Our dirty little secret: No one has a monopoly on fairness
What do debates over Canada’s refugee policy, Ontario’s basic income pilot and Brett Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court nomination all have in common? It can be summed up in one word — fairness. Like so many policy discussions taking place today, proponents on both sides of these issues are desperately trying position themselves as representing the only “fair” approach — where no one receives undue advantage and the playing field is level.
Take the debate over refugees entering Canada from the United States. For many, it is only fair that a wealthy nation like Canada, with a history of welcoming newcomers, should allow these claimants to enter our country under the terms of international agreements.
Others see it differently. They question the fairness of someone taking a taxi to the U.S.-Canada border, tramping through fields or forests, and claiming refugee status. Wouldn’t a regular visitor get charged for doing something like that? Why are individuals who appear far from harm’s way seemingly allowed to jump the queue when millions in refugee camps await a chance to come to Canada?
Fairness was central to the Ford government’s decision to cancel Ontario’s Basic Income pilot, which gave people a modest income with few strings attached. Is it fair, opponents argued, for some to receive a handout while others have to make ends meet through hard work?
“Hold on,” said the other side. What’s unfair is one of the world’s richest countries allowing its poorest to live in dire circumstances supported by a social assistance system that is broken beyond repair.
Fairness was on full display during Brett Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court confirmation. For some, this was a textbook example of an unfair system that disbelieves and even punishes victims of sexual misconduct and allows men to get away with reprehensible behaviour.
For others, it was about the presumption of innocence and due process being thrown out the window. How fair is it that unsubstantiated allegations can nearly destroy someone’s career and reputation?
There is nothing wrong with differing interpretations of fairness. Analyzing the strengths and weaknesses of each one should be the foundation of vigorous public policy discussion. It allows us to appreciate society’s differing values and world views and helps to forge a consensus.
But let’s admit it, for most commentators the only version of fairness worth considering is their own.
When is the last time you heard a defender of Canada’s refugee system admit that what is happening at the Canada-U.S. border is far from perfect, or a poverty activist acknowledge that some recipients game the social assistance system? How about a #MeToo supporter fighting for the need for safeguards to protect the rights of those facing unproven accusations?
What about critics of the #MeToo movement conceding that our legal system regularly treats sexual assault victims unjustly? What about an immigration critic acknowledging Canada’s international obligations, or that many refugee claimants arriving from the U.S. began their journeys by escaping unspeakable hardships? Wouldn’t it be nice to hear those calling for tougher social assistance requirements admit society’s responsibility to all its citizens?
Most Canadians realize the complexity of these issues. They have met people who have benefitted greatly from government programs as well those who have taken advantage of the system. They have seen injustice by those in positions of power but have also seen innocent people harmed by misunderstandings or false accusations.
As a society, we need to talk. And assessing the fairness of differing policy positions may be a good starting point. But until each side is prepared to acknowledge they don’t have a monopoly on fairness, we have little chance of progress. And that’s not fair.
John Milloy is a former MPP and Ontario Liberal cabinet minister currently serving as the director of the Centre for Public Ethics and assistant professor of public ethics at Martin Luther University College, and the inaugural practitioner in residence in Wilfrid Laurier University’s Political Science department. He is also a lecturer in the University of Waterloo. Email: jmilloy@luther.wlu.ca. Twitter @John_Milloy.