In
Search of Identity
Thank you for inviting me to address your class, as part of the Canadian
studies program. Today, I will
focus on Canada’s search for
identity, and how we define ourselves as Canadians.
My
perspective on Canada’s identity is shaped by my own experience as a woman,
and as an immigrant from an ethnic minority.
Your personal experiences, both in Canada and abroad, have undoubtedly
shaped your understanding of what it is to be Canadian.
This is why national identity is so difficult to define – it exists at
the intersection of our personal and collective experience.
To the renowned economist, John Kenneth Galbraith, “Canada
serves as the conscience for the continent.”
For Haida artist, Robert Davidson, “Canada is a good place to feel
alone.” The Acadian author,
Antonine Maillet describes Canadians as, “people… who are inspired by a dream.
They come to a country that has learned to deal with differences, to be
flexible and subtle, confident, and yet not arrogant."
Canadians, in general, are much less
self-congratulatory. According to a
poll in 1999 by Macleans Magazine, Canadians echo Americans in describing
themselves as “friendly”, but also use words like “spineless” and
“weak”. A new book on Canadian
identity, “Searching for Certainty: Inside the New Canadian mindset”
interprets Canadian friendliness in a more positive way.
According to its authors, Canadian “niceness is really rooted in the
way we look at the world…we’re people who celebrate the role of us being in
this together…we’re people who want to reach out and help but we’re not
suckers.”
So what does being Canadian
mean? The quest for identity is the story of Canada itself.
As a small country – alternately pushed and pulled by our two big
brothers – Britain and the United States – we have struggled to define
ourselves as an independent nation. Since
the 1960s, I believe a distinct Canadian identity has emerged.
In the wake of the tragedy
on September 11th, 2001, Canadians are, once again, reevaluating who
we are – and the myths that form the foundation of our identity.
I would agree with novelist Mavis Gallant who said “if there is one
thing that makes Canada different, it’s the fact that we ask that question,
Who are we? What makes us special?.”
|
|
|
|
|
| John Kenneth Galbraith | Robert Davidson | Antonine Maillet | Mavis Gallant |
The
answer to this question has changed a great deal throughout Canada’s history
as Canada’s composition, domestic and foreign policy, and symbols have
evolved. Therefore, in order to
assess who we are today, we need to look at who we were only a short time ago.
Before WWII, Canada’s immigration policy was based on the
premise that it was, and should remain, a white country, primarily composed of
people from France, the British Isles, the United States, and northern Europe.
For the most part, Canada was a bicultural nation, with the French and
British elements of Canada maintaining an uneasy truce.
However, to characterize Canada in this way, is to neglect the fact that
Canada was founded by three groups: the aboriginals, the French, and the
British, despite the fact that aboriginals have been marginalized until recent
years.
As a British colony,
Canada’s foreign policy was firmly tied to Britain.
Domestically, no Canadian citizenship existed.
Instead, Canadians were identified as British subjects.
Our symbols reflected these
ties. We sang ‘God save the
Queen’ and `the Maple Leaf Forever`. Canada
flew the British flag. None of
these symbols were embraced by the francophone population of Quebec which felt
excluded by the emphasis on Britain.
After WWII, Canada’s population began to change.
New groups of Europeans began to enter Canada.
Many of them were economic and political refugees, fleeing war-torn
Europe. Even though, in 1951 most
immigrants to Canada were British, American or European, by the mid to late
1960’s, non-European immigrants began to make their way to Canada in larger
numbers. By 1968, Hong Kong became
the first non-European country on the list of the top ten source countries.
And by 1998, most new immigrants to Canada were from Asia. Great Britain had dropped off the list of top 10 source
countries entirely, with the U.S. nearing the bottom of the list.
After WWII, Canada also began to move away from Britain in
terms of defining its domestic and foreign policy.
Canadians had gained new confidence as a result of our achievements
during the war, and a sense of nationalism was emerging.
But just as Canadians were beginning to develop our sense of identity,
separate from Britain, we began to feel pressure from our closest neighbour to
adopt policies that were compatible with the American Cold War rhetoric.
In
1953, Lester B. Pearson clearly differentiated American from Canadian foreign
policy, and, in so doing, attempted to define what it was to be Canadian.
He told an American audience that Canada’s first interest is
“peace”, that our second interest is the “welfare and prosperity of our
people, which is inseparable from the welfare and prosperity of others,” and
finally our third concern, is “the deep attachment to certain principles
rooted in our history and in our experience as Canadians.”
As a result, Canadians began to develop
new symbols that reflected our growing sense of nationhood.
In 1946 the Canadian Citizenship Act was passed, and as of January, 1947,
for the first time Canadians could have their own citizenship. Canadians were able to reflect on themselves with the
launching of the CBC News Service in 1941, and the development of a policy for
Canadian TV in 1949. In 1965,
Canada raised its new flag, after ceremonially lowering the Union Jack.
During the same period,
Canada also officially proclaimed O Canada as the national anthem, after many
false starts, and much debate. In
the late 1960s, a Joint Committee of the Senate and House of Commons recommended
that O Canada be adopted as our national anthem, with minor amendments to the
lyrics. A number of bills were introduced to make O Canada official,
all of which failed. Finally, after
Quebec’s first referendum on the question of separation, the federal
government felt the need to assert a sense of nationhood.
Given this anxiety, The National Anthem Act passed through the House of
Commons, and the Senate, with little debate, and O Canada was officially
proclaimed as our national anthem on July 1, 1980.
Despite
American influence in the post-war years, or perhaps because of it, Canadians
have developed a unique identity. I’m
going to speak about what I consider to be some of the most important elements
of this identity, and discuss how Canada has taken a unique approach to these
issues. These elements are:
|
|
Michael Ignatieff and The Rights Revolution |
Canada’s rights
culture, while part of a global phenomena, is distinct in a number of ways.
We are one of the few countries in the world to have put rights into
legislation in both the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and through numerous
Supreme Court decisions. Our rights
have a moral and social dimension. Canadians
apply liberal rights to issues such as abortion and capital punishment; we take
for granted social rights such as unemployment insurance, and universal health
care. We also emphasize group
rights. Canadian rights culture is
so distinct that we are exporting our expertise overseas.
Canadians are regularly invited to countries with civil warfare to
discuss collective rights, Chinese judges discuss Canadian Supreme Court
Decisions, and South African judges reference the Canadian Charter of Rights and
Freedoms.
Michael
Ignatieff contends that “The key ideas of rights talk are that we are
deliberative equals, that each of us has a right to be heard about the public
business of our country, that no one’s claim can be silenced and denied simply
by the fact of who they are. This
ideal of deliberative equality – the commitment to remain in the same room
talking until we resolve our disputes, and do to so without violence – is as
much unity, as much community, as modern life can afford.”
 |
Our rights culture has had a significant effect on gender
relations here in Canada. Article
28 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (1982) states that “not withstanding
anything in this Charter, the rights and freedoms referred to in it are
guaranteed equally to male and female persons”.
This legal protection meant that the feminist movement in Canada gained
legal protection in our struggle for equality.
The guarantee of equality in the Charter was an acknowledgement of a
change in women’s status within Canadian society, most notably, within the
workplace.
In 1961, very few women worked in the
so-called non-traditional occupations. Only
0.25% of engineers, 3% of lawyers, and 7% of physicians were women. Throughout the 1970s and 1980s, many individuals as well as
women’s organizations lobbied to extend the rights of women throughout the
workplace, the legal system, the home, and most importantly, over our own
bodies. By 1987, women
represented 10% of engineering students, 50% of law students, and 33% of medical
students.
Today,
the institution that advocates for women’s rights in Canada is the Status of
Women. However, like the ideals
expressed through the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the equality of women
remains an objective that has yet to be realized. Women remain marginalized in business and government, and
therefore our influence on public policy is largely limited.
Women are still shut out of many of the top positions in Canada’s 560
leading companies. Women fill a
mere 2% of CEO
positions, 3.4% of titles with significant influence, and only 7.5% of board
seats. In addition, a 1996 survey
by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business found that there was
“outrageous” discrimination by banks against female entrepreneurs. Women
were refused loans 20% more often than men, and when they did get financing,
they often paid a higher rate of interest than men.
And sometimes, they were asked to have their husbands co-sign the loans.
In
government, women make up 21% of the House of Commons and 34% of the Senate.
However, it remains both financially, and socially, difficult for women to enter
politics, because even if they are able to raise the considerable funds needed
to run in an election, women remain primarily responsible for the care of their
families in Canada.
Immigrant
women are doubly disadvantaged. Despite
their education, university-educated immigrant women, between the ages of 25-44,
have a higher rate of unemployment than Canadian women of almost any educational
background, other than those with less than a grade 9 education.
Immigrant women sometimes also lack opportunity because they are unable
to access language training, and remain socially isolated in their homes.
Existing symbols, and the use of language,
serve to represent women’s continued marginalization.
The media often describes women as a “special interest” group,
ignoring the fact that we make up slightly more than half of the population. And, while men are deemed assertive, women who display the
same temperament are described as “shrill” and “aggressive”.
In addition, women’s appearance, and their behaviour, are all subject
to intense scrutiny.
I didn’t realize how much resistance there is, in
certain segments of our society, to the equality of women in Canada until I
introduced an inquiry in the Senate in February that addressed the issue of
sexism in the third line of our national anthem which reads “in all thy sons
command”. To me, it seems obvious
that the national anthem, as the anthem that symbolically represents everyone in
Canada, should not exclude women. It
was less obvious to some individuals who argued that tradition justifies
women’s exclusion. If this
argument had carried the day at the beginning of the 20th century,
women still would not have the vote, nor would we be allowed to serve in the
federal and provincial legislatures or the Senate.
It is unfortunate
that Canada didn’t have the foresight of Australia. The Australians amended their national anthem, Advance
Australia Fair, from “Australian sons rejoice” to read “Australians all
rejoice” before it was proclaimed officially in 1984.
Now, more than 21 years after Canada’s own anthem became official, I
have started a petition to amend the anthem so that our symbols can reflect all
of us. As long as our national
symbols continue to exclude us, women will not be full and equal partners in
Canadian society, as guaranteed by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This is something all Canadians need to strive for.
|
|
Another element that
arises out of our approach to human rights, is multiculturalism.
After
WWII, Canadians and their government began to see that continued discrimination
at home devalued the sacrifices that had been made in defeating the racist
regimes overseas. Some senior
bureaucrats also felt that our discriminatory immigration policy compromised
Canada’s position in the U.N. and in the Commonwealth.
Beginning from the 1950s, with the report of the Massey-Levesque
Commission, ethno-cultural diversity gradually came to be understood as an
essential ingredient in a distinct Canadian identity.
However, until 1962,
Canada`s immigration legislation clearly indicated a preference for immigrants
who were white. In 1947, the
most heinous legislation ever passed in Canadian history, the Chinese Exclusion
Act, was repealed. Following this,
as a result of an organized nationwide movement against restrictions on
non-white immigration, in 1962, a landmark decision was handed down that
virtually eliminated racial discrimination as a feature of Canada’s
immigration policy. New
regulations specified that any unsponsored immigrants who had the requisite
education, skill, or other qualifications were to be considered suitable for
admission, irrespective of colour, race, or national origin, provided they had a
job waiting for them in Canada, or were able to support themselves until they
found employment. However, one discriminatory element remained, and that was the
provision that allowed European immigrants and immigrants from the Americas to
sponsor a wider range of relatives.
In 1967, this clause was removed, and the point system was
introduced. Since then, Canada has been accepting immigrants from all over
the world, and has reflected this increasing diversity through policies,
legislation, institutions, and ultimately, a change in our cultural makeup.
Concurrent
with our change in immigration policy, by the mid-1960s, the truce between
Canada’s French and English was beginning to show signs of breaking down.
In response, the federal government appointed a Royal Commission on
Bilingualism and Biculturalism to hold hearings across the country.
English and French, along with representatives of ethnic groups, argued
that the old policy of assimilation was unjust and unfair. The Royal Commission
agreed. Volume 4 of the
Commission’s Report, published in 1969, acknowledged the importance of
cultural pluralism to the Canadian identity, and it encouraged Canadian
institutions to reflect this in their policies and programs.
In October, 1970, the
conflict between the Francophone and Anglophone populations of Quebec reached a
crisis when the British Commissioner, James Cross, and Pierre Laporte,
Quebec’s labour minister, were kidnapped.
As a result, The War Measures Act was invoked by Prime Minister Pierre
Trudeau.
One year later,
in October 1971, the Multicultural Policy within a bilingual framework was
formally adopted by the federal government. Trudeau announced the policy with
this statement, “A policy of multiculturalism within a bilingual framework
commends itself to the government as the most suitable means of assuring the
cultural freedom of Canadians. Such a policy should help break down
discriminatory attitudes and cultural jealousies. National unity if it is to
mean anything in the deeply personal sense, must be founded on confidence in
one's own individual identity; out of this can grow respect for that of others
and a willingness to share ideas, attitudes and assumptions. A vigorous policy
of multiculturalism will help create this initial confidence. It can form the
base of a society which is based on fair play for all."
Lester B. Pearson, and
Pierre Elliott Trudeau, were both internationalists who supported the vision of a pluralist nation.
However, some academics have argued that multiculturalism was
simply a way of avoiding or postponing the polarization of Canada’s French and
English into separate camps.
According to one
viewpoint, this policy promotes tolerance, and understanding among different
groups. It takes a middle road
between assimilation, and the creation of ghettos, where minority groups are
ostracized. It invites
participation in civil society, the promotion of shared values that underpin our
society, while accepting the differences that serve to enrich our collective
dialogue. But as we know from Orwell’s Animal Farm, true equality is difficult
to realize. Thus, in
multiculturalism, everyone is presumed to be equal, but some cultures are
perhaps more equal than others.
After all, knowledge
of French or English remains essential to success in Canada.
Therefore, the Economic Council of Canada views multiculturalism as an
integrationist strategy that does not try to maintain complete cultural systems
but aims to preserve as much of ethnic culture as is compatible with Canadian
customs. Nevertheless, some
Canadians worry about the erosion
of British tradition.
The most common criticism
of multiculturalism, such as that expressed by well-known author Neil Bissondath,
is that the policy promotes hyphenated-Canadians, fragmentation, and the
inability of society to develop a cohesive identity.
Or, as TV Ontario personality, Rick Green joked, “we have matured from
a nation of two solitudes to a nation of about 43 solitudes.”
Bissondath, who immigrated to Canada from Trinidad in 1973,
fueled the debate on multiculturalism with his 1994 book, Selling Illusions:
The Cult of Multiculturalism. Bissondath
maintains that Canada’s multicultural policy has been “quietly disastrous
for the country, and for immigrants.” He
asserts that Pierre Trudeau’s Liberal government assumed that ‘culture’
could be transplanted, and that immigrants would wish to bring their culture of
origin with them. He describes the
festivals by different cultures as “folkloric Disneyland”.
University of Winnipeg
professor Rias Khan echoes Bissondath’s sentiments, “people, regardless of
their origin, do not emigrate to preserve their culture and nurture their
distinctness…Immigrants come here to be productive and contributing members of
their chosen society..whether I preserve my cultural background is my personal
choice; whether or not an ethnic group preserves its cultural background is the
group’s choice. The state has no
business in either.”
The Multicultural Policy,
Bissondath argues, creates mental ghettos, leading immigrants to feel divided
loyalties. Not only are differences
highlighted, but individuals are defined by their differences.
The result of Canadian multiculturalism, according to Bissondath, is the
lack of integration of immigrants into the Canadian mainstream, and
subsequently, a weakened sense of Canadian identity.
On
the other hand, Dr. Morton Beiser, founding Director of the Toronto Centre of
Excellence for Research on Immigration and Settlement (CERIS), a tri-university
consortium that researches migration, and diversity, disagrees with
Bissondath’s perspective on multiculturalism.
Through his extensive research with immigrants over the years, he has
found that immigrants to Canada find it easier to integrate into mainstream
Canadian society than those in the American melting pot.
He attributes their successful acculturation to the Multicultural Policy.
He says that immigrants feel welcome in Canada because they don’t feel
the pressure to shed their cultural identities immediately upon entering Canada.
They have time, and the necessary community supports, to help them settle
in Canada. As a result, according
to Dr. Beiser, a much greater percentage of immigrants to Canada obtain their
citizenship than immigrants to the U.S..
As an immigrant who chose
Canada as her home, I would tend to agree with these perspectives on Canada’s
Multicultural Policy. At the core
of inclusiveness is the understanding that we participate in a society in which
our language, colour, education, or our sex need not divide us, but can,
instead, make us more sensitive and tolerant of difference.
While
the increasingly diversity of Canadian society is an indisputable fact, the
goals of tolerance, respect, and equal opportunity, as laid out in our
multicultural policy, remain an objective that Canadian society must continually
strive towards.
In 1950, when the
Massey-Levesque Commission linked cultural diversity to Canadian identity, 92%
of Canada’s population growth was a product of the birth rate.
Today, immigration has outpaced the natural birth rate, and accounts for
53% of overall population growth.
Today,
Marshal McLuhan’s global village is a reality, and people are now more
interconnected, and interdependent than ever.
Being a knowledge-based economy, in an increasingly competitive global
marketplace, Canada needs the best and the brightest minds, no matter which part
of the world they come from.
The diversity of our
population is now a major advantage as access to global markets grows
increasingly important to our economic prosperity. Canadians from different parts of the world help to build
both economic and cultural bridges for Canada.
As a result, Canada is developing new, and profitable, trading
partnerships.
As Canada embraces
diversity, and as its diverse population expands, new links are being forged
with the world at a time when Canadians recognize the increasing importance of
having a credible voice in international affairs, and in strengthening our
advantage in the global economy. Experience
with diversity has taught us to accept and respect diverse views, which make us
effective international mediators. We
understand the virtues of accommodation and respect, and the importance of
negotiation to peaceful conflict resolution.
Canada is regularly asked by developing nations, and newly emerging
democracies, to provide advice and assistance on conflict resolution, human
rights, democratization, and establishing civil society institutions.
Many of the national
achievements we are most proud of stem from our contributions to world peace and
human security. They include
peacekeeping, our role in negotiating the Ottawa convention to ban landmines,
and our involvement in establishing the International War Crimes Tribunal.
Now, I would like to bring your attention to the 1996
Census because it is of special interest to us. For the first time, no specific ethnic origins were specified
in this Census to be checked off. Instead, respondents were asked “to which
ethnic or cultural group (s) did the person’s ancestors belong?”, and were
provided with four blank lines in which they could write the names of as many
groups as were applicable. Also,
for the first time, “Canadian” was among the 24 examples of ethnic or
cultural origins to which someone’s ancestors might have belonged.
19 percent of the population reported “Canadian” as its ethnic
origin, while a further 12% described themselves as “Canadian”, plus other
origins. It is not clear whether
the reporting of “Canadian” in the Census was understood by respondents as
representing their ethnic origin or their identity, but it is interesting to
speculate on the number of Canadians who identified their ethnic origin as
Canadian.
The same Census
found that 36% of the population was of multi-ethnic origins.
This gives us the opportunity to consider the nature of Canada’s social
and cultural reality today, given decades of ethnic intermarriage, and
acculturation, resulting in the emergence of a unique Canadian identity.
Therefore, having a Canadian identity means more than being born in
Canada, being a resident, or having citizenship.
Ethnic intermarriage, and living in Canada for generations, alongside
those of aboriginal, French, and British descent, has a significant impact on
the characteristics of a distinctive Canadian identity.
It is an evolutionary process by which our own cultural differences are
moulded by our assimilation and acculturation experiences in Canada.
This evolutionary process is most evident in our urban centres.
For example, Toronto, the city that I call home, is now the most
multicultural city in the world. More
than 150 languages are spoken there, and about 54% of Torontonians are
immigrants. Toronto is the only
urban centre in the western world where the majority of people are visible
minorities. As a result, groups of individuals who would shun
each other in their home continents, come together on the basis of shared values
in Toronto. Toronto, which means
“meeting place” in the Huron language, is aptly named.
As Haroon Siddiqui of the Toronto Star stated in his speech
at York University recently “Never before in the history of humanity have so
many different peoples come together in such a common bond of peace and
tranquility as under the broad canopy of Canada. Unlike many nations that approach diversity as a problem,
Canada embraces it.”
What does the future hold?
Since September 11th, 2001, all aspects of our collective
identity as Canadians are being reevaluated.
According to the polls, Canadians feel closer to Americans than they did
before. More Canadians are
concerned about immigration. At the
same time, somewhat paradoxically, Canadians are equally worried about
maintaining our independence in the face of globalization.
Canadian columnists have been questioning
immigration, and the multicultural experiment.
Although racism has always existed in Canada, it has been unleashed over
the last month. People feel they
can do, and say, things they would not have before September 11th.
For example, in Ottawa, there have been a number of racial incidents, and
the hate crimes unit has doubled. I
know there have been similar incidents in different parts of Canada.
In a recent column in the Globe and Mail,
Michael Ignatieff wondered whether immigrants arriving in Canada may be bringing
their hatreds with them. This is an
unsettling thought, but it should not make us lessen our commitment to
multiculturalism. In fact, in the
wake of September 11th, we are realizing the extent to which
tolerance, respect, and most importantly, education, are required if we are to
live together in peace.
What
Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau stressed when he introduced the policy of
multiculturalism in 1971, still holds true today.
The intent of multiculturalism is to break down discriminatory attitudes
and cultural jealousies because national unity must be founded on confidence in
one's own individual identity first, out of which one can grow to respect that
of others. And in 1971,
Canada was not nearly as diverse as it is now.
In a speech in June, 2000, Prime
Minister Jean Chretien said “The Canadian Way” involves “the accommodation
of cultures, recognition of diversity, and a partnership between citizens and
the state.”
Our commitment to a rights culture remains an ongoing
challenge because inevitably, individual and collective rights often come into
conflict. Despite the Charter,
employment equity legislation, and the Multiculturalism Act, immigrants are
still faced with institutional discrimination.
Many highly educated immigrants come here, and find that they cannot find
employment in their professions, even in high-demand areas such as engineering
and medicine. The net loss
to immigrants and to the Canadian economy of this "brain waste",
according to a study by University of Toronto sociology professor, Jeffery
Reitz, is in the neighbourhood of $55 billion a year.
He estimates that visible minorities earn between 15 to 25 % less than
most immigrants of European origin, whether in skilled or unskilled labour
markets. This situation needs to be
corrected.
And, despite the major
advances women have made over the last century, and the existence of
institutions such as Status of Women, integrating women as equal partners in
Canadian democracy remains a continuing challenge.
Two years ago, Francis Fukuyama, the award-winning author of The End
of History and the Last Man, wrote an article entitled “Women and the
Evolution of World Politics.” In
the article, Fukuyama suggested that a society in which women made up a
significant percentage of world leaders would be less competitive, less
hierarchical, and less prone to war because women “form relationships” while
men practice “realpolitik”.
This is borne out in
countries such as Sweden where women are treated as the norm, not as
representatives of a minority. They hold 43% of the seats in the Swedish
legislature – the highest percentage in the European Union (IPU).
The result is that Sweden has some of the best social programs in Europe,
and its productivity grew by 47% between 1990 and 1999 – more than both the
European average and American growth over the same period.
Not surprisingly, given the influence of women on the
foreign policy agenda, only Norway, Denmark, Sweden, and the Netherlands have
ever reached the internationally recognized goal of 0.7% of G.N.P. for Overseas
Development Assistance (ODA). Meanwhile,
Canada’s contributions to ODA have been declining rapidly over the last decade
to an all-time low of 0.25% of G.N.P.
Canada needs to learn from these global examples.
It is interesting to note that Rogersville, a municipality of
1,300 people in New Brunswick, has taken this lesson to heart.
In May of this year, it became the largest municipality in Canada to
elect an all-female council. The
women on the council, all of whom have full-time day jobs, hope that they will
inspire other young women to get involved in their communities and in politics.
“It would be a great pleasure if they noticed us and thought they could
do it also,” one of the councillors said.
As a woman, mother and
grandmother, I would like to identify with a Canada in which more women are
involved in decision-making, so that we become the norm, rather than the
exception, in this country. As long
as our institutions, our language, and our symbols continue to subtly exclude
women, women cannot be full and equal partners in nation-building, which is a
requirement for a true democracy.
I’m a Canadian who’s
proud of my heritage. At the
same time, like other new Canadians, I am more attached to Canadian symbols than
many who were born here. I take
being Canadian very seriously. Despite Michael Ignatieff’s speculations, I
believe that most immigrants would like to forget the conflicts that have driven
them from their homelands. We come
here because we are seeking the security, peace, human rights, and other values
that Canada stands for.
A conversation I had with a
highly educated immigrant expressed this well.
I asked her why she and her husband chose to immigrate to Canada instead
of the U.S., Australia, or other countries.
She said they researched each country thoroughly and decided on Canada
because of our respect for rights and freedoms.
I think that it is time to
return to the principles identified by former Prime Minister, Lester B. Pearson.
Prosperity, as a human right for all, which must precede peace, emerges
as the most pressing concern in these troubled times.
In fact, if one looks at the root causes of September 11th,
they are to be found in the teeming slums, refugee camps, and the misery of many
developing nations. People who have
nothing, have nothing to lose. As
my colleague Senator Roche recently said in his speech at the University of St.
Jerome’s College in Waterloo “morality and pragmatics have intersected. What we have long known we should do for our brothers and
sisters on the planet, we now know we must do if we are to survive without the
most wrenching dislocations in our lives.”
This, needless to say, also
applies to the first peoples of our country, a topic I
have not had the time to dwell on today.
Respecting aboriginals as the first peoples of Canada, under the Charter
of Rights and Freedoms, remains a major challenge for the new millennium.
Canada’s
future depends on the commitment of all its citizens who take pride in the
uniqueness of individual heritage. Canadian
identity evolves from the remaking of each immigrant, and those born in Canada,
within a new Canadian society. A
society that embraces diversity, a society that believes in equality of
opportunity for both women and men, a society that values peaceful dispute
resolution, over armed conflict. Ultimately,
the will to strive towards human rights for all is the essence of being
Canadian.
