Dash Domo Scandal

1351 Words3 Pages

1. Who were Hugh Allan, Dash Domi, Karlheinz Schreiber, Jacques Bureau, Pierre Sevigny, Wanda Liczyk, and Jacques Corriveau? Sir Hugh Allan Grant was a shipping magnate that was involved with bribery in The Pacific Scandal of the 1870s. He competed for the bid to the build the Canadian pacific railway and paid former Prime Minister, John A Macdonald a sum of $360,000 towards financing his party’s election campaign in exchange. The liberals discovered the scandal, which eventually led to the resignation of John A. Macdonald’s Government and put the Liberals in power. (Unit 3, from the professor). Dash Domi was a computer salesman for dell who was involved in the Toronto Computer Leasing Scandal of the 1990’s. Domi was involved with bribing …show more content…

Bureau allowed the smuggling of liquor under his watch and appointed a bootlegger to a position in the customs department in Montreal. The dismissals of RCMP officers near the border lead to free flow of liquor from Canada to the US. This became known as the Customs Scandal and eventually became the King Byng affair. In the end, Bureau resigned as the Minister and was appointed to the senate by Prime Minister King and no one was charged (Unit 3, from the professor) Pierre Sevigny was the associate Minister of National Defence under John Diefenbaker’s government in the Munsinger affair of the 1960’s. It involved Gerda Munsiger, a prostitute and an alleged Soviet spy who had sexual relations with several ministers, including Sevigny. The RCMP saw Munsinger as a security risk since Sevigny had access to top secret information. A Royal commission was held and stated there was no breach of security even though there was a risk. In the end, Sevigny did not resign and was only given a warning by the Prime Minister Diefenbaker regarding his affairs (Unit 3, from the …show more content…

Not only was Clinton’s act immoral as he was married at the time, he also lied under oath, which questioned his character and had an affair in the White House itself, which may seem to the public that Clinton was not being a responsible president. Clinton’s impeachment in the case was justified as he lied to the public while being under oath at the same time. Although, one could argue that the scandal occupied the headlines for long than necessary which hindered necessary policies from being debated or discussed and driving away quality talk (unit 7, From the

Open Document