![](/web/20061029065110im_/http://www.scc-csc.gc.ca/_scripts/_images/Header/SCCHead2-Side_b.jpg)
Role of the Court
The Canadian Judicial System
Court Building
Creation and Beginnings of the Court
Judges
of the Court
About the Judges
Current Judges
Current and Former Chief Justices
Current and Former Puisne Judges
Speeches
Administration of the Court
Supreme Court of Canada Mission and Objectives
SCC Bibliography
Employment Opportunities
Planning
Documents
Performance
Reports
Proactive Disclosure
|
![](/web/20061029065110im_/http://www.scc-csc.gc.ca/_scripts/_images/Header/Patch_b.jpg) |
Judges of the Court
Remarks of the Right Honourable Beverley McLachlin, P.C.
Globalization, Identity and Citizenship
October 26, 2004
Thank you very much for this kind introduction. It is a great privilege
to be able to say a few words here this evening. I have always been struck
by the willingness of Canada’s senior public servants to contribute to
discussions on the most difficult questions relating to governance, and the
subject you have adopted for your deliberations is indeed one of the most significant
issues for Canadian society. The theme of identity and citizenship within a
pluralistic society is of immense significance to me. It seems I have been
in some way reflecting on it or reacting to it, all of my life. I am grateful
for the invitation to reflect on it once more, and I hope I can contribute
to your deliberations in some concrete manner.
My message today is simple and, I hope, not too idealistic. It is this: the
encounter of difference that comes with globalization is an occasion for citizens
to recognize their shared humanity and their shared values. Of course, the
encounter of difference can be unsettling. It can lead to negative, even destructive
behaviour. But it does not have to do so. Encountering difference can be a
positive experience. And among the many pluralistic communities around the
world, Canada emerges as the one with the greatest capacity to lead others
in recognizing diversity as a blessing, and an opportunity. The challenge of
governance, your challenge as decision-makers, is to spell out what has made
Canada such a successful pluralistic country, to continue those practices and
ultimately to share that wisdom with those on this planet who are most in need
of your insight.
Over the next few days, you will explore different aspects of globalization,
identity, citizenship, and diversity. I think it is helpful to consider those
concepts, not in abstract terms, but in the many on-the-ground ways in which
those ideas are made real to us.
Let me begin with “globalization”, which is an over-used and
ambiguous word. For the purposes of my remarks tonight, I am not referring
to globalization primarily as an economic phenomenon. As you know, whether
globalization in this sense is a positive or a negative force is a matter of
great controversy. Some people argue that cross-border liberalization of trade
has promoted sustained economic development in more and more countries, reduced
world poverty and narrowed the gap between the rich and the poor.1 Many
think there is a close link between higher levels of cross-border personal
and economic
interaction, on the one hand, and good things such as higher life expectancy,
lower infant mortality rates, women’s well-being, and submission to the
rule of law, on the other hand.2 On the other side of the debate are those
who dispute these studies and conclusions and who argue that increased international
cultural and economic exchanges benefit primarily the developed world, and
jeopardize each nation’s potential for social reform and solidarity.
My purpose tonight is not to weigh in on this controversy, important as it
is. My purpose is the more modest one of exploring the impact of globalization
on diversity and the quest for identity. I would like to reflect on the impact
of the accelerated movement of communications, goods, ideas and people on how
we define our selves, and how we relate to others.
I begin with a paradox – a paradox that lies at the heart of globalization.
We all feel, in our daily lives, the presence of global forces. The world is
made present to us at every turn, through laptop computers, satellite television,
cross-border travel, and cellular phones. These and a hundred like phenomena
bring the world to us daily, and impinge on what we do and how we think. But
here is the paradox: The more we find our lives determined by global forces
and confronted with difference, the more we find ourselves driven inward to
affirm our roots in our local communities. The more we become members of a
global community, the more we insist on our local identity, and cherish the
ties that bind us to smaller groups – a shared language, shared traditions
and culture, or a common history. The global world is large and frightening,
and offers scant affirmation of who we are as individuals. So it drives us
back on ourselves and those about us who share our roots and values.
In the paradox I describe, globalization has raised the stakes and the prevalence
of identity claims, and our global identity now competes with our local identity.
This is a conundrum that has a negative and a positive side. This duality is
captured by Rabbi Michael Lerner, who suggests that there is a constant struggle
within our selves. In this struggle, he says, the negative tendency to view “the
world from the standpoint of fear and cruelty” competes with the positive
tendency to see it “from the standpoint of love and generosity”.
The negative inclination to defend ourselves from the threatening “other” competes
with the belief that “our best defence is to build co-operative relationships
with others.” 3
This struggle between the positive and negative encounter of difference is
an aspect of our daily lives in local neighbourhoods and urban areas everywhere
in this country.
Canada has now become a land of welcome, a pluralistic and multi-ethnic society.
The statistics speak for themselves. One Canadian in five was born in another
country. In some urban centres, like Toronto and Vancouver, nearly half the
population are first-generation immigrants. The percentage of Canadians belonging
to visible minorities has tripled in 20 years.
Once, not so long ago, the vast majority of people finished their lives where
they were born. No longer. Everywhere in our globalized world, people are on
the move. And as the pace of demographic change accelerates, so people find
themselves living in countries and communities quite different from those to
which they were born.
The result is all around us; we all belong to culturally diverse communities.
We are told that this diversity is a blessing. But let us face the truth. The
influx of new faces is not always a welcome development in the eyes of the
hosts.
I was at Pier 21 in Halifax, last week, in the Immigration building that
saw over 1 million new Canadians set foot on the shores of their adoptive country
in the first half of the 20th Century. One of the exhibits there bears these
words: “A Canadian is an immigrant with seniority”. Indeed, with
the exception of our First Nations, we are all the sons and daughters of immigrants.
But this, we quickly forget.
Those who have been here for generations sometimes find themselves disconcerted
and frightened by the transformations of their environment. Where – they
ask, as they pass faces of different colours on the street and hear words around
them that they cannot understand – where has my community gone? They
feel that they are losing their bearings, that their way of life is in jeopardy,
that they are foreigners in “their own communities”. We may dismiss
this as racism. But we should not be too quick to condemn. Beneath this sentiment
lies fear. Good hearted and well-meaning people – people who embrace
the ideals of equality and inclusion – may nevertheless find themselves
disoriented in the face of deep transformations of their community.
At the same time, the newcomers inevitably harbour feelings of alienation
of their own. Many have left difficult or oppressive circumstances to come
to Canada. Their expectations and dreams of a simpler, happier, more prosperous
life may not be immediately realized here. They may encounter obstacles. They,
even more than the people already in place now, feel themselves surrounded
by incomprehensible and uncomprehending people. Rightly or wrongly, they may
feel unwelcome. They might worry about their children losing their cultural
roots.
This returns us to the paradox of globalization of which mass population
movement is an offspring. One common reaction to diversity, whether for newcomers
or settled populations, is to cling more closely to their particular sub-national
community. Differences are magnified. Everyone’s ties to the larger polity
become more difficult to manage. In the worst case scenario, cultural pluralism
escalates into intolerance and ethnic violence.
How can this type of conflict be averted?
How have we, in Canada, avoided its worst excesses?
I think we have done so by fostering the belief that diversity is a blessing
not a predicament. The increased presence of difference in our lives has brought
us to recognize the commonality of larger values – values that unite
us and bind us together as human beings, without overwhelming our distinctive
identities.
What is the shape of this common space?
I begin with shared values. I admit that in this day and age, it is not easy
to make the case that we share anything as citizens and human beings. Nevertheless,
I believe we do. So let me start small, and focus on Canada for a moment, before
I turn to the international stage.
It is no doubt true that given the presence of such diverse geographical,
ethnic, cultural and religious communities within Canada, it is unlikely that
we are in agreement on the difficult moral and political issues that confront
us today.
To liberal theorists, this is not surprising. Some have suggested that a
liberal democratic state is a place “where many people come together
to disagree about everything”. Our institutions, they say, don’t
just tolerate disagreement, they are designed to foster it.4
While we may find no consensus on values and conceptions of the good in
the narrow sense, the reality is that we hold much in common as human beings.
Searching
for this commonality brings us to share deeper values, basic principles which
should govern our interaction no matter what.
Hence, we believe in the inherent dignity and equality of all human beings.
We believe in the principle that the state should recognize the equal freedom
of all citizens, and that it should remain neutral as to their conceptions
of the good.
We believe in the principle that citizens should have equal access to political
participation, and equal access to goods and benefits under the law.
We believe that different people can live together, through respect and accommodation.
We believe that society should care for those less advantaged among us.
We believe that no one should be denied the essentials of a life of dignity – basic
education, basic food and housing, health care.
We believe in democracy, the rule of law, and justice, not just for the few,
but for everyone.
We express these shared principles and beliefs through a variety of institutions
of government and civil society. Many of you here tonight work through the
institutions and programs of government whose goal, at its most basic, is simply
to further these values that form the foundation of our society and nation.
Many of you also work through community institutions to foster these goals.
In working to foster these goals, we are furthering and upholding what is best
about our country. When we lapse, when we forget these goals, we betray what
is best about our county.
Every public servant, every court official or judge, helps create a common
space that we can share, a space where we come together as human beings and
fellow citizens, all without overwhelming our distinctive identities. The particular
corners of that common space each of us creates varies with our calling and
our work. But whatever our particular corner, we create this space in a distinctive,
Canadian way, as I will argue in a moment.
Let me talk for a moment about the space I work in – the legal system – to
illustrate what I mean. The law stands for fair treatment, justice, and the
exercise of governmental power in accordance with rules and the principle of
transparency. To this basic endowment we added in 1982, the Charter of
Rights and Freedoms. The Charter expanded the common space the common law and the
Code Civil had created. It did this by casting in constitutional form some
of the deepest values that we share as a people. The right to participate in
the democratic process. Freedom of expression. Freedom of religion. Liberty,
in the face of state action and arrest. Equality. French and English linguistic
rights. Aboriginal rights. And more.
Let me be specific about the meaning of a Charter as common space. I don’t
mean to suggest that the consensus over the broad principles embodied in the
Charter provides easy solutions to all the moral and political dilemmas that
we face. In a text such as the Charter, we agree on the principles, but we
leave their application to concrete instances to be worked out through the
Courts and public debate. There remains much work to be done to unpack the
different layers of our Charter rights, and no doubt there will be many occasions
for disagreement on this terrain. But through this process, case by case, we
define and reinforce the common space that unites us as citizens. Most of you
are not judges. But the same process applies. Through your workplace decisions,
through your creative ideas and energetic execution, you, in your own way,
help define the Canadian common space.
That’s the micro-level-act-by-act, day-to-day nation reinforcement
and building. But there’s a macro level too. Eventually our quotidian
acts create structure or a pattern that attains a transcendent meaning. Good
governance, an effective civil service itself becomes a symbol of what is best
about our county – a symbol to which citizens can relate and in which
they can take pride. This has happened with the Charter. The Charter has acquired
a symbolic role which transcends its application to particular disputes. Admittedly,
there is still racism and intolerance in Canada. But the Charter has become
an icon, and permeated public space. The principles it embodies are now part
of our shared discourse. Respect for the inherent dignity and equality of human
beings, tolerance of difference, and democratic freedoms are part of the social
fabric of Canada, a shared identity within which we transcend our conflicting
identities.
I have been arguing that the goal of our work – whether we be judges
or civil servants – is to create and foster a common space within which
Canadians can come together in a distinctive, Canadian way. The space we have
created and continue to create is not an American space, nor a European space.
It is our space, a Canadian space, shaped by our own history and experience.
The distinctive expression of the fundamental values we support in this way
in Canada is related to our country’s political culture and to its history.
Canadian constitutionalism is necessarily different from, to give two examples,
French or American constitutionalism. Canadian public discourse is different
from French public discourse, which is strongly coloured by a republicanism
that is foreign to us. It is also distinct from American public discourse,
which embraces both individualism, and societal and political values that are
often different from ours. Thus, Canadian values have their own flavour. To
give but one example, unlike the constitutional documents of several other
countries, the Canadian Charter asserts rights that reinforce collective interests,
such as the protection of minority languages or Aboriginal rights, and introduces
communities into the sphere of fundamental rights.
Our common national space has changed since four colonies united in 1867.
Yet founding myths such as the pact between two nations, and the early cooperation
between the European settlers and aboriginal peoples still play a role, as
historical foundations of an ethic of tolerance and respect for difference
in Canada. These memories and founding myths are among the sources of our country’s
identity and of basic values embodied in the Canadian Charter – values
such as the significance of group identity in self-definition, and the consequential
importance of the protection of minorities and difference.
We have achieved a common national space, a space that reflects our history
and our shared values. But it has not been easy. Our shared history is not
one of continuous bliss and harmonious interaction between diverse groups.
Viewed from the perspective of Aboriginal peoples, ethnic minorities, disabled
people or women, it is a history marked by profound mistakes. Despite the dark
chapters of our history, an ethic of respect and inclusion has been part of
Canada’s fabric from its beginnings. Canadian history is replete with
the efforts of men and women who sought to define their identity in terms that
included the other.
I believe that this distinctively Canadian ethic of inclusion and tolerance,
this distinctively Canadian definition of self and of citizenship is what continues
to help us overcome the feelings of loss and alienation that can readily emerge
in communities transformed by immigration. In Canadian terms, individual identity
is a multi-layered thing. The values of inclusion and tolerance expressed in
what I have called our common national space do not establish a constellation
of mutually exclusive communities, each isolated from the other. Rather, our
history is the story of citizens who belong to multiple communities at once.
We all share membership in communities that accept the possibility of multiple
allegiances. The presence of others, even many others, who are different from
me does not require me to abandon what I hold dear. I can be French-speaking
and Canadian. I can be Haida, Aboriginal and Canadian. I can be Métis,
from Toronto, and Canadian. I can be Muslim, Christian or Jewish, a Quebecker,
and still Canadian. Our history is the story of citizens who struggle with
the different layers of their identities, and somehow manage to reconcile their
overlapping commitments.
In that sense, part of the solution to the predicament of difference, at
least in Canada, lies in the recognition that diversity is not a phenomenon
that is external to our selves, something that is around us. Diversity is within
each of us, not just around us. The distinctively Canadian formulation of the
principle of equal respect and dignity of each individual is one which neither
obliterates nor glorifies difference. Rather, we think of equality as the natural
by-product of the ties that bind each of us to multiple groups, from the family
to human kind.
This recognition of the intrinsic diversity of all Canadians provides an
avenue for sustainable public discourse within a political community marked
by cultural pluralism. In terms of governance, in terms that matter to you
as public servants, the task is to uphold communities and institutions where
the overlapping commitments of participants are fostered. In a country of diversity,
successful communities are those that serve both as refuge and as springboard – those
communities that are the “anchor for self-identification and the safety
of effortless secure belonging” , but also the catalyst of broader civic
duties to larger communities. Much like a family, successful communities and
institutions should push us to encounter the world, while remaining shelters
of comfort and warmth.
I have to this point been speaking of Canada’s shared values, and of
the typically Canadian way in which those values have created our own world
view, our own space, and in so doing have contributed to overcoming the anxiety
resulting from cultural pluralism. I will now turn to the global perspective.
How can these Canadian values permit us to act on the international stage?
Can the Canadian experience of diversity serve to counter the most violent
manifestations of rejection of others at the global level?
I think it can.
Regardless of the debates we may have over the concrete dimensions of notions
such as equality, tolerance and democratic freedoms, the continued effort to
give them shape, the very existence of an international dialogue over the meaning
of rights, is the best antidote to the woes of the world, including the poison
of terrorism.
In his latest book, The Lesser Evil, Michael Ignatieff points out that the
threat of terrorism “targets our political identity as free peoples”.
It undermines the trust that we have in one another, and the trust that we
put in our governments. It aims for the disintegration of our institutions
and social fabric. In the end, says Ignatieff, in the face of this terrible
threat, all we really have is our political identity itself. Our most valuable
resource, our most powerful weapon, is our commitment to open democratic institutions,
and to the rule of law which ensures equality and respect for the dignity of
each human being. While the fight against terrorism may force us to give unprecedented
power to our rulers, that power must remain subject to the scrutiny of the
law, and consistent with our most fundamental values, the shared principles
that capture our essential humanity. We must seek a proper balance between
the weapons we need to fight mass casualty terrorism, and the liberty we need
to pursue happiness.
Canada shares with other democratic nations the responsibility to find this
proper balance, and to articulate it. It shares with other democratic nations
the responsibility to uphold fundamental human rights as a common space where
humanity comes together. But on the world scene, Canada also bears a special
responsibility, one that takes us beyond the battle against global terrorism.
In a world overcome by ethnic and racial violence, Canada bears a special responsibility
to uphold its distinctive experience of pluralism, tolerance and respect, as
an example that the encounter of difference need not be brutal or violent.
The story of the peaceful, democratic co-existence of our different communities
can be made meaningful to others. Canada has no colonial past, and global strategic
plan, and is not a threat to anyone. For this reason, it can be a model. And
in my experience, when Canadians speak of the institutions that foster tolerance,
inclusion, and respect for human rights, many around the world are willing
to listen. We must continue to speak, and we must continue to be heard.
All of this places on your shoulders, as senior civil servants, an important
responsibility to articulate the distinctively Canadian discourse of human
rights, and to foster its continued vitality on the national scene, and its
continued relevance on the international scene. This is hard work. But I
can think of no one who is better equipped to meet this challenge than
those who
are assembled here tonight, the heirs and trustees of a long tradition of
distinguished public service in Canada and abroad. I wish you the best
in your deliberations
over the next two days.
Thank you.
_____________________
Notes
1. C. Patten, “Globalization and the
Law”, 2004 E.H.R.L.R. 6.
2. Foreign Policy, March/April 2004. See
also Patten, supra, note 1, at p. 7.
3. Michael Lerner, “A Resurrection
for All”, Globe and Mail, February 28, 2004, page A21.
4. Joseph Heath, Mannion Lecture 2003.
Remarks of the Right Honourable Beverley McLachlin, P.C.
Chief Justice of Canada
ADM Forum
Ottawa, Ontario
Tuesday, October 26, 2004
|