Despite the stagnation that appears in society, the development of a country and the very act of living in a country is a constantly evolving process. No aspect of the past encapsulates the concept of confederation being a living process better than society’s treatment and acknowledgement of Louis Riel. The changes that take place and the unique legacy he leaves behind in Canada demonstrates the morphing of Riel within the fabric of Canada. The process of confederation is always in motion and it is a process that has been changing since Canada was first created. When Bill C-147 names Riel as a Founding Father of confederation this marks a change in how the government viewed his impact on confederation and the overall development of Canada. …show more content…
This change in mentality demonstrates how Riel is part of the living process of confederation. The unique relationship shared by Riel and the Canadian government also exists between Riel and the Métis. Previously, the Métis relied on Riel for his help in securing their rights and liberating them, going on to even ask him to go back to Canada during his exodus to Montana, in order to present a list of grievance to the Canadian government. This has changed today, where the province of Manitoba is self-reliant and the Métis people are able to garner support for their own causes. The changing situation of Riel’s treatment shows how as a result of the constantly changing process of confederation, we now treat him in a different way than we would have in the past. While Riel is a strong example of how confederation is very much a living process, Canadians and society today continues to influence Canada as much if not even more than the Founding Fathers did in the past. Even today, our feelings toward certain aspects of the government and confederation are still evolving and changing as we become more
Canadian history consists of many memorable moments, including many great leaders that helped Canada become what it is today, like the well-known Louis St. Laurent. He was born on Feb. 1st, 1882 in Compton, Quebec, and died on July 25, 1973 in Quebec City (Coucil, 13). Louis St. Laurent was raised in a mixed family, with a French - speaking father, and English - speaking Irish mother, and was fluently bilingual. He studied many years in law, where he graduated from law school, at Laval University in 1914, and had been a successful corporation lawyer (“St-Stephen, St. Laurent”). Laurent entered politics a lot later in his years, as he became older; however he still managed to have a large impact on Canada, and achieved many accomplishments. Louis St. Laurent was an extremely important, and well-respected politician, because he helped resolve the conscription crisis from 1940-1944 (,Pickersgill,14), and prevented the government and cabinet from collapsing, which would have caused the society to fall apart at the time, he was involved in the establishment of the Canada Council, which introduced support for Canadian arts, to help Canada separate from the influence of American culture (Jocelyn), and lastly he welcomed Newfoundland into confederation in 1949 (“Newfoundland History”), which was a large accomplishment because of the failures Many other politicians experienced in trying to do so before.
From 1968–1979 and 1980–1984, Pierre Elliott Trudeau, was the Canadian Prime minister. He represented the Liberals. Throughout his time he has done many things for Canada. During Pierre Elliott Trudeau’s time as the Prime minister, he managed to improve relationships between Canada and France and as well as diplomatic relations with China. He also stopped the French separatist movement, which was when the French people of Quebec wanted to part from Canada and become independent. In 1982, Trudeau also formed the Constitution that includes the bills of rights and the amending formula. The significance of this quote was referring to the separatist movement of the French. The relations of the French and the English people in Canada created conflict.
Confederation was a huge change for Canada in 1867. It made a huge influence on the world we live in. Our country faced many ups and downs along the way, while trying to create the best life for its citizens. For this, the country would have come together and accept each other. Today I’ll be telling you about how I believe Confederation was not successful at unifying Canada.
To decide what to do after Quebec separates, First Ministers and the ROC, must first look at why it happened. Perhaps Quebec's profound nationalism and unique national identity conflicted with citizens in the ROC; in order to gain understanding of their decision the ROC must look at Quebec's past. Quebec was not always treated fairly nor where they given many rights in regards t...
Throughout the early 1980’s Canadian society began being troubled by its relationship with Quebec, it seemed more isolated than ever. After being promised a deal following the separation referendum and not seeing any development, it appeared they were more bitter and angry than ever before. They could not be forced to sign the Constitution Act of 1982, therefore, there was much pressure for the federal government to come up with a quick solution to either lose Quebec or finally win them over. Brian Mulroney was elected in 1984 and made it his personal goal to unite Quebec with the rest of Canada. Mulroney planned on completing this task by opening up the constitution and meeting various requests Quebec had, along with repairing other flaws that seemed to be dragging the country down.
The fathers of confederation in Canada’s beginning stages had a very specific mindset while creating the country in which we know today; to create an empire without following in the same footsteps as our neighbours the United States of America. Throughout this essay this statement will be proven by delving into the relations these both countries hold with their predecessor; England, by discovering their constitutional differences, and by analyzing matters surrounding the different uses of division of power.
There exists an ever-looming threat of Quebec secession, as the province pushes for greater autonomy, recognition as a distinct nation within Canada, and greater representation on the federal level. The federal government’s relationship with Quebec is one that exhibits the “paradox of federalism” as described by Lawrence Anderson in ‘Both Too Much and Too Little: Sources of Federal Instability in Canada’, the simple truth that in federations “federal institutions can prevent secession by satisfying some of the institutional demands of those who might desire more significant decentralization but they also provide institutions to those that might be in conflict with the center that can be used to mobilize for alteration…” He argues that the government of Quebec, due to it’s focus on autonomy and protection of identity, would be the province best equipped to secede with “minimal disruption”. In this, a shortcoming of strong regional autonomies in federations is made apparent: in attempts to accommodate diversity the nationalist regions are granted the institutional framework for secession. A push in the reverse, towards less regional autonomy may have similar results, however. As the federal government moves towards centralization to avoid this paradox, they are perceived as invalidating the terms of the federation, and nationalistic pushes for autonomy still
Every country has a particular system of government, a system that regulates the political spectrum of the nation as well as assuring the citizens’ needs and freedoms and managing the economic resources. Since the government is the stepping stone of the nation, it requires the appropriate system that establishes an anchored base of a strong country; there are three types of government systems: a unitary system, Federal system and a Confederate system. This paper will spot light on the last two systems by identifying their notions through United States and Canada, because regardless to their many similarities, there are significant distinctions in the ways they constructed their federalisms throughout history, in which they emphasized on the
... thought that while a political framework had been created in 1867 the dreamed up union could only last if it was cemented by the creation of a strong national economy - one that would run east-west rather than north-south. The future of Confederation, he thought, hinged upon the development of the West. Without such development, the Americans would take over the West, encircle Canada and inevitably bring about its annexation. Hence, the dream of creating a “separate, peaceful and orderly society on the northern half of the continent” would fade away. Without John A. MacDonald, the Canada that one is currently living in would have been very different. Either viewed as positive or negative to different people, he is truly one of the men that influenced Canada the most, and an “agent of change”. After all, he did not receive the name “Father of Canada” for nothing.
Quebec, “La Belle Province”, is a unique province within the Canadian federation. This uniqueness doesn’t come as a result of the beautiful landscapes or the widespread corruption in the province. Rather, Quebec’s distinctiveness stems from the complexities surrounding its national identity. These nuances intertwine with the already complicated political, economic, and social layers constitute the Quebecois intricate fabric.
Louis Riel was one of the most controversial figures in Canadian history, and even to this day – more than a century after his execution – he continues to be remembered. Many believed him to be a villain; others saw him as a hero. So who was he really? Born in St. Boniface at the Red River Settlement of Canada (present-day Winnipeg, Manitoba) on October 22, 1844, Louis Riel hoped one day to follow his father’s footsteps and become a great Métis leader just like him. Eventually, Riel was seen as a hero to the French-speaking Métis. In the Canadian West, however, most people regarded him as a villain due to his execution in 1885. Nevertheless, Louis Riel was not really a villain by heart; only a flawed man who made many mistakes in his life. Today many more people are seeing him as a visionary, and recognizing the numerous contributions that he made to building Canada up as a nation. He was indubitably a Canadian hero, mainly due to his involvement with the Métis, confederating Manitoba with Canada, and approaching problems peacefully.
In the year of 1867 the nation we know as Canada came into being. The Confederation in this year only came about after things had been overcome. Many political and economic pressures were exerted on the colonies and a federal union of the colonies seemed to be the most practical method of dealing with these pressures and conflicts. While Confederation was a solution to many of the problems, it was not a popular one for all the colonies involved. In the Maritime colonies views differed widely on the topic. Some were doubtful, some were pleased, others were annoyed and many were hopeful for a prosperous future.1
The Confederation act of 1867 without question has had a major influence on the status of contemporary Canada. It has helped shape Canada into one of the worlds most politically and economically powerful countries; a country that is strong, independent, and united. There was a series of events which led to the confederation of Canada, some which are more significant than others. However, I believe that despite the significance of events such as the British encouragement of uniting its North American colonies, the central and key reason for confederation was the fear of potential American (Yankee) inhabitance (whether by persuasion or invasion) of the divided and vast British North American colonies, and the way that the “Fathers of Confederation” were able to take advantage of this situation and persuade reluctant colonies to join Confederation. A strong and united nation could not be easily invaded or bought. These essential factors will be discussed in the paragraphs to come.
In conclusion Canada gained independence because of a series of events that took place during the twentieth century. If it hadn’t been for these events, Canada to this day might have been a part of the British Empire. Through discussion on the Chanak affair we signalled that we wanted autonomy. Through our hard work and lives, the world knew we had the ability to stand alone as a strong nation. While, our international reputation of being a “peacekeeping” country the right to stand as an independent self-governing nation. But finally through the Canada Act, we stood solely independent from our Empire. It is obvious that the twentieth century provided us with great chances to become an independent strong nation.
Much has been written, and even more said, about what constitutes the Canadian character, what identifies the quintessential Canadian. Two features clearly emerge as dominant elements in the make-up of both English and French-speaking members of our family: Canadians are constantly brooding over who we are, what gives us our Canadian character, and what makes us different from other nations. Most other nations never think about such things, or take the answers for granted. Secondly, there is a keen awareness of, interest in, and concern with all things American, that is, with the United States of America. This is a main factor that contributes Canada to becoming the 51st State.