Statues of five women celebrating the victory of the ‘Persons’ Case, a monumental moment in Canadian history, congregate proudly behind the East Block on Parliament Hill. But not everyone was celebrating when the statues were unveiled in October 2000.

According to letters accessed under the Access to Information Act, the plans for the statues were historically inaccurate at the time the Senate announced they were to be implemented on the Hill.

Famous Five Letters (Text)
Marguerite E. Ritchie, president of the Human Rights Institute of Canada at the time, wrote a series of letters condemning the portrayal of the individuals who were part of the Famous Five and the events that led up to what became known as the ‘Persons’ Case.

The Famous Five, under the leadership of Emily Murphy, were a group of women from Alberta who campaigned to have women earn the right to be appointed to the Senate.

Their request was denied based on the claim made in the British North America Act of 1867 that women were not eligible for such appointments. In 1928, the Supreme Court of Canada upheld this claim.

 

However, the women eventually won their case after appealing to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. On October 18, 1929, the Committee ruled that women would be eligible for Senate appointment.

To commemorate this decision and significant historical event, statues of the five women were placed in Calgary and Ottawa in 1999 and 2000, respectively, with a plaque describing the historical context and individuals involved. Edmonton sculptor Barbara Paterson created the monuments.

Ritchie expressed her profound dissatisfaction with the placement of the statues and the version of history they represent, even going to the extent of describing them as “pure revisionism.” She was particularly concerned with the placement of the statue of Emily Murphy, who stands aside as the statue of Nelly McClung triumphantly holds the newspaper.

“I can only describe this representation as false history,” Ritchie writes in her letter. “It was

Emily Murphy who planned and organized the case, and who wrote the letters to the government.”

Tarah Brookfield, Ontario representative for the Canadian Committee on Women’s History, says the statues perpetuate misunderstandings by oversimplifying facts and details.

“If you don’t go up to the plaque or you don’t take a finer look, you might not get a sense of who these women are at all,” Brookfield said about the marginalized portrayal of Murphy.

“It also positions women in a very traditional setting as opposed to the fact that many of them are quite maverick in their professions and in their political action, which the statues do not reflect at all.”

Teacups sit on the table between two of the statues, while an empty chair invites visitors to the installation to sit down and take part in the achievement.

Laurie Mackenzie, an instructor at Carleton University, says that the presence of the five women on the Hill is separate from the historical moment they represent.

“I watch people at Parliament Hill when they go to that statue and really, I don’t know how many people read it,” Mackenzie said in reference to the plaque that describes the ‘Persons’ Case. “I think that in that moment, when people are there, they see that there’s a statue of five women on Parliament Hill.”

Brookfield said that it is very difficult to capture an entire narrative involving multiple events and several individuals in one monument.

“The presence of women on the Hill, I think, is important. But if we’re going to do something, let’s do something right,” Brookfield said.

The importance of doing right by the Famous Five was emphasized in Ritchie’s letters. According to the documents, changes to the plaque accompanying the statue were made based on Ritchie’s suggestions.

Despite Ritchie’s efforts, inaccuracies remain in the positioning of the statues and the individuals they represent.

Requests for documents to each level of government.

Correspondence with each level of government regarding my requests.

I had a phone conversation with Judy Keith on February 20, 2014, regarding the wording of my request. We altered my request and the documents I received were a result of these changes. I am still waiting for my documents from the Canadian Museum of Civilization Corporation.

Correspondence for New Requests (Text)
Requests for previously released federal records.

Previously Requested ATIPs (Text)
From the pages in the document I cite in my story:

What is the information?

The documents used for the purposes of my story are letters written by Marguerite E. Ritchie in 2000. She was the president of the Human Rights Institute of Canada at the time. The letters are written to the Speaker of the Senate, the clerk of the Senate and the Minister of Canadian Heritage. On page three, Ritchie illustrates her dissatisfaction with the proposed plan for the statues commemorating the Famous Five on Parliament Hill. Her particular concern is with the monument’s portrayal of Emily Murphy, which she explains on pages four and five. The changes made to the plaque accompanying the statues on Parliament Hill are described on pages nine through 11.

From which department and level of government did you obtain these pages?

The documents were received from the Department of Canadian Heritage at the federal level of government.

Why was this information helpful?

The documents contain information about the ‘Persons’ Case and demonstrate Ritchie’s concerns regarding the historical inaccuracy of the statues of the Famous Five. Her commentary is quite detailed and provided historical background and ways the Senate could fix the errors. Many of the changes Ritchie suggested were incorporated into the plaque that accompanies the statues.