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…
former city councilor, Tom Jakobek, the city’s budget chief with 25,000 dollars under a car garage. He also lobbied the executive director of IT, Jim Andrews with free meals, drinks and a free chartered flight to Stanley Cup Playoffs. An inquiry by Justice Bellamy made 241 recommendations after the scandal which included themes for lobbying, ethics, procurement and governance (Bellamy, 6). In the end, no one was charged with anything. (Unit 4, from the professor) Karlheinz Schreiber was a lobbyist involved in the Airbus Scandal of the late 1980’s and 1990’s. He gave former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, kickbacks of 3 separate payments of $100,000 dollars each for securing contracts Air Canada at the time, while he was still the Member of Parliament. Brian Mulroney received payments for providing consultancy advice to international clients regarding the sale of military vehicles (Oliphant, 11). An Inquiry was held by Justice Oliphant and found that there was no evidence of Brian Mulroney giving consultation advice. In the end, Schreiber was sentenced to prison in Germany for tax evasion and Brian Mulroney successfully sued the Government of Canada for defamation and was not charged with anything. (Unit 03, from the professor). Jacques Bureau was the customs and excise Minister under former Prime Minister, William Lyon Mackenzie King.
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…
Professor) Wanda Liczyk was a part of the Computer Leasing Scandal of the 1990’s. She was the city’s chief financial officer and treasurer and was involved in a sexual relationship with Michael Saunders, an IT expert from Virginia. Liczyk directed other IT businesses in Toronto to Saunders and his company as well making it a case for conflict of interest. Licykz was also lobbied by Dash Domi, who is mentioned previously. No charges were laid against her in the end. (Unit 4, From the Professor). Jacques Corriveau was a former Liberal Party organizer. He was involved in a kickback scheme in the Sponsorship Scandal of the 1990’s. Corriveau used his own company Pluri Design Inc. to defraud the Government at the time (Press, 2016). The Scandal cost the taxpayers $332 million dollars and Corriveau was fined $1.4 Million and charged with fraud against the government, forgery and laundering money. He also pocketed $7 million dollars in kickbacks. The Gomery commission recommended rewriting the rules for Ministerial Responsibility as a result of the scandal, which also brought down the Liberal Government at the time (unit 4, from the Professor). 2. These days no politician seems safe from allegations of sexual misbehaviour of one sort or another. Why should we care? Or not care? Please give reasons and examples to support your opinion. Inappropriate sexual behavior should be taken seriously when the political member involved conducts his/her affairs in a dubious and questionable manner. It should not be taken seriously when both parties have consented in engaging in sexual relations even though it could be seen as morally repulsive or repugnant by the public. As Thompson states, cheap talk drives out quality talk and this can have devastating effects for both sides (2010). On one hand, a politician’s life and career could be ruined if he/she is involved in a consensual affair and in turn cause harm to the public as more important issues are left out of the discussion. Similarly, if a politician lies about having an affair or does things that are unethical and even criminal under any circumstance, they should be forced to resign and be criminally charged. Politicians are people and are entitled to a private life just like the average citizen but should be held responsible for their actions when need be. For example, former US President Bill Clinton was involved in an affair with Monica Lewinsky, a White House intern in the mid 1990’s.
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
Professor) John F. Kennedy is another example where one could argue that he used his position and power as a president and engaged in many extra – marital affairs and some of which included actress Marilyn Monroe and 19 year old intern, Mimi Alford. An issue regarding the affair with Alford was that Kennedy ensured the affair with was undisclosed and kept silent from the public. This could have possibly been due to the Cuban Missile Crisis that was occurring during the same time. One could argue that Kennedy abused his power and purposely kept his affairs silent which can be grounds for resignation but it could also be said that keeping it silent was the lesser of two evils as the world was on a brink of nuclear war, consequently justifying the silence of the affair (Unit 7, From the Professor). In a Canadian case, a drunken Quebec Minister was caught naked outside his own office at night while engaging in extra marital affairs with a staff member had no reason to resign or even be publically outed as the affair was consensual and did not impede the Ministers ability to do his job (Sears, 2017). One could say the code of silence surrounding this is immoral and should have led to his resignation. Had the media called out the Minister, it would have led to his resignation and a ruined reputation for the rest of his life. It would have been a waste of time for the media to out him out as the media would have been focusing on menial issues instead of more serious and real problems facing the country. In conclusion, politicians are entitled to a private life and should be forced to resign or charged if the actions they conduct involves elements of lying, criminality and harm to individuals, otherwise there is no need to focus on private lives of politicians as it only drives out discussion regarding issues that matter.
Charges of this nature dogged Currie for the rest of his life. Political enemies, took up the cry as the war wound down. He was being accused as a Canadian commander of deliberatley sacrificing the lives of his men in the pursuit of his own personal glory. His death five years later, in 1933 at the age of fifty-seven, may be attributed, at least indirectly, to the lawsuit. His funeral was a major event in Montreal and thousands lined the streets to honour the “Great Leader” of the Canadian Corps. He is buried in Mount Royal Cemetery, Montreal.
...e to power in Quebec. This indicates that Quebecers supported non-violent methods in order to achieve independence for Quebec, rather than the violent methods of the FLQ, also indicating that the efforts of the FLQ would have been subdued by the Parti Quebecois. The death of Pierre Laporte was another unfortunate occurrence as a result of the War Measures Act which could have been avoided, yet some still believe his death is not related to the invocation of the War Measures Act. Justification is required for all actions which spark debate, and in events where the justification is provided under false pretences, someone must be held responsible. In this case it remains the Trudeau government. Trudeau may have had an admirable political career in which he made many wise decisions, however, the invocation of the War Measures Act in October 1970 was not one of them.
Louis St. Laurent managed to prevent the government and cabinet from collapsing, during one of Canada’s largest crises. He also helped assert Canada’s independence, by separating the influence of American culture, and providing more Canadian tradition. As well as succeeded in convincing Newfoundland to join confederation, after it failed to do so many times before. Overall there were many challenges to face during Louis St. Laurent’s years as a politician, however in the end he managed to maintain himself, succeeded in achieving many great accomplishments, and even created many historical moments for Canada along the way.
Before Clinton was elected President he had an encounter with Paula Jones in a hotel room. After Clinton took office Paula Jones then sued Clinton for sexual harassment. A short time later Monica Lewinsky began her intern at the White House. Clinton and Lewinsky began a sexual relationship. Judge Kenneth Starr was the investigator of Whitewater. President Clinton denied any sexual relations with Lewinsky. On October 8, 1998, the House would vote to have an impeachment and won. Clinton was charged with perjury and obstruction to justice. Bill Clinton would end up not getting kicked out of office by senate.
The affair took place in Chanak, Turkey. The dispute involved Turks and the British. During the course of the affair, British troops were outnumbered; they were in need of more troops, so they requested Canada’s help. Unlike previously where Canada was automatically at war when Britain declared war, Prime minister King who was in power at that time, insisted that he would have to consult the parliament for a vote, before sending Canadian troops on this mission. He wanted to make decisions on behalf of his country; he believed that “Britain could not assume that Canada would automatically answer her call”.
Pierre Elliot Trudeau was arguably one of the most vivacious and charismatic Prime Ministers Canada has ever seen. He wore capes, dated celebrities and always wore a red rose boutonniere. He looked like a superhero, and often acted like one too. Some of the landmark occurrences in Canadian history all happened during the Trudeau era, such as patriating the constitution, creating the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the 1980 Quebec Referendum. However, it is Trudeau’s 1969 “white paper” and the Calder legal challenge which many consider to be one of his most influential contributions to Canadian history.
"Ellen Fairclough, 99, Member Of Canada Cabinet in 1950's." New York Times 16 Nov. 2004: A25. Canada in Context. Web. 3 Dec. 2013.
During the worst depression years in Canada, there were many people who tried tirelessly to get Canada out of the crisis she was in more quickly and efficiently. William Aberhart and his group of supporters had a plan that they were sure could help and even end the depression and its horrible effects. His theory was if a twenty-five dollar cheque was given monthly to each family, it would alleviate their financial fears and jumpstart the economy. Having confidence in his idea, he went to share it with both political parties. Unfortunately, both parties rejected the idea; saying money would only become more worthless. Even after running and being elected as Premier of Alberta, the resolution was not accepted because of the overwhelming responsibility towards the federal government.
From a modern day point of view, one would deem it not viable to confuse the identity of Martin Guerre and Arnaud du Tilh for any great...
Following the years of Congressional Reconstruction during the Johnson administration, former Union General Ulysses S. Grant was elected president, despite his lack of political experience. Although Grant was an excellent soldier, he proved to be an insufficient politician, failing to respond effectively to rampant corruption throughout his two terms in office. Both government and businesses were plagued by corrupt schemes, as Republican leaders used the spoils system to gain political favors and “robber barons,” such as Jay Gould and James Fisk, stole large sums of money at the public’s expense. New York Mayor William “Boss” Tweed, leader of the “Tammany Hall” political machine, took advantage of the influx of immigrants to the United States by manipulating newly arrived immigrants, promising employment, housing, and other favors in return for their electoral support. This blatant corruption severely damaged the opinions of many Americans regarding their government, and prompted the election of numerous reform-minded politicians. Rutherford B. Hayes and James Garfield both attempted to restore honest government following the tainted Grant administration, yet political divisions between the “Halfbreed” and “Stalwart” factions of the Republican Party prev...
On August 17, 1998, exactly one year after making the statement above, President Bill Clinton prepared to deliver a speech concerning a scandal that had gripped the nation for months. It is needless to say that this was an important moment during the Clinton administration. After accusations of sexual harassment, Clinton addressed the nation and admitted to having a relationship with Monica Lewinsky. In this critical speech Clinton set out to admit to wrong-doings, provide a few reasons for his action, and ultimately persuade the audience into moving on and forgetting the scandal. This essay will break down his speech into sections and examine the most and least effective strategies that Clinton employed and how well he executed those strategies. This is an interesting speech given under rare circumstances. Not since Watergate had an American president been under such harsh moral criticism from the public. By looking critically at this speech we are able to gain valuable insight into Clinton's motives.
Pearson, Lester B. Mike; the Memoirs of the Right Honourable Lester B. Pearson. Vol. 1. Toronto:
Before stepping into the critical analysis of the speech, it is important to understand the historical setting from which the speech arose. The context can be briefly summarized as the following. In 1995 Clinton had a sexual relationship with one of his White House interns by the name of Monica Lewinsky. On January 17, 1998, a sexual misconduct lawsuit against him was filed. Clinton then quickly delivered a forceful public statement that he did not have a sexual relationship with the woman. However, unknown to President Clinton, Linda Tripp, one of Lewinsky’s associates, had recorded several conversations of Lewinsky describing her affair with the President. In the seven months afterwards, Kenneth W. Starr, the StarWhitewater independent counsel, had began collecting evidence of the affair and carrying out investigation about Clinton’s obstruction of justice. Evidence of Clinton lying under oath would be grounds for impeachment. On August 17, 1998, Clinton decided to a...
Throughout history, there have been two impeachment cases in the United States, involving President Andrew Johnson and President Bill Clinton. The following paper will discuss their impeachments and trials, along with ethical dilemmas in their cases. It will also discuss the almost impeachment of Richard Nixon and his resignation to avoid impeachment and conviction, along with ethical dilemmas in his case. Lastly, it will include a personal input of these cases.
Lately, the top story in the news day after day, months after months have been about William Jefferson Clinton, also known as Bill. Who could blame them, there is nothing better than a story out of the ordinary, especially one with presidential status. For the past months he has been the most talked about figure, being the essential topic for news, talk shows, late night comedy and even going as far as the big screen. Talk about 'Primary Colors' and 'Wag the Dog.' What has gotten to me the most however, were the constant flow of Republicans, along with a few Democrats, who just want to say how shocked and embarrassed they are along with the people of the United States.The president had not just become the most talked about figure, but also one history had ever seen, so far that is, breaking the record and becoming a topic of conversation and debate 'twenty-four seven.' The people, who I think were most affected by this crisis and feel very sad for, are the Republicans, since they had lost severe amount of sleep over the president's bedroom crisis. They had to perform their republican duties by shocking our brains with the president's affair with Monica Lewinsky. We had to ignore the rest of the world news and its issues while they plough through the valley of lies, abuse of power and something they called high crimes and misdemeanors.