Political myth that Liberals abolished race-based immigration

It is often claimed that Liberals were responsible for ending race-based immigration, a notion that has been referenced by Members of Parliament and journalists and has even become part of the official record. In October’s Policy Options magazine, Liberal MP Martha Hall Findlay discussed this topic on page 55. She highlighted the collaboration between the Liberal government led by Lester B. Pearson and the NDP under Tommy Douglas from 1963 to 1968, during which significant progress was made. One of the key accomplishments was the establishment of the world’s first immigration system that did not consider race or ethnicity, instead opting for a points-based system.

The story is quite fascinating. Moreover, it lacks truthfulness.

“I received this information from various sources, although I cannot recall exactly where,” stated the Member of Parliament when reached at her office on the Hill. “It is indeed documented in history books – that’s the crucial point.”

Historical records validate that the Liberal Party not only did not succeed in eliminating immigration based on race – famously known as the ‘White Canada’ policy – but they were the ones who originated it. Surprisingly, the Liberals now assert the contrary. Could this be considered Freudian? I am not qualified in psychoanalysis, hence I cannot provide any commentary on the matter.

The facts are as follows: White Canada was introduced by successive Liberal governments in 1910, rigorously enforced for many years, and defended in court as late as 1955. Liberal leader Mackenzie King even stated that “Canada should remain a white man’s country.”

Interestingly, it was a Conservative government that abolished White Canada in 1962. However:

• The McGill Daily reported last year that “Pearson implemented the ‘objective’ point system for immigration in 1967 to remove racial criteria” (refer to McGill Daily, Nov. 3, 2009 editorial);
• According to Legion Magazine, “In 1967, the Liberal government under Lester B. Pearson eliminated the remaining barriers to immigration based on race, leading Canada to become one of the most culturally diverse nations in the world within two decades” (refer to “Our New Citizens,” Legion Magazine, July 1, 2003).

Lawrence Martin, a columnist for The Globe, highlighted the significant impact of the Liberal government’s reforms in 1967, which transformed Canada from a predominantly “all-white” nation to a diverse “rainbow nation.” Andrew Cohen, the president of the Historica-Dominion Institute, emphasized in a biography that Lester B. Pearson’s introduction of “open immigration” played a crucial role in shaping Canada’s identity for generations to come. While Pearson’s 1966 White Paper on Immigration aimed to eliminate discrimination based on race, color, or religion, it is worth noting that his Conservative predecessor, John Diefenbaker, had already taken steps to address this issue in 1962. Diefenbaker believed that discrimination should not be enshrined in laws or national policies, as it could have alarming consequences.

Even at the time, critics acknowledged the Tories’ efforts. The liberal Toronto Star praised it as a significant advancement in 1962, stating that it finally eradicated Canada’s discriminatory immigration policies.

However, did the Pearson paper truly bring about any substantial changes? According to a comprehensive historical account by Anthony H. Richmond in his book “Post-War Immigrants In Canada” (U of T Press 1967, p. 19), it did not signify a radical departure from the prevailing trends in Canadian immigration policy.

Fast forward 40 years, and the political narrative now attributes credit to the Liberals for someone else’s accomplishments. What is particularly intriguing is the deliberate omission of the party’s involvement in upholding the concept of a White Canada.

During the 1950s, a Liberal government, in which Pearson served as a minister, actively imposed restrictions on Asians and blacks entering the country. The Cabinet was so determined to maintain a predominantly white population that they provided financial assistance to European migrants. In 1951, British newcomers were offered low-interest, two-year loans to cover their travel expenses. As one historian aptly described it, “Anyone from Britain, as long as they were the right color, could come to Canada as long as they had no criminal record and were in good health.”

During the early 1950s, Canada experienced a significant influx of immigrants, with approximately 158,000 individuals arriving each year. Interestingly, around one-third of these immigrants hailed from the United Kingdom. The remaining majority consisted of white Europeans, including Italians, Germans, French, and Belgians. However, it is worth noting that the Canadian government imposed restrictions on immigration from India and the Caribbean. Specifically, the annual limit for Indian immigrants was set at 150, while Caribbean immigrants, particularly Jamaican women trained as housemaids, were limited to 100 per year. These measures were outlined by Jack Pickersgill, the Liberal immigration minister at the time, in his memoirs titled “My Years With Louis St. Laurent” published in 1975. In his writings, Pickersgill clarified that his opposition was not directed towards West Indian immigrants specifically, but rather against admitting immigrants from any region to address the issue of overcrowded slums. Known for his outspoken nature, Pickersgill expressed his views during a Liberal meeting in Victoria in 1955, stating that no matter the origin or qualifications of an immigrant, they could never be as valuable as a Canadian-born child. Jack Pickersgill, a Rhodes Scholar and a prominent figure within the Liberal party, was interviewed in his later years, where he was described as a cantankerous and tiresome elderly man.

In 1955, the Liberals took their case to the Supreme Court to defend their practice of excluding black and Asian immigrants as “prohibited persons” and emerged victorious. In 1956, Pickersgill acknowledged the existence of discrimination, stating that as long as the majority of Canadians support the immigration policy, discrimination will persist.

This unfortunate Supreme Court case was highlighted in the 2006 CPAC documentary, White Canada. Among those interviewed was Tom Kent, a Pearson adviser and Liberal deputy minister of immigration, who recounted his visit to the Canadian Embassy in New Delhi. He described a room filled with unopened letters of application, explaining that the applications from individuals who, in Jack’s opinion, were not as easily adaptable as those from Northern Europe, were not processed.