete lack of interest in the well-being of First Nations peoples. Though some breakthroughs were made over the years, the overall arching story fits into Cardinal’s description exactly. “Clearly something must be done,” states Murray Sinclair (p. 184, 1994). And that ‘something’ he refers to is drastic change. It is evident, therefore, that Harold Cardinal’s statement is an accurate summarization of the Indigenous/non-Indigenous relationship in
Sixty- nine years after the Declaration of Independence, one group of women gathered together and formed the Seneca Falls Convention. Prior and subsequent to the convention, women were not allowed to vote because they were not considered equal to men. During the convention, Elizabeth Cady Stanton delivered the “Declaration of Sentiments.” It intentionally resembles the Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident; that all men and women are created equal…” (Stanton, 466). She replaced the “men” with “men and women” to represent that women and men should be treated equally. Stanton and the other women in the convention tried to fight for voting rights. Dismally, when the Equal Rights Amendment was introduced to the Congress, the act failed to be passed. Even though women voiced their opinions out and urged for justice, they could not get 2/3 of the states to agree to pass the amendment. Women wanted to tackle on the voting inequalities, but was resulted with more inequalities because people failed to listen to them. One reason why women did not achieve their goals was because the image of the traditional roles of women was difficult to break through. During this time period, many people believed that women should remain as traditional housewives.
Canada’s parliamentary system is designed to preclude the formation of absolute power. Critics and followers of Canadian politics argue that the Prime Minister of Canada stands alone from the rest of the government. The powers vested in the prime minister, along with the persistent media attention given to the position, reinforce the Prime Minister of Canada’s superior role both in the House of Commons and in the public. The result has led to concerns regarding the power of the prime minister. Hugh Mellon argues that the prime minister of Canada is indeed too powerful. Mellon refers to the prime minister’s control over Canada a prime-ministerial government, where the prime minister encounters few constraints on the usage of his powers. Contrary to Mellon’s view, Paul Barker disagrees with the idea of a prime-ministerial government in Canada. Both perspectives bring up solid points, but the idea of a prime-ministerial government leading to too much power in the hands of the prime minister is an exaggeration. Canada is a country that is too large and complex to be dominated by a single individual. The reality is, the Prime Minister of Canada has limitations from several venues. The Canadian Prime Minister is restricted internally by his other ministers, externally by the other levels of government, the media and globalization.
The Nineteenth Amendment to the U.S. Consititution provides women equal voting rights to men, and states citizens’ vote “shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.” It is the congress’ job to bring this regulation into focus (Grolier,2009). Women being given the right to vote is important not only to society but also because it has had a significant influence in women’s personal lives.