‘EQUALITY NOW!’: RACE, RACISM AND RESISTANCE IN 1970s TORONTO

By Małgorzata Kieryło

A thesis submitted to the Department of History

in conformity with the requirements for

the degree of Doctor of Philosophy

Queen’s University

Kingston, Ontario, Canada

August 2012

Copyright © Małgorzata Kieryło, 2012

Abstract

This thesis explores the recognition of institutional racism in Ontario. It examines discourses of institutional racism between the late 1960s and early 1980s and argues that the recognition of institutional racism at the provincial and national levels was facilitated by overt acts of racism in one of Canada’s most populous and diverse cities – Toronto. The targets of overt racism were new immigrants from decolonizing nations who utilized the discourse of rights in the context of an increase in racist incidents to press for state recognition of institutional racism. This rise in racially motivated violence concerned most Canadians as it went against

Canadians’ self-perception as a raceless, tolerant and peaceful society.

The recognition of structural racism was a gradual and contested process as municipal, provincial and federal government actors often denied its existence and deemed overt acts of racism aberrant. When racist acts did occur, state officials and media reports blamed the increased racial tensions on the personal prejudice of extremists. Activist groups composed of visible minorities and human rights activists were key in the formation of a counter-narrative that challenged this persistent denial of structural racism. These groups played a fundamental role in redefining the nature of racism in Canadian society.

A central theme of this dissertation is that disintegrating race relations allowed for a redefinition of the Canadian state. It was the increase in racist incidents in 1970s Toronto that fostered a broad discussion on racism in Canada. This discussion emphasized that Canada’s people of colour experienced second-class citizenship because of structural inequalities which were rooted in Canadian institutions. Racial violence in 1970s Toronto was crucial in the recognition of institutional racism as racist incidents brought visible minorities into the public sphere and gave them an opportunity to identify the existence of systemic and institutional

i

racism in Canadian society. However, the recognition of institutional and systemic racism did not result in a deep transformation of the Canadian racial state as policy changes have not been successful in challenging structural inequality.

ii

Acknowledgements

Various institutions, agencies and individuals provided financial assistance that made this project possible. Queen’s University provided a significant amount of support through graduate funding, and teaching assistant and teaching fellowship positions. Funding from the Women's Canadian Historical Society of Toronto, the R. Samuel McLaughlin Fellowship, and the Roger Graham Graduate Fellowship in Modern Canadian History also made this project possible.

Throughout my years of study, I was influenced by great teachers and professors. My early mentors include Dan Ryan, Dr. Bessma Momani and Dr. James W. St. G. Walker. They all stimulated my interest in the history of racism and demonstrated to me that history had social importance.

My sincere thanks go to my supervisor, Dr. Barrington Walker, for his encouragement and dedication to this project. His comments and suggestions forced me to refine my ideas and develop my arguments. I would also like to thank the other members of my dissertation committee: Dr. Jeffrey McNairn and Dr. Ian McKay for their helpful insights and suggestions throughout my years at Queen’s.

Earlier versions of this work were presented at various conferences. In particular, I would like to thank the audience of the Canadian Ethnic Studies Association 2nd Annual Conference and scholars who attended a conference entitled ‘Engaging and Articulating ‘Race’: Historical Encounters with Race and Racialization’ at the University of Victoria in 2010.

I am also grateful to my parents, Danuta and Józef, for instilling me with the values of hard-work and perseverance. To my partner, Richard, I owe the biggest debt of all. Thank you for being my most ardent supporter.

iii

Table of Contents

Abstract ..……………………………………………………………………………………….....i

Acknowledgements…...…………………………………………………………………………iii

Table of Contents ……………………………………………………………………………….iv

List of Tables……………………………………………………………………………………..v

List of Abbreviations …………………………………………………………………………...vi

Chapter One ‘Equality Now!’: Race, Racism and Resistance in 1970s Toronto……………………….1

Chapter Two Immigration, Changing Conceptualizations of ‘Race’ and Racism in Postwar Canada……………………………………………………………………………………53

Chapter Three In the Shadow of the Sir George Williams Affair: The Racial Order in 1960s Canada…………………………………………………………………………………..106

Chapter Four Multiculturalism and the Bureaucratization of Ethnic Politics, 1971-1974…...... 167

Chapter Five Race, Racism, and Resistance in 1970s Toronto..………….………………………………222

Chapter Six The State Response: A Recognition of Systemic Racism …...... 307

Conclusion...... 344

Bibliography...... 373

Appendices...... 398 Appendix A: Operative Sections of the Hate Propaganda Bill, 1970 ………………………….399 Appendix B: Multicultural Programme – Budget 1974-1975………………………………….401 Appendix C: Multiculturalism Grants 1972-1973……………………………………………...402 Appendix D: Multiculturalism Grants - June 1973……………………………………………..405 Appendix E: Bilingualism Grants – 1973………………………………………………………406 Appendix F: An Act to revise and extend Protection of Human Rights in Ontario,1981……...407

iv

List of Tables

Table 1.1 Immigration Regulations, Units of Assessment According to P.C. 1967-1616....76

Table 1.2 Immigration to Canada by Country of Origin, 1946-1971………………………88

Table 1.3 Canada (Excluding Quebec). Birthplace of Immigrants, Percentage, Pre-1946 – 1971 …………………………………………………………………89

Table 1.4 Education Level of Immigrants to Canada, 1960-1980……………………….....91

Table 1.5 Canadian Immigration, 1962-1967. Professional and Technical Workers. Outflow from Developing Countries………………………………………….....91

Table 1.6 Percentage Distribution of Immigrants to Canada by Intended Province of Settlement, 1951-1973…………………………………………………………...96

Table 1.7 The Multiculturalism Bureaucracy …………………………………………….199

Table 1.8 The Multiculturalism Program – The Roles of Federal Cultural Institutions…..200

v

List of Abbreviations

CBC - Canadian Broadcasting Corporation

CCF - Co-operative Commonwealth Federation

CCLA - Canadian Civil Liberties Association

CIRPA - Citizen's Independent Review of Police Activities

CJC - Canadian Jewish Congress

CRTC - Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission

KKK - Ku Klux Klan

NBC - National Broadcasting Company

NBCC - National Black Coalition of Canada

NDP - New Democratic Party

NFB – National Film Board

OHRC - Ontario Human Rights Commission

PC – Progressive Conservative

RRPTF - Race Relations and Policing Task Force

TTC - Toronto Transit Commission

UARR - Urban Alliance on Race Relations

UN – United Nations

vi

Chapter One: ‘Equality Now!’: Race, Racism and Resistance in 1970s Toronto

In January 1977, an American television program ran a story on race relations in Toronto.

The NBC-TV News’ “Weekend” edition presented a twenty-minute assessment of incidents of overt violence against ethnic minorities and concluded that the metropolitan city was “a time bomb of racial tension.”1 The show’s commentator blamed racial tensions in Toronto on the increased immigration of people who were visibly different from “Toronto’s WASP residents.”

To demonstrate the growing racial tensions in the city, the show featured the Western Guard, a

White supremacist group that claimed 300 to 500 followers in Toronto and also showed uncensored footage of immigration officials detaining illegal immigrants.2 The program also featured an interview with a Black youngster who described being beaten and taunted because of his colour. At the end of the interview, the Black boy lamented that he wished he was White.3

The commentator, however, assured his two million viewers that all would be well because

Canadians would “overcome this sort of thing.” Torontonians, including the city’s mayor David

Crombie, reacted with great disdain at these accusations and argued that the report was “an example of the most irresponsible kind of journalism.”4 With a sly grin, the mayor blamed the airing of the program on American networks who were upset over the blocking of U.S. commercials by the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission. The program also received criticism from the federal government because it attacked Canada’s most multicultural and diverse city. Canada’s Federal Immigration Minister Bud Cullen commented on the “irresponsible” program and argued that it was contrived and aired by “a group which is

1 “TV shows claims racial strife eroding Toronto,” Toronto Star, January 1, 1977. 2 “Black editor criticizes NBC view of Toronto racism,” Globe and Mail, January 3, 1977. 3 TV shows claims racial strife eroding Toronto,” Toronto Star, January 1, 1977. 4 “Black editor criticizes NBC view of Toronto racism,” Globe and Mail, January 3, 1977. 1

so dissatisfied with its own immigration policy that it’s thrusting those sentiments on someone else.”5

The mayor’s rejection of the suggestion that Toronto was experiencing racial tensions was questionable. The week that the American documentary aired was particularly horrific; three racially motivated attacks occurred in the city. Toronto’s newspapers reported that the racial violence targeted those who did not fit the image of an average “white Canadian.”6 Most of these racial incidents occurred in subway stations or in subway cars which provided the perpetrators with a confined and unsupervised area in which to attack their victims. In the first incident, two

White men attacked two “dark-skinned” men. The altercation resulted in injuries to the victims and a White 61-year-old passenger who attempted to intervene.7 In the second incident, four

White youths attacked an East Indian man. During the attack, one youth lifted the victim, ripped off his shirt buttons, punched him in the face and smashed his head against the subway glass partition.8 Passengers who saw this attack did nothing except stand in shock. In the third incident, a 22-year-old West Indian man was called a “Paki” and attacked by several White youths. The victim was knocked to the ground by three men and kicked while other transit riders watched.9 The victim later said that he believed “things were going to get worse” for dark- skinned people. The newspaper in which the beating was reported, however, emphasized that the “small, slight man with brown skin” had been in Canada for four years and had never experienced racial violence. The newspaper blamed such racial attacks on youths who were

“reckless thrill-seek[ers].”10 It was common for media outlets to minimize these sorts of racial

5 Ibid. 6 Ibid., and “Hate in their eyes youths beat man who tried to help,” Toronto Star, January 3, 1977. 7 “TTC investigating actions of crew in subway assault,” Globe and Mail, January 4, 1977. 8 “New Year’s Race Beating Left Witnesses Stunned,” Globe and Mail, January 8, 1977. 9 “Two Men, 18, Charged with Subway Beating,” Globe and Mail, January 10, 1977, and “New Year’s Race Beating Left Witnesses Stunned,” Globe and Mail, January 8, 1977. 2

incidents. In fact, Toronto newspapers argued that these incidents were a part of urban violence which was being perpetuated by “group[s] of young men” who were “probably high” and were looking to jostle “dark-skinned men.”11 Toronto’s visible minorities12, however, argued that

NBC-TV’s portrayal of Toronto was quite accurate. Jagdish Bhadauria, an East Indian and executive member of the Canadian Council for Racial Harmony argued that the television program was not a distortion but an accurate depiction of the racial situation in Toronto.

Bhadauria also warned Canadians that East Indians were ready to fight back – and cautioned that if racial violence continued there would be “a river of blood.”13

During the 1970s, stories of racial violence were common on the front pages of Toronto’s newspapers. Official municipal, provincial and federal responses to overt racism, which plagued urban cities like Toronto, often emphasized that these acts were perpetrated by youths who had

“hatred in their hearts.” Visible minority groups, however, argued that overt racism was symptomatic of a larger problem: institutional racism.

Terminology

Since this study examines the recognition of institutional racism in Ontario, it is important to briefly examine the nature of individual versus institutional racism. This study utilizes the terms ‘overt racism,’ ‘racist incidents’ ‘overt racial violence,’ ‘racially motivated

10 “Guyanese Man Beaten, Kicked at Subway Station in Week’s 3rd Race Attack,” Globe and Mail, January 8, 1977. 11 Editorial, “Racism must be fought,” Globe and Mail, January 5, 1977. 12 This study utilizes terms such as ‘people of colour,’ ‘visible minorities,’ ‘racialized Others,’ ‘groups that were racialized as non-white,’ and ‘ethnic minorities’ interchangeably to describe those who held (and continue to hold) minority status in Canada. These groups lack power and privilege in relation to the White majority. In contemporary Canada, Statistics Canada defines ‘visible minorities’ as “persons, other than Aboriginal people, who are non- Caucasian in race or non-white in colour.” Race, as the conclusion will demonstrate, continues to be part of the ‘common sense’ and it is embedded in public policy. See: Statistics Canada, “Reference Guides and Technical Reports.” http://www12.statcan.ca/census-recensement/2006/ref/rp-guides/index-eng.cfm. 13 “Indian group agrees city is a time bomb,” Toronto Star, January 6, 1977. 3

attacks ’and ‘racial incidents’ interchangeably to describe individual voluntary expressions of racism.14 Overt racism refers to direct face-to-face, explicit racism which manifests itself in physical violence, name-calling, graffiti and/or harassment by prejudiced individuals towards members of a racialized group.15 Perpetrators of overt racism often believe in racial and cultural inferiority and superiority.16

Institutional racism is connected to overt racism as it is individuals who develop and implement the policies and practices of institutions. Institutional racism, however, operates on a different level because it affects power relations. It occurs when organizations and institutions

“routinely imbed racial oppression.”17 It functions in groups, institutions, organizations, and at the state level and results in unequal economic, social, and political relations. Institutional racism is the most difficult to combat because it is systemic and structural – it is not easily identifiable because it is expressed covertly and as a result it becomes part of the normative culture of institutions.18 Institutional racism, however, is visible when one examines the unequal distribution of wealth, power, and privilege in society. Examples of institutional or systemic racism include: discriminatory hiring practices, underemployment, police profiling and denial of equal access to various social services such as education and housing.19

14 Mary E. Kite and Bernard E. Whitley Jr, The Psychology of Prejudice and Discrimination (Belmont: Thomson Wadsworth, 2005), 9. 15 Frances Henry, Carol Tator, Winston Mattis and Tim Rees, The Colour of Democracy: Racism in Canadian Society. (Toronto: Harcourt Brace and Company, 1995), 15-16 and Camille A. Nelson and Charmaine A. Nelson eds, Racism, Eh?: A Critical Inter-Disciplinary Anthology of Race and Racism in Canada (Concord: Captus Press, 2004), 32. 16 Frances Henry, Carol Tator, Winston Mattis, Tim Rees, The Colour of Democracy: Racism in Canadian Society 44-45. 17 Joe R. Feagin, Systemic Racism: A Theory of Oppression (New York: Routedge, 2006), 2, 16. 18 Frances Henry, Carol Tator, Winston Mattis, Tim Rees, The Colour of Democracy: Racism in Canadian Society, 32. 19 Mary E. Kite and Bernard E. Whitley Jr, The Psychology of Prejudice and Discrimination , 10. 4

Unpacking Racial Violence in 1970s Toronto

During the 1970s, many Canadians saw the concept of institutional racism as a foreign, if not, American peculiarity. It was Stokely Carmichael, a Black Nationalist and leader of the

Black Panther Party who coined the term ‘institutional racism’ during the 1960s. Carmichael and other Black Nationalists believed that the gains of desegregation had little effect as African

Americans continued to face systemic discrimination in employment, education, housing and the administration of justice.20 For Carmichael, institutional racism meant the systemic denial of equal opportunity which resulted in high unemployment, low wages, inadequate housing and low social status for racial minorities. Desegregation, according to Black Power advocates like

Carmichael, was a token measure as systemic racism was imbedded in all major institutions in American society and maintained White dominance and superiority.21 Institutional racism in the case of the United States was explicit. White resistance to racial desegregation, ghettoization and the subordinate position of Blacks was proof that institutional racism inhibited the livelihood of Black Americans.

In the Canadian context, provincial and federal governments conceptualized racism as a phenomenon that was perpetuated by individuals, not institutions. In fact, public policy was aimed at controlling individual expressions of prejudice.22 Groups that were racialized as non-

20 Claude Sitton, “Status of Integration: The Progress So Far is Characterized as Mainly Tokenism,” in Black Protest in the Sixties, eds. August Meier and Elliott Rudwick (Chicago: Quadrangle Books, 1970), 75. 21 Ibid., 77. For Carmichael and many Black Nationalists systemic racism originated and was maintained by the “established and respected forces in the society.” See: Stokely Carmichael and Charles V. Hamilton, Black Power: The Politics of Liberation in America (New York, Random House, 1967), 4. 22 At the federal level, for example, the government passed the Hate Propaganda Bill in 1970. The law attempts to control the dissemination of hate by individuals. For example, section 267A of the Criminal Code (1970) prohibits the advocacy and promotion of genocide against an identifiable group. Section 267B prohibits the incitement of hatred against an identifiable group. See: An Act to Amend the Criminal Code, Statutes of Canada 1970, Bill C-3. At the provincial level, the Ontario Human Rights Code was enacted in 1962 and was designed to protect individuals from discrimination in employment, housing and public services. The legislation was a consolidation of various anti- discriminatory statues enacted during the 1940s and 1950s. It was a conciliatory vehicle where individuals could bring forth their grievances. The philosophical impetus behind the Code was the notion that governments needed to 5

white, however, challenged the notion that individuals needed protection from discrimination.

During the 1970s, many ethnic community-development organizations and visible minority associations expressed apprehension and concern about the increased racial violence against

Canada’s people of colour but, more importantly, they argued that the real problem that minorities faced was institutional and systemic. Influenced by liberation struggles and Black

Power, these groups formed loosely-based coalitions which challenged racial inequality, existing understandings of racism and pressed for democratic representation. These groups defined racism as institutional because it maintained and promoted social, political and economic inequality through policies and practices of various institutions including schools, places of employment, the police and housing corporations.

In order to convey the nature of institutional racism, ethnic minority groups established various organizations such as the Canadian Council for Racial Harmony and the Urban Alliance on Race Relations, among many others. These organizations commissioned studies into race relations and utilized the language of rights to analyze the cyclical and ingrained racism of

Canadian institutions. Of particular concern to these organizations was the existence of employment and housing discrimination which they argued inhibited the full participation of people of colour in Canadian society.23

Analysis of the discourse surrounding contemporary incidences of racial violence reveals that various groups attributed different causes to them. Some organizations, such as the Action

Committee Against Racism, believed they were symptomatic of defective individuals who

protect individuals from discrimination. See: An Act to revise and extend Protection of Human Rights in Ontario, Statutes of the Province of Ontario 1981, c.53, and T. M. Eberlee and D. G. Hill, “The Ontario Human Rights Code,” The University of Toronto Law Journal, 15 no.2 (1964): 448. 23 “Canada must face truth on racism, reader claims,” Globe and Mail, January 8, 1977. 6

practiced discrimination. Others, such as the Urban Alliance on Race Relations, argued that these acts of overt violence reflected the systemic and institutionalized devaluation of people of colour in Canadian society. Overt violence was therefore ascribed different meanings as various organizations and individuals interpreted the events through various lenses as they had contrasting interpretations of the nature of racism in Canadian society. What unified various groups was their perceptions that racism in Canadian society was reaching unprecedented levels.

Newspapers and periodicals also played a significant role in the interpretations of racist incidents as they selected and assigned meaning to various events which influenced how the public perceived racial violence. The Toronto Star, in particular, often publicized the views of racialized minorities who argued that what they labeled as a ‘race crisis’ was imminent.

Newspapers also published the racist views of the far right which further provided evidence that race relations were deteriorating and problems were reaching unparalleled proportions. In the context of deteriorating race relations, activist groups such as the Urban Alliance on Race

Relations played a fundamental role in redefining the nature of racism in Canadian society and ultimately challenged existing conceptualizations of citizenship.24 These groups worked with government officials to alleviate tensions but they also used confrontational tactics including protests, marches and rallies to demonstrate that Canada’s people of colour lived a life of second- class citizenship because of the systemic nature of racism in Canadian society.

But these anti-racist groups were not the first to identify institutional racism in the

Canadian context. They built on ideas that emerged a decade earlier. During the 1960s, Blacks argued that racism manifested itself in institutions and social practices. Influenced by civil rights in United States and other Black activist groups, many of these anti-racism advocates were young

24 Canada, Ontario Human Rights Commission, Life Together: A Report on Human Rights in Ontario (Toronto: Ontario Human Rights Commission, 1977), 57. 7

students enrolled in Canadian universities.25 These young ‘militants’ argued that racism was ingrained in Canadian institutions. Their discontent was voiced during the Sir George

Williams Affair – an event that shocked Canadians and made international news in 1969. The

‘Affair’ began when student protesters occupied the computer building at Sir George Williams

University in Montréal. The students were protesting the racist teaching and grading practices of

Professor Perry Anderson and the university’s unjust defence of this tenured professor. The eleven day protest was dubbed the ‘Anderson Affair’ and was a result of a longstanding dispute between students, Anderson and the university administration. The Sir George Williams Affair was significant for two important reasons. First, the protest was a challenge to the old racial order as it was one of the first organized expressions against systemic racism in Canada. Second, the events, which occurred in Montréal, had pan-Canadian implications. Blacks across Canada rallied in support of Montréal’s Black community. However, much of the discourse espoused by these young radicals was dismissed or ignored as the government saw the protest as an example of student radicalism. The federal government argued that racism was a disease which only afflicted people south of the border. However, this conceptualization of racism and the widespread rejection of the existence of systemic racism changed soon after the ‘rebels’ who participated in the Sir George Williams Affair were deported. By the mid-1970s, the existence of systemic racism was no longer noted only by radicals and leftists but also by new immigrants from decolonizing African, Asian and Caribbean nations.

The protective human rights laws that were enacted during the 1950s and 1960s were not enough to quell the racial violence that was erupting in major cities across Canada, particularly

25 George M. Fredrickson, Racism: A Short History (New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2002), 151. 8

Toronto.26 During the 1970s, a dramatic shift occurred in the composition of new immigrants to

Canada. Immigrants from ‘non-traditional’ countries such as India, Pakistan, Guyana, Jamaica and Tobago began to outnumber European immigrants.27 This new immigrant intake was facilitated by the ‘points system’ – a system which attempted to attract skilled workers and business immigrants. In comparison to previous immigration regulations, the new system was promoted as equitable and impartial as the new regulations did not use ethnic, racial or national origin as a criteria for admission; in theory if an applicant reached a certain level of points in total; they were permitted to settle in Canada. The regulations were seen as an impartial method of immigrant selection which would guard objectivity and ensure the settlement of quality immigrants.28 Unlike previous generations of immigrants, they were not rural migrants or unskilled workers. They were “relatively young, educated, skilled and ready to enter technical, business and professional occupations in their new country.”29 These changes had profound economic and social implications for Metropolitan Toronto. New highly skilled and upwardly mobile immigrants moved into employment and social realms which were predominately White and as a result, contact between Toronto’s White majority and people of colour increased.30

26 Historians of human rights argue that during the second half of the twentieth century a major paradigm shift occurred in race relations policy. The first half of the twentieth century, historians argue, was an era of “protective” legislation. The state enacted legislation prohibiting individual expressions of discrimination. The second half of the 20th century was an era of “remedial” legislation. During this ‘era’, the Canadian government focused on remedying past wrongs with egalitarian positive rights (“rights to”). This conceptual framework was developed by James W. St. G. Walker, "Race," Rights and the Law in the Supreme Court of Canada: Historical Case Studies (Waterloo: Wilfrid Laurier Press, 1997). This shift is also examined by Dominique Clément, Canada’s Rights Revolution: Social Movements and Social Change, 1937-1982 (Vancouver, UBC Press, 2008), 5-13. 27 John Huot, “Fight-Back against Racism,” Canadian Dimension, December 1978. For example, in 1976, 60 percent of Toronto’s immigrants came from Asia, Africa and the Caribbean. Only 35 percent who settled in Toronto were of European origin. 28 Lakshmana G. Rao, Anthony H. Richmond and Jerzy Zubrzycki, Immigrants in Canada and Australia, eds. Anthony H. Richmond and Freda Richmond (Downsview: Institute for Behavioral Research, Social Science Research, York University, 1984-1986). Potential immigrants were assessed on a scale of 0 to 15 and had to obtain 50 points to be admitted into Canada. 29 Wilson Head, Adaptation of Immigrants in Metro Toronto: Perceptions of Ethnic and Racial Discrimination: An Exploratory Study (Toronto: York University, 1980), 22. 9

Furthermore, rising unemployment and inflation contributed to the perception that visible minorities were making claims to diminishing economic resources.31 This new demographic reality and the downturn in the economy contributed to strained race relations. People of colour were subjected to name-calling and harassment on Toronto’s streets. Some also argued that they experienced verbal attacks, excessive force and psychological intimidation by Toronto’s police officers. 32 Reports of police brutality led to the establishment of an inquiry and later a Royal

Commission on police practices in Toronto.33 Police brutality, however, was only one aspect of growing racial tensions in Ontario, specifically Toronto. Reports of racial slurs, insults, assaults and racist graffiti were becoming more common. Consistent reports of physical violence against racialized minorities resulted in the perception by government officials, people of colour and the media that Toronto’s race relations were strained and were reaching unmanageable proportions.34

This challenged existing perceptions of ‘Toronto the Good’ – a nickname given to the city during the 19th century by William Holmes Howland, Toronto’s 25th mayor (1886-1888).

Howland was a reformer who campaigned for a morally pure city and made it his duty to ensure

30 James W. St. G Walker, Human Rights, Racial Equality, Social Justice: Can We Get There From Here? (UBC: Centre for Policy Studies in Education, 1999), 32. 31 ‘Stagflation’ was a key feature of Canada’s economy during the 1970s and early 1980s. Economic growth slowed and inflation rates rose significantly. The real GDP growth, for example, fell to 4.4% in 1974 – a significant drop from 7.7% in 1973. In 1975 the rate fell even further to 2.6%. The slow economic growth was reflected in unemployment rates – 5.5% in 1974, 6.9% in 1975 and 11% in 1982. See: Kenneth Norrie, Douglas Owram and J.C. Herbert Emery, A History of the Canadian Economy (Scarborough: Nelson Thomson, 2002), 402-413. 32 In 1974, both the Globe and Mail and Toronto Star featured cases of police brutality against visible minorities. See: “Boy says 2 policemen ‘so awful, so mean’ during drug search,” Toronto Star, April 5, 1974, “Some Metro Policemen are Accused of brutality,” Toronto Star, April 20, 1974, “On a democratic police,” Globe and Mail, April 18, 1974 and “Review is ordered of complaint bureau as police criticized,” Globe and Mail, April 20, 1974. 33 “Godfrey Wants Inquiry into way police investigate police,” Toronto Star, May 16, 1974 and “Judge Named to Head Police Brutality Probe,” Toronto Star, October 24, 1974. 34 See for example: “The new black won’t take no for an answer,” Globe and Mail, July 30, 1975, “‘We didn’t come here to be abused,’ he says,” Toronto Star, January 11, 1977, “Metro’s Sikhs fear race riots,” Toronto Star, August 29, 1977, “Riots feared: Sikhs demand police action on race attacks,” Toronto Star, August 29, 1977, “Schools in North York face racism ‘crisis’ trustee group warned,” The Toronto Star, April 19, 1978, “Money is not enough to eradicate racism, city is told,” Globe and Mail, April 14, 1978. 10

that spiritual and moral values were entrenched in public policy. Howland sympathized with trade unions, the poor and was a staunch supporter of temperance.35 The title of ‘Toronto the

Good’ and the city’s high moral status was affirmed by C.S. Clark in Of Toronto the Good: A

Social Study. A Queen City of Canada as it is (1898). Clark’s social study demonstrated that

Toronto was “one of the finest cities on the continent in point of beauty, wealth and intelligence” and that it was “unquestionably the leading commercial city of the west.”36 For those who wondered about living conditions in Toronto, Clark asserted that the city was “a delightful place to live.”37 The reputation of ‘Toronto the Good’ was firmly in place in postwar Toronto; Toronto was a superb and increasingly diverse place and its people had impeccable “drive, energy, and ambition.”38 Racial incidents during the 1970s, however, challenged this engrained perception of

Toronto and its citizens began to debate whether Toronto was “turning sour.”39

Accusations of widespread racism first occurred following a fatal shooting of a Jamaican youth in Toronto in May 1975.40 The 15-year-old victim was walking across a Toronto parking lot when a White man approached him and shot him in the face at close range. Official reports suggested that the incident was racially motivated. Following the incident, media reports emphasized that the 20-year-old perpetrator was most likely mentally ill as he was an only child who was quiet and awkward.41 It was later revealed that the White gunman who killed the 15- year-old youth also attacked two Black musicians at gunpoint in January.42 For Toronto’s racial

35 Desmond Morton, Mayor Howland: The Citizens’ Candidate (Toronto: Hakkert, 1973), 1-2, 28-42. 36 C.S. Clark, Of Toronto the Good: A Social Study. The Queen City of Canada as it is (Montreal: Toronto Publishing Company, 1898), 1. 37 Ibid., 4. 38 Eric Arthur, Toronto: No Mean City (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1963), Foreword. 39 “Racism: Is Metro ‘turning sour?,’” Toronto Star, May 10, 1975. 40 “Youth Shot to Death, Police Wound Suspect,” Toronto Star, May 7, 1975. 41 “‘A quiet kid’ lies accused of murder,” Toronto Star, May 8, 1975. 42 “Youth Shot to Death, Police Wound Suspect,” Toronto Star, May 7, 1975, “Man held in slaying charged with shootings,” Toronto Star, May 13, 1975. 11

minorities, the case was indicative of a trend that was emerging in Toronto’s neighbourhoods.

Toronto’s Black and South Asian residents argued that cases of overt racism could lead to “overt conflict” in a “city that once prided itself on its racial tolerance.” Some argued that their lack of protection against overt violence was indicative of “the passive majority of Canadians to racism.” Strong criticism also came from Bromley Armstrong of the Ontario Human Rights

Commission who argued that Toronto was “the North American capital for racism.”43

MP John Diefenbaker argued that such accusations went against the “reputation of

Canada for respecting the equality of all, regardless of colour.”44 Similarly, Ontario’s premier

Bill Davis argued that the “vast majority of Ontario citizens” were accepting of every “race, colour or creed.”45 Newspaper reports concurred and emphasized that racist attacks were aberrations but were increasing because of White supremacist activities and increased unemployment.46 The media focus on overt racial violence and declarations of harmony espoused by officials like Diefenbaker and Davis obscured the existence structural and systemic inequality. The prevalent view was that the majority of Canadians were colourblind and tolerant.

When visible minorities claimed that systemic and institutional discrimination impeded their full participation in Canadian society, their voices were ignored largely because of the dominant belief that racism was caused by personal prejudice. The dominant belief was that prejudice was an “emotional disease” common to countries like the United States, South Africa and India where “caste distinctions” prevailed.47 Most Canadians, however, believed that they were immune to this disease. When cases of racial violence occurred they were blamed on the

43 “Racism? Is Metro turning sour?,” Toronto Star, May 10, 1975. 44 Canada, House of Commons Debates (22 May 1975), p. 6002. 45 PC from Peel North. Ontario, Legislative Assembly, Debates and Proceedings (12 May 1975), p. 1734. 46 See for example: “Blacks feel tolerant Toronto is turning ‘sour,’” Toronto Star, May 10, 1975. 47 Canada, Fair Employment Practices Branch, Toward Understanding - Prejudice, Discrimination, 1974, 2. 12

frustrations of scapegoat-seeking individuals.48 The common perception of Canada was that it was a tolerant nation. This belief was expressed by Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau when he announced Canada’s commitment to multiculturalism in 1971, arguing that cultural pluralism was the very essence of Canadian identity.49 Trudeau’s government further declared its commitment to multiculturalism and tolerance in 1973 when it announced that Canada would undertake programs to promote the objectives set out by the United Nations Decade for Action to

Combat Racism and Racial Discrimination. Canada signed on promising to promote human rights and fundamental freedoms and committed itself to eliminating racial prejudice and racial discrimination.50 Although the government made this commitment, racism and discrimination were, paradoxically, seen as foreign to Canada’s social landscape. The belief that racism was caused by “a few bad apples”51 would soon be challenged.

This dissertation examines discourses of institutional racism between the late 1960s and early 1980s and argues that the recognition of structural racism at the provincial and national levels was facilitated by overt acts of racism in one of Canada’s most populous and diverse cities

– Toronto. The targets of overt racism were new immigrants from decolonizing countries who utilized the discourse of rights in the context of an increase in racist incidents to press for state recognition of systemic racism. This rise in racially motivated violence concerned most

48 Ibid., 17. 49 Canada, House of Commons Debates (8 October 1971), p. 8545-46. The most blatant examples of racism in Canada’s history were ignored by history textbooks which perpetuated this myth. For example, few knew about historical events such as the Chinese Head Tax, the disenfranchisement of South Asians in 1907, the Kamagata Maru incident in 1914, the Chinese Immigration Act of 1923 (which prohibited further immigration from China), the exclusion of Jewish immigrants during the 1930s and the internment of 22,000 Japanese-Canadians during the World War II. Constance Backhouse argues that “[a] ‘mythology of racelessness’ and ‘stupefying innocence’…[are the] twin pillars of the Canadian history of race,” See: Constance Backhouse, Colour-Coded: A Legal History of Racism in Canada, 1900-1950 (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1999), 14. 50 Canada, Department of the Secretary of State, Prejudice and Discrimination - A Study Guide, 1975, 45. 51 Frances Henry and Carol Tator, Racial Profiling in Canada: Challenging the Myth of "a few bad apples" (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2006), 17. 13

Canadians as it went against Canadians’ self-perception as a raceless, tolerant and peaceful society.

This study will demonstrate that the official recognition of structural racism was a gradual and contested process as municipal, provincial and federal government actors often denied its existence and deemed overt acts of racism aberrant. When racist acts did occur, state officials and media reports blamed the increased racial tensions on the personal prejudice of extremists. However, it will be demonstrated that activist groups composed of people from visible minorities groups and human rights activists were key in the formation of a counter- narrative that challenged this persistent denial of structural racism. In the face of reports of physical attacks and harassment against visible minorities in Toronto, activist groups wrote editorials to national newspapers and produced studies which examined the nature of racism in

Canadian society. These enquiries in particular were an important means by which activists challenged the existing conceptualization of racism which deemed racism to be a personal disease, but more importantly, they revealed a broader problem of systemic racism because they exposed common problems that transcended individual experience.52

The state’s response to overt violence did not challenge historic racial inequalities experienced by visible minorities. The argument that Canada was a colourblind, raceless and multicultural nation supported and perpetuated the notion that Canada was accommodating to newly settled immigrants. Furthermore, racelessness and colorblindness had the effect of pacification of those who claimed that Canada was a racist nation. When individuals and ethnic

52 Key studies commissioned by activist groups were: Wilson Head, Adaptation of Immigrants in Metro Toronto: Perceptions of Ethnic and Racial Discrimination: an Exploratory Study (Toronto: York University, 1980), Daniel G. Hill, Human Rights in Canada: A Focus on Racism (Ottawa: Canadian Labour Congress, 1977) and Bhausaheb Ubale, Equal Opportunity and Public Policy: a Report on Concern of the South Asian Canadian Community Regarding their Place in the Canadian Mosaic, (Draft Copy). Submitted to the Attorney General of Ontario by the South Asian Canadian Community, 1977. 14

groups argued that racism in Canada was a historic phenomenon and that the existence of institutional and systemic racism denied them full citizenship, they were met with continued insistence that Canada was a multicultural and accepting nation.53

A central theme of this dissertation is that disintegrating race relations allowed for a redefinition of the Canadian state. It was the increase in racist incidents in 1970s Toronto that fostered a broad discussion on racism in Canada. This discussion emphasized that Canada’s people of colour experienced second-class citizenship because of structural inequalities which were rooted in Canadian institutions. Racial violence in 1970s Toronto was crucial in the recognition of institutional racism in Canada as racist incidents brought visible minorities into the public sphere and gave them an opportunity to identify the existence of systemic and institutional racism in Canadian society. However, the recognition of institutional and systemic racism did not result in a “deep transformation” of the Canadian racial state as policy changes have not been successful in challenging structural inequality.54

This work seeks to answer some important questions about race relations in postwar

Toronto. What social forces contributed to increased racial tensions in Toronto? How did multiculturalism as public policy affect activism? What strategies were employed by visible minority groups in their quest for an official state recognition of institutional and systemic racism? What divisions (whether political or class-based) inhibited a coherent and unified movement for the recognition of systemic racism? How did municipal, provincial and federal

53 David Theo Goldberg, The Racial State, 220. 54 Ibid., 249. Goldberg argues that racial states cannot deal with racism on a ‘crisis’ basis. He argues that crisis language and crisis moments are a “threat to state coherence and power” See: 247. Instead of deep transformation, the racial state brings subaltern members into representation because “[t]he modern state has a legacy of turning violence into injury, historical wrong and its memory into legal redress, reconciliation, and reparations.” When the subaltern becomes part of the state, they become homogenized and transformed. Thus the state brings in the subaltern to sustain “control, stability, and security.” See: 251. 15

governments respond to accusations of ingrained racism in Canada? More precisely, what role did ‘racelessness’ and the common perception of Canada as a tolerant and multicultural nation play in the gradual and contested official recognition of institutional racism?

This dissertation emphasizes three themes. First, Canada’s people of colour formed

‘policy networks.’ These policy networks - formal and informal pressure groups – argued that institutional and systemic racism prohibited people of colour from fully participating in

Canadian society and they were crucial in the articulation of the existence of systemic racism in

Canada. Second, the effects of multiculturalism as public policy will be examined to demonstrate that multiculturalism bureaucratized ethnic politics. Radicalism and potential militancy was therefore managed by the state which provided financial assistance to government sanctioned ethnic organizations. This does not, however, suggest that multiculturalism annihilated radicalism and militancy as divisions among ethnic groups existed across class and ideological lines. Third, this study will examine how Ontario attempted to ‘deinstutionalize’55 racism. It will be demonstrated that the provincial government’s recognition of institutional racism resulted in the implementation of anti-discrimination policy changes, including revisions of the existing

Ontario Human Rights Code and changes to the policies and practices of public institutions such as school systems and police departments. These public policy changes, however, were not successful in addressing structural and systemic discrimination for two fundamental reasons.

First, a culture of ‘racelessness’ contributed to a lack of authentic and substantive change. White

Canadians continued to believe that Canada was a tolerant and accepting nation; much of this discourse was grounded in the rhetoric of liberal multiculturalism which obfuscated the existence

55 Term used to describe the efforts of institutions to rid their organizations of structural inequalities. 16

of systemic racism. Secondly, in the process of recognizing institutional racism, the Ontario government did not challenge the concept of ‘race’ – there was little emphasis on deconstructing race as a biological myth. As a result, in spite of its recognition of systemic racism and its elimination of racial preferences from legislation and public policy, racial bias (and the belief in

‘race’ for that matter) continued. Groups that were racialized as non-white did not feel welcome in Canada, and their relations with agents of state power (i.e. the police) remained strained.

Furthermore, employment discrimination, racial bias in the education system and housing discrimination continued to impede the full participation of people of colour in Canadian society.

This historical reality is reflected in recent sociological studies of racial inequality in Canada.56

Literature

Much of the history of human rights in Canada has focused on the history of Canada’s exclusionary immigration policies.57 As a result, historians have ignored other important developments in the history of human rights in Canada. Historians often emphasize that World

War II was a watershed event in the history of immigration and racism in Canada as the war exposed the deadly dangers of “unchecked racism.”58 However, as the stories of overt racism

56 See for example: Vic Satzewich, ed. Racism and Social Inequality in Canada: Concepts, Controversies and Strategies of Resistance (Toronto: Thompson Educational Publishing, 1998); Judith C. Blackwell, Murray E.G. Smith, and John S. Sorernson, eds. Culture of Prejudice: Arguments in Critical Social Science (Peterborough, Broadview Press, 2003); Frances Henry et al. The Colour of Democracy: Racism in Canadian Society (Toronto: Thomson Nelson, 2006), Carol Tator and Frances Henry, Racial Profiling in Canada: Challenging the Myth of "a few bad apples" (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2006), David M. Tanovich, The Colour of Justice: Policing Race in Canada (Toronto: Irwin Law, 2006); Sean P. Hier and B. Singh Bolaria eds. Race and Racism in 21st Century Canada: Continuity, Complexity, and Change (Peterborough: Broadview Press, 2007). 57 For example: Franca Iacovetta et al, A Nation of Immigrants: Women, Workers, and Communities in Canadian History, 1840-1960s (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1998), Franca Iacovetta, Gatekeepers: Reshaping Immigrant Lives in Cold War Canada (Toronto: Between the Lines, 2006), K. W. Taylor, “Racism in Canadian Immigration Policy,” Canadian Ethnic Studies 23.1 (1991): 1-20, Ninette Kelley and Michael Trebilcock, The Making of the Mosaic: A History of Canadian Immigration Policy (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1998) and Norman Hillmer and J.L. Granatstein, The Land Newly Found: Eyewitness Accounts of the Canadian Immigrant Experience (Toronto: Thomas Allen Publishers, 2006). 58 Barrington Walker, ed. The History of Immigration and Racism in Canada: Essential Readings (Toronto: Canadian Scholars’ Press, 2008), 237. 17

during the 1970s demonstrate, the war did not result in an immediate acceptance of ‘human rights’59 nor a rejection of the concept of ‘race’ – a concept which began to be problematized and questioned during the 1930s.60

‘Race’

It was during the 1930s that ‘race’ as a biological category began to be deconstructed by academics who argued that the meaning of ‘race’ was ambiguous and lacking in scientific uniformity. The work of anthropologist Franz Boas was instrumental in this shift. During the

1920s Boas demonstrated that ‘race’ was cultural not biological.61 Boas’ work signified a shift in social science – racial ‘others’ began to be viewed “as products of urban arrangements” rather than products of immutable racial differences.

By the 1930s leading anthropologists, sociologists and psychologists began to study race not as a biological category, but as a sociological and psychological phenomenon.62 Many of them pointed to the work of Gregor Mendel - a nineteenth century Austro-Hungarian geneticist whose scientific experiments proved that ‘race’ was a vague term based on cultural habits.

Mendel, considered to be the ‘father of genetics,’ proved that there was “enormous [genetic]

59 Human rights are inherent and inalienable rights of equality, freedom, and dignity which all human beings possess by virtue of their membership in the “human family.” See: Preamble. Universal Declaration of Human Rights. United Nations. http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/ 60 Lucius Outlaw, Toward a Critical Theory of ‘Race’ in Cultural and Literary Critiques of the Concept of ‘Race’, (New York: Garland Publishing Inc., 1997), 391. As a point of interest - recent work by geneticists, biologists and anthropologists supports the claims made during the 1930s as it demonstrates that “[r]acial differences cannot be contextualized as absolute because genetic variation is continuous.” As a result, genes are not “universally present” in one “race” and not another. See discussion in Kay Anderson, Vancouver’s Chinatown: Racial Discourse in Canada, 1875-1980 (Montréal: McGill-Queen's University Press, 1991), 12. 61 Boas’ studies examined cranial shape and size of European immigrants in the United States. He found that the shape and size of skulls differed among Europeans born in the United States versus those born in Europe. He explained that this variation was due to dietary and environmental factors. Boas then utilized these data to examine race relations in the United States. The status of African Americans, according to Boas, was caused by “defective ancestry” (due to White prejudice) which could be remedied through “cultural evolution” or assimilation. See: Vernon J. Williams, Rethinking Race: Franz Boas and His Contemporaries (Lexington: The University Press of Kentucky, 1996), 4-36. 62 David Theo Goldberg, The Racial State, 174. 18

variation among individuals.” Mendel’s work demonstrated that “trait variation within a population was as significant as trait variations between populations [demonstrating that] traits d[id] not form [as] part of a package” but were random.63 Essentially, Mendel’s work demonstrated that few genetic differences existed among supposed ‘races’ and that environmental factors played a significant role in natural selection. His work on genetics revolutionized the biological construction of race and was used by leading interwar intellectuals to challenge concepts of heredity and natural selection which were propagated by adherents of scientific racism during the nineteenth and early twentieth century. By the 1930s, therefore, the idea that ‘race’ was a biological construct was challenged by some academics who saw it as “a premodern marking” with no scientific basis.64

Immigration Policy

The rejection of the notion of ‘race’ as a biological construct had limited impact on social policy and ingrained public attitudes about ‘race.’ During the immediate postwar era, Canada’s immigration policy continued to favor immigrants from Britain, the United States and northern and western Europe. Historians have emphasized that the acceptance of ‘human rights’ was a gradual process; much of the historiography about human rights focuses on the efforts of minorities in their quest for protective legislation during the immediate postwar era. Human rights activists stirred public debates about discrimination and pressed for judicial action against expressions of racism. The legislation, however, did not fundamentally alter immigration policy

– Canada continued to define the ideal immigrant as ‘White’ with the potential to contribute to

63 See: James W. St. G Walker, "Race," Rights and the Law in the Supreme Court of Canada, 16-19, Kay Anderson, Vancouver’s Chinatown, 11 and Lucius Outlaw, Toward a Critical Theory of ‘Race’ in Cultural and Literary Critiques of the Concept of ‘Race’, 391. Mendel’s work demonstrated that “races [were] constructed relationally, against one another, rather than in isolation.” Ian F. Harvey Lopez, “The Social Construction of Race,” in Critical Race Theory: the Cutting Edge, ed. Richard Delgado (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1995), 194. 64 David Theo Goldberg, The Racial State, 205. 19

Canada’s burgeoning postwar economy. It was not until the 1960s that Canada made a commitment to change immigration regulations because of emerging attitudes of equality and non-discrimination. This resulted in various new regulations and “an increasingly more diverse composition of the immigrant intake.”65

The introduction of the ‘points system’ in 1967 further neutralized Canada’s immigration regulations by removing ‘race’ from the Immigration Act and by assessing potential immigrants based on education and training. The introduction of the ‘points system’ significantly contributed to the proportion of non-whites who were admitted into Canada. As a result, between 1967 and

1975, Canada, particularly Ontario, experienced a substantial increase in the size of these populations. This influx was also facilitated by decolonization which resulted in the migration of people from the newly-emerging nation-states in Africa, Asia and the Caribbean.66 Potential immigrants were evaluated and assigned points based on age; education; training; occupational skills in demand, knowledge of English or French; whether they had relatives in Canada or if they had arranged employment in their area of destination.67

The introduction of new regulations not only altered Canada’s ethnic composition but

65 Ninette Kelley and Michael Trebilcock, The Making of the Mosaic, 347. 66 Duara Prasenjit defines decolonization as the “process whereby colonial powers transferred institutional and legal control over their territories and dependencies to indigenously based, formal sovereign, nation-states.” Prasenjit also notes that decolonization is “a movement for moral justice and political solidarity against imperialism.” See: Duara Prasenjit, “Introduction: the Decolonization of Asia and Africa in the Twentieth Century,” in Decolonization: Perspectives from Now and Then, ed. Duara Prasenjit (New York, Routledge, 2004), 2. Scholars argue that there were several reasons for decolonization. The ‘nationalist’ argument emphasizes that decolonization was caused by “indigenous upheavals” which made “colonial rule unworkable.” Ibid., 4. Academics who favor the ‘international’ interpretation argue that decolonization was facilitated by the Cold War anti-imperial sentiment. This interpretation also emphasizes that newly independent states (such as India) sought decolonization by putting pressure on international organizations such as the United Nations. Lastly, scholars who adhere to the ‘metropolitan’ explanation of decolonization argue that imperial nations were open to decolonization because colonial nations were becoming a liability (they were “too burdensome and served no strategic or economic purpose for the mother country”). See: John Springhall, Decolonization since 1945: The Collapse of European Overseas Empires (New York: Palgrave, 2001), 5. 67 Ninette Kelley and Michael Trebilcock, The Making of the Mosaic, 346-382. 20

had profound social and political repercussions. As noted above, many immigrants who settled in

Canada were from decolonizing nations. While the West conceptualized decolonization as freedom from colonial rule, many citizens of these newly emerging nations conceptualized decolonization in much broader terms: they valued freedom, liberty, the right to global mobility and human rights.68 Many of these immigrants were not willing to accept racist policies; they exhibited power and agency through resistance, unwilling to be mere bystanders in the process of settlement. From such groups emerged a renewed argument that Canada was an inherently racist country. For them, World War II did not signify the end of racism nor that racism was slowly “dying.”69

Human Rights

Historians have often looked at World War II as a pivotal moment in the history of human rights in Canada. James Walker, for example, argues that there was “an apparent watershed, [or] even a “paradigm shift” [in the notion of rights] during or just after World War

II.”70 Walker argues that this shift was facilitated by “colonial independence struggles, the decline of hierarchical models, wartime acceptance of unprecedented state controls, [and a] stricken conscience.”71 Constance Backhouse agrees, noting that in the postwar era, “the Allied powers began to recognize some of the horrendous implications of racial discrimination... [which

68 John Springhall, Decolonization since 1945: The Collapse of European Overseas Empires, 3-4. In Two Concepts of Liberty (1958) Isaiah Berlin assessed the meaning and value of political freedom and notions of liberty which were central to the ideological struggles of his day. In his work, Berlin examined negative liberty and positive liberty. Berlin defined negative liberty as freedom from – by this he meant freedom from interference and the absence of imposed constraints on individuals. In contrast, Berlin defined positive liberty as freedom to - by this he meant autonomy, self-rule and the freedom to realize one’s goals. Taking Berlin’s work into account one could argue that native populations in colonial empires sought negative and positive liberty. They wanted freedom from colonial rule (therefore freedom from coercion, oppression and economic enslavement) and used the rhetoric of positive liberty to express their desire for political autonomy and economic and cultural self-determination. See: Isaiah Berlin, Two Concepts of Liberty (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1958), 7-19. 69 George. M. Fredrickson, Racism: A Short History, 141. 70 James W. St. G Walker, "Race," Rights and the Law in the Supreme Court of Canada, 6. 71 Ibid,. 321. 21

resulted in] a host of policies that proclaimed an intent to eliminate discrimination on the basis of race.”72 Similarly, Nador F. Dreisziger argues that World War II “served as a catalyst in the evolution of Canadian attitudes regarding the issue of the treatment of minorities” and notes that the war “fostered the growth of ethnic tolerance.”73 Dreisziger supports his claims by noting that this shift in thinking was reflected in the revisions to the Defence of Canada Regulations

(regulations which placed wartime restrictions on Japanese-Canadians, Fins, Hungarians,

Ukrainians, Italians and Austrians), the creation of a Citizenship Division and the establishment of Committee on Cooperation in Canadian Citizenship – a committee which attempted to create unity amongst Canadians. These changes, Dreisziger argues, were “milestone[s] in the relationship between the Canadian state and immigrant minorities.”74 Freda Hawkins agrees and asserts that World War II was pivotal to the “political, economic, technological, social, and cultural development” of Canada. She argues that pre-war Canada was “small, insecure, inward- looking, and narrow-minded.” In the postwar era, Canada became “more responsible, humane, better governed, socially conscious, and internationally concerned.”75 In a recent study of human rights associations and human rights activists, Dominique Clément concurs, arguing that World

War II did in fact signal a “paradigm shift” in human rights because “Canadians, irrespective of their ideas or physical characteristics, became assertive rights-bearing citizens.”76 In fact,

Clément argues that the postwar period can be characterized as ‘Canada’s rights revolution.’ He supports this claim by arguing that parliamentary supremacy was challenged with the Bill of

72 Constance Backhouse, Colour-Coded, 7. 73 N.F. Dreisziger, The Wartime Origins of Ethnic Tolerance in Canada (Toronto: Robert F. Harney Professorship and Program in Ethnic, Immigration and Pluralism Studies, University of Toronto, 1999), 2. 74 Ibid., 16. 75 Freda Hawkins, Critical Years in Immigration: Canada and Australia Compared (Montréal: McGill-Queen's University Press, 1991), 30. 76 Dominique Clément, Canada’s Rights Revolution: Social Movements and Social Change, 1937-1982, 18. 22

Rights77 which ultimately led to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms which Clément calls “the ultimate manifestation of the rights revolution.”78 Furthermore, Clément argues that in the postwar period the role of the state expanded signaling the transformation of Canada to a “human rights state” through the expansion of human rights legislation, which was not state imposed but rather a result of the lobbying efforts of churches, civil liberties associations and labour.79

Clément ultimately argues that the acceptance of human rights in Canada was reflective of changing attitudes regarding freedom and equality.

Historians have also emphasized that this shift in consciousness was facilitated by international covenants. For example, George Egerton has examined “civil libertarian thought and mobilization” during the immediate post-war period. Focusing on liberalism and the religious dimensions of human rights, he argues that liberal values and Christian teachings played a key role “in shaping opinion, articulating political values, and influencing [human rights] policy.”80 Egerton asserts that the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights had a profound effect on human rights in Canada and signaled the beginning of Canada’s ‘rights revolution.’ It was in December 1948, that Canada became a signatory to the Universal

Declaration of Human Rights which stated: “[a]ll human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.”81 The Declaration guaranteed fundamental rights without regard to distinction to race, colour, sex, language, religion, political, national or social origin,

77 Ibid., 19. 78 Ibid., 24. 79 Ibid., 25. 80 George Egerton, “Entering the Age of Human Rights: Religion, Politics, and Canadian Liberalism, 1945-1950,” The Canadian Historical Review 85 no.3 (2004): 452. 81 P.R. Ghadhi ed. International Human Rights Documents, 5th ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2006), 22. 23

property, or birth. Other rights expressed in the Declaration were: equality before the law and equal protection of the law without discrimination, freedom from arbitrary interference with privacy, family or home, freedom of opinion and expression, and freedom of peaceful assembly and association. According to Egerton, it was an important document expressing that Canada was committed to human rights.

Historians have also taken philosophical approaches to the evolution of human rights in

Canada. For example, Brian Howe argues public philosophy played an important role in the evolution of human rights policy in Ontario.82 He asserts that the liberal ‘reform ethic’ and the

‘conservative ethic’ were integral to the development of human rights legislation in Ontario.

Those who adhered to the ‘reform ethic’ believed in “social rights as human rights, in social reform as a means of realizing human potential and the values of freedom and equality, and in the positive state as a means of reforming society…”83 Those who believed in the ‘conservative ethic’ were more restrained in their support of human rights legislation as they were “suspicious of the positive state and its administrative agencies” which they deemed intrusive and threatening “to traditional political rights and the rule of law.”84 These “conflicting pressures,”

Howe argues, resulted in a process of “reform and restraint” which shaped human rights policy in Ontario. Howe’s study, which focuses on the 1940s and 1950s, demonstrates that human rights advocates were people who saw “discrimination as a reality and as a contradiction to

Canadian liberal values.”85

Other scholars have examined the role of minorities in the fight for human rights. For

82 Brian Howe, “The Evolution of Human Rights Policy in Ontario,” Canadian Journal of Political Science 24, no.4 (1991): 784. 83 Ibid., 785. 84 Ibid., 786. 85 Ibid., 783, 787. 24

example, Carmela Patrias and Ruth Frager argue that there was a “surge of egalitarian idealism in postwar Canada” which resulted in the mobilization of individuals and groups interested in legal reform and the passage of anti-discriminatory laws. These individuals and groups, mostly from minority groups, played a fundamental role in the shift in public policy which resulted in the passage of various anti-discrimination measures. Patrias and Frager focus primarily on the efforts of African Canadians, Japanese Canadians and Jews in the fight for human rights. Each group had its successes. Following the war African Canadians became more militant in their pursuit of equality. Their efforts were integral to the passage of the 1954 Fair Accommodation

Practices Act in Ontario. Japanese Canadians worked closely with Americans of Japanese descent to counteract blatant discrimination (i.e. they specifically fought for compensation for property lost during WWII). Patrias and Frager argue that the most successful group of human rights activists were Canadian Jews. They built broad coalitions, had effective communication networks and focused on publicity, education and legislation. The authors conclude that “[l]ong before the introduction of the state policy of multiculturalism, [minority groups] initiated a fundamental reconsideration of the concepts of democracy and equality that guided postwar reconstruction.”86 The role of Jewish activists has also been examined by Irving Abella and

James Walker.87 Abella argues that anti-Semitism was an expression of “extreme” Canadian nationalism during the first half of the 20th century.88 He argues, nonetheless, that anti-Semitism receded in the postwar era because “the horrors of the Holocaust shocked many Canadians” and xenophobic government officials, including the Deputy Minister of Immigration, were replaced

86 Ruth Frager and Carmela Patrias, “‘This is Our Country, These Are Our Rights:’ Minorities and the Origins of Ontario’s Human Rights Campaigns,” Canadian Historical Review 82, no.1 (2001): 35. 87 Irving Abella, “Presidential Address: Jews, Human Rights and the Making of a New Canada,” Journal of the Canadian Historical Association 11 (2000): 3-15 and James St. G. Walker, “The ‘Jewish Phase’ in the Movement for Racial Equality in Canada,” Canadian Ethnic Studies 34, no.1 (2002): 1-29. 88 Irving Abella, “Presidential Address: Jews, Human Rights and the Making of a New Canada,” 5. 25

with new leadership and “new ideas.”89 In this new climate, Jewish Canadians worked alongside various ethnic and religious groups against discrimination in accommodation and employment.90

Abella argues that 1962 was an important year for human rights in Canada because the government created the Ontario Human Rights Commission which functioned as a watchdog for human rights. In fact, Abella argues that the 1960s were the decade in which Canada had “turned the corner.”

For Jews, as well as for this country’s other minorities, that decade was a watershed. Before it existed the old Canada, parochial, nativist, exclusionary; beyond it a new Canada was taking shape, a Canada of diversity, colour, vibrancy, a Canada of open minds rather than closed doors, a Canada in which Jews and other ethnic groups were quickly becoming part of the Canadian mainstream, and were seen as part of the solution rather than part of the problem…91

James Walker has also assessed the role of Canadian Jews in the passage of anti- discriminatory legislation in the postwar era. He argues that various Jewish organizations were successful in lobbying for legislation because they built tactical alliances with other minority groups and liberal organizations. Walker notes that from 1931 to 1944, Jewish politicians, with the support of the Canadian Jewish Congress, challenged discriminatory legislation by introducing various bills in the legislature. 92 He argues that Jewish organizations were central to the passage of protective legislation including fair practices laws during the 1950s. The legislative approach

89 Ibid., 7-8. 90 Ibid., 9. 91 Ibid., 14. 92 Jewish politicians from across Canada agitated for anti-discrimination legislation. For example, during the 1930s MPP E. Frederick Singer introduced an amendment to the Insurance Act which challenged the discriminatory practices of insurance companies in Ontario. Some companies were known for charging Jewish customers higher premiums or refusing insurance altogether. Furthermore, in 1932 Québec Assembly members Peter Bercovitch and Joseph Cohen introduced a bill to control the publication of libelous material against identifiable groups. The bill did not pass as the Assembly prorogued, killing the bill. However, in 1934, Manitoba’s Marcus Hyman was successful in pressing for a law prohibiting the publication of libelous material against racial and religious groups. James Walker also attributes the passage of Ontario’s Racial Discrimination Act of 1944 to the efforts of Jewish politicians (primarily MPP Joseph Salsberg) and the Canadian Jewish Congress. The Act was the first in Canada to prohibit the displaying of discriminatory notices in public places. See: James W. St. G Walker, “The ‘Jewish Phase’ in the Movement for Racial Equality in Canada,” 3-5. 26

changed in the postwar era when the Jewish Labour Committee of Canada, the Joint Public

Relations Committee and the Association for Civil Liberties worked together to put anti- discriminatory legislation on the statute books and sent delegations to Queen’s Park to put pressure on the government. Along with direct lobbying, Jewish organizations attempted to arouse the public through a public relations campaign to raise awareness about discrimination.

Furthermore, Jewish organizations aligned with Black leaders in Dresden and lobbied for Fair

Employment and Fair Accommodations Acts. Walker argues that the “Jewish Phase” in the fight for human rights ended in 1970 when Jewish organizations were successful at pressuring the government to pass the Hate Law.93 Walker also notes that the once active Jewish lobby groups shifted their focus during the 1970s because of multiculturalism and “a shift to moderate identity politics.”94

Ross Lambertson has also examined the role of human rights activists in the propagation of human rights in Canada. He argues that between 1930 and 1960, there was an expansion of human rights consciousness because of cultural factors (the international rise of human rights consciousness), economic and demographic factors (increasing worldwide prosperity overtime and ethnically diverse immigration) and because of the determination and commitment of human rights activists. Lambertson’s work emphasizes that Canada’s ‘rights revolution’ occurred in the context of changing conceptualizations of rights. Prior to World War II, Lambertson argues, rights in Canada were conceived of as traditional British liberties. These liberties were linked to citizenship. However, after World War II and the signing of the Universal Declaration of Human

Rights, rights began to be conceived in universal and egalitarian terms.95

93 An Act To Amend the Criminal Code, Statutes of Canada 1970, Bill C-3. 94 James W. St. G Walker, “The 'Jewish Phase' in the Movement for Racial Equality in Canada,” 17. 27

Important rights organizations also formed between the 1960s and 1980s. Dominique

Clément focuses on “professional social movement organizations” which, he argues, were key contributors to activism and sought social change during the 1960s and 1970s.96 Clément’s study focuses on human rights organizations which used the language of universalism and the discourse of human rights to challenge human rights abuses.97 However, Clément does not examine other identity-based rights organizations. As a result, Clément attributes postwar human rights successes to “professional social movement organizations”98 which were typically led by professional middle-class Christian White men who, he argues, were concerned about diverse issues.99 Because Clément focuses on professional organizations such as British Columbia Civil

Liberties Association, the Lique des droits de l’homme, the Canadian Civil Liberties

Association, and the Newfoundland-Labrador Human Rights Association, he assumes that human rights activism was mainly led by White human rights activists who pressed the state for legislation which would ensure “freedom from discrimination.”100 Clément takes on a gradualist perspective with respect to systemic racism, arguing that eventually Canada, as a human rights state, “matured” and recognized the existence of institutional or systemic racism.101 Clément

95 Lambertson examines: Québec’s anti-communist padlock law, the violation of civil liberties during the war, the post-war attempt to deport Japanese-Canadians, campaigns to obtain effective anti-discriminatory legislation, civil liberties violations during the Cold War and the struggle to obtain the Bill of Rights. See: Ross Lambertson. Repression and Resistance: Canadian Human Rights Activists, 1930-1960 (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2005). 96 Dominique Clément, Canada’s Rights Revolution: Social Movements and Social Change, 1937-1982, 4. Clément examines: the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association, the Lique des droits de l’homme, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, and the Newfoundland-Labrador Human Rights Association. 97 Clément argues that human rights activists used the language of universalism because they did not see human rights in the context of race, class and gender. Ibid., 5. 98 Ibid., 15. Clément defines “professional social movement organizations” as organizations which had limited contact with membership and were composed of full-time staff. These organizations used “conservative tactics” such as lobbying, litigation and public education to further their cause. See: 34, 57-60. 99 Ibid., 34. 100 Ibid., 28. 101 Ibid., 29. 28

does not, however, show how this shift occurred.102

The recognition of institutional racism in Canada has largely been unacknowledged by historians.103 Much of the history of human rights in Canada has focused on the early post World

War II period. However, two studies have addressed race relations in post-1970 Canada. In his discussion of racial discrimination against Blacks in Canada, James Walker notes that racially motivated violence occurred during the mid 1970s. His primary focus, however, is on the historical sequence of discrimination against Black Canadians.104

Sociologist Daiva Stasiulis has also addressed deteriorating race relations during the late

1970s and early 1980s Toronto. In “Minority Resistance in the Local State: Toronto in the 1970s and 1980s,” Stasiulis attributes the rise of racism during the 1970s to the wide-scale immigration of non-Whites to Canada. Stasiulis contends that reports of racial assaults in Toronto resulted in the establishment of committees, programs and commissions to deal with overt racial violence.

Stasiulis’ case study focuses on the struggles of Toronto’s Blacks and South Asians in their fight against institutionalized racism in law enforcement and education. She argues that minority efforts to alter police relations with ethnic communities were not entirely successful because the police established “mere forums for the explanation (as opposed to critical scrutiny) of police practices.”105 In contrast, efforts to alter educational policy were more successful because the

102 Clément does state that ethnic minorities mobilized during the 1950s and 1960s. He argues that visible minorities utilized the tactics of other rights organizations by lobbying, and establishing educational programs and services for their members. Clément also mentions the Black United Front – an organization which was established in Nova Scotia in 1969 and argued that discrimination was systemic. See: 32. However, Clément does not elaborate on this as his study examines human rights organizations which, he argues, used the discourse of universalism “to defend the rights of all citizens.” See: 4. 103 Janet Miron, ed. A History of Human Rights in Canada: Essential Issues (Toronto: Canadian Scholars’ Press, Inc., 2009). 104 James W. St. G Walker, Racial Discrimination in Canada: The Black Experience (Ottawa: Canadian Historical Association, Historical. Booklet No. 41, 1985), 7. 105 Daiva K. Stasiulis, “Minority Resistance in the Local State: Toronto in the 1970s and 1980s,” Ethnic and Racial Studies 12, no.1 (1989): 72. 29

Toronto Board of Education was comprised of elected officials many of whom were members of the New Democratic Party and were thus “ideologically inclined” to implement an anti-racist policy in the school system.106 Stasiulis’ study deemphasizes the role of visible minority groups and highlights that institutional policy changes occurred because of the efforts of government officials. Aside from these two studies, racial incidents in Toronto and the public policy changes that occurred as a result have been unacknowledged by academics.

It is the aim of this study to demonstrate that the key actors in the recognition of systemic racism were visible minority groups who utilized the language of rights in the context of an increase in racial incidents in Toronto. Canada’s visible minorities were not bystanders as

Dominique Clément suggests. As the work of political philosopher Will Kymlicka demonstrates

– historically Canada’s minorities have been active in seeking recognition of rights and accommodations to their particular cultural differences.107

The role of World War II in the development of human rights cannot be disputed.

However, historians have overemphasized the role of adoption of the Universal Declaration of

Human Rights as Canada was a hesitant signatory of the Universal Declaration of Human

Rights. In fact, Canada abstained from voting for a draft of the Declaration in the Third

Committee of the General Assembly and only voted for the Declaration once Canadian diplomats realized that continued abstention would result in Canada being in the company of the

Soviet bloc, Saudi Arabia and South Africa. Although the Declaration was not a legal covenant, the Canadian government rationalized its abstention by arguing that the substantive norms enshrined in Declaration challenged provincial legislation.108 Furthermore, historians need to be

106 Ibid., 77. 107 See for example: Will Kymlicka, Finding Our Way: Rethinking Ethnocultural Relations in Canada (Don Mills: Oxford University Press, 1998). 30

cautious of putting too much weight on the alleged post-war “paradigm shift” in human rights because despite the significant challenge to the idea of ‘race,’ racism and racial discrimination

(especially systemic or ‘hidden’) persists. As Vic Satzewich emphasizes - despite the academic debunking of race as a legitimate biological category in the postwar period, “race and racism remain socially, politically and scientifically significant in a variety of different contexts” (i.e. media, public policy, trials and equity programs). Satzewich, however, does not dispute the importance of the war. He argues that World War II signaled the recognition that the concept of

‘race’ was socially constructed.109 However, Satzewich demonstrates that although ‘race’ was no longer seen as useful analytical concept, it remained (and remains) engrained in both law and the

“common sense.”110 This has also been vehemently argued by sociologists Frances Henry and

Carol Tator who argue that Canada is “a society divided by colour and ethnicity.” They argue that the history of racism is often ignored because “citizens and institutions function in a state of collective denial.”111

Historians focus on the War because it was a new era of international covenants embodying the notion of human rights and it was during this period that overt and officially sanctioned racism was challenged through the passage of anti-discriminatory legislation.

108 See: A.J Hobbins, “Eleanor Roosevelt, John Humphrey and Canadian Opposition to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: Looking Back on the 50th Anniversary of UNDHR,” International Journal 53 no. 2 (Spring, 1998): 325-342 and William A. Schabas, “Canada and the Adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,” McGill Law Journal 43 (1998): 403- 441. 109 Vic Satzewich, “Race, Racism and Racialization: Contested Concepts,” in Vic Satzewich, ed. Racism and Social Inequality in Canada: Concepts, Controversies and Strategies of Resistance (Toronto: Thompson Educational Publishing, Inc., 1998), 32. 110 Term used in James W. St. G. Walker. "Race," Rights and the Law in the Supreme Court of Canada: Historical Case Studies (Waterloo: Wilfred Laurier University Press, 1997). Walker demonstrates that racism is essentially attached and influenced by a society that produces and legitimizes it. As Walker’s case studies demonstrate, judicial decisions were not aberrations, coincidences or decisions which were based on superfluous circumstances; they were reflections of the common sensibility or “common sense” about race. 111 Frances Henry and Carol Tator, The Colour of Democracy: Racism in Canadian Society (Toronto: Thomson Nelson, 2006), 1. 31

However, the historical focus on the war as a significant event in the passage of protective legislation is problematic as it deems only the first half of twentieth century as rife with racism and the post-war era as an era which embraced diversity and equality with open arms. For example, the post-war period is often seen as a period in which Canada admitted hundreds of thousands of immigrants. However, this was a gradual and contested process. Canada did not become colourblind with the conclusion of the war. White privilege continued. Furthermore, the decline of science-based racism did not result in the deconstruction of ‘race’ as a category.

Scientific racism was replaced with racial exclusion based on “culturalist and class-centered expressions.”112

Toronto: A Local History of the National

This study will challenge and problematize the common argument among historians that

World War II was a pivotal moment in the history of human rights in Canada. This study will focus on Toronto but will bring into light significant events which occurred across Canada. A brief examination of events in other areas of Canada will demonstrate that significant racial tensions did occur in other urban centres. Racial tensions, however, were more pronounced and visible in Ontario, particularly Toronto. As scholars have noted, “Ontario has been one of the primary sites of the anti-racism struggle in Canada.”113 This study will make evident that events in Toronto led to a pan-Canadian recognition of the problem of systemic racism. Although the experiences of minorities undoubtedly varied across Canada, experiences in Toronto were most widely discussed and contributed to an understanding by federal, provincial and municipal governments that systemic and institutional discrimination impeded the rights of visible minorities.

112 David Theo Goldberg, The Racial State, 26. 113 Frances Henry and Carol Tator, The Colour of Democracy: Racism in Canadian Society, 6. 32

The existing historiography of Toronto is extensive; much of it, however, is intended for general public consumption as it focuses on the pictorial history of the city and its neighbourhoods.114 The history intended for academic circles concentrates on urban geography, architecture and city planning.115 Scholars have also examined the social and economic experiences of Torontonians during the era of rapid industrial growth at the beginning of the 20th century.116 Toronto’s history of immigration has also received considerable attention from historians. However, much of the scholarship focuses on the immigrant experiences in pre-

World War II Toronto.117 This is also a key feature of the history of immigration to Canada; the historical focus has been on the experiences and process of settlement of those who settled in

Canada prior to 1945.118 Studies that examine the history of immigration in the immediate

114 Barbara Myrviod, Danforth in Pictures: A Brief History of the Danforth (Toronto: Toronto Public Library,1979); Austin Thompson, Spadina 1818-1936: A Story of Old Toronto (Toronto: Paqurian Press, 1988); Ralph Magel, 200 Years Yonge (Toronto: Natural Heritage, 1998); Penina Coopersmith, Cabbagetown: The Story of a Victorian Neighbourhood (Toronto: J. Lorimer and Co. 1998); Jack Batten, The Annex: The Story of a Toronto Neighbourhood (Erin: Boston Mills Press, 2004); John Warkentin, Creating Memory: A Guide to Outdoor Public Sculpture in Toronto (Toronto: Becher Associate in Association with the City Institute at York University, 2010). 115 See for example: D.G.G. Kerr, The Changing Face of Toronto: A Study in Urban Geography (Ottawa: Queen’s Printer, 1965); Marc Baraness and Larry Richards, eds, Toronto Places: A Context for Urban Design (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1992); Robert Fulford, Accidental City: The Transformation of Toronto (Toronto: MacFarlane Walter and Ross, 1995). 116 Carolyn Strange, Toronto’s Girl Problem: The Perils and Pleasures of the City, 1880-1930 (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1995); Hugh Maclean Miller, Our Glory and Our Grief: Torontonians and the Great War (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2002); Charis Cotter, Toronto Between the Wars: Life in the City 1919-1939 (Richmond Hill, Firefly Books, 2004); Katrina Srigley, Breadwinning Daughters: Young Working Women in the Depression-era City, 1929-1939 (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2010). 117 For example: Robert Harvey, Immigrants: A Portrait of the Urban Experience, 1890-1930 (Toronto: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1975); Stephen Speisman, The Jews of Toronto: A History to 1937 (Toronto: McClelland and Stewart, 1979); Robert Harvey, Gathering Place: Peoples and Neighbourhoods of Toronto, 1834-1945 (Toronto: Multicultural History Society of Ontario, 1985); John Zucchi, Italians in Toronto: Development of a National Identity, 1875-1935 (Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1988); Norah Johnson, The Irish in Toronto’s Old Ward 5 (Toronto: Community History Project, 1992); Lillian Petroff, Sojourners and Settlers: The Macedonian Community in Toronto to 1940 (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1995); Adrienne Shadd, The Underground Railroad: Next Stop (Toronto: Natural History Books, 2002); Mark George McGowan, Death of Canada: the Irish Famine Migration to Canada, 1847 (Toronto: Novalis, 2009). 118 For example: Maureen Radley-Walters, Canada: Land of Immigrants (Don Mills: Nelson, 1973); Jaroslav Petryshyn, Peasants in the Promised Land: Canada and the Ukrainians, 1891-1914 (Toronto: Lorimer Press, 1985); Barry Broadfoot, The Immigrant Years: From Britain to Canada 1945-1967 (Vancouver, Douglas and McIntyre, 1986); Gerald Tulchinsky, ed. Immigration in Canada: Historical Perspectives (Toronto: Copp Clark Longman Ltd, 1994); Barbara Ladouceur and Phyllis Spence, Blackouts to Bright Lights: Canadian War Bride Stories 33

postwar era are few in number.119 Historical analyses of the experiences of immigrants after the

liberalization of immigration regulations in 1967 are even more limited.120 As a result, much of

the history of immigration to Canada focuses on the experiences of European immigrants. This

dissertation seeks to continue the thus limited examination of the experiences of immigrants who

settled in Canada following the passage of the ‘points system’ in 1967, many of whom were

people of colour.

Similarly, the history of multiculturalism has received little historical inquiry. As Chapter

3 will demonstrate, much of the existing history of multiculturalism focuses on why the policy

was implemented; analysis of the effects of multiculturalism on ethnic politics has not been

extensively examined by historians. Policy analysts, philosophers and social scientists have

compensated for the lack of historical inquiry; their focus, however, is on debating the value of

(Vancouver: Ronsdale Press, 1995); Anna Reczyńska, For Bread and a Better Future: Emigration from Poland to Canada 1918-1939 (Toronto: Multicultural History Society of Ontario, 1996); Franca Iacovetta et al, A Nation of Immigrants: Women, Workers, and Communities in Canadian History, 1840-1960s (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1998); Gerald Tulchinsky, Branching Out: the Transformation of the Canadian Jewish Community (Toronto: Stoddart, 1998); Peter S. Li, The Chinese in Canada (Toronto: Oxford University Press, 1998); James W. St. G Walker, The Black Loyalists: The Search for a Promised Land in Nova Scotia and Sierra Leone, 1793-1870 (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1999); Marlene Epp, Women Without Men: Mennonite Refugees of the Second World War (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2000); Anne van Arragon Hutten, Uprooted: The Story of Dutch Immigrant Children in Canada, 1947-1959 (Kentville: North Mountain Press, 2001); Bruno Ramirez, Crossing the 49th Parallel : Migration from Canada to the United States, 1900-1930 (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2001); Vic Satzewich, The Ukrainian Diaspora (London: Routledge, 2002); Jonathan F. Wagner, A History of Migration from Germany to Canada, 1850-1939 (Vancouver: UBC Press, 2006); Lisa Chilton, Agents of Empire: British Female Migration to Canada and Australia, 1860s-1930 (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2007); Lucille Campey, An Unstoppable Force: The Scottish Exodus to Canada (Toronto: National Heritage Books, 2008); Lynne Taylor, Polish Orphans of Tengeru: the Dramatic Story of their Long Journey to Canada, 1941-1949 (Toronto: Dundurn Press, 2009); Marian McKenna, Vikings Return: Icelandic Immigration to Canada, 1870-1920 (Calgary: Detselig Enterprises, 2010); Sonia Cancian, Families, Lovers, and Their Letter: Italian Postwar Migration to Canada (Winnipeg: University of Manitoba Press, 2010). 119 Franca Iacovetta, Such Hardworking People: Italian Immigrants in Postwar Toronto (Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1992); Franca Iacovetta, Gatekeepers: Reshaping Immigrant Lives in Cold War Canada (Toronto: Between the Lines, 2006). 120 Agnes Calliste, “Women of ‘Exceptional Merit’: Immigration of Caribbean Nurses to Canada,” Canadian Journal of Women and the Law 6, no.1 (1993): 85-102; Vic Satzewich, Racism and the Incorporation of Foreign Labour: Farm Labour Migration to Canada since 1945 (New York: Routledge 1991); Ninette Kelley and Michael Trebilcock, The Making of the Mosaic: A History of Canadian Immigration Policy (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1998); Barrington Walker, ed. The History of Immigration and Racism in Canada: Essential Readings (Toronto: Canadian Scholars Press, 2008). 34

multiculturalism as public policy. Proponents of multiculturalism argue that the policy preserves minority cultures while opponents argue that multiculturalism creates unequal power relations because it obfuscates evidence of racism in Canadian society due to its emphasis on pluralism, heritage and culture.121 The aim of this study is not to debate the virtues and vices of multiculturalism; instead the discussion will focus on deciphering how multiculturalism affected the emerging discourse of institutional racism in Canada; this is an important topic that has not received historical attention.

Theoretical and Conceptual Perspectives

This study is inspired by the theoretical, conceptual and historiographical frameworks developed by James Walker and David Theo Goldberg. In his monograph "Race," Rights and the

Law in the Supreme Court of Canada: Historical Case Studies, James Walker notes that the history of human rights in Canada can be divided into two phases. Walker dubs the first phase the “protective shield.” During this period, beginning during the 1950s, “racial distinctions” were challenged and “positive laws” were imposed to protect “minorities from overt acts of private discrimination.”122 However, this policy shifted during the 1980s because there was recognition of “non-deliberate” racism. This recognition resulted in a “shift towards more positive intervention”123 which Walker labels the “remedial” era. As noted above, historical writing has focused on the immediate postwar era. This has resulted in an emphasis on the “protective” laws which were passed between 1950 and 1970. However, academics largely have not analyzed the

121 See for example: Will Kymlicka, Multicultural Citizenship: A Liberal Theory of Minority Rights (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995); Charles Taylor, Multiculturalism: Examining the Politics of Recognition, ed. Amy Gutmann (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994); Evelyn Légaré, “Canadian Multiculturalism and Aboriginal People: Negotiating a Place in the Nation,” Identities 1, no.4, (1995): 347-366 and Himani Bannerji, Dark Side of the Nation: Essays on Multiculturalism, Nationalism and Racism (Toronto: Canadian Scholars' Press, 2000). 122 James W. St. G Walker, "Race," Rights and the Law, 325-326. 123 Ibid., 332. 35

“remedial” phase. This study will examine why and how this shift occurred.

This study is also inspired by the theoretical frameworks developed by David Theo

Goldberg.124 Of particular interest to this study is Goldberg’s theory of racelessness. Before this theory can be elaborated it is important to examine Goldberg’s theory of the racist state. This discussion will aid in framing why the Canadian state utilized the rhetoric of racelessness when visible minorities argued that systemic racism inhibited their participation in Canadian society.

Goldberg’s work is groundbreaking. He examines the convergence of modernity, state formation and race and argues that the articulation of race has been fundamental in the emergence and development of modern nation-states.125 Goldberg insists that all modern states reproduce “conditions of racist exclusions” and that “the modern state has always conceived itself as racially configured.”126 To demonstrate this historically, Goldberg examines the history

124 Goldberg is a social theorist and leading critical race scholar. Critical Race theory emerged when scholars began to examine the convergence of race and the law. The fundamental premise behind this theoretical approach is the belief that that visible minorities experience different social realities which are unique and separate from the dominant White experience. To engage is Critical Race theory (CRT) is to engage in a theoretical activity based on several tenents. Methodologically, CRT attempts to deconstruct laws and legal principles and challenges the supposed neutrality of laws that disenfranchise and oppress visible minorities. The first and most fundamental premise of CRT is the belief that racism is ingrained in our existing social, economic and political reality. Racist acts or racist behaviour are not aberrations or abnormalities existing in the personalities of a few, but are imbedded in our society. According to CRT, race determines economic and social prospects. For historians of race and racism, this seems to be an obvious contention as they see this assertion as the premise of their work. CRT has contributed to the study of the convergence of race and the law. See: James W. St. G. Walker, Race”, Law and the Supreme Court of Canada (Waterloo: The Osgoode Society for Canadian Legal History and Wilfred Laurier University Press, 1997), Constance Backhouse, Colour-Coded: a Legal History of Racism in Canada, 1900-1950 (Toronto: the Osgoode Society for Canadian Legal History and University of Toronto Press, 1999) and Barrington Walker, Race on Trial: Black Defendants in Ontario's Criminal Courts, 1858-1958 (Toronto: The Osgoode Society for Canadian Legal History by University of Toronto Press, 2010). Furthermore, CRT has also contributed to the emergence of Critical Whiteness Studies. Whiteness Studies examines the social construction of White identity and White privilege and has greatly advanced the study of race and racism and the discipline of history. See, for example, Noel Ignatiev, How the Irish Became White (New York: Routledge, 1995). Ignatiev examines the role of whiteness in the assimilation of Irish immigrants in mid-nineteenth century America. He argues that the Irish became White through their labour and played a crucial role in the consolidation of whiteness in America during the Jacksonian era. Similarly, David Roediger argues that in the post-Reconstruction era, working class Americans played a key role in the consolidation of whiteness. David R. Roediger, The Wages of Whiteness: Race and the Making of the American Working Class (New York: Verso, 2007). In the Canadian context, see: Kay Anderson, Vancouver’s Chinatown: Racial Discourse in Canada, 1875-1980 (Montréal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1991). Anderson argues that Vancouver’s Chinatown was shaped and constructed by dominant ideologies of whiteness. 125 David Theo Goldberg, The Racial State, 3, 4. 36

of migration and mobility and argues that the racial state emerged because states became heterogeneous. Heterogeneity, however, was seen as a threat to modernity. In an attempt to control heterogeneity or diversity, the modern state imposed race upon the ‘unknowns’ in an attempt to account for and know and control them.127 Goldberg asserts that “[t]he more heterogeneous …societies grew, the more racial definition came to mark their self- characterization.”128

Racial states and racial assumptions, Goldberg argues, are constitutive of modernity.

Early modern states expressed what Goldberg calls ‘naturalism.’ They believed that racial inferiority was a result of biology or nature. The idea of ‘race’ was fixed; racialized others could not evolve. Goldberg contends that this was the dominant conceptualization of race until the 19th century.129 Naturalist states sought “state modernization” through segregation and restrictive immigration regulations.130 For them, racial segregation was a key state project. During the mid nineteenth century, philosophers whom Goldberg calls the ‘historicists’, ‘revisionists’, or

‘progressivists,’ began to revise the naturalist interpretation as they saw inferior races as having the possibility to evolve over time.131 This shift was a gradual cultural and intellectual phenomenon which ultimately did not challenge the idea of European ‘superiority.’132

126 Heterogeneity, Goldberg argues, occurred during the late eighteenth century. It is in this century that states were enclosed and began to be ruled by one authority. Modem states, however, were not homogenous, as colonialism, slavery and the triangular trade made the modern state inherently heterogeneous. Ibid.,163. 127 Ibid., 17-20. 128 Ibid., 29. In the Canadian context, Constance Backhouse’s legal history of racism demonstrates that racial categorization was very much a part of Canada’s nation building process. For example, Backhouse notes that Canada’s 1901 census was aimed at distinguishing and defining a person’s race by their colour. Government census officials took stock of Canada’s population and were instructed to use ““w” for white, “r” for red, “b” for black, and “y” for yellow.” The pigment of ‘brown’, however, remained uncategorized and demonstrates the ubiquity of the concept of ‘race.’ See: Constance Backhouse, Colour-Coded: A Legal History of Racism in Canada, 1. 129 David Theo Goldberg, The Racial State, 72-74. 130 Ibid., 204. 131 Goldberg examines the following historicists: Locke, Comte, Marx, Lord Acton and Mill. Ibid., 43-52. 132 Ibid., 74. It is important to note that historicists did not completely reject racial naturalism as they believed that inherent racial characteristics determined behaviour. They were different from the naturalists as they believed that 37

Historicist conceptualizations of racialized groups had a unique effect on public policy.

Because historicists focused on a discourse of progress, their brand of public policy tended to focus on assimilation and ‘racial uplift’ through education. The goal of the historicist agenda was to deracialize the racialized and to ultimately reconfigure them as White.133 Historicists, therefore, considered the historical effects of ‘race’ inconsequential.134 In contrast to naturalist expressions of racism, the historicist expression of racism was more polite and “coded” and hid

“assumptions about inferiority.”135 The language of “tolerance” was therefore used to mask the continuation of White racial power.136 In the Canadian context, attempts at assimilation and

Europeanization of Natives are key examples of historicism.

During the 20th century historicism became the dominant expression of racial rule.

However, historicist states had to adapt to increasing population growth and rising heterogeneity and global integration, particularly in the post World War II period.137 Goldberg argues that the post World War II period was an era of dislocation and migration which “challenged prevailing hegemonies.”138 For Goldberg, the post World War II era saw a shift from naturalist to historicist forms of racial rule expressed as racelessness and formal colour-blindness.139 In the context of

racialized others were “precursors of modern European ‘man’” with potential for development. This potential for citizenship was qualified, gendered and racialized as Blacks and women did not have (and could not gain) the “rational capacity” for citizenship (46-47). Furthermore, historicism did not signify the end of naturalism. The racial hierarchy under historicist regimes was nuanced as certain groups argued that people could be ‘whitened’ (most notably ‘Indians’) while others were set to remain in a state where progress was not possible. Progress, historicists argued, would be attained if racialized groups were given equal opportunities such as education and limited access to political power. Historicists continued to view Whites as “agents of history,” however, their teleological conceptualization of life allowed the racialized to have limited access to White institutions in order to foster their supposedly “underdeveloped” agency. See: 88. 133 Ibid., 83. 134 Ibid., 204. 135 Ibid., 79. 136 Ibid., 79. 137 Ibid., 140. 138 Ibid., 14. 139 Hybridity and heterogeneity are inevitable results of modernity. Goldberg argues that liberalism promotes tolerance and diversity but only in a theoretical sense. He argues that institutions in liberal states like Canada are 38

public policy, race had to be reconfigured as increased heterogeneity or diversity challenged homogeneity. Modern liberal states such as Canada attempted to mediate this growing heterogeneity with human rights legislation which focused on universalism. Racelessness, or formal colorblindness, however, has become the most effective (and indirect) means of racial rule since the second part of the 20th century as it focuses on formal abstract legal equality.140

Racelessness, Goldberg argues, emerged in response to the civil rights movement, desegregation, and “demographic challenges to privilege and power.”141 In Canada, state imposed and state sanctioned racelessness emerged in the form of official multiculturalism in

1971. Goldberg’s assessment of racelessness is that it is, paradoxically, “raced.”142 In the context of the history of racism and the state, racelessness is a concept which evolved out of historicism.

Like historicism, racelessness emphasizes modernization and racial progress.143 Modernity became synonymous with racelessness. Goldberg asserts that racelessness influences public policy in a detrimental way as racelessness promotes formal legal equality and does not challenge “the institutionalization of race by the state” and does not explore “its routinized assumption in the structure of state institutions.”144 Racelessness, Goldberg argues, has allowed

“inherently homogenizing” because “institutions are predicated principally in instituting, operating, and (re)producing homogeneity.” Liberal states like Canada claim to promote heterogeneity, but in doing so actually promote homogeneity through the “anachronistic” discourse of “managing diversity”, “ordering difference” or “unifying in difference.” Through an official policy of multiculturalism, the Canadian state is able to manage racial conditions. Goldberg argues that the racial state manages heterogeneity and as a result of this management creates a homogenous state. Hybridity and heterogeneity, which in the Canadian context refers to multiculturalism, is therefore celebrated and resisted. Goldberg’s criticism of multiculturalism centres on the fact that multiculturalism celebrates diversity momentarily and in the context of whiteness. Ibid., 30. 140 Ibid., 149. Goldberg argues that racelessness was the “racial solution” for the racial state as segregation and apartheid became too costly to sustain. Furthermore, Goldberg argues that segregation was eventually unable to cope “with the dynamics of rapid and intense ethnoracially diverse urbanization.” See: 208-209. 141 Ibid., 212. Goldberg argues that the definition of racelessness is dependent on the social, political and cultural context. Historically in the US racelessness meant desegregation, in South Africa it meant anti-apartheid, in Europe it meant ethnic pluralism, and in Canada and Australia it meant multiculturalism. See: 211-212. 142 Ibid., 201. 143 Ibid., 203. 144 Ibid., 119. 39

modern states “to assert themselves racially without explicit invocation of racial terms.”145

Racelessness is therefore a “façade” as it is a deracialized or a de facto expression of racial domination and racial exclusion.146 Goldberg concludes that racelessness is problematic as it promotes treating minorities “de facto unlike as de jure alike.”147

Goldberg’s work is important in informing this dissertation for several reasons. Race relations in Canada during the 1960s and 1970s can be conceptualized as a tension between naturalism and historicism in the context of the modern state. The overt and often vicious and dehumanizing physical attacks on racialized groups were most certainly individual expressions of naturalism. People of colour who were admitted to Canada based on the ‘points system’ were highly educated and were seen as “competing for the benefits, privileges, and profits of whiteness.”148 As Goldberg argues, urban violence against visible minorities is an expression of

“anxiety and a crisis in confidence” in Whiteness.149 Perpetuators victimized visible minorities because they believed in White superiority and attempted to impose their conceptualization(s) of a White racial order through violence. Physical violence was a common reaction to the increased visibility of minorities and the state’s expression of Canada as a raceless nation through the introduction of ‘colourblind’ immigration policies, namely the ‘points system’. When racialized

145 Ibid., 119 146 Ibid., 12, Ibid., 203. Goldberg is highly critical of racelessness as he argues that it is a silent expression of whiteness as racelessness is expressed and defined by “white standards and norms.” Racelessness or colorblindness, according to Goldberg is “the ultimate victory of states of whiteness” because the racial states are able to rid themselves of “guilt and self-doubt” for “the lexicon of a bland corporate multiculturalism and ethnic pluralism.”(206-207) As chapter 3 will demonstrate, in the Canadian context, multiculturalism as state policy was the rational and centralized response to the problem of diversity which was becoming ungovernable especially in the urban landscape. 147 Ibid., 212. Emphasis in original. 148 Ibid., 110. 149 Ibid., 196. It is important to note that not all ‘whites’ are in positions of power vis-à-vis ‘nonwhites’. As Goldberg argues - power is subject to class and gender status which “interact with racial standings to produce particular social positions for individuals that do not necessarily conform to standard(ized) identity placements.” Generally, however, nonwhites are “less privileged, powerless, and propertyless.” See: 196. 40

minorities argued that overt violence was symptomatic of larger systemic problems they were met with a historicist state response.150 As Goldberg argues, historicists often argue that “racism is a thing of the past, so contemporary racial inequalities must be due to individual, or even group, inadequacies.”151 This was precisely the response espoused by the municipal, provincial and federal governments when visible minorities charged that they were experiencing systemic and institutional racism.

The continued denial of the existence of institutional and systemic racism was sustained by the endorsement and espousal of racelessness and colorblindness. Government officials argued that the existence of systemic and institutional racism was contrary to reason as Canada was a multicultural and colourblind state accepting of all. The charge that Canada was a racist state was simply preposterous. The federal, provincial and municipal governments deflected the charge of systemic racism by focusing on the overt violence experienced by visible minorities.

The state conceptualized physical violence against people of colour as individual and anomalous racist acts that were emerging “beneath the surface” as most cases of violence were reported as being perpetuated by mischievous and deviant youths.152 This view was most overtly espoused in a 1977 government sponsored study into racism which created a composite of a prototypical racist, arguing that a typical racist was a young unemployed male with an aggressive

150 Goldberg argues that racial violence is normalized when it is blamed on “social forces” (poverty, antagonism, etc) or on “errant individuals.” This was precisely the response espoused by officials when racial violence occurred in Toronto. Goldberg argues that blame goes to “particular perpetrators” and results in the perception that the state is neutral. This is a way in which the state rationalizes racism. See: 122. 151 Ibid., 99. 152 Ibid., 204. Goldberg argues that modern states see naturalist expressions as “extreme, the antique, or the anomaly.” Racelessness curtails government intrusion and intervention and therefore allows for the ‘natural’ reproduction of racial privileges – Goldberg calls this “informal racial reproduction.” States reproduce racial privilege through freedom of association and freedom to accumulate capital – essentially the state sanctions “the freedom to discriminate as one chooses.” Racelessness, therefore, allows for the reemergence of naturalism – as expressed in the private realm. Racelessness allows for naturalism to exist without “explicit state implication.” See: 235-236. 41

predisposition, little education, weak family relationships and problems with alcohol or drug use.153 Initially, the ‘official’ focus was upon overt racial violence rather than the ingrained racism of institutions which resulted in differential education, opportunities, and access experienced by racialized others. Officials rationalized the overt violence as symptomatic of broader socio-economic forces. Government officials, for example, often blamed the overt violence on a decline in employment and housing opportunities which were a result of recessionary economic conditions. Racial violence was therefore rationalized as a result of competition for scarce resources which the government argued fueled resentment and resulted in individual acts of violence against those who were increasingly more ‘visible.’154

Public Policy

Since this project assesses the changes in public policy with respect to racism, it is also important to draw on the theoretical frameworks developed by policy studies scholars. Public policy is an important indicator of the intentions and goals of the state. As Leslie Pal notes, public policy refers to “a course of action or inaction chosen by public authorities to address a given problem or interrelated set of problems” related to social policy.155 Policy scholars note that public policy goes through a stagist cycle which includes: agenda setting, policy formation, decision making, policy implementation and policy evaluation. The ways in which a problem is defined results in how ‘the problem’ is dealt with. During the post war era social scientists believed that racism was caused by individual prejudice. This resulted in public policy aimed at eradicating individual bigotry.

Since the beginning of policy studies during the 1960s, scholars interested in public

153 Ibid., 51-92. 154 Ibid., 228. 155 Leslie Pal, Public Policy Analysis: An Introduction (Scarborough: Nelson Canada, 1992), 2. 42

policy have disagreed about the nature of agenda setting. The main questions posed are: ‘who sets the agenda?’ and ‘who defines the problem?’ During the 1960s, 1970s and early 1980s, the prominent view among policy studies scholars was that interest groups were more powerful in shaping policy through government institutions. This approach was challenged during the mid to late 1980s by scholars who argued that policy changes came from the federal, provincial, municipal levels. They argued that powerful governmental institutions imposed policy “rules.”

Their ‘institutional approach’ became the dominant framework in policy studies during the 1990s and beyond.156

Scholars who espouse the ‘institutional approach’ argue that the political structure promotes specific ideologies.157 They argue that it is the state that sets public policy because it is the state that controls policy initiatives and monitors policy planning.158 This approach is also critical of the ‘interest-groups’ framework which was propagated during the 1960s and 1970s.

These scholars argue that advocacy and interest groups often present biased research in an attempt to gain support and achieve their goals. These groups, they argue, do not have real influence although they occasionally contribute valuable ideas.159 In an attempt to challenge the

‘interest-group approach,’ the institutional view asks the question:

why are patterns of action relatively stable and coherent over time? If politics were just a matter of underlying forces or indeed of the micro-behaviour of individuals, there would be more variation in political systems [and public policy.]160

The ‘institutional framework’ projects a rather narrow view of how public policy changes occur.

156 Ibid., 4. See also: William D. Coleman and Grace Skogstad, Policy Communities and Public Policy in Canada: A Structural Approach (Toronto: Copp Clark Pitman, 1990), 2. 157 Ibid. 158 Ibid., 19. 159 Peter B. Evans, Dietrich Rueschemeyer and Theda Skocpol, Bringing the State Back In (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985). 160 Leslie Pal, Public Policy Analysis: An Introduction, 100. 43

To begin, this framework assumes that problems exist and wait to be recognized by the government thus reducing policy initiatives to the realm of the bureaucracy. Furthermore, this framework ignores the historically documented agency of individuals and minorities who sought recognition of rights and accommodation to their particular cultural differences. Lastly, this framework relegates power relations to the government and underestimates the influence of participatory politics. The Canadian government is most likely too fragmented to support this framework as federalism and parliamentarianism reduce the power of the federal government.

This dissertation aims to present a more integrated approach than the frameworks developed by some policy scholars as it will demonstrate that policy changes are influenced by other factors including pressure from interest groups, public opinion and media.

A Transnational Comparison

Were deteriorating race relations in 1970s Canada particularly Toronto an aberration or a part of a larger transnational cultural trend? Although there was uniqueness in the Canadian experience, a point of comparison in regard to the recognition of systemic racism lies in the

British experience. Much like Canada, Great Britain experienced postwar immigration from the

West Indies, Pakistan and Asia. Initially, the influx of visible minorities was unrestricted as these immigrants were from decolonizing nations and were admitted on the basis of British citizenship.161 However, this influx was destabilizing for a historically White country and helped to bring about riots by Whites against Blacks. The riots, which took place in Nottingham and

Notting Hill in 1958, were attributed to “undesirable immigrants,” who were deemed to be a threat to the “English way of life.”162 The riots, however, were in fact a reflection of the

161 John Solomos, Race and Racism in Britain (Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan, 2003), 52. 162 Ibid., 54-55. Political parties also articulated the desire for a White Britain. For example, the Labour party platform during the 1960s advocated a “white Britain policy.” See: 63. 44

resurgence of White power groups and White extremists.163 The riots were followed by a vehement debate about the future of Britain and resulted in a more restrictive immigration policy designed to quell the racial tension.164 This closed-door policy was successful in stemming the tide of and as noted earlier, contributed to an influx of visible minorities who were admitted to

Canada.165

By the 1970s, visible minorities in Britain began to articulate problems with respect to police relations.166 These accusations resulted in the establishment of the Commission for Racial

Equality in 1976. This tribunal was similar to the Ontario Human Rights Commission (OHRC) that was established in Ontario in 1962. Much like the OHRC, the British tribunal was established to create a forum where racial grievances could be heard. This tribunal recognized the existence of what it called “indirect discrimination” but focused on conciliation and discrimination toward individuals. The tribunal defined this type of discrimination as “treatment that could be described as equal in a formal sense but discriminatory in its effect on one particular racial group.”167 The goal of the tribunal was to “(a) to work towards the elimination of discrimination, (b) to promote equality of opportunity and good race relations, and (c) to keep under review the working of the Act and draw up proposals for amendments to it.” The ultimate goal was to eliminate discrimination in employment, promote equal opportunity and challenge racist attitudes of individuals toward minorities. Although these regulations disallowed discrimination based on “colour, race, nationality or ethnic or national origins,” they were

163 Ibid., 55. See also: Harry Goulbourne, Race Relations in Britain Since 1945 (London: Macmillan Press Ltd, 1998), 54. 164 John Solomos, Race and Racism in Britain, 52-53. Also, Goulbourne notes that in 1968 and 1971 there were marches against immigration from decolonizing nations. One MP argued that “rivers of blood” would run if Blacks admitted to the UK. See: Harry Goulbourne, Race Relations in Britain Since 1945, 55. 165 Vic Satzewich, Racism and the Incorporation of Foreign Labour, 17. 166 Harry Goulbourne, Race Relations in Britain since 1945, 65. 167 John Solomos, Race and Racism in Britain, 84-85. 45

essentially prohibitive regulations which focused on outlawing “many acts of racial discrimination.”168

The establishment of the tribunal was a result of an intellectual and policy debate which attempted to promote equality among individuals, not to redress the barriers created by racial discrimination.169 The emphasis was on individual discrimination; little attention was paid to systemic and institutional racism – although there was awareness of its presence as the tribunal recognized the existence of “indirect discrimination.” The lack of a comprehensive recognition of institutional racism resulted in the formation of counter-narrative by visible minorities. As in the Canadian case, British visible minorities protested discrimination in “education, housing, employment, immigration, nationality laws, and so forth.”170 Many of these minorities were

British-born youths born to the immigrant generation who had been radicalized by the ideas of the Black Panther Movement, Africanism and African liberation.171

These calls for rights occurred in the context of yet another expression of racial violence.

In April 1981 riots took place in Brixton and resulted in organized demonstrations across Great

Britain. Minorities who participated in the riots argued that they experienced “differential incorporation” in housing, education, policing, and employment.172 The Brixton riots resulted in the establishment of a government inquiry to investigate racism against African and West

Caribbean immigrants. Chaired by Lord Leslie Scarman, the report argued that the policies which were instituted during the 1970s (such as the Commission for Racial Equality) had failed to make a major impact on “the roots of racial disadvantage.”173 Scarman argued that Blacks felt

168 Harry Goulbourne, Race Relations in Britain since 1945, 102. 169 Ibid. 170 Ibid., 64. 171 Ibid., 65. These ‘radicals’ established the Black Unity and Freedom Party in 1970 which was committed to radically attacking racial discrimination. 172Ibid., 98. 46

alienated and powerless and concluded that “[a] successful policy for tackling the roots of urban disorder was seen as one that would involve all members of a community.”174 Urban violence was thus caused by larger, systemic forces, not only by the actions of individuals who participated in the riots. Policy proposals were made to address these structural inequalities.

For example, recommendations were made to improve policing and the address the social and economic disadvantages experienced by Blacks in Britain.175 While Scarman’s report recognized the historical nature of racism in British society, others in the media argued that the riots were ignited by people who “had been driven by irrational, uncivilized and criminal instincts.”176

Scarman himself argued that West Indian families were pathological because their youths were drawn to crime and violence.177 Despite these arguments, the political response gravitated toward recognition that Blacks were marginalized and resulted in policy initiatives which attempted to address policing, housing, employment discrimination and other social policies which resulted in racial discrimination.178 Scarman’s report was important as it “called for coordinated, government-led action against racial disadvantage” and resulted in various reforms aimed at addressing institutional racism.179 As in Canada’s case, by 1980s, British policy makers recognized that positive action to address systemic racism was necessary.

The British government’s recognition of systemic racism brings to light important themes that will be incorporated into this study. First, the evidence of the influence of the Black Panther

Movement and Africanism among Britain’s visible minorities suggests that these movements had

173 John Solomos, Race and Racism in Britain, 85. 174 Ibid., 152. 175 Ibid., 161. 176 Ibid., 152. 177 Ibid., 163. 178 Ibid., 162. 179 Ibid., 65. Solomos argues that little was done to attack political, social and economic injustice in Britain. This resulted in more riots in 1985. See: 153. 47

global ramifications with respect to human rights and public policy. This study will reveal the influence of these intellectual movements in the formation of a counter-narrative by Canada’s visible minorities. The British experience also emphasizes that debates about immigration are often grounded in discussions about the meaning of nationhood. As has been pointed out in the

British experience, visible minority immigrants were “seen…as a hindrance to the emergence of a new [British] identity.”180 In the Canadian context, the story of the recognition of systemic racism will be contextualized with important events to demonstrate that the 1970s were a volatile period in Canadian history. Canadians were debating what it was to be ‘Canadian’ during a time of student radicalism, Aboriginal protest and rising Québec nationalism. As Frances Henry and

Carol Tator point out, “[d]iscourses on race and racism [often] converge with concerns about

Canadian identity, [and] national unity.”181

Sources

Since this study examines the shift in public policy from an emphasis on individual discrimination to systemic racism, it will draw on primary government sources from municipal, provincial and federal levels. The goal is to analyze the dominant discourse of various state actors at all levels to provide a “public transcript” of the common “beliefs, assumptions, and values” held by public figures as representatives of the state.182 Specifically, this study will draw on government reports and publications on prejudice, racism and immigration. These include publications of the Department of Manpower and Immigration, the Ontario Human Rights

Commission, the Fair Employment Practices Branch and the Department of External Affairs.

180 Harry Goulbourne, Race Relations in Britain since 1945, 52 181 Frances Henry and Carol Tator, The Colour of Democracy: Racism in Canadian Society, 23. 182 Ibid., 3.

48

The records of the Multiculturalism Directorate, the Department of the Secretary of State and

Ontario’s Ministry of Education and Training will also be utilized. These sources will be used to analyze how governments at various levels conceptualized racism. Records of the

Multiculturalism Directorate and the Department of the Secretary of State Papers are also important in gauging how multiculturalism as public policy affected activism. Provincial and federal parliamentary Debates will also be utilized to demonstrate that racial incidents in Toronto were of great concern to Canada’s politicians on the provincial and national levels.

The counter-narrative espoused by visible minorities will be supported by a wide variety of sources. Toronto-based ethnic newspapers such as Contrast and published works including monographs and articles by people of colour will be utilized to emphasize the struggles of visible minorities in Toronto. Periodicals and daily newspapers, most notably the Toronto Star and the

Globe and Mail, will also be consulted to contextualize the struggles of minorities and to demonstrate that people of colour were actively voicing their concerns by organizing demonstrations and writing editorials to major newspapers. The study will also analyze several private and public enquiries into racism. These enquiries, which were conducted between 1974 and 1982, demonstrate the state’s shifting understanding of racism. For example, early publicly-funded enquiries focused on overt manifestations of racism. In contrast, private enquiries which were commissioned by visible minority groups were first to emphasize that racial violence was a symptom of the inequalities rooted in Canadian institutions. The counter- narrative created by minorities demonstrates the tensions which existed between dominant White elites and ethnic minorities. These sources also demonstrate that from continued studies of structural discrimination there emerged a new understanding of the ‘problem’ of race relations in

Toronto. Because this new definition emphasized systemic discrimination, officials responded

49

with systemic solutions to the ‘problem.’

Public policy changes to the policies and practices of public institutions such as media outlets, school systems and police departments will be supported by documents released by various school boards (i.e. York, Toronto, Scarborough), police departments, and media outlets.

Lastly, the fonds of Thomas Symons will be utilized to analyze the revision of the Ontario

Human Rights Code in 1981.

This study is divided into five chapters. Chapter One, entitled Immigration, Changing

Conceptualizations of ‘Race’ and Racism in Postwar Canada discusses race and racism in twentieth-century Canada and examines changes to immigration regulations which facilitated large-scale immigration of people of colour to Canada. The chapter also examines perceptions of discrimination in 1960s Ontario.

Chapter Two, entitled In the Shadow of the Sir George Williams Affair: The Racial Order in 1960s Canada examines the Sir George Williams Affair and argues that the event was significant as it was one of the first organized expressions against institutional racism. The chapter will demonstrate that the event politicized Blacks across Canada and resulted in a concerted effort by various non-governmental organizations and individuals to fight systemic and overt racism. The discussion of the Sir George Williams Affair will be juxtaposed with an examination of the debate surrounding hate propaganda legislation which dominated human rights activism during the mid-to-late 1960s. The discussion will demonstrate that federal and provincial state officials and White human rights activists defined and perceived racism in much different terms than Canada’s Black activists; those involved in the passage of the hate law conceived racism as a spontaneous phenomenon perpetrated by prejudiced individuals. This

50

conceptualization of racism further reinforced the notion that Canada was a raceless and tolerant nation.

Chapter Three, entitled Multiculturalism and the Bureaucratization of Ethnic Politics,

1971-1974 examines multiculturalism as public policy. The aims of this chapter are two-fold.

First, the chapter will demonstrate that multiculturalism resulted in the bureaucratization of ethnic politics as ethnic organizations looked to the government for funding, information and guidance. In essence, vibrant ethnic organizations became administrative bodies and began to deliver social services to incoming immigrants. Secondly, the chapter will show that multiculturalism narrowed the discourse of racism in 1970s Canada as the politics of multiculturalism perpetuated and, in fact, entrenched the notion of a raceless Canada.

Chapter Four, entitled Race, Racism, and Resistance in 1970s Toronto, examines the emergence of overt acts of discrimination against visible minorities from decolonizing Asian,

African and Caribbean countries. This chapter demonstrates that stories of individual acts of racism revealed a broader problem of systemic and institutional racism as racial violence politicized ethnic groups and facilitated the emergence of organized and loosely-based ethnic policy networks which used the language of rights to press for the recognition of institutional racism. This chapter will also show that through the prevailing notion of a raceless Canada attempted to silence arguments for the existence of systemic racism in Canada. When organizations and individuals argued that racism was inherent in Canadian institutions, they were met with denial from public officials who often used the rhetoric of multiculturalism to argue that claims of racism were absurd as Canada was a nation of acceptance and cultural pluralism.

Chapter Five, entitled The State Response: A Recognition of Systemic Racism, examines the state recognition of systemic racism and aims to demonstrate that this recognition resulted in

51

the implementation of anti-discrimination policy changes, including revisions of the existing

Ontario Human Rights Code and changes to the policies and practices of public institutions. The

Conclusion offers a discussion of the factors which contribute to the persistence of institutional racism in contemporary Canadian society.

52

Chapter Two: Immigration, Changing Conceptualizations of ‘Race’ and Racism in Postwar Canada

In May 1965, Eric Williams the Prime Minister of Trinidad and Tobago, approached the podium at the University of New Brunswick convocation ceremony to receive an honorary doctor of laws degree. Williams did not give an archetypical speech – he did not thank the

University for the degree nor did he attempt to awaken optimism in the students about the utility of their recent degrees. Instead, Williams charged that Canada’s immigration policies were designed to keep Canada White. Williams asserted that the West Indies were under the rule of economic colonialism and criticized world leaders for the persistence of “racial inequality and discrimination against people of colour, as if they were poison or disease.”1 Accusing the

Commonwealth of discrimination he said:

Today the world has worked out the curious hybrid of judicial equality of states and racial inequality of peoples. Australia is determined to remain white; Canada eases its conscience by accepting a handful of domestic servants; the contemporary slogan is “keep Britain white”, the very Britain which was built up by African and Asian Labour in Africa, Asia and the West Indies. Whatever the Commonwealth may be in theory, it is in practice being increasingly tainted with racial limitation.2

Williams made these accusations in light of the fact that Canada’s new immigration regulations, which had been enacted in 1962, falsely promised equal rights of entry irrespective of race, colour or nationality. When the new regulations passed in 1962, Ellen Fairclough, the Minister of

Citizenship and Immigration, proclaimed to Canada and the world that Canada’s immigration policy was free from discrimination:

I feel confident that our friends in the many countries in the free world outside Canada, as well as those within Canada, who were concerned with the matter, will be satisfied that the legislation itself bears no hint whatever of discrimination as far as unsponsored

1 “No Intervention Trinidad Stand, Williams Says,” Globe and Mail, May 21, 1965. 2 Canada, House of Commons Debates (7 March 1966), p. 2313. 53

immigrants are concerned. I am equally determined that in the administration of these regulations, no trace of discrimination will be allowed to creep in.3

Fairclough described this change as a shift in “behaviour and attitudes.” Canada, she argued, was maturing as a nation. Concepts of equality and nondiscrimination were necessary as international attitudes of tolerance were “constantly evolving.” Moreover, Fairclough hoped that the regulations would demonstrate to decolonizing nations that Canada was an accepting and colourblind nation:

The newly emerging nations of the world will be watching with interest to see how sincere we are in applying our new immigration policy and the reception the Canadian people give to the newcomers. We have here a golden opportunity – perhaps there may not be too many more – to demonstrate to these people that Canadians too realize that the winds of change are blowing. The maturity we show today can reap big dividends for future generations.4

The 1962 regulations ostensibly demonstrated that Canada was moving away from racial discrimination. Discrimination, however, remained on the statute books. Leaders of newly emerging nations were watching and they realized that the new regulations continued to favor

European immigration through sponsorship regulations. Residents of African and Asian countries, for example, could not be sponsored.5 Visa offices were also absent from developing nations like Trinidad and Tobago and the new policy continued to impose quotas. The Canadian government, however, noted that the quotas remained but applicants were no longer limited by them if they had skills Canada was looking for.6 The policy, though formally colourblind, was far from non-discriminatory. Racism on ethnic and geographic grounds remained.

Immigration statistics revealed that removal of references of race and nationality had not resulted in an increase of non-White immigrants. In fact, approximately ninety-five percent of

3 David Corbett, “Canada’s Immigration Policy, 1957-1962,” International Journal 18 (1963): 174. 4 Ibid., 179-180. 5 Louis Parai, “Canada’s Immigration Policy, 1962-74,” International Migration Review 9, no.4 (1975): 456. 6 David Corbett, “Canada’s Immigration Policy, 1957-1962,” 172. 54

immigrants were White.7 This was precisely what Eric Williams was protesting. Williams’ comments prompted the Globe and Mail to question whether Canada’s immigration policy was intended to keep Canada White. In an editorial shortly after Williams’ speech, the Globe argued that Williams’ comments were in contradiction to Canada’s commitment to immigration policies

“without discrimination of any kind.” The editorial expressed confusion about Canada’s immigration policies and stated that “[i]f there is a quota placed on coloured immigrants, let the

Government say so. If there is not, then let the statistics say so.”8

Eric Williams’ comments were controversial and elicited comment from Parliament Hill

– commentary which continued to be expressed nearly a year after the speech. In March 1966,

David Orlikow, an NDP member from Winnipeg North, lamented that Williams’ speech was a

“sad commentary” on the state of immigration policy in Canada and wished that “this kind of thing will not only disappear but so that it will become known to people concerned that in fact our immigration policy is one which ignores questions of race, colour, and religion.”9

Opposition Leader John Diefenbaker responded to the allegations made by Williams by arguing that during his time in office he had removed racial discrimination from immigration regulations

“in fact or in theory.” Special provisions and privileges were not given to Commonwealth countries as this would have implied that Canada had a “colour bar.”10 Diefenbaker argued that potential immigrants were evaluated based on their skills and expressed hope that the Conference with Commonwealth Caribbean countries which was to be held in July 1966 would bring understanding about supposed discrimination. Diefenbaker asserted that the non-discriminatory

7 For example, in 1964 Canada admitted 112, 606 immigrants. 1493 were West Indian, 2127 were Chinese, 1309 were Indian and 104 were Japanese. Canada, House of Commons Debates (7 March 1966), p. 5963. 8 Editorial, “Keeping Canada white?,” Globe and Mail, May 24, 1965. 9 Canada, House of Commons Debates (7 March 1966), p. 319. 10 David Corbett, “Canada’s Immigration Policy, 1957-1962,” 170. 55

nature of Canada’s immigration policies were something that was “not well understood in these countries in the Caribbean” and hoped that the Conference would emphasize that Canada’s stand on immigration was colourblind.11

The Liberal government admitted that certain provisions in the revised immigration regulations were discriminatory in nature. The new Minister of Manpower and Immigration Jean

Marchand explained the policy’s various exclusionary provisions lingered because of “historical reasons.” However, Marchand asserted that despite the discriminatory provisions, Canada was a democratic nation which was in a position to accept immigrants irrespective of their colour, religion, race or language. In a rather contradictory statement Marchand argued that Canada did not practice discrimination – this, he argued, was a “basic” fact.12

It was obvious to several Members of Parliament that Canada’s immigration regulations remained discriminatory. Andrew Brewin, an NDP Member of Parliament from Greenwood and a long supporter of human rights argued that Canada’s immigration policy should be completely non-discriminatory as this would serve Canada internationally. For Brewin, a non-discriminatory immigration policy was “important to the good name of Canada.”13 Another plea was made by

Richard Albert Bell, a PC Member of Parliament from Carleton who succeeded Ellen Fairclough in the Citizenship and Immigration portfolio in 1962. Bell argued that Canada had entered the age of tolerance and could not practice discrimination on racial, religious, colour or national grounds. Canada, Bell argued, had a duty “to make every immigrant feel that he can become a full and equal Canadian.” Bell claimed that colourblind policies were necessary as “there are no master races in Canada.”14

11 Canada, House of Commons Debates (29 April 1966), p. 4496. 12 Canada, House of Commons Debates (7 March 1966), p. 2327. 13 Canada, House of Commons Debates (14 October 1966), p. 8653. 14 Canada, House of Commons Debates (14 October 1966), p. 8652-8653. 56

Other Members of Parliament argued that Canada’s immigration policy needed revisions because it did not reflect Canada’s need for skilled workers. The major concern was that Canada would not be able to remain competitive in an increasingly complex world economy. The link between labour market needs and immigration had to be firmly reemphasized. It was in late

1965 that Prime Minister Lester. B. Pearson established the Department of Manpower and

Immigration, which amalgamated the Department of Labour, the National Employment Service and the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. By 1966, various political figures were pressing the government to alter immigration regulations as a means to stimulate Canada’s waning economy. One major concern was that many Canadians and landed immigrants were immigrating to the United States for better economic opportunities. In 1962, for example,

72 000 immigrants came to Canada and nearly that many left for the United States.15

It is in this context that the federal government commissioned a study of immigration

policy and of the recent 1962 changes. The goal of the study was to the assess sponsorship

regulations which Eric Williams had so vehemently criticized. Entitled the White Paper on

Immigration, the document was tabled on 14 October 1966.16 Although the White Paper was

commissioned to examine the issue of sponsorship, much of the report focused on Canada’s

economic future and argued that Canada was “a highly complex industrialized and urbanized

society” needing a quality workforce. The report espoused an expansionist immigration policy

aimed at attracting skilled and professional workers. Sponsorship regulations were thus

discussed in the context of the increased demand for skilled workers.17 The report played a key

15 Canada, House of Commons Debates (9 June 1967), p.1350. 16 Canada, House of Commons Debates (14 October 1966), p.8651. 57

role in the creation of the ‘points system’ – a system which was intended to meet the

“manpower needs” of Canada’s economy and also abolish all vestiges of discrimination in

Canada’s White immigration policy.18

The changes to the immigration regulations were announced in September 1967 by Jean

Marchand who stated that the aims of the regulations were twofold. The first aim was to “give increased recognition to family relationships” and the second aim was to attract economic immigrants.19 The new regulations established three categories of immigrants: sponsored, nominated and independent. Nominated and independent applicants were evaluated on a points system that attempted to attract skilled workers and business immigrants.20 The federal government viewed the regulations as a “systematic” method of immigrant selection which would guard objectivity and ensure the settlement of “quality” immigrants.21 Potential immigrants were assessed on a scale of 0 to 20 and had to obtain 50 points to be admitted into

Canada.22 In comparison to previous immigration regulations, the federal government argued that the new system was equitable and impartial as the new regulations did not impose any quotas.

This chapter will argue that the 1967 immigration regulations signified Canada’s attempt at mediating growing international heterogeneity with an immigration policy that focused on universalism and formal abstract equality. But as this chapter will demonstrate, the points system

17 Canada, Department of Manpower and Immigration. White Paper on Immigration. Ottawa: Queen’s Printer, 1966. The report demonstrated that the majority of sponsored immigrants were from Southern Europe, many of whom were unskilled workers. See: pages 10-13. 18 Canada, House of Commons Debates (14 October 1966), p.8651. 19 Freda Hawkins, Canada and Immigration: Public Policy and Public Concern (Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1988), 11. 20 Joseph Kage, “Recent Changes in Canadian Immigration Regulations,” International Migration Review 2, no.1 (1967): 47. 21 Lakshmana G. Rao, Anthony H. Richmond and Jerzy Zubrzycki, Immigrants in Canada and Australia, 75. 22 Ibid., 17. 58

did not erase all vestiges of discrimination in Canada’s immigration policy. The significance of the points system, however, is that the new regulations resulted in an influx of skilled visible minorities who expected equal treatment. This expectation was fuelled by the discourse surrounding the new immigration regulations and through them, the notion of racelessness. The new regulations were applauded by state actors who viewed the regulations as impartial and colourblind. When visible minorities claimed that institutional discrimination existed in Canada during the 1970s, they were met with provincial and federal government retorts which often invoked the non-discriminatory nature of Canada’s immigration. The points system was also utilized as an explanatory tool by state officials when racial violence erupted in major cities across Canada, particularly Toronto. Racial violence, officials argued, was caused by pathological individuals who were seeing a visible demographic change as a result of the new

‘non-discriminatory’ immigration regulations.

The discussion of immigration changes in the post war period requires a discussion of how ‘race’ and racism have been conceived of and imagined in the historical context. This discussion will demonstrate that the adoption of the points system was the outcome of a gradual and contested process. This chapter examines notions of race in pre and postwar Canada, changing goals of immigration policy, settlement patterns in the post-points system era and state perceptions of discrimination in 1960s Ontario.

Race in Pre World War II Canada

When the Fathers of Confederation drafted the British North America Act they envisioned a White Dominion composed of a majority of Anglo-Saxon Protestants and a minority of French-

Canadian Catholics. To ensure that the Dominion would grow into a White settler society, the

59

federal government contrived the “National Policy” – a strategy which encouraged economic growth through tariffs, the building of a transnational railway and mass immigration from the

British Isles.23 To attract British settlers, the federal government established a land grant system and enacted the Dominion Lands Act in 1872. The Act allotted 160 acres to males over the age of twenty-one who paid the required registration fee.24 However, these settlement endeavours were not as fruitful as the government had hoped. The land available was often acquired by settlers with little experience in homesteading.25

The building of the Canadian Pacific Railway was also impeded by a lack of amenable

White labour. Out of economic necessity, the Dominion had to incorporate foreign labour into

Canada’s social landscape. In 1882, Sir John A. Macdonald explained to the House of Commons why Canada was allowing boatloads of Chinese sojourners to settle in the West: “[a]t present this is simply a question of alternatives – either you must have this [Chinese] labour or you cannot have the railway...”26 By the mid 1880s, the railway had been built and Canada was looking for permanent settlers to fill the “empty lands” west of Ontario. Because the federal government believed that extensive agricultural immigration was key to Canadian affluence it contrived aggressive advertising campaigns to attract potential immigrants.27 Initially, the government’s efforts resulted in an influx of Americans looking for land (Americans were eager for land as they believed that the American frontier was closing) and those seeking religious refuge.

However, the numbers were not sufficient to contribute to substantial agricultural development.

With a failed attempt to attract suitable American settlers, Canada focused on recruitment from

23 Ninette Kelley and Michael Trebilcock, The Making of the Mosaic, 61. 24 Ibid., 68. 25 Ibid., 72. 26 Canada, House of Commons Debates (12 May 1882), p.1477. 27 Valarie Knowles, Strangers at Our Gates: Canadian Immigration and Immigration Policy, 1540-1995 (Toronto: Dundurn Press, 1997), 61. 60

Eastern and Central Europe where hearty immigrants would be found.28 These were pragmatic measures as Canadians did not envision a non-British Dominion.

J.S. Woodsworth’s 1909 publication Strangers at Our Gates: Or Coming Canadians attempted to calm Anglo-Saxon fears about the suitability of these immigrants. Woodsworth sought to quell apprehensions about incoming foreigners by emphasizing that the majority were

White and able to assimilate to the norms of Anglo-Celtic culture. For example, Galicians,

Woodworth noted, were “fair-haired” and Swedes were “clear-skinned.”29 Furthermore,

Woodsworth humanized the experiences of European immigrants by asserting that migration required courage and endurance which resulted in an influx of immigrants with “a high type of character.”30 Most importantly, however, Woodsworth assured his readers that non-English speaking foreigners would conform to Canadian life because of “the powers of adaptation.”31 To assist in the assimilation process Woodsworth advocated that Canadians should repudiate

“certain arrogant superiority and exclusiveness…characteristic of the English race” and realize that other languages, customs and religions had their value as the world was made up of “a great many other types than our own, and some just as good, though different.”32

Woodworth was not, however, advocating a multicultural Canada. Homogeneity,

Woodsworth believed, was essential to Canada’s “democratic institutions and conducive to the

28 Ibid., 70 29 James S. Woodsworth, Strangers Within Our Gates or Coming Canadians (Toronto: F. C. Stephenson, 1909), 29. 30 Ibid., 48. Woodworth and other social reformers were against the admission of criminals, paupers and those with infectious diseases. See: 272. 31Ibid., 49. Woodworth argued that most immigrants – with the exception of “[t]he Mongolians, the Hindus and the negroes” – would assimilate through intermarriage. See: 217. Furthermore, to promote assimilation, Woodsworth argued against immigrant enclaves and proposed that assimilation could occur though compulsory education, the media, and immigrant participation in unions and political organizations. See: 280-286. 32 Ibid., 289. Woodworth also argued that immigrants would contribute to the Canadian economy. Most notably, he contended that immigrants contributed by settling the land and building crucial infrastructure. He also noted that immigrants contributed to the development of the industrial and factory systems and the invention of machinery. See: 220-225. 61

general welfare.”33 Woodsworth believed the most desirable immigrants were from Great

Britain and the United States followed by Scandinavians, Germans, the French, Southeastern

Europeans, immigrants from the Balkans, Jews, and Italians. The least desirable and inassimilable, Woodsworth concluded, were Orientals, Blacks and Indians.34 These groups would not contribute to Canada’s “national development.”35 Woodsworth’s work was published during a volatile period of rapid of industrialization and urbanization and reflected the popularity of eugenics and other forms of scientific racism during that era. In Strangers,

Woodsworth espoused common beliefs about race based on ‘scientific’ evidence. He was not alone is his assertions about the desirability of various races. Social reformers, clergymen, philanthropists and middle-class women believed that the Anglo-Saxon race was being threatened.36

Woodsworth was a historicist who believed that “lesser races” could achieve a higher

33 Ibid., 277. 34 Ibid., 50-194. Although Aboriginals were not immigrants, Woodsworth argued that Indians were too dependent on the state for aid and subsistence. He argued that this dependency could be counteracted with industrial education. See: 193. 35 Ibid., 278. 36 Angus McLaren, Our Own Master Race: Eugenics in Canada, 1885-1945 (Toronto: McClelland & Stewart Inc., 1990), 68-88. From the turn of the century, Canada’s birth rate began to decrease. For example, the national crude birth rate (number of births per 1000) was 29.3 in 1921 and decreased to 20.3 in 1936. In 1901, Ontario’s birth rate was 108 births per 1000 women and dropped to 79 births per 1000 women in 1931. See: Dianne Dodd, “The Canadian Birth Control Movement, 1929-1939” (master’s thesis, University of Toronto, 1982.), 7. The decreasing birth rate caused heightened anxiety among the middle-class in the post World War I era. Social reformers believed that the war had killed off the best people and feared that the middle-class was not reproducing at a sufficient rate. Furthermore, the birth rate of immigrants and the working class and poor continued to grow and this increased the concerns of the middle-class. There was a fear among the Anglo-Protestants that the ‘British stock’ would eventually be out-numbered by immigrants. Those who believed in this “race suicide” generally believed in eugenics. Eugenicists believed that human characteristics were hereditary and that the human race could be improved by weeding out of unfavourable characteristics. They believed that disease, alcoholism and insanity were passed down and inherited from defective parents. Their solution to social ills was sterilization of the unfit and feeble-minded. Furthermore, eugenicists feared social unrest and wanted to relieve the middle-class of the tax burden caused by “social dependents” and transients. Poverty, they argued, could be relieved if the poor had fewer children. Those who believed in eugenics argued that infant and maternal mortality, venereal disease, prostitution, alcoholism, crime feeble-mindedness and juvenile delinquency were directly caused by the uncontrolled reproduction of “social degenerates.” See: Dodd, 3, 59. 62

level of civilization. As Woodsworth’s work demonstrates, historicists did not reject racial naturalism but they believed that racialized others had the potential for development.

Racialization – a process in which racial meanings and identities are constructed and gain social meaning – produced fluid and ambiguous conceptualizations of races.37 As a result, the desirability of various groups was also fluid. At various points in Canadian history anti-

Catholicism, anti-Semitism, and anti-Irish sentiments were pervasive and demonstrated the complex nature of ‘race.’38 Racialization and inferiorization of ethnic groups was most often invoked against those ethnic groups which were visibly ‘the other.’

The racialization or ‘othering’ of various ethnic groups which J.S. Woodsworth espoused had a long history in the Western world. In fact, it was during the late nineteenth century that phenotypical characteristics such as “skin colour, hair texture and facial structure” began to be associated with behavioural traits. ‘Race’ began to have social meaning.39 This “racial typology”

37 See: David Theo Goldberg, “The Semantics of Race,” in Racism, eds. Martin Bulmer and John Solomos (Oxford University Press, 1999), 375. Racialization is a broad term used to describe the process of the imposition of racial meanings. The Oxford English dictionary traces the term to 1899. Racialization, however, was not widely used until Michael Banton introduced the term to the field of sociology in his 1977 work titled The Idea of Race. Banton defined racialization as “a mode of [racial] categorization.” For Banton, only the phenotypically ‘different’ could be racialized. See: Michael Banton, The Idea of Race (London, Tavistock, 1977), 18-19. Since Banton’s publication, scholars have complicated the term. For example, Robert Miles, a neo-Marxist scholar, argues that racism is an expression of class divisions. Miles asserts that migrant labour has been historically racialized through state policy. He rejects Banton’s assertion that only visible minority groups have been historically racialized by demonstrating that non-visible groups such as Jews have also been historically racialized. For Miles, colour and decent are not necessary factors for racialization to occur. See: Robert Miles, Racism (London: Routedge, 1989), 75. In Realism and Racism: Concepts of Race in Sociological Research Bob Carter broadens Miles’ definition by arguing that racialization is based on ideas about race which are imbedded in the cultural system. Racialization, for Carter, is part of the cultural process and is produced and reproduced by the social practices of dominant groups. See: Bob Carter, Realism and Racism: Concepts of Race in Sociological Research (London: Routedge, 2000), 91. 38 For a discussion of anti-Catholicism in pre-Confederation Canada see: S.W. See, “‘An Unprecedented Influx’: Nativism and Irish Famine Immigration to Canada,” American Review of Canadian Studies 30, no.4 (2000): 429- 453 and Michael Cottrell, “St. Patrick’s Day Parades in Nineteenth-Century Toronto: A Study of Immigrant Adjustment and Elite Control,” in A Nation of Immigrants: Women, Workers, and Communities in Canadian History, 1840-1960s, ed. Franca Iacovetta et al, (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1998), 35-54. For a discussion of anti-Semitism see: Gerald Tulchinsky, Branching Out: The Transformation of the Canadian Jewish Community (Toronto: Stoddart, 1998). Recent work in ‘whiteness studies’ demonstrates that racialization allowed for “exploitation between whites … [particularly] between Saxon, Celtic, Norman, Irish, Welsh Scottish, and English communities.” Whiteness was socially constructed and therefore allowed for the maintenance and preservation of Anglo-Celtic privilege. See: Constance Backhouse, 6. 39 Peter Li. Race and Ethnic Relations in Canada, 5. 63

was constructed by Europeans in the era of imperialism and conquest and was legitimated by evolutionary ‘science’ which stratified ‘races’ along a hierarchy.40 As a result, the idea of ‘race’ came to mean permanent physical attributes which resulted in unchangeable behaviour.

Assimilation was simply impossible and racial purity was held in highest esteem.

The western belief in race as a static category is evident in the history of Canada’s immigration policy. The belief in a biological basis to race was evident in the passage of various federal Acts which disenfranchised and excluded ethnic minorities from the privileges available to Whites. The first such legislation to pass at the federal level was the Chinese Immigration Act of 1885. Sir John A. Macdonald, like so many others during this era, believed that Canadians had to be protected from the “semi-barbaric... [and] inferior” Chinese race.41 These beliefs resulted in the imposition of a $50 Head Tax on every Chinese immigrant. By 1900, the Head Tax increased to $100 and in 1903, it increased to $500. These exclusionary regulations were followed by amendments to the Immigration Act which made Canadian immigration exclusive to Whites.42

In 1910, Canada’s Immigration Act was the first Act to explicitly exclude potential immigrants on the basis of their race and introduced further restrictions by the imposition of the “continuous journey clause” which forbade the entry of immigrants who had not traveled directly to

Canada.43

Restrictions were also placed on ethnic minorities already residing in Canada. In 1938

40 James W. St. G. Walker, “‘Race’, Rights and the Law in the Supreme Court of Canada: Historical Case Studies, 13-14. 41 Canada, House of Commons Debates (12 May 1882), p.1477. 42 Ninette Kelley and Michael Trebilcock, The Making of the Mosaic, 133. 43 Immigration Act, Statutes of Canada 1910, c. 27, s.38. See: Norman Buchignani, Doreen M. Indra and Ram Srivastiva, Continuous Journey: A Social History of South Asians in Canada (Toronto: McClelland and Stewart Limited, 1985) for a discussion of the Komagata Maru incident. In May 1914, 376 South Asian passengers were detained for two months without being able to disembark from their boat in a BC harbor. The ship was ordered to return to Asia in July 1914 because of the ‘inassimilable’ nature of South Asians. 64

Ottawa passed the Dominion Elections Act which disqualified citizens from voting based on their race. This Act disenfranchised Canadian citizens of Japanese, Chinese, and Indian descent.44 The civil liberties of racial minorities were further curtailed during World War II. Following the Pearl

Harbor attack, the federal government used the War Measures Act to intern all Japanese-

Canadians under the premise that they were security risks.45

The history of racism against ethnic minorities has been well documented by academics interested in the history of immigration, nativism and ethnicity. As one historian has commented,

Canadians lived in a “universal racist paradigm.”46 Race, as Constance Backhouse argues in her legal history of racism in Canada, was “inseparably intertwined” with colour.47 In fact, Canada’s first census in 1901 simplified the race matter by attributing “w” for whites, “r” for reds, “b” for

Blacks, and “y” for yellows. These designations described Caucasians, Indians, Blacks and

Orientals. Those who did not fit these artificial categories were deemed to be of “various origins.”48 These ideas about race were supported by various disciplines such as eugenics, sociology, phrenology, psychology, anthropology and ethnology.49 As a result, racialization legitimized slavery in North America and allowed for colonial officials to subjugate and displace

Aboriginals.50

44 Dominion Elections Act, Statures of Canada 1938, c. 46 s. 14. 45 See: Ann Sunahara, The Politics of Racism: the Uprooting of Japanese Canadians During the Second World War (Toronto: Lorimer, 1981), 23- 43, Maryka Omatsu, Bittersweet Passage: Redress and the Japanese Canadian Experience (Toronto: Between the Lines, 1992), Roy Miki, Redress: Inside the Japanese Canadian Call for Justice (Vancouver: Raincoast Books, 2004), and Cassandra Kobayashi and Roy Miki, Justice in Our Time: the Japanese Canadian Redress Settlement (Vancouver: Talonbooks, 1991). 46 James W. St. G. Walker, "Race," Rights and the Law in the Supreme Court of Canada, 303. 47 Constance Backhouse, Colour-Coded: A Legal History of Racism in Canada, 1900-1950, 3. 48 Ibid., 4. The racial designations of “white”, “black”, “red” and “yellow” remained alive in school textbooks until the 1970s. See: Ibid., 8. 49 Ibid., 5. 50 See: J.R. Miller, Skyscrapers Hide the Heavens: A History of Indian-White Relations in Canada (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1991). Miller examines the history of cooperation, coercion and confrontation between Canada’s Aboriginals and the dominant ruling class between first contact in 1534 and the Oka Crisis in 1990. See also: Cole Harris, Making Native Space: Colonialism, Resistance, and Reserves in British Columbia (Vancouver: UBC Press, 2002). Harris analyzes British Columbia’s reserve system through an examination of landscape and 65

Challenging the Conceptualization of ‘Race’

One of the first studies to challenge the biological conceptualization of race was Gunnar

Myrdal’s work entitled, An American Dilemma: The Negro Problem and Modern Democracy.

Myrdal, a Swedish economist, travelled to the United States to examine racism and the political and social status of African Americans. Published in 1944, Myrdal’s study demonstrated that it was discrimination, not innate racial characteristics, that had created a dichotomy between disadvantaged Blacks and privileged Whites. The experiences of Blacks in America, Myrdal argued, were in conflict with the espoused American beliefs of equality, life and liberty. More importantly, Myrdal’s work demonstrated the circular nature of discrimination. Prejudice, he argued, led to discrimination and socio-political and economic disadvantage which in turn resulted in heightened prejudice and a continuation of “white prejudice.”51 In the Canadian context, John Murray Gibbon, a Scottish Canadian writer, argued that differences among races could be explained through culture and biology. Gibbon’s work, entitled Canadian Mosaic: The

Making of a Northern Nation was published in 1938 and focused on a new concept: ethnicity – an idea which was being conceptualized and examined in the newly emerging discipline of sociology. Max Weber, a German social theorist, was a key figure who contributed to the development of sociology and the concept of ethnicity. In his examinations of Western and

Eastern societies, Weber examined technological, economic and cultural differences with a focus on national and ethnic group formation. He believed that differences between various ethnic

geography. He argues that Europeans imposed their conceptions of space on to Native cultures. Whites conceptualized land in economic terms (development), while Natives had a metaphorical belonging to the land. These opposing conceptualizations resulted in the stereotyping of Natives as non-civilized and justified their cultural domination by Whites and the perpetuation of the reserve system. 51 Gunnar Myrdal, An American Dilemma: the Negro Problem and Modern Democracy (New York, Harper, 1957), 26-50, 83-113. 66

groups were not a product of static racial differences but rather products of historical and environmental circumstances. Ethnic groups, according to Weber, were socially constructed because they shared a common belief in community. Much of Weber’s work advanced the idea that economic behaviour and social status was not influenced by biology but by historical causes.52 John Murray Gibbon’s work, therefore, reflected the emerging notion of ethnicity in the social sciences. In the Canadian Mosaic, Gibbon argued for a Canada comprised of Dutch,

Scottish and (surprisingly) Jewish settlers. These groups, Gibbon argued, were easily assimilable and would contribute to Canada. Gibbon, however, did not promote full assimilation as he believed that various cultural groups should retain their distinct identity as each ideal ethnic group had characteristics that would contribute to Canada’s national development. The Dutch,

Gibbon, argued, were excellent farmers who fostered and promoted “cooperative enterprise.”53

Scots were valuable to the development of Canadian universities as they were inventive and politically aware.54 Jews, Gibbon believed, were progressive and eager to acquire an education which would result in “many outstanding Canadian citizens.”55 Gibbon also advanced the

52 Max Weber demonstrated that social and political change occurred in various societies not because of the innate characteristics of those particular groups but because of the convergence of historical and sociological circumstances. See: John Stone, “Race, Ethnicity, and the Weberian Legacy,” American Behavioral Scientist 38, no.3 (1995): 391-406. In Economy and Society (1922), Weber provided a clear definition of ethnic groups which demonstrated the fluid and elusive nature of ethnicity. Writing in an era of nationalism and nation-state formation, Weber argued that ethnic groups were “human groups that entertain a subjective belief in their common descent because of similarities of physical type or of customs or both, or because of memories of colonization and migration; this belief must be important for group formation; furthermore it does not matter whether an objective blood relationship exists.” Weber later refined his definition by focusing not only on “objective features” of ethnic groups but also their beliefs noting that ethnic groups were “human groups (other than kinship groups) which cherish a belief in their common origins of such a kind that it provides a basis for the creation of a community.” See: Max Weber, Economy and Society, eds. Guenther Roth and Claus Wittich, (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1978), 389. Weber, however, was not immune from the racial categorization and racism embedded in society during his time. For example, although Weber argued that Jews were a distinct group with distinct historical circumstances, Weber categorized Jews as a “pariah group.” See: John Stone, “Race, ethnicity, and the Weberian Legacy,” 9-10. 53 John Murray Gibbon, Canadian Mosaic: the Making of a Northern Nation (Toronto, McClelland & Stewart Ltd., 1938), 237. 54 Ibid., 111- 114. 55 Ibid., 41. 67

position that other ethnic groups could positively contribute to the Canadian ‘mosaic.’56

Other commentators, however, disagreed with Gibbon arguing that full assimilation and integration were essential to Canada’s future prosperity. A study commissioned in 1931 and published in 1942 aimed at explaining how assimilation could be facilitated. The study’s author,

W. Burton Hurd, an economics professor, argued that certain groups (such as Scots) were more likely to assimilate, while others (such as Japanese immigrants) were more likely to live in segregated ethnic enclaves.57 More importantly, however, Hurd argued that ‘race’ could not be quantitatively or qualitatively measured because it was simply too ambiguous a term. Instead

Hurd focused on ethnicity. Studies such as those conducted by Myrdal, Gibbon and Hurd demonstrate that scholars were beginning to challenge static notions of ‘race’ as these studies examined concepts of ethnicity, culture and nationality. These emerging works were part of a new conceptualization of race.

‘Race’ and the State in Postwar Canada

In the pre World War II period, race as a biological concept had only been challenged in academic circles.58 For the general population, race, as one scholar argues, remained “[a] constitutive element of …[the] common sense” and a “taken for granted valid reference schema.”59 However, when the atrocities of World War II became known, the focus shifted from an emphasis on race as a biological reality to race as a social fiction and to the societal

56 Ibid., 413. 57 William Burton Hurd, Racial Origins and Nativity of the Canadian People (Ottawa: J.O. Patenaude, 1937), 566- 693. Hurd explained that Japanese–Canadians were more likely to live in ethnic enclaves because they simply had a “tendency” to do so. He did not elaborate on why this “tendency” existed. 58 In 1938, the American Association of University Professors, the American Anthropological Association and the American Psychological Association issued resolutions and statements disputing the existence of “racial differences” and stated that there was “no scientific basis for discrimination against people” on racial grounds. See: Ruth Benedict, Race and Racism (London : Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1983), 166-169. [first published in 1942]. 59 L. Outlaw, “Toward a Critical Theory of Race," in Anatomy of Racism, ed. David Theo Goldberg (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1990), 384. 68

causes of discrimination and prejudice. One historian argues that these “[p]sychological explanations” became “more attractive by the horrors of war, when many people found it impossible to accept that ‘normal’ individuals could have perpetuated the Holocaust.”60 It was in this context that scholars began to examine the roots of discrimination and feelings of superiority. In fact, the term “racism” was first used by Ruth Benedict in her 1942 monograph entitled Race and Racism. The British anthropologist compared racism to religious persecution and defined racism as a “dogma that one ethnic group is condemned by nature to congenital inferiority and another group is destined to congenital superiority.”61 The definition of racism was further refined by American social psychologist Gordon Allport who made a distinction between prejudice and discrimination. Allport defined prejudice as “thinking ill of others without sufficient warrant”62 and discrimination as actions taken by prejudiced persons “to exclude all members of the group in question.”63 Allport argued that “only individuals” felt prejudicial antagonism which, if acted upon, resulted in discrimination (emphasis in original).64 Other scholars concurred. For example, John Dollard, an American scholar, argued that discrimination was caused by individuals who had misdirected frustration and aggression. Dollard dubbed this

“white caste aggression against negroes.”65 Similarly, Theodor Adorno, a German sociologist, argued that discrimination was often perpetuated by people with “irrational”66 views and an

“authoritarian personality.”67 Adorno presented this type of personality as one where repressed anger resulted in subservient behaviour - thus allowing the Holocaust to occur. Adorno went so

60 James W. St. G. Walker, "Race," Rights and the Law in the Supreme Court of Canada,19. 61 Ruth Benedict, Race and Racism, 97. 62 Gordon Allport, The Nature of Prejudice (Cambridge: Addison-Wesley Pub. Co, 1954), 6. 63 Ibid., 14-15. 64 Ibid., xvi. 65 John Dollard, Caste and Class in a Southern Town (New York: Doubleday and Company, Inc., 1949), 315. 66 Theodor W. Adorno, Authoritarian Personality (New York, Harper, 1950), ix. 67 Ibid., 787. 69

far as to call prejudice a “syndrome.”68

These intellectual debates slowly began to influence public policy. The common perception during and following the war was that individuals were perpetrators of racism and discrimination. It was in this context that the Ontario government began to enact laws to prevent discrimination. For example, in 1944, Ontario enacted the Racial Discrimination Act which prohibited the publication or display of any notice, sign, symbol, emblem or other representation which was racially discriminatory.69 With anti-Semitic atrocities occurring in Europe, Ontarians supported legislation which would curb and contain Nazi-type activity in Canada. Much of the success of the passage of this “protective” legislation can be attributed to minority groups who began to press for rights and equal treatment as early as the 1930s. Minorities often used the rhetoric of “British justice” to appeal to the masses and to question the ideological framework used by the state to keep them in a disenfranchised position.70 Many were also influenced by democratic socialism and were active members of the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation which supported social rights and civil liberties.71

In a climate favorable to state protections from discrimination, pressure from human rights activists and minority groups resulted in the passage of legislation against overt racism.72

The goal was to control the individual perpetrators of racist acts. As a result, the government

68 Ibid., 753. 69 Racial Discrimination Act, Statues of Ontario 1944, c. 51. 70 See: Ross Lambertson, Repression and Resistance: Canadian Human Rights Activists,1930-1960, 9. 71 For example, the CCF played an important role in the repeal of the Chinese Immigration Act. See: Stephanie Bangarth, “We are not asking you to open wide the gates for Chinese immigration: the Committee for the Repeal of the Chinese Immigration Act and early Human Rights Activism in Canada,” Canadian Historical Review 84 no.3 (2003): 395-422 and Stephanie Bangarth, Voices Raised in Protest: Defending Citizens of Japanese Ancestry in North America, 1942-49 (Vancouver: UBC Press, 2008). 72 During the late 1940s and early 1950s, journalists ‘exposed’ racism in Canadian society. See: Douglas MacLennon, “Racial Discrimination in Canada,” The Canadian Forum, October 1943. Anthony Walsh, “Restore Self-Confidence in Indians of Canada,” Saturday Night, August 21, 1948, B.K. Sandwell, “Discrimination Problem,” Saturday Night, February 1950, and Sidney Katz, “Jim Crow Lives in Dresden,” Maclean’s, November 1, 1949. 70

passed laws to protect minorities from discrimination. Ontario became a leading province in the passage of human rights legislation. All human rights legislation enacted in the immediate post- war era focused on managing individual racism and ultimately curing individual racists and bigots. For example, in 1951, the province passed Canada’s first Fair Employment Practices Act.

The Act stated:

it is contrary to public policy in Ontario to discriminate against men and women in respect of their employment because of race, creed, colour, nationality, ancestry or place of origin whereas it is desirable to enact a measure designed to promote observance of this principle and whereas to do so is in accord with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as proclaimed by the United Nations.73

The goal of the Act was to ensure that acts of discrimination were not practiced by employers.

The legislation targeted discrimination in hiring practices and the work place by establishing fines as well as a procedure for complaints. However, the Act did have weaknesses. To begin, it did not apply to domestic servants employed in private homes. Secondly, non-profit religious, philanthropic, educational, fraternal or social organizations did not have to comply with the legislation. Lastly, the legislation could only be applied to businesses with more than 5 employees.74 In 1954, Ontario passed a subsequent law. The Fair Accommodation Practices Act declared that “no one can deny to any person or class of persons the accommodation, services or facilities usually available to members of the public”75 (emphasis added). Like the Racial

Discrimination Act of 1944, the law also banned the publishing of discriminatory signs. With the

Fair Accommodation law now enacted, the Racial Discrimination Act was repealed.

By the late 1950s the federal government signaled that it was ready to eradicate all forms of racial discrimination. In 1960, Canada passed the Bill of Rights which proclaimed that Canada

73 Fair Employment Practices Act, Statutes of Ontario 1951, c.24. 74 Ibid. 75 Fair Accommodation Practices Act, Statutes of Ontario 1954, c. 28 71

would not tolerate discrimination based on race, national origin, colour, religion or sex. The

Bill of Rights, however, was a declaration, not an enforceable constitutional entrenchment.76

By the 1960s, Ontario’s politicians also expressed a desire to manage racism. They

believed that a formal agency was needed for victims of racism to bring forth their grievances.

As a result, the Ontario Human Rights Code was enacted in 1962 and was designed to protect

Ontarians from discrimination in employment, housing and public services. The new legislation

was a consolidation of various anti-discriminatory statues enacted during the 1940s and 1950s.77

The philosophical orientation behind the Code was the notion that governments needed to protect

individuals from discrimination.78 The Code allowed all citizens of Ontario the right to file

formal complaints if he or she was being discriminated against in areas of housing, employment

and public accommodation. Premier J.P. Robarts argued that the new legislation would:

…secure in law the inalienable right of every person, and…create at the local community level in our society a climate of understanding and mutual respect among all our people, new Canadian no less than native born will be afforded the unhampered opportunity to contribute his maximum to the enrichment of our society, of our province and our nation.79

Robarts stated that the goal of the Code was to combat discrimination which he argued, was

caused by “hate-filled bigots” who held “irrational views regarding races.”80 Government

officials were optimistic that the Code would curb “outward manifestations” of racism.81 The key

to healthy race relations centred on education. The OHRC argued:

76 Canadian Bill of Rights, Statutes of Canada 1960, c. 44. The Bill of Rights was an ordinary statute and was under the authority of the Parliament of Canada. Courts, therefore, could not amend or repeal laws contrary to the Bill of Rights. 77 T. M. Eberlee and D. G. Hill. “The Ontario Human Rights Code,” 448. Because most complaints dealt with discrimination in employment, the Commission came under the purview of the Ministry of Labour. 78 Ontario Human Rights Code, Statutes of Ontario 1961-62, c.93. 79 Ontario, Legislative Assembly, Debates and Proceedings (22 February 1962), p. 558-559. 80 T. M. Eberlee and D. G. Hill, “The Ontario Human Rights Code,” 454. 81 Comments made by the Hon. W.K. Warrender, Minister of Labour. See: Ontario, Legislative Assembly, Debates and Proceedings (22 February 1962), p. 554. 72

External sanctions may make a man behave in a socially acceptable way out of fear, but only inner regard for human beings, for truth, for the facts and the evidence whereby truth is approximated can make a man want to act justly and appropriately towards others.82

The majority of the work of the Commission centred on producing “literature, films, posters, and scrolls” aimed at influencing those who may be susceptible to such irrational views.83 Housing discrimination, for example, was seen as a problem that could be attributed to landlords who

“tenaciously clung” to the myth that property values lowered when “Negro and Oriental families” moved into predominately White areas.84 Daniel Hill, the first chairman of the Ontario

Human Rights Commission was satisfied with the work of the Commission, concluding that:

….the majority of people in Ontario have positive attitudes towards fair practices legislation. The widespread support so far received leads the commission to believe that its educational goals and objectives are gradually being realized.85

Hill also believed that human rights legislation did not exist to penalize those who discriminated.

Three years after the Code was enacted, Hill wrote:

Modern day human rights legislation is predicated on the theory that the actions of prejudiced people and their attitudes can be changed and influenced by the process or re- education, discussion, and the presentation of socio-scientific materials that are used to challenge popular myths and stereotypes about people …Human rights on this continent is a skillful blending of educational and legal techniques in the pursuit of social justice.86 [emphasis added]

Based on the inherent belief that individuals caused discrimination, the Code remained a

82 S. Davidovich, Ontario Human Rights Commission. Human Relations 2, no.5 (1962).With the emphasis on education, the Commission distributed two publications entitled Social Justice in Ontario and Human Rights are in your Hands. Furthermore, the Commission published a bulletin titled Human Relations. See: Ontario, Legislative Assembly, Debates and Proceedings, (22 February 1962), p. 554. 83 T. M. Eberlee and D. G. Hill, “The Ontario Human Rights Code,” p. 452. 84 Ibid., 453. 85 Ibid., 454. Prior to his appointment as chairman of the OHRC, Hill was on the faculty of the School for Social Work in the Department of Sociology at the University of Toronto. 86 Ian A. Hunter “The Development of the Ontario Human Rights Code: A Decade in Retrospect,” The University of Toronto Law Journal 22 no. 4 (1972): 245. 73

conciliatory vehicle where victims could bring forth their specific cases of discrimination.87 The provincial government’s belief that racism was caused by ‘irrational bigots’ continued well into the late 1960s. The passage of human rights legislation was thus an incremental process; it also coincided with a gradual liberalization of immigration regulations.

Immigration Changes

Changing conceptualizations of notions of ‘race’ and the passage of human rights legislation in the immediate post World War II era did not result in a paradigm shift in Canada’s immigration policy. The federal government argued that Canada could not open its doors to immigrants (with the exception of Displaced Persons) because of a possible postwar recession.

The government also argued that it did not have enough passenger vessels and immigration officers to process applications. Prime Minister Mackenzie King’s speech in 1947 illuminates

Canada’s hesitance to admit boatloads of immigrants; Canadians, he said, “do not wish, as a result of mass immigration, to make a fundamental alteration in the character of our population.”88 Canada’s immigration doors were finally opened because of pro-immigration lobbying by various organizations such as the Canadian National Committee on Refugees and individuals (such as editor B.K. Sandwell, CCF founder Frank Scott and lawyer Irving Himel).

Because mass immigration was a contentious issue, it was debated by the Standing Committee on Immigration and Labour in 1946 and resulted in an implementation of a more humane policy.

Eventually, the debate resulted in a liberalization of the immigration policy. The new 1952

Immigration Act introduced: sponsorship regulations, allowed Polish Free Army veterans to enter

Canada, and repealed the Chinese Immigration Act of 1923. However, the government continued

87 This belief was also espoused by a federal pamphlet which argued that prejudice was an “emotional disease.” See: Canada. Fair Employment Practices Branch. Toward Understanding - Prejudice, Discrimination. 1974, 2. 88 Vic Satzewich, “Racism and Canadian Immigration Policy: The Government's View of Caribbean Migration, 1962-1966,” Canadian Ethnic Studies 21 no.1 (1989): 78. 74

to give preferential treatment to immigrants from Commonwealth countries. The screening process included the potential economic value of the applicant and their ethnicity, nationality, ethnic origin, occupation, and suitability with regard to Canada’s climate. “[C]oloured or partly coloured” people were only admitted if they had immediate relatives in Canada, if they demonstrated “exceptional merit” or if they were women willing to work as domestic servants.89

The overtly discriminatory legislation remained until the passage of new immigration regulations in 1962. As noted in the introduction of this chapter, the 1962 regulations proclaimed that

Canada’s immigration policy was free from discrimination, yet discriminatory provisions remained.

1967 is often seen as a key year in the liberalization of Canada’s immigration policy. The year represents the beginning of due process, modernization and progress; it is often cited as the year when Canada abandoned its racially discriminatory immigration regulations and became a

‘raceless’ land of opportunity for immigrants. The points system did not erase all vestiges of discrimination in Canada’s immigration policy; however, the new system did represent a philosophical break from past immigration regulations. High points were awarded for applicants who knew one of the official languages; had arranged employment in high demand regions; had relatives or family members in Canada and if they were educated in fields that were in demand.90

Applicants were awarded one point per year of schooling up to 20 points, 10 points if they were under 35 years of age and up to 10 points if they had arranged employment in Canada.91 [See

89 Vic Satzewich, Racism and the Incorporation of Foreign Labour, 125. 90 These new immigration regulations were ultimately reflected in a new Immigration Act in 1976. Stuart J. Wilson, “Immigration and Capital Accumulation in Canada: A Long-Run Perspective,” in Canadian Immigration Policy for the 21st Century, eds. Charles M. Beach, Alan G. Green and Jeffery G. Reitz (Kingston: John Deutsch Institute for the Study of Economic Policy, 2003), 132. 91 George, J. Borjas, “Immigration Policy, National Origins, and Immigrant Skills: A Comparison of Canada and the United States,” in Small Differences That Matter: Labour Markets and Income Maintenance in Canada and the United States, eds. David Card and Richard B. Freeman (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1993), 24. 75

chart below]. The hope for the Canadian government was that these middle-class immigrants would be absorbed into “professional, administrative… [and] service occupations” – sectors that lacked workers.92 Table 1.1

Immigration Regulations, Units of Assessment According to P.C. 1967 -1616

Factors Maximum Assessment Units Education and Training (beyond high school or equivalent) 20

Personal Assessment by Immigration Officer 15

Occupational Demand 15

Occupational Skill (professional status in given occupation) 10

Age (10 points if applicant under 35, -1 for each year beyond 35) 10

Arranged Employment/ or designated occupation 10

Knowledge of English or French 10

Relative in Canada 5

Employment opportunities in area of destination 5

Total 100

Source: Manpower and Immigration Canada, The Immigration Program: Canadian Immigration and Population Study. Ottawa: Information Canada, 1974.

Up until 1967, postwar immigration had been governed by the 1952 Immigration Act which reflected Canada’s historic desire to keep Canada White. The 1952 regulations, for example, gave the federal government power to select, admit and deport immigrants based on

92 Ian Burnley and Warren E. Kalbach, Immigrants in Canada and Australia: Urban and Ecological Aspects, eds. Anthony H. Richmond and Freda Richmond (Downsview: Institute for Behavioural Research, Social Science Research, York University, 1986), 9. 76

nationality, place of origin, climate, and cultural customs which were not suitable for Canadian

“modes of life”. Furthermore, the regulations prohibited immigration of people who had a

“probable inability to become readily assimilated or to assume the duties and responsibilities of

Canadian citizenship within a reasonable time…”93 Immigrants from Britain, Australia, New

Zealand, South Africa, Ireland, the United States and France were deemed ‘desirable.’94 Others interested in settling in Canada could only enter through sponsorship provisions which were restrictive for applicants from Africa and Asia as they could only be sponsored if they were immediate family members including spouses, siblings, children and parents of Canadian citizens. These overtly discriminatory regulations were further reinforced by the selection process as the majority of recruitment offices were located in Northern Europe and Britain.

Furthermore, the selection process was discretionary as potential immigrants were assessed by a handful of people. First, the government consulted the Department of Labour to determine

Canada’s economic needs. This information was then communicated to immigration officers who were responsible for providing visas.95

The 1952 Immigration Act also made provisions for temporary migrants to Canada. This move was a result of continued pressure by foreign governments especially in the Caribbean.

Caribbean migrant workers came to Canada to take on work in nursing, domestic service and to fulfill the demand for workers in the fruit and vegetable industry. Some West Indian students were also admitted for the duration of their studies.96 Of particular interest to the Canadian government were West Indian nurses, nursing assistants and domestics. For example, in 1955,

93 Lakshmana G. Rao, Anthony H. Richmond and Jerzy Zubrzycki. Immigrants in Canada and Australia, 16. 94 Louis Parai, “Canada’s Immigration Policy, 1962-74,” 453. 95 Ibid., 454-455. 96 Agnes Calliste, “Women of ‘Exceptional Merit’: Immigration of Caribbean Nurses to Canada,” Canadian Journal of Women and the Law 6, no.1 (1993): 85 and David Corbett, “Canada’s Immigration Policy, 1957-1962,” 172. In 1960, for example, 1209 West Indian students were living in Canada. 77

Canada allowed 100 domestics to settle. In 1956, that number rose to 200 and by 1960, 280 were admitted based on a new quota.97

The immigration of Caribbean nurses and nursing assistants has been studied by Agnes

Calliste who argues that the immigration process during the 1950s and early 1960s was exclusionary and was shaped by race, class, and gender.98 Calliste demonstrates that White nurses were admitted based on occupational merit; Caribbean nurses, however, were admitted only in “cases of exceptional merit.”99 During this period, all applicants for nursing positions had to communicate their place of intended employment and their racial origin.100 The stringent regulations resulted in a relatively small number of Caribbean women being admitted to Canada.

In fact, between 1954 and 1965 Canada admitted 982 trained Caribbean nurses and 286 nursing assistants.101 Race and racism played a central role in the selection of immigrants in the postwar era.

Work on the south-western Ontario fruit and vegetable industry also demonstrates that postwar immigration to Canada did not occur in a raceless ideological and political context.102

Focusing on the political economy of migration this work demonstrates that Canada utilized

97 David Corbett, “Canada’s Immigration Policy, 1957-1962,” 172-74. 98 Agnes Calliste, “Women of ‘Exceptional Merit’: Immigration of Caribbean Nurses to Canada,” 85. 99 The immigration of Caribbean nurses was facilitated by the Negro Citizenship Association which lobbied the government and hospitals. Once hospitals expressed interest in hiring Black nurses, the government was pressured into action. However, the Registered Nurses Association “cautioned [the government] that the hospitals wanted to maintain a predominately white nursing staff.” See: Agnes Calliste, “Women of ‘Exceptional Merit’”, 85, 93-94. 100 Ibid., 88. The admission of Caribbean nurses was an organized and hierarchical process. Some applicants were admitted as graduates and were given landed immigrant status if they had pre-arranged employment. Applicants were also admitted if they were willing to study obstetrics – a field which was in demand. They were then granted immigrant landed status. Additional courses were not required of other [white] applicants. Black nurses had to have higher qualifications to attain landed immigrant status. Caribbean women were also sought for nursing assistant/aid work. A number were also admitted if they were accepted to study nursing in a diploma program. They could only apply for landed immigrant status upon completion of the program. Furthermore, women were admitted if they were enrolled in a nurse’s assistant program in less desirable facilities such as psychiatric hospitals. Admission of these categories depended on economic needs. Ibid., 94-96. 101 Ibid., 96. 102 Vic Satzewich, Racism and the Incorporation of Foreign Labour, 9. 78

temporary workers for commodity production.103 Clearly, certain ‘races’ were not incorporated into the social and political landscape of Canada because of their “perceived ‘racial’ capacities.”104 Blacks in the postwar era, for example, were seen to be unsuitable permanent settlers because racial beliefs dictated that they were unable to adjust to the social, cultural and climatic conditions of Canada. As a result, postwar regulations resulted in an influx of immigrants who did not significantly alter the racial composition of Canada.

The policies which governed the settlement of non-White migrant workers were dictated by several policy objectives and goals. First, the immigration regulations which allowed for the temporary settlement of migrant workers reflected Canada’s desire to exclude Blacks as permanent settlers.105 Secondly, migrant workers were admitted because of an urgent demand for cheap labour during the postwar economic boom. Lastly, the admission of immigrants and migrants had international ramification as their admission to Canada appeased Caribbean governments who were beginning to be critical of Canada’s exclusionary immigration policy.106

In fact, it was because of the advice of Canadian trade commissioners in the Caribbean that

Canada enacted regulations to admit migrant workers.107

Studies on migrant workers in the postwar period are important as they demonstrate that

World War II was not unequivocally a watershed moment in the history of race and racism in

Canada. Canadian immigration policy continued to reflect a desire to keep Canada White. For

103 Ibid., 3. 104 Ibid., preface. 105 The 1950 Order-in-Council (P.C. 2856) defined desirable immigrants as those from the British Commonwealth, including Australia, Britain, Ireland, New Zealand and South Africa. French citizens who were born in France were also stipulated as desirable settlers. Between 1949 and 1950, 105 Caribbean’s settled in Canada. In 1950-1951, that number dropped to 69. Only under certain provisions such as an application that “satisfied the Immigration Minister” could Caribbeans settle in Canada. See: Agnes Calliste, “Women of ‘Exceptional Merit’, 88-89. 106 Ibid., 87. 107 The trade commissioner argued that Canada needed to admit Caribbean workers “to further Canada’s trade and investments in the British Caribbean.” Ibid. 79

example, between 1951 and 1960, European immigrants accounted for 87 percent of all immigrants settling in Canada.108 Immigration during this period was influenced by the belief that certain races were unassimilable. Although historians have argued that during the postwar period many began to challenge racism and racial thought, the process was gradual. In 1951, the

Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Walter Harris, wrote in a rejection letter to a Canadian citizen who was attempting to sponsor his granddaughter from the Barbados:

In the light of experience it would be unrealistic to say that immigrants who have spent the greater part of their lives in tropical or sub-tropical countries, become readily adapted to the Canadian mode of life which, to no small extent, is determined by climatic conditions. It is a matter of record that natives of such countries are more apt to break down in health than immigrants from countries where the climate is more akin to that of Canada. It is equally true that, generally speaking, persons from tropical and sub-tropical countries find it more difficult to succeed in the highly competitive Canadian economy.109

When the private letter was presented in House of Commons, the Minister argued that his statements “were a matter of record.”110 The unassimilability of West Indians, Harris believed, was simply self-evident. His sentiments were epitomized in the 1952 Immigration Act which denied applicants entry on the basis of their nationality, customs and unsuitability to the

Canadian climate.111

The influx of Caribbean nurses, in particular, created some disquietude among immigration officials. Their concern was that the influx of Blacks from the West Indies could cause a deterioration of race relations because White Canadians were not accustomed to seeing

Blacks in “positions which would place them on the same economic and social levels with their

108 Louis Parai, “Canada’s Immigration Policy, 1962-74,” 469. 109 Agnes Calliste, “Women of ‘Exceptional Merit’, 89. 110 Ibid., 89-90. 111 Ibid., 90. 80

white neighbours.”112 However, the government, specifically the Immigration Department, also saw Black professionals as a buffer for White Canadians– their role was to make Blacks

“acceptable to the Canadian population.”113 This was a rather ahistorical conceptualization of

Blacks in Canada as Canada’s first Black settlements date back to the early 1600s.114

By the 1960s, calls were made for an overhaul of the immigration system which was seen

“an anachronism” in an era of human rights.115 However, the government did not overhaul the

Immigration Act; instead revisions were made to the existing 1952 Immigration Act. In 1962, one scholar argued that the Canadian government chose to amend not reform immigration regulations for the following reasons:

Reform through change of regulation gives less opportunity to die-hard opponents of cosmopolitan immigration than would a full-scale national debate and a new Act of Parliament. It might be very difficult politically to obtain as liberal terms in formal legislation as it has been possible to adopt by order-in-council and ministerial regulation. The intended strategy may well have been to let the country get used to the new policy first, and then to propose amendments to the Act which would enshrine a new, more liberal consensus.116

Although the 1967 regulations expressed Canada’s desire for a ‘raceless’ immigration policy, the passage of the points system was met with some resistance. For example, during the debates and discussion with regards to the passage of the 1967 regulations, the Department of

Manpower and Immigration expressed concern that the points system would create an intellectual drain in developing countries. After much debate, the Department concluded that,

“[t]he Department has taken the position that it will not actively seek immigrants in developing countries and will respect the wishes of such countries which request that our immigration

112 Letter between immigration officials C. Smith and G. McInnes, 1957. Quoted in Calliste, Agnes. “Women of ‘Exceptional Merit,’ 90. 113 Ibid., 91. 114 Robin Winks, The Blacks in Canada: A History (Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1997), 1-23. 115 David Corbett, “Canada’s Immigration Policy, 1957-1962,” 170. 116 Ibid. 81

activities be curtailed in their territory.”117 The statement may have been genuine or it would have been a veiled attempt at stating Canada’s racial preferences.

These concerns over a possible intellectual drain were quickly dismissed as Canada needed skilled workers. The critical need for skilled labour was espoused by the federal government as early as 1960. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Ellen Fairclough spoke to the Men’s Canadian Club in Hamilton in the fall of 1960 and described the ‘ideal’ immigrant to

Canada:

Our experience in recent years has demonstrated that the ideal newcomer to Canada, the man who most readily fits himself into the Canadian production picture and thus quickly becomes a welcome new consumer in the Canadian home market, is the skilled industrial worker from one of the relatively advanced industrial areas overseas…Canada cannot contemplate trying to absorb large numbers of immigrants who have no skills other than those of the peasant.118

These sentiments were most emphatically expressed in the 1966 White Paper on Immigration which expressed an expansionist immigration policy aimed at attracting skilled labour. The majority of employment opportunities, the White Paper contended, were for those “with education, training, [and] skill[s]”119; “under-skilled immigrants” were “not an economic asset.”120 The report argued that:

[t]he annual arrival of substantial numbers of immigrants with qualifications suited to our developing economy will stimulate further growth, increase productivity, make our economy flexible and responsive to change, generate employment and improve the competitive efficiency of our industries.121

117 Louis Parai, “Canada’s Immigration Policy, 1962-74,” 461. 118 David Corbett, “Canada’s Immigration Policy, 1957-1962,” 178. 119 Canada, Department of Manpower and Immigration, White Paper on Immigration (Ottawa: Queen’s Printer, 1966), 8. 120 Ibid., 12. 121 Ibid., 18. 82

Canada lacked a large population and needed a considerable pool of skilled labour. As a result, the future of Canada’s economic health depended on population growth through immigration.

The White Paper emphasized that mass immigration would have positive repercussions on industry, manufacturing and ordinary Canadians. A larger population would expand Canada’s domestic market and stimulate manufacturing. Immigration was therefore seen as essential to improve Canada’s “competitive position in world markets.”122 The report argued that the number of skilled immigrants was limited around the world. Canada needed “as many qualified immigrants as it is likely to be able to attract.”123

The White Paper also linked immigration to national objectives noting that the Canadian economy needed “highly qualified workers to achieve the level of productivity necessary to survive” in the global context. Canada could only achieve this through skilled workers who would ensure that Canada would become “an affluent society.”124 Not only would immigration contribute to Canada’s affluence, it would also foster “cultural development.” The report argued that immigration would cultivate the development of a “national identity” – this was important because of the “economic and cultural pulls of our neighbour to the South.”125 The White Paper assured Canadians that immigrants would not undermine national unity as “the majority of immigrants have adapted themselves well to their surroundings, have fitted readily into our general standards of behaviour and have accepted our major institutions as worthy of their support.”126 The rhetoric later used by multiculturalism advocates was evident in the report.

Canada, the White Paper argued, was a “flexible society” which could “absorb the contributions

122 Ibid., 8. 123 Ibid., 41. 124 Ibid., 9. 125 Ibid., 7. 126 Ibid., 14. 83

of immigrants” who were “adaptable to economic changes.” 127 Attempting to quell any arguments that Canada did not have the ‘absorptive capacity’, the report argued that Canada was a land of opportunity and that poverty was “the problem of people” who were unable to adjust to

Canada’s “complex, urbanized affluent economy, operating with rapid technological change…”128

The White Paper, nonetheless, did not advocate an unregulated immigration policy.

Desirable immigrants were qualified as people who had “the capability to adapt themselves successfully to Canadian economic and social conditions.” It held that restrictions should only be placed on “those who are likely to lack this adaptability or who represent a danger to public health or safety.”129 This would be achieved while Canada remained respectful of international anti-racism conventions. Any changes to immigration had to be made in the context of anti- racism because of international implications as the report emphasized that“[a]ny discrimination, in the selection of immigrants, creates strong resentments in international relations.”130

It was within this discourse that the 1967 revisions to the Immigration Act were introduced. The goal of 1967 regulations was to control the “immigrant occupational distribution” in the context of international human rights provisions.131 The new regulations introduced a fairly objective ‘points system’ and established various programs aimed at assisting immigrant settlement including occupational training and adjustment programs. When Jean

Marchand, the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, announced the new regulations he was

127 Ibid., 18, 19. 128 Ibid.,18. 129Ibid., 5. The report also advocated immigration restrictions be placed on people who were “mentally or physically defective and diseased….criminals, members of subversive organizations, spies or saboteurs ..[and] public charges.” Homosexuals were not prohibited, but were deemed not desirable because “of their personal failings.” See pages 24- 25. 130 Ibid.,17. 131 Allan G. Green and David A. Green, “Canadian Immigration Policy: The Effectiveness of the Point System and Other Instruments,” Canadian Journal of Economics 28, no.4 (1995): 1007. 84

hopeful that they would have several positive effects. He stated:

…we can abolish discrimination, pay more regard to the claims of family relationships; act with both greater efficiency and greater compassion than in the past and, through an expansionist immigration policy, serve the needs of our growing Canadian economy.132

Although Marchand emphasized that the new regulations would establish equitable regulations among all potential immigrants, debates in the House of Commons reveal that the points system was intended, first and foremost, to attract qualified immigrants. Non-discrimination was a secondary concern for the minister. Marchand stated that Canada could not “ensure that geography will make no difference at all to people’s chances of coming to Canada.”

Furthermore, immigration facilities would only be established in regions where those facilities would be used and where there was “heavy demand.”133 The new regulations, therefore, reflected

Canada’s desire to fulfill its economic needs. As policy analysts have noted, the ‘points system’ reflected Canada’s desire for a post-industrial economy.134

Most Members of Parliament were supportive of the points system as they believed the new regulations would ensure Canada’s future prosperity. MP Raymond Langlois (Mégantic), for example, supported the new system of immigrant assessment because it signified that Canada was realizing that “the people are a country’s true wealth.” Langlois believed that the new regulations would result in more “human capital” which would increase Canada’s “productive value.” However, Langois hoped that the points system would not result in an unrestrictive immigration policy and stated that Canada should “welcome suitable people and try to keep out the undesirables.”135

132 Freda Hawkins, Canada and Immigration: Public Policy and Public Concern, 11. The new regulations became effective on 1 October, 1967. 133 Canada, House of Commons Debates (14 October 1966), p. 8651. 134 Ian Burnley and Warren E. Kalbach, Immigrants in Canada and Australia: Urban and Ecological Aspects, 9. 135 Canada, House of Commons Debates (14 October 1966), p. 8654. 85

The association between immigration and human capital was invoked by many Members of Parliament; for example, R.N. Thompson (Red Deer) approached immigration from a utilitarian perspective arguing that historically immigration has resulted in the acquisition of property and wealth in Canada.136 Several MP’s, however, were hesitant to support the points system. MP Gérard Laprise (Chapleau) argued that Canada had to be “careful” of high immigration during recessionary periods. The ideal scenario for Laprise was to train native born

Canadians in skilled technical trades and restrict immigration to “the fields were manpower is really needed where we cannot train rapidly enough skilled workers required by our industries.”137 This “tap on tap off” policy was criticized by Dick Bell (Carleton) who argued that “…immigration is a stimulus to the economy, that it is a genuine stimulus to the economy, that it is a genuine stimulus in a period of economic recession just as it is in a period of economic growth.” Canada had to attract skilled workers as a long term immigration objective which would stimulate economic growth.138 A last attempt to hinder the passage of the points system was made by MP Howard Earl Johnston (Okanagan Revelstoke) who argued that Canada was implementing a “selfish policy” of “taking “the cream from other countries in the world in the form of the best people they have to offer.” He accused Canada of “robbing” nations of their best people and then providing a “somewhat sanctimonious external aid program.”139

In spite of some hesitation on the part of a few members of parliament, the points system was passed and took effect on October 1, 1967. When Jean Marchand announced the regulations he emphasized that the new system of immigrant assessment was “completely non-

136 Ibid., p. 8655. 137 Canada, House of Commons Debates (25 September 1967), p. 2440. 138 Ibid., p. 2441. 139 Ibid., p. 2440. 86

discriminatory” because immigration officers would “apply the same standards in the same way to all potential immigrants.”140 The objective nature of the points system was praised by members of parliament. Only Andrew Brewin (Greenwood), a long-time human rights activist and a member of the Association for Civil Liberties, expressed doubt about the purportedly non- discriminatory nature of the points system. Much of his criticism centered on the personal assessment of the immigration officer:

As I understand it, you get 15 points if the immigration officer thinks you look as if you may have personal initiative. I do not know if I could ever persuade an immigration officer that I had personal initiative. How is he going to tell? By the gleam in a man’s eye? I would hate to be examined somewhere and told: You have passed all the written examinations but I can tell by looking at you that you have no personal initiative and therefore you lose out because of that. In my opinion this is a very unsatisfactory aspect of the points system.141

Brewin called for a new immigration act. His main concern was that the international community would continue to believe that Canada had prohibitory regulations. Brewin’s apprehensions, however, were quelled by members of parliament who argued that the points system would diversify the immigrant intake. Howard Johnston, for example, argued that the points system would, unlike previous immigration regulations, “allow for a wider range of immigrants and for easier entry into this country.”142 Ian Wahn (St. Paul’s) made the same contention – the points system would result in objectivity and diversity. The most important aspect of the new immigration regulations was that immigration officials now had an objective system. Wahn believed that Brewin’s concerns were simply “unfounded” because “every day each of us is required to make an assessment of the character of people, and immigration officials are not

140 Canada, House of Commons Debates (26 October 1966), p. 3505, 3405. 141 Ibid., p. 3513-3514. 142 Ibid., p. 3519. 87

different from the rest of us.” Wahn assumed that immigration officials would “act fairly.”143

The new regulations altered the source countries from which Canada admitted immigrants. The effects of a more liberal immigration policy became visible as the new regulations “significantly altered the character of immigration.”144 The majority of immigrants who settled in Canada post-1967 were categorized as ‘visible minorities’; they could be described as “neither white, caucasian [sic] nor Aboriginal.”145 Prior to the passage of the points system, over half of Canada’s immigrants came from Europe. In 1966, for example, 87% of immigrants came from Europe; by 1970 that number dropped to 51%.146

Table 1.2

Immigration to Canada by Country of Origin, 1946-1971

Period British North- Central Southern USA, Asia and Total Isles western and Europe Australia, Others Immigration Europe Eastern New Europe Zealand

1946-50 165,519 51,452 110,240 36,426 46,583 20,170 430,390

1951-54 172,844 247,159 73,182 116,406 41,228 31,237 632,056

1955-60 262,810 210,548 84,641 204,606 77,093 53,117 892,815

1961-63 124,210 72,084 25,548 142,840 72,125 61,967 493,774

143 Ibid., p. 3523. 144 Alan G. Green, and David A. Green, “Canadian Immigration Policy: The Effectiveness of the Point System and Other Instruments,” 1007. 145 Roderic Beaujot, “Effect of Immigration on Demographic Structure,” in Canadian Immigration Policy for the 21st Century, eds. Charles M. Beach, Alan G. Green and Jeffery G. Reitz (Kingston: John Deutsch Institute for the Study of Economic Policy, 2003), 69. 146 Freda Hawkins, Canada and Immigration: Public Policy and Public Concern, 12. By 1971, Canada’s population numbered 21.6 million, 15.3% of the population was foreign born. See: Lakshmana G. Rao, Anthony H. Richmond and Jerzy Zubrzycki, Immigrants in Canada and Australia, 37. Furthermore, Great Britain’s decision in 1962 to restrict immigration from former colonial nations also contributed to the number of immigrants seeking refuge in Canada. See: Vic Satzewich, Racism and the Incorporation of Foreign Labour, 17. 88

1966-71 264,213 115,985 50,876 229,560 155,287 232,333 1,030,254

Total 971,596 697,228 344,487 729,838 392,316 398,824 3,534,289

Source: Lakshmana G. Rao, Anthony H. Richmond and Jerzy Zubrzycki. Immigrants in Canada and Australia. Volume 1: Demographic Aspects and Education. Eds. Anthony H. Richmond and Freda Richmond. Downsview, Ont. : Institute for Behavioural Research, Social Science Research, York University, 1984-1986, 25.

Table 1.3

Canada (Excluding Quebec). Birthplace of Immigrants, Percentage, Pre-1946 -1971

Country of Pre-1946 1946-1960 1961-1971 Origin United States 16.1 3.3 10.3 Australia and 0.2 0.4 1.4 New Zealand Great Britain 45.8 27.3 24.1 and Ireland France 0.4 0.7 0.9 Germany 2.2 11.6 5.1 Greece 0.3 1.7 3.6 Hungary 1.9 3.1 0.8 Italy 2.2 14.4 13.5 Netherlands 0.8 9.7 1.8 Poland 7.2 5.5 1.8 Scandinavia 3.4 2.0 0.8 U.S.S.R 8.5 5.9 0.6 Other Europe 8.2 9.6 13.5 China 1.0 1.7 2.8 India/Pakistan 0.2 0.5 3.6 Japan 0.4 0.1 0.4 Other Asia 0.2 0.5 3.4 Africa 0.3 0.6 2.2 Central and 0.2 0.7 2.5 South America West Indies 0.2 0.6 5.0 Other Countries 0.3 0.1 1.9 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0

Source: Lakshmana G. Rao, Anthony H. Richmond and Jerzy Zubrzycki. Immigrants in Canada and Australia. Volume 1: Demographic Aspects and Education. Eds. Anthony H. Richmond and Freda Richmond. Downsview: Institute for Behavioural Research, Social Science Research, York University, 1984-1986, 40.

89

Immigration from non-traditional countries was facilitated by the opening of immigration offices in various regions including southern Europe, the Middle East and Central America. By the early

1970s, immigration offices in southern Europe, the Middle East, and Central America accounted for 2/3 of the offices in existence.

The ‘points system’ attracted highly skilled immigrants from non-traditional areas including Africa, the Caribbean, the Middle East and Asia. Although historians have argued that many immigrants who came from decolonizing and developing countries were “fleeing drought, hunger, and war,”147 evidence exists that this was not the case. The emphasis on high educational qualifications pursued by the government and expressed in the ‘points system’ led to the immigration of many people with university degrees and post-graduate diplomas. In fact, these new arrivals were highly educated in comparison to native-born Canadians. For example, 23.1% of immigrants aged 25-64 who arrived in Canada between 1961 and 1969 had some university education in comparison to 10.5% of native-born Canadians.148 Many immigrants were skilled workers in various fields including medicine, engineering and science. Authors Rao, Richmond and Zubrzycki argue that immigrants who settled in Canada post-1967 were “more ‘advanced’” than native-born Canadians because the “foreign born, on average, were more urbanized, better educated and exhibited higher labour force participation rates.”149 This helps to explain why during the 1970s, immigrants were willing to compete for “higher education and social status”150 as well as express their desires for human rights and anti-discriminatory provisions.

147 Freda Hawkins, Canada and Immigration: Public Policy and Public Concern, xvi. 148 Roderic Beaujot, “Effect of Immigration on Demographic Structure,” 73. 149 Lakshmana G. Rao, Anthony H. Richmond and Jerzy Zubrzycki, Immigrants in Canada and Australia, 105. 150 Ibid., 107. 90

Table 1.4

Education Level of Immigrants to Canada, 1960-1980

Immigrant Cohort Education Level Average Number of Years 1960-1964 10.506 1965-1970 12.043 1970-1974 12.370 1975-1980 12.603

Source: Source: George, J. Borjas, “Immigration Policy, National Origins, and Immigrant Skills: A Comparison of Canada and the United States.” Eds. David Card and Richard B. Freeman. In Small Differences That Matter: Labour Markets and Income Maintenance in Canada and the United States. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1993, 34.

Table 1.5

Canadian Immigration, 1962-1967. Professional and Technical Workers. Outflow from Developing Countries.

Category 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967

Total Immigrants 74,586 93,151 112,606 146,758 194,743 222,876

Immigrants with 36,748 45,866 56,150 74,195 99,210 119,539 occupation

Professional and 8,218 9,640 11,965 16,654 23,637 30,833 Technical Workers

Engineers 967 1,198 1,416 2,254 3,210 3,704

Natural Scientists 473 444 640 945 1,251 1,721

Physicians and 530 687 668 792 995 1,213 Surgeons

Professional Nurses 1,621 1,379 1,967 2,829 3,732 4,262

Source: United Nations Institute for Training and Research, Outflow of Trained Personnel from Developing Countries (A/7294), (New York, Nov. 5, 1968.)

An Assessment of the ‘Points System’

Historians’ assessments of the points system are few. Much has been written by policy

91

analysts and legal scholars whose analyses focus on the non-discriminatory nature of the regulations. One group of policy analysts have argued that the points system was a complete expression “of a universalistic and non-discriminatory [immigration] policy.”151 This interpretation has contributed to the dominant myth of the post-racial points system era; however, the passage of the new regulations did not create a system which removed all barriers.

Although the regulations affirmed that no area of the world was off limit, the new regulations scrutinized and favoured skilled immigrants who would be absorbed into Canada’s social and political landscape.152As the Canada Year Book of 1969 noted, “Canada makes every effort to sustain the movement of immigrants from countries having like economic, social and political backgrounds.” 153 The points system emphasized Canada’s desire for immigrants who were well- educated in sectors of occupational demand and who fit the ‘suitable’ and unstated “personal qualities” Canadian officials looked for.154 These personal qualities were determined by immigration officers who had the power to subjectively award up to fifteen points for ‘positive’ personal characteristics.155 Immigration officers could also reject an applicant even if the

151 Ibid., 16. In her comparative study of Australia and Canada, political scientist Freda Hawkins argues that the immigration regulations of 1967 signified that “the White Canada policy was virtually dead.” Hawkins argues that the new regulations were a Liberal project headed by Robert Andras, the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Hawkins contends that the Liberal government was dedicated to immigration because it saw immigration as a vehicle “to national growth and development.” She argues that the 1967 amendments which eventually resulted in a new Immigration Act in 1976 represented “a new, more liberal, and more co-operative era in Canadian immigration with better laws, closer federal-provincial collaboration, more confident and effective management, and a better and more open relationship with the public and the media.” See: Freda Hawkins, Critical Years in Immigration: Canada and Australia Compared, 39, 30, preface xv. Ninette Kelley and Michael Trebilcock make a similar argument noting that the 1960s and 1970s as an era of “[d]emocracy and [d]ue [p]rocess” Kelley and Trebilcock argue that the points system was a compromise between short term economic goals and long term national goals. The authors argue that the Department of Citizenship and Immigration and employers took on a long term perspective which took into account “adaptability” factors such as skills, age and education. However, the Department of Labour and labour unions took on a short term perspective arguing that immigration regulations should reflect “labour-market shortages.” The points system was a compromise, according to the authors, as it took into account both short term and long term goals to create a composite of the ‘ideal’ immigrant. See: Ninette Kelley and Michael Trebilcock, Making of the Mosaic, 346, 351-352. 152 Joseph Kage, “Recent Changes in Canadian Immigration Regulations,” 47. 153 See: Canada Year Book, 1969, 201 quoted in Louis Parai, “Canada’s Immigration Policy, 1962-74,” 463. [emphasis added]. 154 Freda Hawkins, Canada and Immigration: Public Policy and Public Concern, 11. 92

applicant compiled enough points or if the officer had reasons to believe that the applicant would not be successful in Canada.156 The opposite scenario was also true. The Minister of Manpower and Immigration assured prospective immigrants: “We will not exclude a man because he falls a little short of some occupational or educational standard, if he has a combination of other qualities that give him a good chance of success in Canada.”157 Although the points system was seen as “a significant step toward the evolution of the Canadian immigration policy” and was intended to “abolish geographical bias,” the arbitrary nature of the selection process challenges these claims.158 Moreover, because the points system assessed applicants based on skills, applicants from industrialized countries and economies were favoured. Many applicants from the developing world were not qualified to immigrate to Canada. Visa office locations also disqualified many skilled workers from immigrating to Canada.159 As a result, developing and

‘less developed’ countries were subsequently unrepresented in the influx of new immigrants following the ‘liberalization’ of immigration regulations.160

The primary reason for the points system was economic. In an increasingly competitive world, Canada passed the regulations because of the lack of skilled labour in Canada. The new economic focus was not only reflected in the new legislation but in the dissembling of the

Department of Citizenship and Immigration and the formation of the Department of Manpower

155 George, J. Borjas, “Immigration Policy, National Origins, and Immigrant Skills: A Comparison of Canada and the United States,” 24. 156 Joseph Kage, “Recent Changes in Canadian Immigration Regulations,” 49. 157 Ibid. 158 Ibid., 50, 49. 159 Ninette Kelley and Michael Trebilcock, Making of the Mosaic, 351. 160 The underrepresentation of immigrants from developing countries has been shown by George J. Borjas who complied data of educational attainment between 1960 and 1980 from various countries. He found that between 1960 and 1980 the educational attainment in Haiti was 3.2 years, 6.1 years in Mexico and 11.1 years in France. Thus many applicants from developing countries like Haiti were denied permanent settlement in Canada. See: George J. Borjas, “Immigration Policy, National Origins, and Immigrant Skills: A Comparison of Canada and the United States,” 22, 36. 93

and Immigration. Canada was competing for skilled labourers in a time when other nations were liberalizing their immigration regulations to attract the greatest number of skilled workers. A study by George Borjas illustrates this clearly. Borjas demonstrates that Canada amended its immigration regulations during a time when the United States was overhauling its Immigration and Nationality Act. This original Act was essentially a quota system; regulations allowed the allocation of visas to people based on their national origin. The goal of these quotas was to allocate visas to represent “the national-origin composition of the US population in 1920.”161

These regulations did little to alter the ethnic composition of the United States. The regulations were scrutinized and eventually amended in 1965. The new immigration regulations allowed the entry of 270,000 immigrants into the United States per year and essentially removed all national- origins restrictions. The new regulations also made provisions for family reunification.162 It was in this context that Canada altered and debated its immigration policy. It was not until the new

Immigration Act in 1976 that Canada made provisions to allow for nominated immigrants

(distant relatives of Canadian residents) to settle in Canada. Borjas demonstrates that American immigration regulations were more liberal in comparison to Canadian regulations noting that in

1976 “Canada enacted a weak version of the 1965 [American] amendments.”163 Thus Canada began to proceed to alter immigration regulations during a time when the United States was liberalizing its immigration policy.

The non-discriminatory nature of the provisions were not the Canadian government’s priority.164 However, in an age of growing international diversity due to decolonization, Canada

161 Ibid., 22. This system granted 65,721 visas to immigrants from Great Britain, 25,957 to Germany, 5,802 to Italy and 2784 to the Soviet Union. 162 Ibid., 23. Borjas notes that 80% of the 20,000 visas were awarded to relatives of American citizens. 163 Ibid., 24. 94

expressed an immigration policy which was universal, abstractly objective and expressed formal equality. The new regulations were thus influenced by international affairs. In 1963, the United

Nations adopted the United Nations Declaration on the Elimination of All Racial Discrimination which was given legal ramifications in 1965 when the UN adopted the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. Canada signed the convention on 24

August 1966 and ratified it on 14 October 1970.165 Thus the points system represented Canada’s commitment to international covenants and reflected global trends towards human rights and humanitarianism.

Settlement

The points system did not signify a ‘raceless’ Canada. In fact, the new regulations had the very opposite effect. With an influx of ethnic and visible minorities, racism and discrimination became a public policy issue. The vast majority of immigrants who arrived in Canada post-1967 settled in urban centers such as Toronto, Montréal and Vancouver. Ontario attracted the majority of immigrants.166 Between 1961 and 1970, for example, 55.5 percent of incoming immigrants settled in Ontario.167 Of these immigrants, 35.4 percent settled in Toronto.168 The most

164 This argument has been made by many policy analysts. For example, Louis Parai argues that economic considerations ruled immigration policy in the postwar period. Parai demonstrates that Canada’s attempt to encourage the immigration of skilled workers was a dominant feature of postwar immigration. See: Louis Parai, “Canada’s Immigration Policy, 1962-74,” 451. Parai’s contentions have been seconded by Stuart Wilson who argues that the points system “removed discriminatory barriers” to foster the recruitment of skilled workers. See: Stuart Wilson, “Immigration and Capital Accumulation in Canada: A Long-Run Perspective,” in Canadian Immigration Policy for the 21st Century, eds. Charles Beach, Alan Green and Jeffrey Reitz (Kingston: John Deutsch Institute for the Study of Economic Policy, McGill-Queen's University Press, 2003): 125-158. 165 Canada, Department of External Affairs, International Year for Action To Combat Racism and Racial Discrimination. Pamphlet no.22, 1971, 2. The lag time was blamed on provincial-federal cooperation. 166 This trend has continued. For example, between 1981 and 1996, the visible minority population of Toronto increased from 13.6% to 31.6%; in Montréal it increased from 5.2% to 12.2%; and in Vancouver it increased from 13.9% to 31.1%. See: Hou Feng and Garnett Picot, “Visible Minority Neighbourhood Enclaves and Labour Market Outcome of Immigrants,” in Canadian Immigration Policy for the 21st Century,” eds. Charles M. Beach, Alan G. Green and Jeffery G. Reitz (Kingston: John Deutsch Institute for the Study of Economic Policy, 2003), 537. 167 Roderic Beaujot, “Effect of Immigration on Demographic Structure,” 64. Between 1961 and 1970, Atlantic Canada attracted 2.1% of immigrants, Québec attracted 18%, the Prairies 11.3% and British Columbia 13%. 95

heterogeneous city in 1971 was Toronto, followed by Vancouver, Winnipeg, Ottawa, Victoria,

Thunder Bay, Hamilton and Calgary.169 By the early 1980s, visible-minorities accounted for

1,130,000 persons - 85% of them were foreign born.170

Table 1.6

Percentage Distribution of Immigrants to Canada by Intended Province of Settlement, 1951-1973

Period B.C Alberta Sask. Manitoba Ontario Québec Maritimes NWT

1951-60 9.3 6.8 2.0 4.4 51.8 23.1 2.2 0.1

1961-66 11.2 5.2 1.6 2.8 52.5 24.3 2.3 0.1

1967-73 14.0 6.9 1.4 4.2 53.5 17.2 2.7 0.1

Source: Louis Parai, “Canada’s Immigration Policy, 1962-74,” International Migration Review, Vol. 9, No.4, (1975), 474.

Migration and urbanization theorists like Ian Burnley and Warren Kalbach have demonstrated that “established” urban centers like Toronto are often “a pole of attraction for both internal and external migrants.”171 This trend has its roots in postwar urban immigration.

Between the years 1946 and 1971, “immigration accounted for over 56 percent of population growth in cities of half a million or more.”172 Large cities are more heterogeneous and culturally diverse than rural areas because “heterogeneity increases with urban size.”173 Large cities were attractive to incoming immigrants during the 1960s and beyond for several reasons. Many immigrants chose large cities such as Toronto because of more fruitful economic opportunities.

168 Ibid., 65. 169 Ian Burnley and Warren E. Kalbach, Immigrants in Canada and Australia, 9. By the mid-1990s, Toronto had attracted 42% of Canada’s visible minority population. Vancouver and Montréal had attracted 30% of Canada’s visible minorities. See: Hou Feng and Garnett Picot, “Visible Minority Neighbourhood Enclaves and Labour Market Outcome of Immigrants,” 538. 170 Roderic Beaujot, “Effect of Immigration on Demographic Structure,” 69. 171 Ian Burnley and Warren E. Kalbach, Immigrants in Canada and Australia, 1. 172 Ibid., 4. 173 Ibid., 7. 96

Large cities provide various employment opportunities because they are “multifunctional” and provide “a combination of manufacturing, professional, service and business activities.”174

Secondly, large cities provide housing, social services and schools which are essential for immigrants, especially families.175 Lastly, immigrants are attracted to urban areas because they boast various established and vibrant ethnic communities. Large urban areas like Toronto, therefore, offer immigrants opportunities to socialize with their cultural group and establish ethnic networks.176 Historically larger cities such as Toronto facilitated “the development of ethnic institutional infra-structures” and “provided the type of vital communal support not generally feasible in smaller towns or rural districts.”177

Discrimination in Ontario: The 1960s

The settlement of visible minorities in urban centers like Toronto and Montréal created some disquiet among government officials who believed that large influxes of ‘coloured’ immigrants could result in strained race relations. The Ontario Human Rights Commission

(OHRC) conducted research to determine the nature of racism in society and the effectiveness of the OHRC. One study, conducted by a professor at McMaster University in Hamilton, compared the perception of discrimination among Black and Japanese residents of Hamilton.178 The study, which was sponsored by the OHRC, the Social Planning Council of Hamilton and District and

McMaster University, found that the status of Blacks was lower than that of Japanese-Canadians.

174 Ibid., 9. 175 Ibid., 12. 176 James Ted McDonald defines ‘ethnic networks’ as “the concentration of people in the same geographic area who are of similar ethnic background, culture, and language.” See: James Ted McDonald, “Location Choice of New Immigrants to Canada: The Role of Ethnic Networks,” in Canadian Immigration Policy for the 21st Century, eds. Charles M. Beach, Alan G. Green and Jeffery G. Reitz (Kingston: John Deutsch Institute for the Study of Economic Policy, 2003), 164. 177 Ian Burnley and Warren E. Kalbach, Immigrants in Canada and Australia, 55. 178 Franklin Henry, Perception of Discrimination Among Negroes and Japanese-Canadians in Hamilton, A Report Submitted to the Ontario Human Rights Commission, November 1965. The study was based on 204 interviews conducted in 1964. 97

Specifically, the study found that Blacks lived in ethnic enclaves and had a family income much lower than an average Hamilton resident.179 The study also found that Japanese-Canadians were more likely to own homes, and could be considered “middle-class”. In contrast, Blacks remained renters and of “lower class occupation.”180 The study was inconclusive with respect to the differences evident in Black and Japanese communities, however, it assured the public that incidents of discrimination occurred more on an individual (versus group) level.181

A more extensive study commissioned by the OHRC examined the socio-economic positions of Black, Chinese and Italian residents in Windsor. Specifically, the study examined housing, neighbourhood reception, occupational integration and “acceptance” in public.182

Rudolph Helling of the Department of Sociology and Anthropology at the University of

Windsor conducted the research and argued that occupational integration was essential to

“successful integration.”183 Helling found that all groups lived in “ethnic ghettos” which resulted in areas known as Little Italy, Chinatown and the “Negro Ghetto.”184 Helling found that Italians experienced the least discrimination mainly because the second generation was entering various professional fields.185 Chinese residents reported more discrimination than Italian residents but felt secure as a group because they lived in “self-segregated” districts.186 Helling found that most

Chinese residents worked in food and service industry.187 The position of Windsor’s Blacks,

179 Blacks earned less than Japanese Canadians ($4,716 versus $5,135). Ibid., 22. 180 Ibid., 32, 40-41. Most Blacks surveyed were unskilled workers – i.e. bartenders, domestics, waiters, ushers, chauffeurs, construction, porters, night watchmen, hospital attendants, cooks, sales clerks, etc. 181 According to the study, Blacks experienced an average of 2 incidents of discrimination a year. Japanese- Canadians experienced discrimination once every five years. Ibid., 76. 182 Rudolph Helling, The Position of Negroes, Chinese and Italians in the Social Structure of Windsor, Ontario, A Report Submitted to the Ontario Human Rights Commission, December 1965, 60. 183 Ibid., 61. 184 Ibid., 63. 185 Ibid., 38, 30. In 1961 Italians accounted for 13,596 out of total population of 258, 218. 186 Ibid., 115. Helling argued that Chinese residents had few “[p]ersonal contacts with the outside.” The Chinese population was small. Of the 258,218 residents in Windsor, approximately between 602 and 750 were Chinese. See: Ibid., 57, 53. 187 Ibid., 56. 98

however, was much different. Helling found that Blacks were disproportionally in low-skilled jobs and were under-represented “in the higher ranks of the occupational pyramid.”188 Most worked as common labourers or in service occupations.189 The author argued that the handfuls of emerging professionals were successful because they had integrated with Whites and noted that non-professionals lived in a self-imposed “segregated world.”190

Helling found that Black residents experienced forms of structural discrimination including differential treatment and employment discrimination. Many had difficulty obtaining housing.191 However, Helling’s study did not focus on structural inequality. Instead, Helling argued that minority groups, particularly Blacks, were to blame for discrimination because there was a “lack [of] a tradition of education in family.” A lack of education produced

“[i]nadequately socialized children” which led to “retardation” which with time only became more “progressive.”192 Education was key to upward mobility; Helling argued that “[a]mong all minority groups, there is the possibility of lack of ambition because of limited perception of opportunities.” 193 He also added that more needed to be done to ensure “equality of all citizens regardless of race”194 and assured the public that divisiveness was in fact positive for Canada because it “allowed innovations in production, distribution and services for the benefit of all.”195

188 Ibid., 10 189 Ibid., 12 190 Ibid., 20. 191 For example, with respect to housing discrimination, when Blacks attempted to move into all-White areas, Whites would organize petitions to keep them out. Although these petitions were not legally binding, they discouraged and intimidated Blacks from moving into these areas. Helling noted that housing discrimination was caused by housing shortages, which resulted in landlords being able to choose amongst applicants. Ibid., 14-15. 192 Ibid., 66. 193 Ibid., 65. 194 Ibid., 115. 195 Ibid., 119. 99

The lack of discourse about structural inequality did not silence evidence of its existence.

In fact, when Ontario passed Canada’s first Fair Employment Practices legislation in 1951, followed soon after by the Fair Accommodation Practices Act – it was evident that cases of discrimination affecting specific groups did exist. Fair Employment Practices legislation was aimed at controlling discrimination in employment and hiring practices. The Fair

Accommodation Practices Act was intended to ensure that individuals would not be denied accommodation or services because of their race, colour, nationality, ancestry or place of origin.

Both were aimed at controlling discrimination on a case-to-case basis and emphasized the notion that institutions were not guilty of discrimination, but rather, some people in those institutions practiced discrimination. The establishment of the Ontario Human Rights Commission reflected this. The Commission’s mandate was to protect Ontarians from discrimination in employment, housing and public services. It was a conciliatory vehicle where individuals could bring forth their grievances. The first step of the process was the investigation of the complaint and then conciliation. If conciliation was not possible then the Commission would report to the Ministry of Labour and would recommend a Board of Inquiry which would hold public hearings. If an accused contravened the orders, he or she would be prosecuted and fined.196

Most cases investigated by the Commission were cases of employment discrimination. In fact, between 1962 and 1968, the majority of the 2000 cases before the Commission dealt with cases of employment discrimination.197 The OHRC saw these cases as anomalies or deviations from a general population which was accepting of all. It was the bigots who were responsible for discrimination and the Commission could adjust their behaviours. Daniel Hill, the Director of the

196 An Act to establish the Ontario Code of Human Rights and to provide for its Administration. Statutes of the Province of Ontario, 1961-1962, c.93. 197 “Hiring Discrimination No Main Complaint: Rights Boss,” Toronto Daily Star, February 1, 1968 and “Employment Provision Cornerstone of Human Rights Code,” Collingwood Enterprise-Bulletin, February 8, 1968. 100

Commission, made this clear at a United Nations lecture series at Scarboro College, where he argued that the Commission “rarely encounter[ed] hate-filled bigots with uncontrollable desires to maintain discrimination….” He argued that “Ontario bigotry is more polite and passive in nature. At least in their overt manifestations, Ontario residents charged with discrimination react favorably to reason, facts and firmness.”198 Hill, who was born in the United States, believed that the “moral atmosphere” in Canada was much better than in the United States and Britain. There was, he argued, a “growing pride in Canadian plurality.”199 As the Expo 67 Ontario pavilion maintained: Ontario was “A Place to Stand, a Place to Grow.” When the OHRC resolved cases of discrimination in various communities, they were praised. Many lauded the OHRC for trying to “make a reality out of what is otherwise a film fantasy.”200 The conciliatory nature of the

Commission was also praised. For example, when the Commission resolved a discrimination case between a Windsor company who had denied a Black man occupancy in an apartment building, the Windsor Star praised the OHRC for being firm and effective with respect to human rights and suggested that:

[i]t would be naïve to suggest all discrimination is being immediately and automatically ended in every aspect. Discrimination is in the minds and souls of men. Mere legislation cannot root it out all at once. But legislation can be effective against overt evidences of it.201

The assertion that Canada was a country free from racial strife would soon be debated.

When Martin Luther King was assassinated on 4 April 1968 in Memphis, Tennessee, Canadians looked to the south in dismay. People of colour, however, probed whether similar racial strife

198 “Ontario’s Bigots polite, passive says HRC director,” Owen Sound Sun Times, March 20, 1968, “Well, our bigots are polite, at least,” Toronto Daily Star, March 20, 1968 and “Ontario Bigots are polite, director says,” Markham Economist, March 22, 1968. 199 “Race relations: The Ontario Example,” The Economist, April 20, 1967. 200 Ibid. 201 “Human Rights Bill Works,” The Windsor Star, January 4, 1968. 101

could erupt in Canada. Darryl Dean, a Trinidadian who edited the Toronto-based Caribbean

Chronicle, posed the question: “Can racial violence set off in the U.S. cities by Dr. Martin Luther

King’s murder occur in Toronto?.” Blacks who described themselves as ‘radicals’ answered with an emphatic ‘yes’. Daniel Hill, however, answered cautiously that he did not believe that there would be “racial conflagrations in Ontario” because:

[t]here are no confined ghettos in Toronto or Hamilton, for instance. And as far as problems of discrimination are concerned there is at least an attempt to solve them in a rational manner through the Ontario Human Rights Commission.202

Darryl Dean agreed with Hill’s liberal stance by noting that a “color bar in law” did not exist in

Canada and assured the public that racial prejudice was “a personal thing.” Ultimately, Dean believed laws would protect visible minorities - if the laws were enforced and followed.203 But there were also dissenting voices. In a piece assessing the status of Blacks in Canada, the

Washington Evening Star interviewed H.A.J. Wedderburn, a self described “moderate Canadian

Negro leader” who claimed that Canada was on the verge of racial strife similar to the levels in the United States. As a school principal and leader of the Nova Scotia Association for the

Advancement of Coloured People, Wedderburn argued that tensions were increasing and that “it is only a matter of time before the violence in the United States spills over into Canada.” Blacks, he argued, were subjected to “inadequate schooling, ghetto-type living conditions, poor housing and lack of job opportunities.”204

Although evidence of employment discrimination and housing discrimination existed, no coherent organized voice expressed concern over discriminatory policies. Much of this can be attributed to the heterogeneous nature of the Black community in Canada. Demography and

202 “Can the U.S. fire jump the border?,” Toronto Telegram, April 17, 1968. 203 Ibid. 204 “Negro Leader’s Warning: Racial Strife Feared Spilling Into Canada,” Washington Evening Star, January 8, 1969. 102

regionalism inhibited a united front against racism. During the 1960s, Canada’s Black population was small and dispersed across Nova Scotia, Ontario and British Columbia.205 Class divisions among Blacks also inhibited an organized effort to examine racism and discrimination. Canada’s

Blacks were also culturally divided. Many West Indians, for example, came from different

Islands and associated with their own cultural group. Within groups of recent immigrants, class divisions were also present. This was evident when University of Montréal West Indian Student

Societies barred domestics from their functions. Political divisions also existed; recently settled

West Indian migrants tended to be more politically active and further to the left on the political spectrum.206

Physical divisions also inhibited a united front. When Blacks and other visible minorities moved to urban areas in Canada’s large cities, they often moved into ethnic enclaves, which could be defined as areas with a substantial presence of their ethnic population. This isolation inhibited the emergence of ethnic policy networks.207 This lack of unity, however, was short- lived. The common experience of racial violence during the 1970s unified many groups and brought the subject of institutional racism into public discourse.

Conclusion

This chapter has traced how ‘race’ and racism have been imagined in the historical context. Since Confederation, ‘race’ has been conceived of in fluid and ambiguous terms. For much of the 19th and early 20th centuries, the idea that racial attributes were static resulted in a

White immigration policy. It was only because of economic necessity that the Canadian state

205 Bertram Boldon, “Black Immigrants in a Foreign Land,” in Let the Niggers Burn: The Sir George Williams University Affair and its Caribbean Aftermath, ed. Dennis Forsythe (Montreal: Black Rose Books, 1971), 36. 206 Ibid. 207 Hou Feng and Garnett Picot, “Visible Minority Neighbourhood Enclaves and Labour Market Outcome of Immigrants,” 538. 103

incorporated foreign labour into Canada’s social landscape. Racialized others were outside the confines of citizenship as the state sought homogeneity, although some historicists, like

Woodsworth, believed that racialized groups had the potential for development.

Historicist discourses were not part of the common sense as the idea of ‘race’ as a biological construct was firmly in place. It was not until the 1930s that various scholars and writers including Gunnar Myrdal, John Murray Gibbon, and W. Burton Hurd complicated naturalist conceptualizations of ‘race’ by demonstrating that ‘race’ could not be quantitatively or qualitatively measured because it was simply too ambiguous a term. These thinkers also contributed to the emerging concept of ‘racism’ as they demonstrated that discrimination, not innate racial characteristics, had created divisions between ethnic groups. As the atrocities of

World War II became known, the focus shifted from an emphasis on ‘race’ as a biological reality to ‘race’ as a social fiction and to the societal causes of discrimination and prejudice. Scholars argued that racism was caused by individuals who had misdirected frustration and aggression.

This conception of racism resulted in human rights legislation that focused on controlling perpetrators of racism who were suffering from the disease of prejudice. This narrow definition of racism, as the next chapter will demonstrate, dominated public discourse until the early 1970s.

Changing conceptualizations of notions ‘race’ and the passage of human rights legislation in the immediate post World War II era did not result in changes to Canada’s immigration policy. As this chapter has shown, for much of the 20th century, immigration policy excluded people of colour. It was not until the late 1960s that Canada liberalized its immigration regulations; many of these policy changes occurred because of Canada’s need for skilled workers in an increasingly globalized and competitive world economy and the nation’s commitment to international human rights covenants. Despite these changes, discriminatory provisions remained

104

on the statute books. This is evident in the analysis of the points system. The points system was significant as it altered the source countries from which Canada admitted immigrants. The new regulations also resulted in an influx of skilled visible minorities who settled in Canada’s urban centres and expected equal treatment. It was these immigrants who argued that institutional discrimination existed in Canadian society. Their arguments, however, were ignored by state officials who espoused the rhetoric of racelessness and continued to argue that racism was caused by a small minority who suffered from the disease of prejudice. This all changed in 1969, when students at Sir George Williams University in Montréal organized a protest against institutional racism in Canadian society.

105

Chapter Three: In the Shadow of the Sir George Williams Affair: The Racial Order in 1960s Canada

On 29 January 1969 ninety students – forty-one of whom were Black - occupied the computer building at Sir George Williams University in Montréal. The students were protesting racial discrimination at their university. The eleven day protest, dubbed the ‘Anderson Affair’ was a result of a longstanding dispute between several West Indian students, and Perry

Anderson, an Assistant Professor in the biology department who had the support of the university administration. Black students claimed that Perry Anderson had consistently given them lower marks. When the students took this complaint to the university administration they were met with pressure to “drop the issue” because the university believed that their grievances were unfounded.1 Continued pressure by the West Indian students and their White supporters resulted in the establishment of a Hearing Committee. Inconsistent communication between the students and the administration and a lack of authentic participation on the part of the students resulted in the breakdown of negotiations and ultimately led to the occupation of one of the most important buildings on the university campus, Henry F. Hall, which housed the university’s computer. The computer was important to the university as it was used by the newly established

Computer Science Department and for administrative purposes such as payroll, student records and employment services.2 The occupation, which began peacefully, ended on the twelfth day when Montréal police were sent into Sir George Williams to forcibly remove the students.

During the raid, the protesters destroyed the university computer with “fire axes and wrenches.”

The violence which erupted could not be contained. Students perceived the computer to be the material representation of authoritarianism and an inept and racist administration.3 During the

1 Crisis at Sir George, videocassette, directed by Renée Morel (Moncton, NB: Connections Productions, 1998). 2 “Computer wrecked, damage $1,000.00,” Toronto Star, February 12, 1969. 106

police raid seventy-nine students were detained.4 The following day, a total of ninety-seven students had been arrested and charged with four counts of conspiracy to commit arson and conspiracy to damage property.5 Authorities were stunned by the violence and regarded the destruction of records as the “rape of the [c]omputer.”6 Some believed that the protest was a

“hippy-yippy” riot organized by students who were “chasing Utopia.”7 Fearing additional violence, the University president assured the community that charges would be laid.8 Following the raid, the university passed new security regulations including identity cards and threatened those who were planning further “illegitimate” and violent activities with suspensions and expulsions.9 The federal government responded to the riot with more alarm and vowed to investigate the students’ political backgrounds and associations with communism.10 Days after the arrests, the White participants were freed on bail. Ten protesters, all of whom were West

Indian, had their passports confiscated and remained incarcerated without bail.11Although the majority of students who participated in the revolt were White, Black students later claimed that the Sir George Williams revolt was not just any student protest but a Black student protest against systemic and institutionalized racism.12

3 “Does the student revolution herald an age of darkness or a time of enlightenment?,” Toronto Star, February 22, 1969. 4 “College to ask police to oust students,” Toronto Star, February 11, 1969. 5 “Computer wrecked, damage $1,000.00,” Toronto Star, February 12, 1969. The arrested protesters were a diverse group - 49 were White and 41 were Black. 60 were male and 30 were female. Furthermore, 44 of the protesters were Canadian citizens; 46 were foreigners. See: Dorothy Eber, The Computer Centre Party (Montreal: Tundra Book, 1969), 7, 11. 6 “97 jailed, 500 students offer to mop up Montreal campus,” Toronto Star, February 13, 1969. 7 Dorothy Eber, The Computer Centre Party, 11, 26. 8 “College to ask police to oust students,” Toronto Star, February 11, 1969. 9 “Montreal university orders student identity cards,” Toronto Star, February 14, 1969. 10 Dorothy Eber, The Computer Centre Party, 20. 11 “79 Sir George students free on bail up to $8,000,” Toronto Star, February 21, 1969. Those not freed included Roosevelt Douglas from Dominica, Robert Williams from Jamaica and Joseph Cheddi Jagan from Guyana. 12 Dennis Forsythe, “By Way of Introduction: The Sir George Williams Affair,” in Let the Niggers Burn: The Sir George Williams University Affair and its Caribbean Aftermath, ed. Dennis Forsythe, (Montréal: Black Rose Books, 1971), 11. 107

This chapter argues that the Sir George Williams Affair was a pivotal event in the history of race relations in Canada as it was one of the first instances that an organized group espoused the belief that institutional racism existed in Canada. Although the anti-imperial global struggle shaped these events, it is important to view the Sir George Williams Affair on its own terms.

Those who participated in the protest not only imagined a post-imperialist and post-colonial world; they also used the global language of dissent to challenge existing conceptualizations of racism in Canada. The protest was a loud and emphatic challenge to Canada’s racial order.

Protesters were not only concerned about neo-colonialism in the Caribbean; they were also concerned about the presence and the reality of institutional and systemic discrimination in

Canada. This was not merely a result of the Anderson Affair, but a constitutive element of the protest. The efforts and the message championed by the students involved, however, were abated by their radicalism and the perceived violent nature of the protest.

The conceptualization of racism as an institutional and systemic phenomenon by Black activists in Montréal was in contrast to how federal and provincial state officials and White human rights activists defined and perceived the nature of racism in Canadian society. An examination of the debate over hate propaganda legislation which dominated human rights activism during the mid-to-late 1960s reveals that state officials and White human rights activists conceived racism to be aberrational and incidental. Their definition of racism, a spontaneous phenomenon perpetuated by individuals, further reinforced the notion that Canada was a raceless and tolerant nation. Moreover, this narrow definition of racism contributed the rejection of the conceptualization of racism as institutional and systemic as expressed by Black activists who had participated in the Sir George Williams stand-off. Lastly, this chapter will demonstrate that the

108

Sir George Williams Affair was significant as it politicized Blacks across Canada and resulted in heightened Black consciousness in Toronto which contributed the eventual recognition of systemic racism during the late 1970s.

Both the Anderson Affair and the prolonged debate over the hate law reveal several important factors which contributed to the rejection of the existence of institutional racism by federal and provincial state actors during the 1960s. First, as demonstrated in the previous chapter, the mythology of racelessness pervaded the discourse surrounding racism in Canada.

Many state officials believed that Canada was a tolerant and progressive nation which did not have policies of exclusion. The mythology of racelessness was evident amongst officials who suggested that racism was an American phenomenon. For example, those who participated in the Anderson Affair were deemed to be outsiders who had been influenced by the discourse of

Black politics in the United States. The hate law debate also reveals that state officials conceptualized racism as an American peculiarity as many believed that Canada was a socially advanced nation that did not need legislation against hate speech. Furthermore, the concept of racelessness is also evident in the discourse surrounding racism – the common sense belief was that racism was a phenomenon practiced by deviant and ignorant individuals. State officials and representatives of institutions believed that racism was practiced by individuals which resulted in the impression that racism was incidental and anomalous. Lastly, state officials associated the concept of institutional racism with violence. The Anderson Affair reveals that state officials correlated the discourse of institutional and systemic racism with Black politics and Black leaders like Stokely Carmichael and Rocky Jones. Similarly, evidence of institutional racism presented during the hate law debate was dismissed as the discourse was associated with the militancy being expressed by these figures.

109

Historiography of the Protest

In 2009, the Montréal Gazette commemorated the fortieth anniversary of the Sir George

Williams protest with a front-page story. It described the protest as a student “rampage” which was organized by “[s]ix militant black students” who were “frustrated” with a biology professor.

The journalist argued that the protest was really about students “demanding greater participation in university management” and emphasized that the riot erupted because “students piled grievance upon grievance, many of which had nothing to do with racism.” The significance of the protest, according the journalist, was that the “incident raised black consciousness in Canada and helped make the university…a more open and welcoming institution.”13 This commemorative article is in stark contrast to a 1998 documentary produced by Québec filmmaker Renée Morel. The documentary, entitled Crisis at Sir George asserts that the Sir

George Williams Affair was “the most destructive student uprising in Canadian history.” Morel argues that the protest was “a turning point in history” because it “fracture[d] the myth of racial harmony in Canada.”14

These contrasting interpretations are characteristic of historical assessments of the Sir

George Williams Affair as there is little consensus among historians about the objectives and significance of the protest. Robin Winks was the first historian to examine the causes of the Sir

George Williams Affair. In The Blacks in Canada, Winks argues that patterns of discrimination did not exist in Canadian universities in the postwar era with the exception of McGill University which had overt racial restrictions. Winks argues that most universities in the postwar period boasted diverse student bodies of Africans, West Indians and Asians who “had created a

13 “40 years ago today; The Biggest student riot in Canadian history had a profound effect on what is now Concordia,” The Montréal Gazette, February 11, 2009. 14 Crisis at Sir George, videocassette, directed by Renée Morel (Moncton, NB: Connections Productions, 1998). 110

sophisticated and, on the whole nondiscriminatory student body and faculty.”15 Winks treats the

Sir George Williams Affair in passing and argues that the protest was a result of an influx of

West Indian students who were influenced by “the rise of demands among Negroes in the United

States for Black Studies programs.”16 Winks attributes little significance to the protest and emphasizes that racism in Canadian universities was “incidental.”17

Ronald W. Walters agrees with Winks’ contention that the Sir George Williams Affair was spurred on by student activism in the United States. However, unlike Winks, Walters does not see the Sir George Williams Affair as insignificant. In Pan Africanism in the African

Diaspora: an Analysis of Modern Afrocentric Political Movements, Walters argues that the

Anderson Affair was an expression of Black Power and Pan-Africanism.18 Concepts of Black

Power and Pan-Africanism, Walters contends, were popularized by American racial politics and were also gaining momentum in the Caribbean as activists “observed the social contradictions which correlated blackness of skin with the severest of poverty in a predominantly Black country.” For activists who participated in the Montréal protest, many of whom were recent immigrants from the Caribbean, Black Power and Pan-Africanism were “internalize[d]” concepts. Walters argues that these concepts were like a “virus” which infected activists and ultimately resulted in the Sir George Williams Affair. Although the protest exposed racism at the university, Walters emphasizes that the sit-in was part of a larger American struggle for student self-determination and Black studies programs.19

15 Robin Winks, The Blacks in Canada: A History, 387. 16 Ibid., 388. 17 Ibid., 387. Winks’ stance did not change when the author reprinted his work nearly 30 years later. See: Robin Winks, The Blacks in Canada: A History, 387-388. 18 Ronald W. Walters, Pan Africanism in the African Diaspora: An Analysis of Modern Afrocentric Political Movements (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1993), 302. 19 Ibid., 301-303. 111

Recent scholarship, however, has challenged these interpretations by emphasizing that local conditions in Montréal facilitated the protest. For example, in The Road to Now: A History of Blacks in Montreal, Dorothy Williams rejects the notion that American racial politics ignited activism in Montréal. Williams argues that activism in 1960s Montréal was not a by-product of

American student protest movements but unique to the city and “the culmination of years of

Black expression and grassroots activity in Canada.” This “new consciousness of race,” Williams argues, was a “natural evolution” which untimely resulted in the Sir George Williams Affair.20

Williams argues that the Anderson Affair is a significant event in the history of Blacks in Canada as the protest resulted in an awakening of the Black community against discrimination.21

David Austin views the Anderson Affair as part of a series of events which exemplified an emerging consciousness among Montréal’s Blacks. However, unlike Williams, Austin argues that the newly emerging awareness of the dynamics of racism was an expression of Black Power inspired by anti-colonial and liberation movements in the Caribbean and African American struggles against racial disadvantage and White privilege.22 This new consciousness, according to Austin, was first expressed in 1965 when Montréal Blacks established the Caribbean

Conference Committee. The Committee focused on decolonization in the West Indies and represented for the first time a deeply socialist agenda for the people of the Caribbean.23 In 1967, the Caribbean Conference Committee disbanded and was renamed the Canadian Conference

Committee. The newly renamed organization focused on domestic issues and mobilized Blacks

20 Dorothy W. Williams, The Road to Now: A History of Blacks in Montréal (Montréal: Véhicule Press, 1997), 118. 21 Ibid., 122. 22 David Austin, “All Roads Led to Montréal: Black Power, The Caribbean, and the Black Radical Tradition in Canada,” The Journal of African American History 92, no.4 (2007): 516. 23 According to Austin the Caribbean Conference Committee “gave birth to …a Canadian dimension of the evolving ‘Black Radical Tradition.’” Utilizing the work of political scientist Cedric J. Robinson, Austin defines the Black Radical Tradition as an expression “of collective intelligence gathered from struggle.” Ibid., 520. 112

against racism. Austin argues that this shift in focus was a result of new leadership and a redefined consciousness that was influenced by the Black Power movement in the United

States.24 This shift towards a Canadian context, Austin argues, was most evident during The

Congress of Black Writers – a conference which took place at McGill University in the fall of

1968. The Congress brought many important Black leaders to Montréal including Stokely

Carmichael, Walter Rodney, and C.L.R. James.25 The main objective of the Congress was to examine racial disadvantage and oppression in Canada and the Third World.26 Austin argues that

The Black Writers Conference was a “temporary” expression of Black Power in Montréal and

Canada.27 A more vocal expression of Black Power was articulated during the Sir George

Williams Affair, which Austin argues was “the single-most important manifestation of Black

Power in Canada.”28 Austin contends that the Sir George Williams Affair was an important expression of Black Power as it demonstrated “the militancy of the black Canadians in the face of white racism….The dormant energies of the black population, which had been simmering beneath the surface for decades, were unleashed as their social and political consciousness reached a new pitch.”29

The Sir George Williams Affair has also been explored by Sean Mills in his work on political activism in 1960s Montréal. Mills examines Montréal activists who, he argues, drew on

24 Ibid., 521. 25 Ibid., 523. 26 Ibid., 522. 27 Ibid., 525. Austin argues that “the Congress of Black Writers represented the passing of the torch from one generation of Pan-African and black radical figures – C.L.R. James and Richard B. Moore – to another which included Stokley Carmichael and Guyanese historian Walter Rodney.” See: 526. 28 Ibid., 529. 29 Ibid., 533. This “new pitch”, Austin argues, resulted in an emergence of a new black consciousness. The National Black Coalition of Canada was established and local organizations emerged in Montréal including: Côte des Neiges Black Community Association, the Quebec Black Board of Education, the Black Board of Educators, the Black Study Centre, Black Theatre Workshop, Black Is Television, the Black Action Party, as well as Black community newspapers such as Uhuru and The Black Voice. See: 535. 113

anti-colonial and anti-imperial ideology “to imagine Quebec as a colony and Montréal as a colonial city” during the Quiet Revolution.30 Mills’ work demonstrates that activism in 1960s

Montréal was part “of global dissent” and that “radical ideas crossed linguistic and ethnic boundaries.”31 Activism was therefore expressed through a “variety of political movements” and though various forms of dissent. 32 However, Mills argues that activists were unified ideologically because they operated in a “constantly metamorphosing counter-hegemonic challenge to empire.”33 The language of decolonization was therefore the central feature of 1960s political activism in Montréal. For Mills, the Sir George Williams Affair was part of the student protest movement against “the unquestioned power of English in economic life.”34 Mills argues that the Sir George Williams Affair was caused by an influx of Black Power rhetoric and paints the protest as a part of “a larger atmosphere of revolt that prevailed in [Montréal].”35 He suggests that West Indians activists added an additional layer to existing interpretations of decolonization in Montréal because they saw the city “as an imperial metropole, a place in which the decision- makers of Western capital decided the economic fate of the Caribbean.”36 According to Mills, the Sir George Williams Affair occurred in the context of an anti-imperial framework because

30 Sean Mills, The Empire Within: Postcolonial Thought and Political Activism in Sixties Montréal (Montréal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2010), 4. Decolonization discourse, Mills argues, was “constantly in flux, never settling into a stable interpretation, continuously melting away before they could ossify.” See: 6. Mill argues that by the early 1970s decolonization discourse waned because of its masculine nature and the rise of race and victimization discourse. Decolonization discourse, Mills asserts, was “inherently unstable, revisable, and ultimately, disposable.” See: 15. 31 Ibid., 9. 32 Ibid., 12, 10. 33 Ibid., 11. 34 Ibid., 13. 35 Ibid., 105. Mills views the protest in the context of 1960s student radicalism against crowding and funding restrictions placed on newly merging junior colleges across the province. See: 12. He argues that “[t]he events of February 1969 grew out of tensions caused by racial injustice in Montréal and throughout the world. Local events acquired their meaning when they were read though larger narratives of anti-colonialism and anti-imperialism, as well as Civil Rights and Black Power movements.” See: 107. 36 Ibid., 7. Mills argues that their primary concern of West Indians involved the protest was “the continued subjugation of their countries of origin by dominant Western powers.” See: 98. 114

students who participated in the protest viewed the university as a colonial institution and saw the riot as a confrontation between as one “between colonizer and colonized.”37 He contends that the Affair signaled “a new era of Black activism” and resulted in a political and cultural renaissance in Montréal’s Black community.38 Furthermore, Mills argues that the Affair resulted in a public discussion of racism and immigration because the protest resulted in an awareness by the Black community in Montréal that Canadian liberalism was full of contradictions.39

Historicizing the Sir George Williams Affair

The historical resistance of Blacks in Canada has been constant. Efforts to gain political, economic and social rights had been expressed since the days of slavery. Although some cases of resistance were violent – as in the case of Marie-Joseph Angélique40 and Solomon Moseby,41 for example, most resistance was non-violent in nature. Historians have demonstrated that Black

37 Ibid., 111. 38 Ibid., 95, 96. 39 Ibid., 108-109. 40 In 1734, Angélique, a Portuguese-born Black slave and her White lover, Claude Thibault were accused of setting a fire in Montréal that destroyed a hospital and 45 houses. Claude fled, leaving Angélique on her own to prove her innocence. Most Montréalers were convinced that Angélique set the fire although no witnesses saw her commit the crime. Forced to confess under torture, Angélique was publicly executed on June 21, 1734. The case has been the subject of historical debate for some time. Many historians argue that Angélique was guilty and assert the burning of Montréal was an act of resistance against the institution of slavery in Canada. See: Marcel Trudel, L’esclavage au Canada Français: Histoire et Conditions de L’esclavage (Québec City: Presses Universitaires Laval, 1960); Dorothy Williams, Blacks in Montréal 1628-1986: An Urban Demography (Montréal: VLB éditeur, 1998), 24-25, Afua Cooper, The Hanging of Angélique: The Untold Story of Slavery and the Burning of Montréal (Toronto: Harper Collins, 2006). 41 The abolition of slavery throughout the British Empire in 1833 attracted fugitive slaves to Upper Canada. Solomon Moseby, a slave from Kentucky, travelled to the Niagara region in 1837. His freedom, however, was thwarted because of a horse stealing charge. Officials argued that Upper Canada was not a safe haven for criminals. Upon learning of his arrest, Black Canadians in the region hired a lawyer and organized a three-week vigil to prevent his extradition. With the help of the Black community and after a violent confrontation between the deputy sheriff, constables and soldiers, Moseby escaped and eventually settled in Great Britain. The Moseby affair is significant as it was the first case in which colonial officials were involved in a formal extradition. Historians have examined the Moseby case in the context of fugitive slave laws and diplomatic relations between Britain and the United States. David Murray, however, argues that these interpretations ignore the agency of African Canadians who saw this case as determining “the security of all slave refugees in the colony.” Many believed that if Moseby was extradited it would set a precedent whereby no slaves would be able to seek refuge in Canada. See: David Murray, “Hands Across The Border: The Abortive Extradition Of Solomon Moseby,” Canadian Review of American Studies 30, no.2 (2000): 187-209. 115

Canadians were drawn to Canada during the 19th century and beyond because of formal legal equality and the absence of slavery, however, Blacks continued to experience discrimination and racial hostility and used legal avenues against discrimination.42 Although the law did not impose segregation, Black Canadians were marginalized in various neighbourhoods across the nation.

Others lived in all-Black districts and communities by choice to avoid the tenacious nature of discrimination from White Canadians.43 Many Blacks, for example, settled in towns like

Toronto, Windsor, Chatham, Buxton and Amherstburg. Black Canadians, however, were never passive as they constantly confronted racial oppression and second-class citizenship; they debated their national belonging in newspapers and at conventions and churches.44 The resistance, however, tended to be non-violent.

World War I highlighted the methods of non-violent resistance used by Black Canadians.

When Canadian Blacks were prohibited from participation in Canada’s war effort, they lobbied

42 See for example: James W. St. G. Walker, Race, Rights and the Law in the Supreme Court of Canada: Historical Case Studies, 122-181 and Constance Backhouse, Colour-Coded: A Legal History of Racism in Canada, 1900-1950, 226-271. 43 Howard Law, “‘Self-Reliance Is the True Road to Independence’: Ideology and the Ex-Slaves in Buxton and Chatham,” in A Nation of Immigrants: Women, Workers, and Communities in Canadian History, 1840-1960s, eds. Franca Iacovetta et al, (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1998), 83-100. 44 Historians have assessed several Black activists including: Henry Bibb (a fugitive Kentucky slave who settled in the Windsor area and established Canada’s first Black newspaper, Voice of the Fugitive between 1851-1853), Samuel Ringgold Ward (an anti-slavery lecturer who settled in Canada in 1851 and worked as an agent for the Canadian Anti-Slavery Society), Mary Ann Shadd Cary (who settled in Upper Canada in 1851 and established The Provincial Freeman newspaper in 1853 with Samuel Ringgold Ward), and Martin Delany (who moved to Chatham in 1856 and expressed race-based nationalism). These activists expressed various philosophical ideologies. Shadd, for example, embraced European civilization but at the same time she denounced White superiority. Delany asserted that he did not want to live in a White colony and called for an independent Black nation. Many, including Delany and Shadd Cary, returned to the United States during the Civil War as they saw many possibilities in the era of Reconstruction. Most were disheartened with Reconstruction as it paved the way to anti-black violence and Jim Crow laws; Shadd Cary expressed this during the 1880s. See: Jane Rhodes, “The Contestation Over National Identity: Nineteenth-Century Black Americans in Canada,” Canadian Review of American Studies 30, no.2 (2000): 175-186. 116

the federal government to permit Blacks to establish a non-combatant battalion. During World

War II, the discriminatory provisions continued; Blacks were not permitted to enlist in the Navy or the Air Force until manpower shortages pressured the government to allow enlistment. The efforts to gain recognition during both World Wars were reactive. Blacks were fighting against discriminatory provisions, However, in the immediate postwar era, Canadian Blacks were aware of their lobbying power and the popularity of notions of ‘human rights’ and egalitarianism.45

It was in this context that various individuals and organizations utilized the language of rights to gain legal provisions against discrimination. For example, Alvin McCurdy, a member of the Amherstburg Citizen's Advancement Association in Essex County, Ontario, argued that the fate of democracy rested on Canada’s recognition of Blacks as citizens. Writing to an Ontario

Member of Parliament in the mid-1940s, McCurdy emphasized that the health of Canada’s democracy rested in the recognition of minority rights:

We want every right and privilege to which our citizenship entitles us, no more, no less. Segregation and discrimination nullify our citizenship and they must be abolished for the sake of democracy itself, because no social system that countenances hypocrisy can be maintained in the world today, and no system that approves this hypocrisy is worth maintaining. In failing to recognize the faculties of the colored man and woman at this time and crisis, our country limits its own destiny; in denying us jobs, our country denies itself production; in promoting segregation the country destroys national unity….46

Various groups, most notably the residents of Dresden, Ontario, organized similar campaigns against discriminatory statues. They organized a community effort and solicited the support of human rights supporters. The efforts of Dresden residents and human rights activists led to the passage of the Fair Accommodations Practices Act in 1954.47 The passage of the legislation

45 Carmela Patrias and Ruth Frager, “‘This is Our Country, These Are Our Rights’: Minorities and the Origins of Ontario's Human Rights Campaigns," Canadian Historical Review 82, no.1 (2001): 1-35. 46 Archives of Ontario. Alvin D. McCurdy fonds. Records of the Amherstburg Community Club. F 2076-14-0-4. 47 James W. St. G. Walker, Race, Rights and the Law in the Supreme Court of Canada, 173. 117

occurred in the context of an emerging Black revolt in the United States. During the 1950s the

National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), challenged segregation in public schools in the Brown v. Board of Education case arguing that segregation of children

“generate[d] a feeling of inferiority…that may affect their heart and minds in a way unlikely ever to be undone.” The Supreme Court agreed and called for the end of segregated schooling.

Integration, however, did not occur in a speedy manner. In 1965, over 75% of Southern schools remained segregated. The continued discrimination and humiliation experienced by Black

Americans led to the emergence of a more militant and powerful Black Power movement during the 1960s.48

In the Canadian context, the Anderson Affair broke from ‘traditional’ avenues of protest and resistance because it was violent. As one protester later reflected, past strategies of

“petitions, the vote, court action, demonstrations, marches, appeasement, threats, [and] alliances with Whites” were ineffective.49 The Anderson Affair was an expression of Black Power in the

Canadian context. Demands for rights were contextualized by a glorification of Africa and calls for self-determination. Moreover, the protest expressed the existence of institutional racism in the Canadian context. It was the first instance in Canadian history that ‘rights talk’ emphasized the need for “institutional liberation.”50

Origins of the Protest

In April 1968, six West Indian students charged that Perry Anderson was discriminating against Black students by lowering their marks. Anderson gave six of his seven Black students

48 Howard Zinn, A People’s History of the United States, 1492- Present (New York: Harper Perennial, 1995), 441. 49 Dennis Forsythe, “The Unfinished Revolution,” in Let the Niggers Burn: The Sir George Williams University Affair and its Caribbean Aftermath, ed. Dennis Forsythe, (Montréal: Black Rose Books, 1971), 193. 50 Ibid., 204. 118

failing marks and was well-known to give them differential treatment.51 In fact, the common perception among West Indian students was that it was impossible for them to attain a mark of above ‘C’ in Anderson’s course.52 The students brought an official document with the charges against Anderson to the Dean of Science in May 1968.53 The charges were ignored by the administration and students involved in the case blamed this on the “arrogance of power” embedded in the university administration.54 Seeking a resolution, the students appealed to the provincial and federal governments. The federal government did not want to interfere and argued that it was a provincial matter. The province of Québec argued that it would not deal with issues regarding private institutions.55 With pressure from the students and increasing media attention, the university administration responded. The response was a denial of all allegations made by the students and an assertion that the students were simply having “academic problems.”56 One

English Professor at the university elaborated on this noting that West Indian students’ academic performance reflected their racial background - they were simply accustomed to a different lifestyle, with a slower pace and their marks reflected the fact that they could not adjust to

51 DeLisle Worrell, “Canadian Economic Involvement in the West Indies,” in Let the Niggers Burn: The Sir George Williams University Affair and its Caribbean Aftermath, ed. Dennis Forsythe, (Montréal: Black Rose Books, 1971), 87. 52 Comment made by Rodney John, one of Anderson’s former students. John stated that students were aware that Anderson “did not like West Indians.” Crisis at Sir George, videocassette, directed by Renée Morel (Moncton, NB: Connections Productions, 1998). 53 Dorothy Eber, The Computer Centre Party, 39-41. 54 DeLisle Worrell, “Canadian Economic Involvement in the West Indies,” 79. 55 Roosevelt Williams, “Réactions: The Myth of White ‘Backlash.’” in Let the Niggers Burn: The Sir George Williams University Affair and its Caribbean Aftermath, ed. Dennis Forsythe, (Montréal: Black Rose Books, 1971), 131. The institution was founded in Montréal in 1873 by the Young Men's Christian Association and was named after Sir George Williams (1821-1905), the founder of the Young Men's Christian Association in England. Sir George Williams College was established in 1926. In 1948, Sir George Williams College obtained its university charter. Following the Report of the Royal Commission of Inquiry on Education 1963-1966, the provincial government of Québec recommended the amalgamation of Loyola College (established in 1896) and Sir George Williams University. Negotiations began in 1969 and ended in 1974 when Loyola and Sir George Williams amalgamated and became Concordia University. Concordia University History http://www.concordia.ca/about/who- we-are/history/ and http://alumni.concordia.ca/about/associations/sgw/ (accessed May 13, 2009). 56 Dorothy Eber, The Computer Centre Party, 44. 119

Canadian winters.57

The university’s denial of racism was a disappointing outcome for Anderson’s students.

However, with continued pressure from the students, a Hearing Committee was established and scheduled to meet in January 1969.58 As the months passed, the Hearing Committee’s membership changed along with the scheduled date and time. Communication between the administration and the West Indian students was nonexistent. As a result, the students resolved to occupy the computer centre because “all that was left to be done could only be done outside of those [administrative] boundaries.”59 The computer centre was occupied by the protesters because the administration deemed it to be vulnerable. One protestor later recalled that the choice of occupying the centre was inspired by the university: “students got their idea from the opposition itself.”60

Revolutionary Rhetoric: The Discourse of Institutional Racism

By the time the university announced that it planned to establish a Hearing Committee, the students’ rhetoric had changed from allegations against an individual (Anderson) to arguments that the real problem was systemic and institutional.61 Between April 1968 and

11 February 1969, a series of events radicalized the students at Sir George Williams University.

This radicalization had pan-Canadian effects.

In October 1968, Black students at Sir George organized a conference entitled

“Involvement of the Black Community in Canadian Society.” The conference committee encouraged Blacks from across Canada to attend. Students who attended the conference

57 Ibid., 83-84. 58 Dennis Forsythe, “By way of introduction: The Sir George Williams Affair,” 7-21. 59 DeLisle Worrell, “Canadian Economic Involvement in the West Indies,” 90-1. 60 Ibid., 91. 61 Ibid., 80. 120

discussed various problems facing Blacks in Canada including: unemployment, mobility in the labour force, housing, ghettoization, Black Power and the “[p]olitical, [s]ocial and [c]ultural alienation” of Blacks in Canada. The goal of the conference was to bring a diverse group of

Blacks: those born in Canada, those who had recently emigrated from the West Indies and those who were in Canada as students under temporary immigration measures. The conference programme argued that Blacks had to “start to debate the form of the ‘Just Society’” – a concept popularized by Pierre Trudeau during the 1968 federal election campaign.62 Trudeau used to phrase as a metaphor for the Canada he intended to build – a Canada which he argued would support social welfare programs, encourage regional economic development and recognize minority rights most notably Aboriginal and francophone rights.63 One student who participated in the conference later elaborated that the conference was an expression of “their impatience and disgust with the “‘system’ – a capitalistic system that juxtaposes private affluence and public squalor, supposedly a ‘just’ society that proves to be just only for the affluent who happen to be white.”64 Students were thus not simply expressing anti-capitalist and anti-imperialist sentiments, they were also espousing the belief that Canada was a racist society which had used racelessness to obfuscate and suppress evidence of systemic racism. The conference had a radicalizing effect on many students who had travelled to Montréal from across Canada. The conference presenters called for “the necessity of education for Blacks, the necessity of gaining “‘access’ to opportunities, the necessity of economic power as the only basis of political power ….and… [the necessity] for comprehensive protective housing legislation in Canada.”65 Housing

62 Dennis Forsythe, “The Black Writers Conference: Days to Remember,” in Let the Niggers Burn: The Sir George Williams University Affair and its Caribbean Aftermath, ed. Dennis Forsythe, (Montréal: Black Rose Books, 1971), 58. 63 John English, Just Watch Me: The Life of Pierre Elliot Trudeau: 1968-2000 (Toronto: Alfred A. Knopf Canada, 2009), 20-21. 64 Dennis Forsythe, “By way of introduction: The Sir George Williams Affair,” 10-11. 121

discrimination was a key grievance expressed by the participants. Following the conference, one participant, Terrence Ballantyne, argued that when he moved to Montréal from Trinidad he was told by a landlady that she did not rent to “niggers.” Ballantyne also said that it was difficult to get stable and well-paying employment. He lamented that when he worked at a bus terminal the employer refused to hire Blacks in the baggage room where salaries were higher. Ballantyne was convinced that higher paying jobs remained out or reach for Blacks and that racism was embedded in Canadian society and was practiced through “innuendo, [or] by exclusion.”66 The conference was significant as it concluded by calling for the establishment of a pan-Canadian organization for Blacks.67 More importantly, the conference provided concrete examples of systemic racism in Canadian society. Participants provided undeniable examples of individual racism and demonstrated that these individual acts were reflective of a larger, more chronic problem which was intrinsic to the Canadian state.68

65 Dorothy Eber, The Computer Centre Party, 35-38. Calls for protective housing legislation by Black participants suggest that ideological divisions between Black Power and Civil Rights activists were not deep-seated. This has been argued by Nikhil Pal Singh in Black is a Country: Race and the Unfinished Struggle for Democracy. Singh’s intellectual history rejects existing Black Power and Civil Rights historiography which tends to periodize Black liberation in the United States. The historiography suggests that a progressive and optimistic Civil Rights Movement dominated between 1954 and 1965. In 1965, however, Black Power emerged because Northern Blacks became disenchanted with the Civil Rights Movement. Their arguments focused on “intractable problems of black urbanity; residential segregation, chronic black underemployment, and seething ghetto resentment.” See: 5. Black liberation historians claim that the Civil Rights Movement was nonviolent, tolerant, integrationist and patriotic. Black Power, in contrast, is often described as anti-American, nationalistic and divisive. Singh asserted that these arguments fail “to recognize the historical depth and heterogeneity of black struggles against racism, narrowing the political scope of black agency and reinforcing a formal, legalistic view of black equality” See: 6. Singh contends that activists from both spheres challenged existing power structures by using discourses which were global in scope – “Black struggles for justice, dignity, and self-respect had always been about achieving a broader transformation of the United States into an equitable society.” See: 2. Black liberation, according to Singh, was about achieving social justice that would benefit the nation as a whole. These arguments had a long history; Black activists such as W. E. B. Du Bois espoused these assertions during the 1930s (See: 58-100). Singh’s work is important as it demonstrates that Black Power and Civil Rights activists and intellectuals created a “Black Public Sphere” which challenged the myths of American liberal democratic justice and American imperialism. Both groups made complex and radical arguments which were rural, urban, national and transnational. See: Nikhil Pal Singh, Black is a Country: Race and the Unfinished Struggle for Democracy (Cambridge, Harvard University Press, 2004). 66 Dorothy Eber, The Computer Centre Party, 35-38. 67 Dennis Forsythe, “The Black Writers Conference: Days to Remember,” 58-59. 122

The emergence of Black politics in Canada coincided with a strong and organized Black

Power movement in the United States and the Caribbean.69 Black Power activists espoused Black racial pride and argued for the establishment of Black institutions to foster collective interests.

Central to Black Power was the idea of ‘Black politics’ which was defined by Black activists as

“the means by which Black people gain control over themselves as a people, and the institutions that affect them.” The goal of Black politics was not to reform the current ‘system’ but to contribute to “world revolution.”70 One student who participated in Sir George Williams stand- off espoused this anti-reformist, pro-revolution stance by arguing that the goal of Black politics was:

To learn the pitfalls of any situation, the situation itself must be known thoroughly. For this reason many believe that to deal with the pitfalls of the present system which controls us, it is necessary to join the system so that changes can be made from within….[however] [j]oining a system to change it is futile. It may be politically astute at

68 Those who participated in the conference argued that it was the beginning of an ideological awakening for Blacks in Montréal and Canada. Dennis Forsythe, a Jamaican doctoral student at McGill during the 1960s who had experienced racial strife as a graduate student at the London School of Economics in Britain, argued that the Montréal Conference “mobilized” Blacks “mentally and ideologically” because Blacks became “aware of the concrete embodiments of [their] plight” and developed a plan to “gain salvation.” This ‘awakening’ Forsythe argues, was, in part, facilitated by “the ongoing race war in the United States.” Ibid., 57, 58, 209. 69 Montréal’s protestors received support from American anti-racism activists. For example, Reverend A. Kendall Smith from the Beulah Baptist Church in New York City protested the treatment of those protesters who were incarcerated by distributing a pamphlet in Montréal. The pamphlet argued: “We supporters for all peoples demand that the students who are being illegally held without bail, be released immediately. The alleged damage done to the computer read to the amount of two million dollars whereas the amount of damage manifested by institutionalized racism is incalculable. Not even in raceland U.S.A. would this grave injustice be committed.” See: Roosevelt Williams, “Réactions: The Myth of White “Backlash,” in Let the Niggers Burn: The Sir George Williams University Affair and its Caribbean Aftermath, ed. Dennis Forsythe, (Montréal: Black Rose Books, 1971), 125. 70 LeRoi Butcher, “The Anderson Affair,” in Let the Niggers Burn: The Sir George Williams University Affair and its Caribbean Aftermath, ed. Dennis Forsythe, (Montréal: Black Rose Books, 1971), 106. See also: Robert L. Scott, and Wayne Brockriede, The Rhetoric of Black Power (New York: Harper and Row Publishers, 1969); Jeffery O.G. Ogbar, Black Power: Radical Politics and African America Identity (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2004): 37-158; Cedric Johnson, Revolutionaries to Race Leaders: Black Power and the Making of African American Politics (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2007); Stokely Carmichael and Ekwueme Michael Thelwell, Ready for Revolution: The Life and Struggles of Stokely Carmichael (Kwame Ture) (New York: Scribner, 2003); Stokely Carmichael, Stokely Speaks: Black Power Back to Pan-Africanism (New York: Random House, 1971), 17-45, 77-101. 123

times, but it does not change the system. Any system is set up to perpetuate itself. It will adopt itself to appease any challenges, but this is sheer reformism.”71

His comments reveal that those involved in the Sir George stand-off were not only protesting against a racist professor; they were also making claims to full citizenship as they voiced their opposition to the social, political and economic forms of racism.72

It was in this context that McGill students organized the Black Writers’ Conference. The conference took place at McGill University in October 1968 and in spite of the conference title, the focus of the symposium was liberation, not poetry or prose. The conference was dedicated to Martin Luther King and Malcolm X - two men who fought for Black emancipation. It was aimed at exposing the cultural, political and economic oppression of Blacks in Canada and around the world.73 Those who presented at the conference included: C.L.R. James, Richard

Moore from Barbados, Stokely Carmichael, Robert Hill and Richard Small, Michael X from

Britain, Rocky Jones and Walter Rodney, men well-known for their Black liberation politics.

They examined Black Power and Black Nationalism in Canada and addressed racism, capitalism, colonialism and discrimination.74

The Writer’s Conference called for a “second liberation”, a means by which “Black people …[would] begin to rediscover themselves as the active creators rather than the passive

71 LeRoi Butcher, “The Anderson Affair,” 107. 72 Bertram Boldon, “Black Immigrants in a Foreign Land,” 23. Boldon was a Trinidadian musician who lived in Montréal; he studied sociology at McGill. Ibid., 209. 73 David Austin, “All Roads Led to Montréal: Black Power, The Caribbean, and the Black Radical Tradition in Canada,” 522. The conference goals were clearly stated in the conference program: “Here for the first time in Canada …an attempt will be made to recall, in a series of popular lectures by black scholars, artists and politicians, a history which we have been taught to forget…in short, the history of the black liberation struggle, from its origins in slavery to the present day.” 74 Dennis Forsythe, “The Black Writers Conference: Days to Remember,” 60-61. One attendee commented on the importance of the conference: “Those of us who attended the Conference with note pads eager to take notes were quickly disappointed – disappointed at that level, but not at the more significant level of gaining a feeling that something important was happening, that the old contents of our minds were being slaughtered, that we were being equipped to take up roles in a historic drama, a drama that began there at the Conference.” For this participant, the conference was like a “religious revival” because Blacks finally saw themselves as “‘makers rather than takers’ of history.” Ibid., 61, 62, 66. 124

sufferers of history’s events.”75 As one attendee noted, the main message of conference was “that the conference attendants should purge themselves of their colonial past and begin to view the future in terms of revolution as a solution to the problem of colonialism.”76

Conference preparations illuminated some of the divisions within the Black community.

Some participants argued that Whites should not be permitted to attend the conference, while others, such as Rocky Jones, argued that Blacks needed to be open to coalition building particularly with other oppressed groups such as Aboriginals and Quebeckers. This, he believed, would increase the political power of the Black community in Canada. Initially, Whites were not invited to the conference, but with some pressure from dissenting voices, the conference committee allowed Whites to participate and resolved to have all-Black caucuses.77

During the conference, one participant, Harry Edwards, cautioned Blacks not to attack

Whites but to attack the “system” because racism was perpetuated not by “individual psychopaths” but by a “worldwide system” of oppression. James Forman, another participant, agreed and claimed that this system of oppression was expressed in institutions and asserted that racism would only be eliminated through state power.78 The most anticipated speech came from

Stokely Carmichael. Carmichael told the audience to be forceful in their fight against racism and to “meet violence with violence.”79 He encouraged Blacks to unite and told the enthusiastic crowd: “We’ve got to get guns.”80 Carmichael knew that his speech was controversial and he warned the audience that the fight against racism would create divisions in the Black community

75 Ibid., 60. 76 L.R. Butcher, “The Congress of Black Writers,” in Let the Niggers Burn: The Sir George Williams University Affair and its Caribbean Aftermath, ed. Dennis Forsythe, (Montréal: Black Rose Books, 1971), 69. 77 David Austin, “All Roads Led to Montréal: Black Power, The Caribbean, and the Black Radical Tradition in Canada,” 524. 78 Ibid. 79 Dennis Forsythe, “The Black Writers Conference: Days to Remember,” 62. 80 Crisis at Sir George, videocassette, directed by Renée Morel (Moncton, NB: Connections Productions, 1998). 125

noting that “….[t]he time is approaching when everyone will have to choose sides and those who will sit on the fence will be burned down with it…”81 Carmichael was very persuasive. LeRoi

Butcher, a student, later reflected on the conference and noted that the Sir George Williams

82 Affair was caused by the idolization of Carmichael by the students. Butcher argued that the

Carmichael’s speech aroused anger in students and during the stand-off they reacted by destroying property. Butcher legitimized the destruction of property by arguing that it would send a message to the “powerful ruling class” which was oppressive.83

Following the conference, the class divisions Carmichael spoke of were evident in the

Black community. Butcher argued that middle-class Blacks were a “contemptuous circle” full of

“middle class hang ups” and spoke of “racial harmony” which he argued was like “allegiance to the western world and its imperialism.”84 For many students, the conference was not only about class divisions but about “Black independence” specifically “self-direction, self-support and economic self-sufficiency.”85 Although some discussions were theoretical as they examined the nature of imperialism and the world order, the conference also examined and scrutinized structural inequalities imbedded in Canadian society. The conference was therefore profoundly important - it signified a “metamorphosis of Black people” as it radicalized Black students and facilitated their politicization.86

81 Dennis Forsythe, “The Black Writers Conference: Days to Remember,” 61. 82 L.R. Butcher, “The Congress of Black Writers,” 71-73. 83 LeRoi Butcher, “The Anderson Affair,” 100. 84 L.R. Butcher, “The Congress of Black Writers,” 70. Ideological and class divisions were also expressed during the Hearing Committee meetings. Two black professors - Chester Davis, an Assistant Professor in the Department of Education and Clarence Bayne, an Assistant Professor in the Department of Commerce – were on the Hearing Committee. They believed that Anderson should have legal representation. When students learned about this they felt betrayed and called the Black professors “white niggers” and “black honkeys.” Because of the air of animosity, Professors Davis and Bayne resigned from the committee. See: Dorothy Eber, The Computer Centre Party, 78-79. 85 Dennis Forsythe, “The Black Writers Conference: Days to Remember,” 61. 86 Dennis Forsythe, “By way of introduction: The Sir George Williams Affair,” 8, and “Black writers’ conference blamed for Montreal riot,” Toronto Star, February 17, 1969. 126

Ideological Awakening of Blacks and White Support

These series of events – the Sir George Williams Conference and the Black Writers’

Conference - brought about an ideological awakening of Blacks which led to the establishment of weekly meetings. These meetings, which were called the “Thursday Black Rally,” brought together students who discussed the challenges faced by the Black community. The meetings were instrumental in the dissemination of radical material which further politicized the attendees.

LeRoi Butcher recalled reading and examining the works of Franz Fanon, Stokely Carmichael,

Bobby Seale, Martin Luther King, Malcolm X, and Eldridge Cleaver.87 The meetings were followed by the establishment of Montréal’s first Black newspaper – Uhuru, a Swahili term for

‘freedom’ or ‘independence’.88

The Montréal conferences, the establishment of a Black newspaper and weekly meetings heightened Black consciousness and contributed to an emerging ideological context with led to the occupation of the computer centre at Sir George Williams University. For the students involved, it was an inevitable protest. Dennis Forsythe who participated in the protest lamented:

“We say that it is about time the world take our words seriously; if not our words, then our actions, which are born of desperation and fury.”89 For Forsythe, the protest embodied centuries of racial disadvantage – it was an expression against a long history of “exploitation without recompense, service without thanks, promises without fulfillment: bluntly, lies and thievery.”90

For many protestors, the occupation of the computer centre symbolized a challenge to the

87 LeRoi Butcher, “The Anderson Affair,” 81. Butcher was from S. Lucia. He was the founding member of Uhuru and was also Chairman of the Black Student Association of Sir George Williams University between1968-69. See: 209. 88 Dennis Forsythe, “By way of introduction: The Sir George Williams Affair,” 9. 89 Ibid., 4. 90 Ibid., 15. 127

ingrained historical stereotypes and prejudices that characterized Canadian society.

The crisis at Sir George made international headlines which generated increased support from Black and White students. Many White students who participated in the protest did so because of the eloquent speeches made by Black students at a rally on the mezzanine – a rally which took place during the occupation of the computer centre. These speeches emphasized that

Perry Anderson’s guilt was not the issue, but rather that the key and fundamental issue was institutional discrimination - the administration was not willing to work with the students because they were Black. One Black student, Kelvin Robinson, made an impressive speech which galvanized White students. Robinson appealed to the consciences of White students by arguing that Whites had a “moral obligation” to question the racist administration. Whites, he argued, could not just blindly come to class and debate whether there was enough proof against

Anderson. Robinson argued that the Anderson case was “black and white” because it was about injustice. If White students decided not the support the protest, they were “showing the world that you are just as racist as the United States, or England, or any white people all over the world.”91 Robinson’s speech also challenged Canada’s raceless image:

all over the world talking about they’re (Canadians) different form the other white people, and they (Canadians) are just, and they (Canadians) are not colour-conscious and all of that…White people, no matter how much they talk about justice, when the chips go down, and it’s time to attack other white people in the name of justice, they always cop out. They always have an excuse.92

By not taking a stand, Robinson argued, White students were complicit. As bystanders White students were “acting in the way people used to act before civil rights, that’s pre-civil rights action.”93 Robinson called on them to stop “theorizing” whether Anderson was guilty because

91 Dorothy Eber, The Computer Centre Party, 115. 92 Ibid., 116. 93 Ibid., 120. 128

there was clear evidence that the administration was not investigating the charge of racism in an impartial manner.94

Rosie Douglas, a Black post-graduate student at McGill also spoke at the rally. Douglas, like Robinson, called on Whites to question their conscience and their beliefs about the supposed

“just society.”95 Douglas called on those who were against the exploitive nature of capitalism to also take a stand against racism, as racism, he argued, developed out of capitalism. Douglas asserted that racism was ingrained and inherent in Canadian society and called on the students to think critically why this was so.96

In contrast to Rosie Douglas and Kevin Robinson, Rocky Jones had little faith in appealing to the White conscience. Instead, Jones urged White students to join the protest because the Anderson Affair demonstrated the lack of power that all students had vis-à-vis the administration. Jones emphasized that the Anderson case was an important fight as it represented exploitation in various forms including: racism, capitalism, imperialism, and colonialism. He pressed White students to join the movement based on whatever framework of exploitation they believed existed.97 Jones, however, was convinced that racism was at the centre of exploitation and like Robinson argued that the inaction of Whites was an expression and assertion of racism.

Jones also contended that racism was expressed on an individual basis but, more importantly, he asserted that racism was cyclical and institutional. He argued that universities were an extension of White society and as a resulted in the perpetuation of White “values, folkways, mores, and laws.”98

94 Ibid., 117. 95 Ibid., 137. 96 Ibid., 138. 97 Ibid., 125. 98 Ibid., 126. 129

The appeals made by Douglas, Robinson and Jones were fruitful. Some White students travelled from the Maritimes and from various universities across Ontario to join the Sir George

Williams protest. The majority of White protesters, however, were from the Montréal region. Pat

Pajonas, a young sociology lecturer who was part of the occupation explained why White students were attracted to the protest:

The occupation was a kind of coming of age for a lot of people…The black students were set up for something to happen and for many of them this was their initiation into the struggle for black equality. They had a need to identify with the struggle and this was a way to do it. For the white students….the occupation supplied the opportunity to prove their identity; participation was a self-defining act. Of course they joined too because of white guilt…99

As Pajonas illuminates, the protest, for some, signified a rite of passage into adulthood. White students, however, expressed diverse and complex reasoning behind their declarations of support. One White member of the Sir George Williams Student Association argued that for the protestors the university symbolized and mirrored the greater society and that it was “necessary to tear down and make all things new.”100 Most White supporters were student activists who saw the conflict as one between West Indian students and an authoritative and hegemonic administration that symbolized the problems inherent in the bourgeois “Establishment.”101 The protest, in their minds, was about student rights, not racial conflict.

Other students conceptualized the protest in an anti-imperial framework. Alan Hood, a

White student from the University of Western Ontario explained why he joined the occupation:

The University is part of a society which takes three hundred million out of the Caribbean each year and puts back just over fourteen million. It belongs to that economic framework. It’s the kind of institution that exists within the framework of Canada’s neo-

99 Ibid, 98-99. 100 Ibid., 25. 101 Ibid., 52. 130

colonialist relationship with Quebec, Rhodesia, India and the Caribbean. Racism is built on socio-economic conditions…102

For Hood, and many others, the protest was both about class struggle and anti-racism. Some

White students were more pragmatic in their expressions of support. When the university excluded Blacks from the committee hearings into the allegations against Perry Anderson, White support increased as the closed meetings brought to light the existence of institutional exclusion.103

Overt racial hatred was also expressed against the protesters, particularly those who were

Black. During the second meeting of the Hearing Committee, a White crowd formed and began to chant “Niggers go home.”104 This was also posted on a large sign at the main cafeteria at Sir

George Williams.105 The student protestors’ charge of racism was indisputable and resulted in some White students joining the occupation based on a moral and principled basis. They also believed that the university responded in an unsatisfactory manner. Dr. Frank Chalk, a history professor who was sympathetic to the cause, argued the exclusion of Blacks “opened a Pandora’s box…Many people discovered for the first time that people are often treated differently because of the colour of their skin.”106 For example, Mark Medicoff, a White student who participated in the protest, joined the movement because he saw himself as an anti-racism activist.107 Medicoff argued that the university would have stormed the computer centre on the first day of occupation if it was an all-Black occupation. For Medicoff, the Anderson Affair was clearly a “race issue.”108 Robert Hubsher, a White student at Sir George, attempted to rally other White students

102 Ibid., 207. 103 Ibid. 104 Ibid., 94. 105 Ibid., 136. 106 Ibid., 64. 107 Ibid., 222. 108 Ibid., 129. 131

to join the protest by arguing that all Whites who did not were racist:

Now I’m going to call you a racist, and I’m going to call you a racist for a very good reason – because I was a racist…sure I know about the oppression of the blacks, but I’ve never done anything, and as long as I haven’t done anything I’m a racist. And as long as you don’t do anything, you’re a racist. And until you do something, you are a racist.109

These calls rallied White students to join the occupation. Larry Shalet, for example, joined because he believed that the West Indians students who claimed racism “were getting a

‘runaround.’”110 This was a common perception among White supporters.

A few White students joined the protest movement because of a book entitled Black Like

Me by John Howard Griffin, a work that was a required reading for an English class at Sir

George Williams. Griffin was a White American journalist who had travelled throughout the

Deep South for six weeks in 1959 and recorded his experiences disguised as a Black man.

Griffin’s account of this travels through Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Georgia revealed the racism that was embedded in all sectors of American society. When Griffin began his project, he expected that as a Black man he was going to be treated like a second-class citizen.111 But he discovered that southern Blacks did not have second-class citizenship but “a tenth-class one.”112

Whites treated him with “suspicion and hate” and he experienced segregation in all public areas.113 Griffin’s work emphasized several important characteristics of racism in the South.

First, Griffin demonstrated that Blacks experienced structural and cyclical discrimination. As a disguised Black man, Griffin was unable to find work as a typist or bookkeeper even though he portrayed himself as “an educated Negro…[who was] nicely dressed.”114 He was also rejected

109 Ibid., 130. 110 Ibid., 207. 111 John Howard Griffin, Black Like Me (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1961), 3. 112 Ibid., 47. Griffin did not dispute that racism existed in the North. Racial discrimination, Griffin argued, was a pan-American problem. See: 161. 113 Ibid., 18-22. 132

when he offered to accept a low salary.115 This structural exclusion, Griffin argued, established a pattern of economic injustice which was well known to Blacks.116 Furthermore, Griffin demonstrated that racism was an institutional, not an individual or overt phenomenon. Racism was not espoused by “ignorant ranting racists” but by “legal minds … [who] deliberately choose to foster distortions, always under the guise of patriotism…”117 These distortions, Griffin argued, were expressed in newspapers and in law which was paternalistic and fostered prejudice against

Blacks by implying racial inferiority.118 Institutionalized racism was so ingrained that it impeded the equal opportunities promised by desegregationist policies. Structural exclusion “defrauded”

Blacks of their “personal value” which, he argued, was the “most heinous of all race crimes for it kills the spirit and the will to live.”119

Despite the fact that Griffin examined the experiences of Blacks in the United Sates, his work was important for Canadian students as it humanized the experiences of Blacks, regardless of national context. Disguised as a Black man Griffin was persecuted, feared, detested and consistently met with “the white man’s look of disapproval and petulance.”120 His observations revealed the injustice, poverty, ghettoization, degradation and indignity experienced by southern

Blacks. What repulsed Griffin was that blackness was a phenotypical characteristic that resulted in “inferior status” and the construction of stereotypes which had nothing to do with a person’s individual nature.121 Griffin’s study challenged White stereotypes of Blacks and emphasized that

114 Ibid., 40. 115 Ibid., 105. 116 Ibid., 41. 117 Ibid., 82. 118 Ibid., 138. 119 Ibid., 120. 120 Ibid., 45. 121 Ibid., 120. Following the publication of his study, Griffin was accused of turning against his ‘race.’ His family received threatening calls and an effigy of him was burned in his hometown of Mansfield Texas. Eventually Griffin and his family moved to Mexico. See: Ibid., 160-170. 133

institutions systematically deprived Blacks.122 One student, Cathy Scholefiel, was moved by the book. She joined the Sir George Williams protest after reading Griffin’s work in her English class. She decided to join the protest “on the spur of the moment.”123

White support was generally welcomed by the West Indian students involved in the

Anderson Affair. One student argued that Blacks wanted White support “for crowd effects.”124

The crowds which gathered and eventually took part in the computer centre occupation were taken seriously by the administration which alleged that those who participated in the protest were radicals, Marxists, Maoists and “New Left kids.”125 The administration was correct in its assertions as the discourse espoused by the protesters was militant as those involved wanted social, economic and political reforms which would result in dramatic changes to the existing social order. LeRoi Butcher, founding member of Uhuru and Chairman of the Black Student

Association of Sir George Williams University, saw the ‘Anderson Affair’ as a radical event where liberalism failed at progress. Defending radicalism, he argued that “social upheaval” was necessary as it brought about change. Radicals were progressive thinkers who injected “new ideas” and “fresh approaches.” Liberals, he believed, expressed “conservatism and retrogression” as they often “intellectualize[d] change…in an academic circle of inertia.”126

West Indian students involved in the stand-off were also critical of Canada’s image as welcoming to immigrants arguing that the status of ‘immigrant’ resulted in marginalization. For

122 Griffin believed that discrimination could be attacked if certain conditions were met. First, he argued that Blacks had to unite. Secondly, government leaders needed to be “enlightened” with respect to race issues. Thirdly, media outlets had to take a pro-Civil Rights stance to educate the public. Lastly, Blacks needed to gain “economic responsibility” through education. Economic emancipation, Griffin believed, would lead to racial emancipation. See: Ibid., 148-150. Griffin concluded his work by arguing against the teaching of “Negro superiority” by Black leaders as he believed that equality and justice could not be attained through “vengeance.” See: Ibid., 175, 176. 123 Dorothy Eber, The Computer Centre Party, 93. 124 Ibid., 95. 125 Ibid., 92. 126 LeRoi Butcher, “The Anderson Affair,” 78-79. 134

example, Bertram Boldon utilized the work of American urban sociologist Robert Ezra Park to demonstrate that immigrants in Canada felt as strangers “in a type of no-man’s land” because of a conflict in values, behaviour and culture.127 For this student, being welcomed as an immigrant was a “façade.” Boldon compared Canada to the United Sates and argued that Canadian democracy was “a fallacy” because of the existence of racism and asserted that belonging to the

“Commonwealth” made no difference. Boldon elaborated on this by arguing that the image of

Canada as a “pseudo-moral haven for Blacks” was paradoxical; Canada’s image as a safe haven had been fostered through the propagation of the history of the Underground Railway.128 For this student, Canada’s “non-racist pose” and “international reputation for fair play” was in conflict with the reality as Blacks did not benefit from “so-called rights” and the “so-called democratic political process.”129 Canada, Boldon argued, was able to maintain the “façade of relative tranquility” because of the small Black population.130 For Boldon and many others involved in the protest, there was no such thing as overt or “backlash” type of racism, rather racism, they asserted, was ingrained, systemic and institutional.131

West Indian immigrants experienced racism on a daily basis. The students involved in the protest argued racism was institutional and systemic because it was ingrained in public policies that were “hostile to any effort towards altering the status quo and effecting significant,

127 Bertram Boldon, “Black Immigrants in a Foreign Land,” 24. Park was a scholar of urban sociology who developed a theory of assimilation based on his observations of immigrant groups. This theory became known the “race relation cycle.” The cycle included four stages: competition, conflict, accommodation and assimilation. Park asserted that assimilation removed racial differences but he believed that this was hindered in the United States because of “social distance” (segregation) between Whites and Blacks. Park, however, believed that racial conflict would result in accommodation and eventual assimilation. This multiethnic integration would result in what Park called a “melting pot.” See: Stanford M. Lyman, “The Race Relations Cycle of Robert E. Park,” The Pacific Sociological Review 11, no.1 (1968): 16-22. 128 Bertram Boldon, “Black Immigrants in a Foreign Land,” 28. 129 Ibid., 24-25. 130 Ibid., 26. 131 Roosevelt Williams, “Réactions: The Myth of White “Backlash,” 114. 135

fundamental change.”132 They argued that discrimination was veiled because it took some time for a Black immigrant to realize that “it must be more than coincidental that so many jobs have suddenly been filled on his arrival; or that so many rooms or apartment dwellings have been already rented.”133

The students’ observations about racism were not heard by the general public as the focus following the protest remained on the perceived violent nature of the stand-off. Ninety-seven students were charged with mischief and danger to lives and private property.134 Some were incarcerated and others faced deportation orders. Those arrested later reflected that during the arrests they heard taunts such as “[g]et the niggers” and “kill the niggers.” These taunts were not only uttered by bystanders but by police officers who took part in the raid of the computer centre.135 For the students involved in the standoff, this affirmed and reinforced their beliefs about the pervasiveness of institutional racism in Canada.

Following the arrests, a delegation of 100 supporters from Montréal traveled to Ottawa to ask the federal government for an inquest into allegations of racism at Sir George Williams.

During the hearing, the delegation emphasized that racism led to the student unrest and the eventual occupation of the computer centre. The federal government was not responsive and one delegate noted that the hearing was “hurried [and], unsympathetic.” Another member argued that the “human element had been completely lost” in the meeting. The meeting concluded with the

Chair, Treasury Board President, C.M. Drury asserting that he was not a sympathizer of the students’ efforts because of their expressed militancy.136 It was a disappointing outcome. For the

132 Bertram Boldon, “Black Immigrants in a Foreign Land,” 23. 133 Ibid., 28. 134 LeRoi Butcher, “The Anderson Affair,” 98-99. Arrestees included Ron Ambrose, LeRoy Butcher, John McCormick, Harvey Shacket, Charles Osborne, Roosevelt Douglas, Lynn Bynoe and Maurice Barrow. 135 Roosevelt Williams, “Réactions: The Myth of White “Backlash,” 121. 136

protesters involved in the ‘Anderson Affair’, slogans such as the “Just Society” and “[t]he

Canadian Mosaic” were “meaningless rhetoric.” 137 These slogans became more meaningless when Anderson was exonerated. For the protestors, the exoneration of Anderson was a “blatant farce.”138

Public Reactions to the ‘Anderson Affair’

How did Canadians respond to the standoff at Sir George Williams University? One of the first reactions was to say that Canada had been infiltrated by the Left. This charge was serious in the context of Cold War Canada. State officials and media outlets claimed that those involved in the protest were Marxists. For example, Robert Thompson, a member of the Alberta

Conservative Party and former leader of the Social Credit Party, said that those involved carried

“copies of Mao Tse Tung’s Little Red Book.”139 Various media outlets reacted in similar fashion

– they blamed the ‘Anderson Affair’ on foreigners and leftist extremists. The “student rampage”, one newspaper reported, was caused by “[m]ilitant students.”140 Following the arrests, the newspaper reported that some of the protesters were “wearing the insignia of the Black Panther movement.”141 Another newspaper headline charged that “Maoists caused violence.”142

Media reports also emphasized the foreignness of the perpetrators. The day after the police raid at Sir George Williams, one newspaper emphasized that many who were apprehended were from Haiti, Jamaica and the United States.143 One article emphasized that forty-five of the accused were non-Canadians and at least twenty-four were from the Caribbean.144 This was

136 “100 students demand Ottawa probe Sir George ‘racism,’” Toronto Star, March 8, 1969. 137 Roosevelt Williams, “Réactions: The Myth of White “Backlash,” 142. 138 Ibid.,129. 139 Dennis Forsythe, “By way of introduction: The Sir George Williams Affair,” 9. 140 “97 jailed, 500 students offer to mop up Montreal campus,” Toronto Star, February 13, 1969. 141 College to ask police to oust students, Toronto Star, February 11, 1969. 142 “Maoists caused violence,” Montréal Star, February 15, 1969. 143 “Computer wrecked, damage $1,000.00,” Toronto Star, February 12, 1969. 137

confirmed by the lawyer representing the university who blamed the incident on “several… instigators from the outside” who intended to start a “revolution.”145 Media reports also emphasized the ‘blackness’ of the accused. For example, following the police raid one newspaper argued that the occupation of the computer centre was caused by Black students who

“believed they must demand and get certain things.”146 Another editorial charged that those involved in the Anderson protest were influenced by the “spineless attitude[s]” of the Black

Power movement. It argued that those involved were “abusing Canada” and should be “reminded that their admission to Canadian universities is a privilege.”147 Similarly, the judge who presided over the trial saw the case as one instigated by “a very small number of black students… with very limited support from the student body as a whole.”148 The judge then deemed the Black students to be a danger to the “entire community.”149 Sixty male adults, thirty female adults and seven juveniles were subsequently jailed and denied bail because the judge believed “the accused might not appear for trial” due to their “revolutionary tendencies.”150 Black students studying sociology and political science were put under surveillance at Sir George Williams.151 The vilification of Blacks was further expressed in the decision of Immigration Minister Allan

MacEachen to investigate the immigration status of those arrested.152 Although the majority of the participants in the Anderson protest were White, it was Black students who were blamed for extremism and accused of wanting to burn down the university.

144 “97 await hearings into university riot,” Toronto Star, February 17, 1969. 145 “97 jailed, 500 students offer to mop up Montreal campus,” Toronto Star, February 13, 1969. 146 “Black writers’ conference blamed for Montreal riot,” Toronto Star, February 17, 1969. 147 “Black militants are abusing Canada,” Toronto Star, March 2, 1970. 148 Dorothy Eber, The Computer Centre Party, 279. 149 Ibid., 280. 150 “97 jailed, 500 students offer to mop up Montreal campus,” Toronto Star, February 13, 1969. 151 Dorothy Eber, The Computer Centre Party, 285. 152 “Montreal university orders student identity cards,” Toronto Star, February 14, 1969. 138

Following these arrests, Eldon Woolliams (Calgary North), a conservative justice critic, expressed outrage at the lawlessness exhibited by the students and wanted to know “why we permit a large percentage of foreigners to come into Canada – particularly from the U.S. – and cause trouble in our universities…costing the taxpayers of Canada large sums of money.”153

Prime Minister Trudeau reassured Canadians of their safety noting that the government would be more stringent with respect to disruptive agitators such as those at Sir George. This, he argued, would be accomplished through increased border control to ensure that the entrance of people

“for seditious purposes” would be prohibited.154 Trudeau’s comments reinforced the notion that

‘foreigners’ were responsible for the Sir George Williams protest. They also suggested that racial strife was an American phenomenon which had travelled to Canada because of a permeable border. Trudeau later elaborated on the protest, noting that he disagreed with the nature of the protest:

The activists tr[ied] to impose their ideology on others. They use[d] the tools of the university to destroy the freedom of discussion, the right to dissent…The activists are more interested in organizing their revolt than in the search for truth …155

Although the majority of the participants in the Sir George Williams occupation were White,

Woolliams’ and Trudeau’s remarks reveal that officials blamed the violence on radical foreign students. The media also played a role in the vilification of Black participants by exonerating

White students and emphasizing that they had somehow been led astray. The Montreal Gazette, for example, saw the White participants as the “misguided few.”156 The media also qualified the

White participants as ‘vandals.’ One editorial charged that taxpayers were paying for an education of ‘vandals’ who were products of a “society of greed and violence.” Another editorial

153 Roosevelt Williams, “Réactions: The Myth of White “Backlash,” 132. 154 “Stop agitators at border, Trudeau hints,” Toronto Star, February 19, 1969. 155 “The confused cult of violence,” Toronto Star, February 25, 1969. 156 Roosevelt Williams, “Réactions: The Myth of White “Backlash,” 11. 139

suggested that “[t]here is no doubt that many of these kids would be better occupied earning their own living, rather than as destructive parasites at the expense of their communities.”157 Similarly, another editorial expressed the view that the ‘vandals’ were “over-indulged, pampered and thoroughly spoilt [sic] young hoodlums who resort to violence and rioting…”158 A professor of international relations at University of Toronto argued that White students were involved because they were extremists who were “hoping to claim the black experience as their own…”

They were simply “indulg[ing] themselves in fantasy.”159

Media reports did not investigate the roots of the conflict and as a result promoted an image of a raceless Canada. By not examining racism, media outlets relegated racism to the status of an aberrational phenomenon, and therefore fostered the belief that Canada had no racial problems. Roosevelt Williams, a Trinidadian PhD candidate at McGill and a participant in the

Anderson protest later noted that the media portrayal of the Anderson Affair perpetuated the notion that “a Canadian brand of racism” did not exist. Williams alleged that the media

“distort[ed] news and promot[ed] racism through incomplete, incorrect and dishonest” printing of news. For example, Williams noted that the news media argued that police acted in an

“impressive” manner and were “in good humour” when in reality Blacks were beaten with riot clubs, and one Black man had a gun held to his head by riot police. Williams concluded that the media reflected “the thinking of a basically racist society.”160

The accusations made by the students involved in the protest challenged Canada’s mythology of racelessness and subsequently resulted in swift legal action against the accused.

157 Editorial, “Student vandals come from ‘society of greed and violence,” Toronto Star, February 18, 1969. 158 Editorial, “Cure the hoodlums,” Toronto Star, February 18, 1969. 159 “Canada’s Black Fact: From universities and Pullmans to reservations and igloos,” Toronto Star, February 28, 1969. 160 Roosevelt Williams, “Réactions: The Myth of White ‘Backlash,’” 116-117. 140

The trial against the 10 West Indian students who were believed to have organized the protest began on 19 January 1970. In March, the all White jury found eight of the accused guilty of illegally occupying the computer centre.161 The eight students charged were not Canadian citizens and as a result they were fined and issued deportation orders. The judge who presided over the trial stated that the accused had communicated that they would “prefer not to live here” through their violent actions.162 The remaining two students who were Canadian citizens were jailed for willfully obstructing the use of computers.163 To ease any apprehensions among White

Canadians about the highly publicized trial, External Affairs Minister Mitchell Sharp assured

Canadians that Black Power did not belong in Canada because Canada did not have racial barriers. Moreover, Sharp blamed the Affair on a small minority who were radicalized because came from nations where “poverty, malnutrition, unemployment and remittances” were key to survival.164

Official reactions, both by state actors, university officials and media outlets demonstrate that the discourse of institutional and systemic racism was overpowered by the pervasiveness of the mythology of racelessness in Canada. Black Power did not belong in a tolerant and just nation. The Anderson Affair, however, was significant as the actors involved attempted to redefine the conceptualization of racism in Canada as a systemic and institutionalized problem.

A discussion of the debate over hate propaganda legislation, which was at its peak during the

Anderson Affair, will serve as a case study to demonstrate how differently Black Canadians conceptualized racism. The discussion will expose that during the late 1960s state officials and

161 “10 West Indians found not guilty on first charge,” Toronto Star, March 12, 1970. 162 “Trinidad to pay $33,500 fines for 8 guilty in Sir George riot,” Toronto Star, March 14, 1970. 163 “2 blacks jailed, girl fined over Montreal computer riot,” Toronto Star, May 1, 1971. 164 Editorial, “The deep troubles that spark West Indian violence,” Toronto Star, March 14, 1970. 141

White human rights activists conceived racism to be incidental. Their narrow definition of racism reinforced the mythology of racelessness embedded in Canadian history and led them to reject the concept of institutional racism that was articulated during the Sir George Williams Affair.

Discourses of Racism – A Case Study of Hate Propaganda Legislation

Hate propaganda –malicious material against identifiable groups which promotes hatred – became a public policy concern in 1960 when the revival of Nazism, especially in Québec and

Ontario, attracted media attention.165 The majority of the material was anti-Semitic; some material espoused anti-Black sentiments. A steady stream of hate propaganda resulted in a debate over the passage of an anti-hate law; in fact, the hate law debate dominated the discourse of human rights during this period. The debate was intense; the proposed law was scrutinized and debated by state officials for many years.166 The debate focused on the conflict between egalitarian values and the libertarian value of freedom of expression; the main arguments for or against the law focused on the dichotomy between minority rights and individual rights. Those who supported the law believed that social rights were human rights and argued that freedom of expression was not absolute. Those who opposed the legislation embraced the notion of individual rights and argued that the state had no right to impose restrictions on the freedom of expression.167 The debate was heated; it lasted several years and in 1970 it resulted in the

165 On 30 October 1960 the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation aired a special program on White supremacists in Canada and the United States. André Bellefeuille, a Québec resident appeared on the program and asserted that Jews and ‘Negroes’ should not be employed by the government. Similarly, George Lincoln Rockwell of the American Nazi Party who had followers in Canada stated that it was “necessary to execute 80 percent of adult Jews in the United States on charges of spying for the Communists.” It is important to note that Nazism was a growing international phenomenon. For example, in Argentina, the National Unity Movement (a neo-Nazi organization) claimed it had 15 000 members. In Germany, nationalist youth organizations claimed membership of 20,000 to 30,000. See: Irving Spiegel, “US Jews Charge Network of Nazism Spreads Over World,” Globe and Mail, October 31, 1960, and “CBC Casts Light on Nazis,” Toronto Daily Star, October 31, 1960. 166 Canada, Senate Debates (6 November 1968), p. 443 and Canada, Senate Debates (April 30 1970), p. 956. The bill was presented to the Senate on four occasions and was referred to two committees for examination. 167 See: Stefan Braun, Democracy Off Balance: Freedom of Expression and Hate Propaganda Law in Canada (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2004), William Kaplan, “Maxwell Cohen and the Report of the Special Committee on Hate Propaganda,” in Law, Policy, and International Justice, ed. William Kaplan and Donald McRae. 142

passage of hate propaganda legislation which made “unlawful the advocacy of genocide, the public incitement of hatred, and the willful promotion of hatred against identifiable groups.”168

The passage of the hate law demonstrated that Canadian law was inadequate to deal with group defamation and asserted that freedom of expression was not an absolute right.169 More importantly, the public debate brought to light how state actors, the media and White human rights activists conceptualized the nature of racism in 1960s Canadian society. Both those who supported and those who opposed the hate law conceptualized racism as foreign to Canada’s social landscape and blamed racism and the propagation of hate on delusional and deviant individuals. Racists were considered outsiders to the Canadian polity who did not reflect the tolerance and acceptance of the majority of Canadians. The mythology of racelessness, therefore, was explicitly espoused during the hate law debate – a debate which lasted between 1964 and

1970.

When hate propaganda circulated during the 1960s, several federal and provincial state actors argued that legislation was necessary to circumvent the dissemination of hate.170 For

(Montréal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1993), 243-274, Joseph Magnet, “Hate Propaganda in Canada,” in Free Expression: Essays in Law and Philosophy, ed. W.J. Waluchow (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1992), 223-250 and James W. St. G. Walker, “The ‘Jewish Phase’ in the Movement for Racial Equality in Canada,” Canadian Ethnic Studies Journal 34 (2002): 1-29. 168 William Kaplan, “Maxwell Cohen and the Report of the Special Committee on Hate Propaganda,” 243. 169 Canada. Special Committee on Hate Propaganda in Canada, Report of the Special Committee on Hate Propaganda in Canada (Ottawa: Queen’s Printer, 1965), 59. 170 Toronto was the epicenter of the hate campaign. For example, in 1963 thousands of leaflets were dropped over Adelaide Street in Toronto proclaiming that “Communism is Jewish.” The leaflets were presumably dropped by an airplane. See: Canada. Special Committee on the Criminal Code (Hate Propaganda). Proceedings of the Canada Parliament Senate Special Committee on the Criminal Code (Hate Propaganda) (Ottawa: Queen’s Printer, 1968), 23. In 1964 a Scarborough resident mailed hate propaganda from his home which called for the sterilization of Jews. See: “Father of ‘hate’ boy threatened suicide,” Toronto Daily Star, March 12, 1964. John Beatty, leader of the Nazi Party of Canada, was also active in the distribution of hate propaganda in Toronto. In 1964, Beattie attracted 47 members to his Nazi Party. A year later his party membership totaled 150. See: “Jewish Lawyer Aids Defence of Toronto Nazi,” Toronto Daily Star, June 19, 1965. In May 1965, Beattie announced that he would hold a Nazi Rally at Allan Gardens in Toronto. When Toronto’s Jews heard about the planned rally they went to protest. The mob of several hundred people created panic in the city and lent urgency to the campaign for a hate law. See: “Innocent bystanders beaten up by rioting mob of 4,000,” Toronto Daily Star, May 31, 1965. 143

example, in 1964, MP David Orilkow (NDP, Winnipeg) argued that the federal government needed to control hate propaganda disseminated through the mail.171 A few months later, MP

Milton Klein (Liberal, Montréal) introduced a private member’s bill forbidding the promotion of genocide. As one of the few Jewish MP’s in the House of Commons, Klein was concerned about the anti-Semitic hate propaganda that was circulating in Canada’s urban centres. He argued that Canada had a commitment under the United Nations Convention on the Crime of Genocide to prohibit hate propaganda.172 Klein’s views were echoed by J.T. Thornson, a retired Chief

Justice of the Federal Court who called on the federal government to curb hate literature.173

Similarly, John Diefenbaker, the leader of the Conservative Party in the House of Commons, also pressured the Liberal government to enact legislation to protect groups from hate propaganda. Diefenbaker believed that an anti-hate law was necessary to “preserve and maintain democratic principles” in Canada.174 Ontario’s government was equally concerned about the continuous flow of hate propaganda. Ontario’s premier John Robarts, for example, called the problem a “national concern.”175

The media and the Canadian Jewish Congress (CJC) also pressured the federal government into action. For example, in 1964 the Toronto Daily Star called on the federal government to censor hate propaganda.176 The Canadian Jewish Congress also compelled the government into action when they organized a delegation in October 1964. The delegation appeared before the federal government and proposed a small working committee to study the

171 Canada, House of Commons Debates (24 February 1964), p. 133. 172 Canada, House of Commons Debates (10 July1964), p. 5356. 173 William Kaplan, “Maxwell Cohen and the Report of the Special Committee on Hate Propaganda,” 246. 174 Canada, House of Commons Debates (3 November, 1966) p. 9471. 175 “Robarts: Provinces Should Fight Hate,” Toronto Daily Star, March 12, 1964. 176 “The All-Canadian Cry: Censor It,” Toronto Daily Star, March 11, 1964. 144

problem of hate propaganda in Canada.177 The following year, Guy Favreau, the Minister of

Justice, honored the demands made by the CJC and appointed an advisory committee to study hate propaganda.178

The establishment of the committee resulted in an extensive public debate about the nature of racism in Canada. Those who supported legislation against hate propaganda argued that all measures needed be taken against racism which they conceived to be a phenomenon which persisted because of the ignorance of deviant and abnormal individuals. Those who opposed the hate law emphasized that the incidental nature of racism in Canada did not require legislation.

The Globe and Mail, for example, argued that Jewish activists were overreacting to hate propaganda and argued that those responsible for the dissemination of hate were “sad little people (who lack the heart to identify themselves).”179 The Globe asserted that racism was caused by ignorance and was often expressed by “impotent little fanatics.”180 The Toronto Daily

Star, however, supported the legislation and argued that it was “urgently needed to combat growing racism.”181 The Ontario Human Rights Commission concurred. Herbert Sohn, the assistant director of the commission, warned that Toronto was a hotbed for possible racial tensions because of increasing inter-group friction. In a lecture at the University of Toronto in

1966, Sohn argued that a citizenry in a healthy and productive community “must be concerned with the strength and weaknesses of the personalities of its members.”182 According to Sohn

177 William Kaplan, “Maxwell Cohen and the Report of the Special Committee on Hate Propaganda,” 246. 178 Committee members were: J.A. Corry, Principal, Queen’s University, L’Abbé Gerard Dion, Faculty of Social Sciences, Laval University, Saul Hayes, Vice-President, Canadian Jewish Congress, Mark MacGuigan, Professor of Law, University of Toronto, Shane MacKay, editor of the Winnipeg Free Press, Pierre-Elliot Trudeau, Professor of Law, University of Montreal. See: Canada. Special Committee on Hate Propaganda in Canada, Report of the Special Committee on Hate Propaganda in Canada (Ottawa: Queen’s Printer, 1965), 1. 179 “Sledgehammer and Nuts,” Globe and Mail, March 14, 1964. 180 “A stick for the neo-Nazis would be a stick for all,” Globe and Mail, November 8, 1966. 181 “Anti-hate law is urgently needed to combat growing racism,” Toronto Daily Star, November 18, 1966. 182 Arnold Bruner, “Prejudice makes Toronto fertile soil for race riot,” Toronto Daily Star, November 11, 1966. 145

racism was caused by defective individuals who expressed racism in a society which was generally tolerant. He also warned that prejudice could seriously injure “the personalities and well-being of the members of the minority groups” which would result in self-hate or a displacement of prejudice against minority groups.183

After much debate, the hate propaganda bill was tabled on 7 November 1966. The Senate debates provide an interesting glimpse into how state officials conceptualized racism in Canada.

Senator David Croll (Liberal, Toronto) argued that racism was expressed by disordered individuals who suffered from ignorance. He argued that education alone would not cure individuals of racism and that a hate law was necessary to curtail “the abuse of freedom.”184

Croll believed that the law expressed moral value and the existence of a law against hate would create new attitudes in individuals who suffered from the disease of prejudice. Those who opposed the law also expressed the belief that racism and prejudice were practiced by defective individuals. Senator David Walker (PC, Rosedale), for example, opposed the law because he believed that legislation would not “control the minds of men.”185 Furthermore, some senators argued that the hate law was not necessary because Canada was a raceless and tolerant nation.

Senator Jean-François Pouliot (Liberal, De la Durantaye) argued that the hate law would give an

“erroneous impression” that Canada had racial and ethnic problems. To Pouliot, the proposed legislation was an insult to Canada and he called those who advocated such legislation as

“pompous and ponderous.”186 The mythology of racelessness was also expressed by Senator

183 Herbert Sohn, “Psychology of Bias: Victims Seek a Minority to Hate,” Toronto Daily Star, November 11, 1966. 184 Canada, Senate Debates (16 November 1966), p. 1156. 185 Canada, Senate Debates (14 November 1966), p. 1126. 186 Canada, Senate Debates (16 November 1966), p. 1145. 146

Salter A. Hayden (Liberal, Toronto) who argued that Canadians were “tolerant, friendly [and] sociable” people who would not allow hate to “develop to any extent.”187

The hate propaganda bill died when the parliamentary session prorogued on 8 May 1967; however, the bill was reintroduced on 9 May 1967. The proposed bill went to the Senate Special

Committee on Hate Propaganda on 2 November 1967. The eighteen member committee met during the early months of 1968 to hear witnesses who were in support and in opposition to the law. The committee hearings became a forum where state officials and non-governmental organizations expressed their beliefs about the nature of racism in Canadian society. The CJC argued that racism was practiced by individuals and was pervasive in Canadian society and affirmed that the hate law was necessary to ensure that broader interests of racial and religious freedom were protected.188 Maxwell Cohen, the Chairman of the Special Committee on Hate

Propaganda, argued that Canada was a signatory of the 1965 United Nations Convention on the

Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. Cohen argued that Canada had an obligation to pass legislation restricting hate speech; he also asserted that the bill represented a “desirable step forward in a multi-ethnic, multi-religious society” such as Canada.189

The Senate proceedings did not result in the passage of the hate law as parliament dissolved on 23 April 1968. When parliament reassembled on 12 September 1968, the hate propaganda bill was reintroduced and referred to a Standing Committee. Chaired by Senator

Arthur Roebuck, the Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs began proceeding in

February which continued until May. The Committee held eleven meetings where 17

187 Canada, Senate Debates (30 November 1966), p. 1229. 188Canada. Parliament. Senate. Special Committee on the Criminal Code (Hate Propaganda). Proceedings of the Canada Parliament Senate Special Committee on the Criminal Code (Hate Propaganda) (Ottawa: Queen’s Printer, 1968), 81. 189 Ibid., 45. 147

organizations and 32 witnesses appeared to argue for or against the hate law. As a government sponsored bill, the legislation was supported by J.A. Scollin, Director of the Criminal Law

Section of in the Department of Justice. When Scollin appeared before the committee he argued that the government sponsored the bill because Canada had to give effect to the provisions of the

United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide - a convention Canada had signed on 9 December 1948. This, some Senators argued, was not a satisfactory reason to pass legislation which would circumvent the freedom of expression. For example, Senator David Walker argued that a law prohibiting the promotion of genocide was not necessary because genocide was an “absurd” idea in Canada.190

Several organizations representing the Jewish community disagreed. The Joint

Community Relations Committee of the Canadian Jewish Congress and B’nai Brith argued that racism could grow if it was unchecked. To prove this assertion, these organizations explained

Hitler’s “big lie theory” – they feared that through repeated exposure to hate propaganda White supremacists would inculcate hate into mainstream society.191 The Canadian Jewish Congress concurred. It argued that given the right circumstances hate propaganda could rise and the law was deficient in dealing with it. Furthermore, the Congress argued that the volume of hate propaganda was not important; what was, was its damaging effects.192

The CJC position was supported by the United Nations Association and the Canadian

Council for Christians and Jews. The Council argued that a law against hate propaganda was necessary because hatred could intensify. Furthermore, the Council argued that racists

190 Canada. Parliament. Senate. Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. Proceedings. Issue No. 1, Feb. 13, 1969 (Ottawa: Queen’s Printer, 1969), 11. 191 Canada. Parliament. Senate. Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. Proceedings. Issue No. 4, March 11, 1969 (Ottawa: Queen’s Printer, 1969), 81. 192 Canadian Jewish Congress. Brief of the Canadian Jewish Congress on Bill S-21 (hate propaganda) to the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs (Ottawa, 1969), 5. 148

undermined unity in Canada; the Council believed that Canada was essentially a tolerant nation and that the discourse of hatred being espoused by racists undermined this tolerance.193 Echoing

J.A. Scollin, the United Nations Association of Canada believed that hate propaganda could become a problem and pressed for legislation arguing that Canada had an obligation to control hate under the Genocide Convention of 1948.194 This argument was also presented by the

Canadian Labour Congress and was supported by various associations such as the Canadian

Federation of Majors, the Canadian Bar Association, York Country Lawyers’ Association, the

Canadian Baptist Association and the Anglican Bishops of Ontario.195

The Manitoba Human Rights Association stressed that the existence of hate literature and its circulation necessitated a law against such dangerous material. Although hate literature was predominately an Ontario phenomenon, there was evidence of hate propaganda circulating in

Western Canada. The Association asserted that hate propaganda was particularly harmful and dangerous for the “ill-informed” and children.196 The Commission made this assertion based on the work of Dr. David Stafford-Clark, a British psychologist who argued that prejudice was like a disease – if left untreated it would spread and contaminate society. Like a disease, prejudice worsened over time – it began as fear, then turned into hostility and then outright hatred.197 For the Manitoba Human Rights Commission, the hate bill represented a means by which the state could contain and ultimately “stop the spread of hatred and contempt” which resulted in racism.198 This sentiment was also expressed by the Canadian Polish Congress which argued that

193 Canada. Parliament. Senate. Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. Proceedings. Issue No. 6, March 25, 1969 (Ottawa: Queen’s Printer, 1969), 123. 194 Canada. Parliament. Senate. Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. Proceedings. Issue No. 4, March 11, 1969 (Ottawa: Queen’s Printer, 1969), 66. 195 Ibid., 66, 89. 196 Canada. Parliament. Senate. Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. Proceedings. Issue No. 7, April 22, 1969 (Ottawa: Queen’s Printer, 1969), 155. 197 Ibid., 158. 149

a hate law would have educative value and would discourage racial hatred.199

Organizations which did not support the hate law also conceptualized racism as an individual phenomenon. For example, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA), argued against the hate law noting that the freedom of speech was a necessary and central aspect of democratic government. The organization also asserted that hate propaganda in Canada was not a

“crisis or near crisis proportions.”200 A more acute problem, according to the CCLA, was discrimination and inequality in Canada. The CCLA utilized the records of the Ontario Human

Rights Commission to demonstrate that race relations in Canada were strained. However, the organization emphasized that individuals, not institutions, “practice[d] racial discrimination.”201

The CCLA, therefore, conceptualized racism to be pervasive but not systemic and institutionalized and believed that Canadians were tolerant. Canadians, the CCLA argued, were

“essentially receptive to human rights and antagonistic to racial discrimination.” The CCLA recommended strengthening existing human rights legislation because “[a] stronger program against discriminatory deeds [would] weaken the impact of bigoted words.”202

Dissenting arguments about the nature of racism in Canadian society were presented by

Dr. W.P. Oliver of the Black United Front, an organization that represented 18,000 Blacks in

Nova Scotia. The organization was established by Rocky Jones in 1965 and was influenced by the Black Panther Party. In fact, Stokely Carmichael had travelled to Nova Scotia in 1968 to rally

Black Nova Scotians to support the organization. W.P. Oliver’s presentation attempted to expand

198 Ibid. 199 Canada. Parliament. Senate. Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. Proceedings. Issue No. 8, April 24, 1969 (Ottawa: Queen’s Printer, 1969), 166. 200 Canada. Parliament. Senate. Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. Proceedings. Issue No. 7, April 22, 1969 (Ottawa: Queen’s Printer, 1969), 137-138. 201 Ibid., 138. 202 Ibid. 139. 150

the conceptualization of racism that was being expressed by White human rights activists before the Senate Committee. As a member of the Adult Education Division of the Department of

Education in Nova Scotia, and a Chairman of the Interim Committee of the Black United Front,

W.P. Oliver presented a brief which was more sophisticated in its scope. Oliver argued that

Nova Scotia’s Blacks were not subjected to an extensive hate literature campaign because their structural position made “more aggressive and obvious expressions of racism” as unnecessary.203

For Oliver, hate propaganda was dangerous; however, subtle forms of racism were more destructive. The majority of Oliver’s presentation before the Senate emphasized that Canadian

Blacks did not have equality of opportunity. Oliver defined racism as an institutional and systemic problem which, he argued, resulted in a “pattern of racial separation.”204 He blamed the structural position of Blacks on the racialization of Blacks as “innately inferior,” a stereotype which, he argued, continued in contemporary society and was rooted in Canadian history.205

Historically, he argued, Black Canadians experienced de facto and de jure segregation which had resulted in second-class citizenship. This lack of citizenship legitimized the notion that “Negroes did not exist.” Oliver emphasized that Blacks were deemed to be outside the boundaries of citizenship and, as a result, they were prone to ghettoization; a phenomenon which, he asserted, was “encouraged by the white society.”206 Furthermore, government sponsored studies often silenced the existence of Blacks in Canada – and this, he suggested, was a blatant “example of institutionalized racism.”207

203 Canada. Parliament. Senate. Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. Proceedings. Issue No. 10, April 30, 1969 (Ottawa: Queen’s Printer, 1969), 216. Although Blacks were not targeted by hate propaganda, Oliver asserted that Blacks could become targets of a hate campaign once they organized and exerted power which could ultimately threaten the status quo of “the system.” See: Ibid., 220. 204 Ibid., 216. 205 Ibid., 215-218. 206 Ibid., 216. 207 Ibid., 218. 151

Oliver’s presentation also demonstrated that public policy changes had not gone far enough to eliminate structural disadvantage. He argued that although desegregation in Nova

Scotia schools and fair accommodation and employment legislation were expressed in public policy, the continued existence of segregated Black communities perpetuated the historic disadvantage of Nova Scotia Blacks.208 Furthermore, Oliver provided examples of White resistance to fair employment legislation. For example, one personal manager refused to hire

Blacks citing that he could not “accept a new style of life.” Another manager argued that he had higher qualification requirements for Blacks because the individual would need to “be able to tolerate the [racist] remarks, which …he [sic] would receive from his [sic] fellow workers.”

Oliver’s evidence also demonstrated the historic reproduction of stereotypes. One woman noted that she thought her husband “would prefer a coloured chap to clean out the well, because coloured chaps are such good workers.”209 Furthermore, Oliver demonstrated that desegregation in Nova Scotia schools had not challenged systemic racism as textbooks continued to express negative images and references to Blacks.210 As a result, Blacks were “consigned to a caste system.”211 Oliver concluded his presentation by asserting that Canadians and Canadian institutions exhibited “inherent” racism.212

Although Oliver demonstrated that racism “emanate[d] consciously [and] unconsciously,” his testimony before the Senate Committee did not result in a reconceptualization of racism by state agents.213 Senator Arthur W. Roebuck (Liberal, Toronto)

208 Ibid., 216. 209 Ibid., 219. 210 Ibid., 220. 211 Ibid., 218. 212 Ibid., 217. 213 Ibid., 216. 152

noted that he was “touched” by Oliver’s presentation and his “references to racism and the evil results of it” but pressed him to address the hate propaganda bill in question. A similar statement was made by Senator Lionel Choquette (PC, Ottawa) who did not see Oliver’s comments as relevant to the bill in question.214 Oliver defended his presentation by arguing that Blacks in

Canada were “moving from second-class citizenship to first-class citizenship” and hate propaganda legislation was necessary as a positive force to ensure this transition.215 Other senators questioned Oliver’s assertions. Senator Malcolm Hollett (PC, Burin) challenged

Oliver’s arguments regarding the inherently racist nature of Canada by emphasizing that Oliver was a doctor who “competed with the white man” and somehow arrived at the top of his profession.216 Furthermore, Senator David Walker (PC, Rosedale) argued that prejudice against

Blacks did not exist and if inequalities existed for Blacks, they existed only in Nova Scotia where they could be remedied through human rights legislation.217 Walker continued: “we do not know of any prejudice against you Negroes…we have nothing but goodwill for the Negroes as far as I know…I have not seen anything which would indicate any ill will against the negroes.”218 The burden of proof was placed squarely on W.P Oliver to prove that racism existed in Canadian society. This was also evident in an illuminating exchange occurred between

Senator Malcolm Hollett and W.P. Oliver:

Senator Hollett: …your opinion of the white man is not very good?

Dr. Oliver: I have to recognize the facts.

Senator Hollett: You have no facts to back it up.

214 Ibid., 220. 215 Ibid., 216. 216 Ibid., 221. 217 Ibid., 221-222. 218 Ibid., 222. 153

Dr. Oliver: I have not come here to debate the entire issues of discrimination, but I do know enough about the economic and the social status of black people if you are asking me about that. Of all our population, we are the lowest on the economic pole. We have no political voice, and in terms of employment opportunity – and even education – we are at the bottom of that scale throughout the nation. No one can convince me that this is because of some innate inadequacies of the black people, of a peculiar race. It is a social setting. He is the product of his environment. I am not suggesting that you can legislate to adjust and to correct inadequacies, nor am I suggesting that we can say that we are without blame, that we have no guilt and we can just bury our heads and see nothing. The black man is not even accorded the “right to be”; he just does not exist in some parts of this continent, nobody ever recognized that there were black people around until they heard that Stokely Carmichael was coming to town.219

Oliver’s contention that racism permeated Canadian society was challenged as the Senate proceedings continued; many senators gave evidence of successful Blacks who in their minds demonstrated that racism was aberrational. For example, Senator James Prowse (Liberal,

Edmonton) noted that Lincoln Alexander was elected in 1968 as Canada’s first Black Member of

Parliament. Senator Earl Urquhart (Liberal, Inverness-Richmond) noted that George Davis was a registrar of joint stock companies in Nova Scotia and A. Calder was a well-known surgeon.

These Black individuals, the senators argued, were proof that Blacks did not face structural disadvantage.220 The proceedings concluded with assertions by many senators that Canada was generally a tolerant nation. For example, Senator Malcolm Hollett argued that racial prejudice was “not innate in all human beings.” Senator Donald Smith (Liberal, Queens-Shelburne) a native Nova Scotian, noted that “a very serious pocket of discrimination” existed in the North

Preston area but noted that Blacks were not unique as “white people in various parts of Nova

Scotia …are also living in disgraceful conditions…”221 Smith thanked Oliver for his “moderate” interpretation of racism and emphasized that his subdued interpretation was appreciated as it was in contrast to “a speech made by one Rocky Jones at Acadia University…[which] was filled with

219 Ibid., 222. 220 Ibid., 223. 221 Ibid., 223. 154

four-letter words.”222

The arguments presented by Dr. Oliver were ignored when the report of the Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs was tabled in June 1969. During the final hate propaganda debates, many senators who opposed the legislation affirmed that hate propaganda legislation was not needed in a tolerant Canada. Racism was therefore emphasized as aberrational. For example, Senator George S. White (PC, Hastings-Frontenac) called the proposed bill “vicious and objectable” and argued that it was “an insult to every Canadian.” White believed that it was

“the natural instinct of every Canadian [to] assist and build, not destroy.”223 Like Senator Jean-

François Pouliot’s earlier arguments, White did not see the need for the hate bill in a tolerant country. White’s assertions were echoed by Senator Daniel Lang (Liberal, South York) who pleaded with the Senate to reject the bill because it would undermine freedom of expression and because hate was not a problem in Canada; Lang believed that hate and racism were espoused by “a few sleazy purveyors.”224

In spite of opposition to the bill, the bill passed third reading in the Senate on 17 June

1969.225 When the bill was introduced in the House of Commons it continued to receive opposition.226 However, arguments for the bill emphasized that Canadians had to put their

“convictions in writing.”227 Canadians had to raise the moral standard. After years of debate, the hate propaganda bill was introduced to the House of Commons on 13 April 1970. 89 MP’s voted for the hate bill, 45 voted against and 127 MP’s abstained or were not present in the House

222 Ibid., 224. 223 Canada, Senate Debates (17 June 1969), p. 1612. 224 Ibid., 1618. 225 Ibid., 1620. 226 Canada, House of Commons Debates (17 November 1969) p. 911-913. 227 Canada, House of Commons Debates (17 November 1969) p. 911. 155

during the vote.228 During the Senate debates several senators attempted to persuade those who opposed the bill about the merits of the legislation. For example, Senator Lazarus Phillips

(Liberal, Rigaud) argued that freedom of expression was a freedom governed by law.229 For

Phillips, freedom of expression was not absolute. Others argued that social rights were human rights and embraced the notion of a positive state – the onus was on the polity to ensure certain economic, social and cultural rights. Senator Muriel McQueen Fergusson, for example, expressed that the law signified and declared that it was public policy that “no person in Canada should have to live in fear of attack because of colour, race, religion or ethnic origin when such attack is due to bigotry and ignorance.”230 After debating for over a month, most senators were swayed to support the hate bill and on 19 May 1970 the legislation received formal approval by the Senate.231 [See Appendix A]

Both the Anderson Affair and the lengthy debate over the hate law reveal that the mythology of racelessness dominated the discourse surrounding racism in Canada. State officials did not conceive racism to be problematic as many believed that discrimination was practiced by

‘diseased’ individuals, not institutions. Furthermore, officials correlated the concept of institutional racism with violence and Black politics. Those involved in the Anderson Affair were demonized and labeled as violent outsiders. Similarly, the evidence presented by W.P.

Oliver during the hate law debate was dismissed as it was associated with the militancy expressed by Rocky Jones and Stokely Carmichael.

The Repercussions of the ‘Anderson Affair’

State officials rejected early arguments for systemic and institutional racism in Canada,

228 Canada, House of Commons Debates (13 April 1970) p. 5806-5807. 229 Canada, Senate Debates (5 May 1970), p. 982. 230 Canada, Senate Debates (13 May 1970), p. 1043. 231 Canada, Senate Debates (19 May 1970), p. 1063. 156

but their rejection facilitated the politicization of Blacks across Canada. The immediate aftermath of the Anderson Affair suggests that the repercussions of the protest were broad in scope; the protest was a class-room conflict which brought to light Canada’s imperial presence in the Caribbean. Shortly after the Sir George Williams standoff, students in Trinidad, Jamaica and

Guyana organized protests against racism in Canada and against the presence of Canadian companies in their respective nations. For example, in Port of Spain, Trinidad, 200 demonstrators marched into a Royal Bank of Canada to demonstrate against the presence of the

Canadian bank in their nation. In Kingston, Jamaica, students organized a protest at the

University of the West Indies against the mistreatment of the accused. In Georgetown, Guyana, a demonstration was held in front of the Canadian High Commissioner’s office. Protesters carried signs which said: “Down with discrimination in Canada.”232 When Canada’s Governor General

Ronald Michener traveled to Trinidad for the Caribbean Commonwealth meeting just weeks after the Sir George Williams stand-off, he was met with angry protesters.233 Media coverage of the hostilities and demonstrations in the Caribbean was embraced by West Indian students at Sir

George Williams. One student believed that it would result in a realization among Canadians that a Canadian brand of racism existed. The student believed that the demonstrations in the

Caribbean were important as they challenged Canada’s “pseudo-liberal international image.”234

For many involved, the ‘Anderson Affair’ became a “race war” in the Canadian context.235 The protest not only signified a rejection of the university administrative policies; it

232 “Caribbean blacks protest student trial,” Toronto Star, February 27, 1970. 233 “Trinidad students block path: Michener ‘shaken’ by demonstration,” Toronto Star, February 27, 1969. 234 Carl Lumumba, “The West Indies and the Sir George Williams Affair: An Assessment,” in Let the Niggers Burn: The Sir George Williams University Affair and its Caribbean Aftermath, ed. Dennis Forsythe, (Montréal: Black Rose Books, 1971), 182. 235 Dennis Forsythe, “By way of Introduction: The Sir George Williams Affair,” 19-20 157

was also an expression of unity among the oppressed of the “Third World” including ‘natives’ in the West Indies. For the participants, the stand-off signified a convergence of race, class relations and imperialism. One of the arguments expressed by the students was that Canada was an imperial nation. Imperialism and colonialism, they argued, were essentially expressions of racism.236 Students involved in the standoff argued that the existence of Canadian multinational companies in the Caribbean signified and demonstrated Canada’s colonial and imperial essence.237 Canada, one protestor argued, “replaced Britain as the colonial master of the

Caribbean.”238 Students asserted that Canada was not different than the United States as both countries endorsed slavery, and to suggest that Canada had “been spared the agonizing legacies of a slavery-based-society” was simply an “axiomatic” argument.239

The accusation that Canada was an imperial nation prompted Maclean’s magazine to examine Canadian companies investing in the Caribbean. In July 1970, Maclean’s examined

Alcan Aluminum Ltd - the largest Canadian company operating in Jamaica and Guyana. The article revealed that, although the company was providing employment for West Indians, it was also monopolizing profits and exploiting Caribbean resources. This, many argued, created

“social stratification” and “income inequity.”240

Alcan Aluminum was not the only target of criticism. Delisle Worrell, a student from

Barbados and Ph.D. candidate in economics at McGill mounted a scathing attack on the

Canadian banking industry in the Caribbean. He argued that Canadian banks supported

236 Ibid., 20. For those who participated in the Anderson Affair, race converged with class, although race was primary, everything else was “peripheral.” Forsythe quoted Karl Marx who said “labour in a white skin cannot emancipate itself where labour in black skin is branded.” For Marx, the division of the working class along colour lines harmed the class interests of both White and Black workers. 237 DeLisle Worrell, “Canadian Economic Involvement in the West Indies,” 41. 238 LeRoi Butcher, “The Anderson Affair,” 106. 239 Dennis Forsythe, “By way of introduction: The Sir George Williams Affair,” 12-13. 240 See: Maclean’s magazine, July 1970. Cited in DeLisle Worrell, “Canadian Economic Involvement in the West Indies,” 43-44. 158

social inequality by leaking investment funds out of the Caribbean and not providing credit to native born residents who wished to establish viable businesses. Worrell elaborated on this arguing that “Caribbean nationals” needed to control Caribbean resources which would aid

“national interests” and ensure various needs such as “meaningful work and essential health, recreational, educational and insurance for every individual in the society.”241 Worrell was also critical of the lack of availably of credit, noting that loans were only approved for the “privileged elite” not those who were interested in “industrialization and agricultural diversification.” 242

Foreign investors often infused money in the tourism industry which was contributing to the rise of “white only” districts and a loss of Caribbean culture.243 Worrell also asserted that the social stratification created by foreign banks was an expression of neo-colonialism, and noted that the banks established their position of dominance during the colonial era and were essentially a carry-over from that period.244 He contended that there was “no such thing as political independence without economic independence.”245 For Worrell, a successful Caribbean meant a

Caribbean without the presence of foreign companies. Only then, would the Caribbean “begin to develop.”246

Disunity Among Blacks

These charges, specifically that Canada was an imperial and racist society, were not shared by the entire Black community. For example, Blacks who held faculty positions at Sir

George Williams disagreed with the radical statements made by protesting students. Students

241 DeLisle Worrell, “Canadian Economic Involvement in the West Indies,” 55. 242 Ibid., 45-46. 243 Ibid., 49. 244 Ibid., 47. 245 Ibid., 55. 246 Ibid., 53. 159

who were involved in the Anderson protest were not surprised and they noted that Black professors did not realize that the real problem was institutional racism. One student commented that “[t]he fact that even black individuals failed to understand that Canada perpetuated institutional racism is not a denial that it does, but rather an indication of the extent to which those individuals are taken in by gestures of tokenism in the society.”247 According to protestors,

Blacks who did not recognize the nature of institutional racism had been living under the veil of

“law and order” and were inculcated with “bourgeois concept[s].” They simply did not realize that the government, press, police and universities were racist institutions.248

Disunity also existed within and amongst radical groups. Unity was difficult as students who organized the Sir George Williams protest had different conceptualizations of justice.

Although protesters argued that racism was interwoven with capitalism and imperialism, their ideas about how to achieve equality differed. LeRoi Butcher argued that unity during the occupation was difficult as some protesters had “moralistic, theoretical [and] intangible” views about injustice.249 He noted that the failure of the Sir George protest could be attributed to the

“idealism and/or surrealism” of participants who did not know about “the nature of their struggle.” Some who participated in the protest, according to Butcher, were theoretical

Marxists and were not aware of the practical needs and requirements of a ‘real’ struggle.250

These varied conceptions of justice can be attributed to where Canadian Blacks situated themselves on the political spectrum. Recent immigrants, many of whom were from the West

Indies and had settled in Canada in the post 1967 period, left their native countries during a period when the West Indies were undergoing a period of social and political awakening. This

247 Roosevelt Williams, “Réactions: The Myth of White “Backlash,” 139. 248 Ibid., 141-142. 249 LeRoi Butcher, “The Anderson Affair,” 103. 250 Ibid., 109. 160

socio-political consciousness occurred within the context of decolonization and a rise of Pan-

Africanism and Black Power. The protestors who took part in the Anderson Affair were from the decolonizing nations of Trinidad and Tobago, Jamaica, Guyana, St. Vincent, Grenada, St. Lucia,

Antigua, Dominica, St. Kitts, Montserrat, Haiti, Dominican Republic, Union Island and

Barbados. 251 The protestors were thus motivated by both anti-racism and nationalism.252 While some argued for organized protest, including marches, others argued that liberation would be a gradual process. Dennis Forsythe, for example, argued that to reach equity, Blacks needed to gain self-awareness. Once the “liberation of the mind” occurred, only then would the individual be ready to pursue the liberation of society and the nation-state.253

Not all Blacks, however, conceptualized White privilege and racial disadvantage through the frameworks of Black Power and Pan-Africanism. Carl Lumumba, a graduate student from

Barbados who was studying at Sir George Williams University at the time of the protest, argued that there was disunity between West Indian Blacks and Canadian-born Blacks because

Canadian-born Blacks had not been radicalized by Pan-Africanism to the same extent as Blacks from the Caribbean.254 Lumumba believed that all Blacks should adhere to Pan-Africanism and

Black Power as these movements would re-orient the Black community and would serve as “a psycho-therapeutic force” aimed at “the removal of the socio-psychological defects of colonialism and imperialism.”255 To Lumumba, West Indians shared “the heritage of the colonial era.”256 The goal for Lumumba was “to combat a common oppressor.”257

251 Carl Lumumba, “The West Indies and the Sir George Williams Affair: An Assessment,” 166. 252 Ibid., 169. 253 Dennis Forsythe, “The Unfinished Revolution,” 206. 254 Carl Lumumba, “The West Indies and the Sir George Williams Affair: An Assessment,” 172. 255 Ibid., 165, 145. 256 Ibid., 183. 257 Ibid., 185. 161

Although many expressed the need for a united front against the social and economic disenfranchisement of minorities in Canada, there was no united front with respect to the means to achieve this goal. In Toronto, groups such as the Black Liberation Front of Canada and the

West Indian Students Organization sponsored a Black Panthers Party talk and rally in the spring of 1969. The rally was held at the Ontario College of Education and its aim was to educate the public and to distribute Black Panther literature to the audience of 600. It featured a prominent member of the American Black Panther Party – Kathleen Cleaver who served as communications secretary and was the first female in the executive branch of the party.258

Cleaver spoke about the emergence of the Black Panther Movement in the US. She called for revolution and defended the actions of the Black Panthers noting that the party was “against anyone who is an oppressor.”259

Cleaver’s rhetoric was accepted by some and rejected by others. For example, opposition to revolution was evident during a sponsored panel discussion by the Jamaican-Canadian

Association. This panel discussion, which took place in the spring of 1969, was important as those who attended noted that it was the first meeting which seriously discussed “common aims and objectives” of Blacks in Canada. The goal of this discussion was to establish a dialogue among various Black organizations in Canada. During the discussion it became evident that some organizations espoused revolutionary sentiments while others wanted concrete change. For example, one discussant argued that the “imperialist” system had to be overthrown and called for a socialist state where Blacks would truly be free. Another panelist responded arguing that “This is not a time for pleasantries nor is it a time for impressive marxist [sic] jargon. What is needed is

258 “Kathleen Cleaver Leads Rally,” Contrast, May 10, 1969. 259 Ibid. 162

leadership that is willing to be militant, active and RESPONSIBLE, and most important, concerned about the plight of their black brothers and sisters.”260 Although this meeting was intended to establish a dialogue amongst various groups it only emphasized the polarization between those on the extreme Left and those who believed that liberation would be a moderate and progressive process.

Solidarity ?

Shortly after the Black Panthers Party’s talk, various reports were conducted to gauge the nature of racism in Canada. In Ontario, the Ontario Human Rights Commission assessed the nature of racism in Toronto. George Brown, a researcher for the OHRC, argued that tensions were rising between Whites and Black Power advocates. The study examined specific areas including Yonge Street, Dovercourt Road, St. Clair Avenue West and the lakefront area.261

Brown blamed the increase in racial tensions on an influx of Blacks to Toronto following the liberalization of immigration regulations in 1967. Specifically, Brown argued that Black youths who adhered to Black Power principles (including exclusive Black programs and violence) were responsible for racial tensions in Toronto. He noted that “they [Blacks] have driven out the whites, or so it would seem. As a result of black power [sic] consciousness…the Negro youths have become much more aggressive in their contacts with white youths.” Racial conflicts, Brown argued, were caused by name-calling, interracial dating, and “competition for status.”262 Brown concluded that “polite but insidious discrimination…pervade[d] in Canadian society”263 and warned that if violence and racism was not controlled, “social unrest” would grow in Toronto.264

260 Editorial, “Wanted Leaders,” Contrast, May 10, 1969. 261 “Race tension said explosive at 2 centres in city’s core,” Toronto Star, April 1, 1969. 262 “Militant blacks driving whites from youth centres, report says,” Globe and Mail, April 1, 1969. 263 Race tension said explosive at 2 centres in city’s core,” Toronto Star, April 1, 1969. 264 “Militant blacks driving whites from youth centres, report says,” Globe and Mail, April 1, 1969. 163

George Brown gauged the possibility of unrest quite accurately. Toronto, which had the largest concentration of Black residents, saw a new expression of radicalism following the

Anderson Affair. There was a definable shift in political awareness among Blacks. This is evident in one major publication printed in Toronto. The West Indian News Observer, which was published in Toronto between December 1967 and January 1969, focused on fashion, book reviews, poetry, classified ads and sports news and distributed copies across Canada. The newspaper occasionally reprinted copies of the Fair Employment Practices Act and offered advice columns on legal matters such as deportation orders. The Observer, however, could be characterized as a cultural magazine as it focused on the arts. The Sir George Williams Affair redefined the nature of the Observer; the periodical became politicized. With a new political orientation the Observer changed its name to Contrast in February 1969 and clearly outlined its goals in the first issue. Publisher A.W. Hamilton argued that:

The aim of “Contrast” is to serve the needs of the black community and to enlighten our white counterparts who may be unaware of our value to society. In addition, we will attempt to define and encourage a new consciousness among black people, which will lead us to harmonious unity, irregardless [sic] of place of birth – be it the West Indies Islands – Canada – The United States – or Africa itself. WE ARE ALL BLACK. It is time that we stop deluding ourselves. Until we stop being ashamed of our heritage – the kinks in our hair – the sometimes broad facial features – the dark skin – and the culture and art we possess and display to the world, and until we stop feeling guilty when showing appreciation of our black origin, we have abandoned the immediate values which we were born, thus offending Western Society. To the contrary, there is a dire need for the education of white society on “Afro” culture and we should be the ones to make them aware. We have partaken of their world. We have had their values instilled in us. Now it is our turn to oppose them to that which was kept hidden.265

The goals of the newspaper were clear. The most pressing goal was to unite Blacks across

Canada. The newspaper believed this would be achieved by emphasizing solidarity among all

265 A.W. Hamilton, “Sir George Explodes: Alleged Racism Charges Lead to Vandalism The Cause,” Contrast, February 1969. 164

disenfranchised peoples and distributing approximately 10,000 copies across Canada per issue.266

As one contributor emphasized, Blacks had to consider themselves as one united front against racism – even if that meant they would have to fight with a “clenched fist.”267 The metaphorical association of the raised fist is significant as it emphasized the solidarity and defiance of Black

Power advocates. The second goal was to build alliances with “white counterparts” to make them aware of the struggles faced by the Black community. One of the central approaches to enlightening various groups focused on establishing policy networks. For example, Contrast’s editor sent copies of his newspaper to B.G. Kayfetz, Director of Community Relations Canadian

Jewish Congress.268

The alliance between Jewish groups and Black community organizations had a long history. During a public address in 1969, Stanley Grizzle, the President of Toronto Negro

Business and Professional Men’s Association, elaborated on this alliance noting that “Blacks and

Jews must maintain an alliance…[because] [b]oth groups have suffered greatly at the hands of white Christians.”269 In the controversial address, Grizzle disputed the common association of violence and Black Power arguing that “Black Power is not a black version of the Klu Klux

Klan….Black Power is the ability to produce and compete in the mainstream of a nations life to be proud of one’s heritage and having a well-trained mind.” He concluded his speech with calls for continued coalition building between minority groups and noted that more had to be done for the “Indians and Eskimos” as they too, faced discrimination.270 In fact, one article in Contrast

266 Ibid., 2. 267 Wayne Lawrence, “WE MUST UNITE,” Contrast, March 7, 1969. 268 Ibid. 269 “LIKE IT IS!!! From A Black’s Man’s Point of View,” Contrast, March 7, 1969. The address was made to the members of the Federal and Provincial Legislature, the Mayor, city Council of Port Hope, the clergy, Kiwanis Lions, Rotary and Kinsmen Clubs. 270 Ibid. 165

called the Canadian Indian Act “LEGISLATED DISCRIMINATION”.271

Network building was the key to sustained political influence according to Contrast.

A.W. Hamilton believed that Whites held most of the political and economic power. This was not a novel idea as Hamilton noted that John Porter’s 1965 Vertical Mosaic: An Analysis of

Social Class and Power in Canada effectively demonstrated that power was held by those of

British origin. To ensure more equitable power relations, Hamilton argued that Black leaders had to do two things. First, Black leaders had to work hard to ensure that they were doing “an effective job in promoting their groups’ interests.” Secondly, power had to be held and expressed by the community. Emulating the beliefs espoused by Carmichael, Hamilton asserted that minorities had to work with the poor because they had similar interests – both wanted “personal respect, social justice, [and] economic opportunity.” The editor, however, expressed some reservations with respect to the power that minorities groups could create noting that:

The recent development of vigorous Black Power and Red Power groups is a step in the right direction, but these groups must recognize a fact of life that 60,000 blacks and 450,000 Indians aren’t going to generate much political power in a country of 21 million people.272

Hamilton knew the challenges were immense but an embryonic discourse of institutional and systemic racism was now part of the narrative of various identity-based organizations. This posed a challenge for state agents who rejected those concepts as they challenged Canada’s ingrained mythology of tolerance, openness, and acceptance of differences. The following chapter will explore how the politics of multiculturalism bureaucratized this newly emerging ethnic consciousness.

271 “The Canadian Indian Act,” Contrast, March 7, 1969. 272 “The Political System and Minority Groups,” Contrast, March 31, 1969. 166

Chapter Four: Multiculturalism and the Bureaucratization of Ethnic Politics, 1971-1974

Canadians heralded the 1970s with cautious optimism; somehow, Canadians had weathered the turbulent 1960s. To commemorate the new decade, the T. Eaton Company commissioned a full page advertisement in the Globe and Mail to evaluate the “issues”,

“triumphs” and “lessons” of the decade past. Eaton’s assessed the 1960s as an era of youth activism, pollution, space travel, war, population growth and discrimination. The ad projected that all of these issues would continue to be challenges, except for discrimination.

Discrimination, Eaton’s argued, was an “age-old ill” which would become obsolete because it was practiced by individuals who based their beliefs on a “hysterical kind of fear.” These irrational individuals, nonetheless, had social utility as they forced humanity “to look deep into our own consciousness and rid ourselves of any trace of this same irrational fear we may find.”

The 1970s, Eaton’s projected, were “going to be full enough of rational problems without having to expend energy on irrational ones.” Discrimination would fade into oblivion because

Canadians had learned that discrimination was “morally wrong, cruel, and worst of all, a senseless waste of human potential.” Eaton’s remained positive, for Canada was being led by a responsible government which was grappling with Canada’s social issues; and Canadians,

Eaton’s argued, were aware that they were “all in this together.”1

Eaton’s comments about the future of discrimination in Canada occurred during a time of increased immigration and highlighted the country’s challenge of incorporating new immigrants into the body politic. The postwar period had been a demographically transformative time for

Canadians. Between 1951 and 1971, Canada’s foreign born population increased from approximately 100,000 to 2 million. Toronto, in particular, saw its population become more

1 “It’s 1970. Let’s Take a Look,” Globe and Mail, January 1, 1970. 167

ethnically diverse especially in the post 1967-period. By 1971, 43% of the city’s population of

713, 315 was foreign-born.2 As a result, Canadian unity became a crucial policy concern.

Community-based agencies and governmental social services organizations believed that unity was possible and could be achieved if Canadians continued to work closely with new immigrants to ensure that they became productive and democratic- minded citizens.3 Many state officials also believed that a policy of multiculturalism would build a sense of national unity in both

French and English Canada as the emergence of the Parti Québécois in 1968, the October Crisis in 1970 and provincial-federal confrontations regarding the French language challenged conceptions of nation and the meaning of Canadian identity.4

This chapter will examine the implementation of multiculturalism and will demonstrate that multiculturalism as public policy had several political, social and cultural ramifications.

First, the policy affected the social movements of the 1960s as multiculturalism programs resulted in the politics of ethnic consciousness. Network building between ethnic groups was limited as groups began to focus on the uniqueness of their group history, culture, and traditions.

Moreover, vibrant ethnic organizations, which during the 1960s had created a counter-narrative that challenged the mythology of racelessness, were overshadowed by the politics of multiculturalism. The dominant discourse surrounding multiculturalism emphasized that Canada was a tolerant nation accepting of the diversity of ethnic cultures. Furthermore, many ethnic organizations became depoliticized and essentially became administrative bodies which

2 Franca Iacovetta, Gatekeepers: Reshaping Immigrant Lives in Cold War Canada, 10, 7. 3 Ibid., 6-19. Franca Iacovetta argues that “Gatekeepers” – individuals at various reception centres, health and welfare services, and family and community programs - played a fundamental role in this process of ‘Canadianization’ of immigrants in the postwar era as they ensured that new immigrants found employment, had access to social services, adapted to Canadian gender roles and family mores, and immersed themselves in Canadian democratic values. Iacovetta asserts that newcomers were inculcated with white middle-class values as a form of “domestic containment” during the Cold War era. 4 Canada, House of Commons Debates (8 October 1971), p. 8545-8546. 168

organized cultural festivities and delivered social services to incoming immigrants. Additionally, this chapter will demonstrate that multiculturalism managed emerging discourses of institutional racism in 1970s Canada as the politics of multiculturalism perpetuated and, in fact, entrenched the notion of a raceless Canada. By promoting a non-racial or post-racial Canada, the Canadian state managed ethnic consciousness through discourses of universalism.

The goal of this chapter is to illustrate that the policy of multiculturalism did not challenge Canada’s racial status-quo. The dominant discourse of multiculturalism promoted

Canada as a land of freedom, openness and acceptance of difference in the face of growing discrimination and ethnocentrism. Consequently, official multiculturalism tended to mask the existence of systemic and institutional racism. Although ethnic groups strove to challenge the mythology of racelessness, it was only in the midst of increased racial violence during the mid- to-late 1970s that the existence of systemic and institutional racism was revealed to state agents.

Additionally, although one of the major goals of multiculturalism was to challenge discrimination, the policy created little improvement on race relations in Canada mainly because the new policy conceptualized racism as a phenomenon which was external to the Canadian state. Furthermore, the policy objectives assumed that racism was practiced by individuals – tolerance could be increased and fostered among prejudiced people through cultural interchange which would sensitize individuals to the contributions of non-English and non-French

Canadians. The policy, therefore, assumed that ethnic relations would improve in the context of official multiculturalism. Before the implementation of multiculturalism is examined, it is important to contextualize the discussion with an exploration of racial discourse in early 1970s

Canada.

169

Interpretations of Racism in early 1970s Canada.

Racial discourse was dichotomous in 1970s Canada. State officials tended to see racism as peripheral to the Canadian state, while the majority of people of colour conceptualized racism as a constitutive part of daily life. White Canadians were skeptical of the accusations made by people of colour of racism in Canada. State officials and media reports in particular emphasized that Canada was a tolerant nation, especially in comparison to the United States where racial strife was said to occur on a daily basis. These views were expressed by Prime Minister Pierre

Trudeau. With three strands of love beads around his neck and a yellow bouquet in his hand given to him by a young woman, Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau stood in front of 600 students at the Canadian Student Liberal Conference at Carleton University in 1970 and asserted that

Canada was entering the new decade on a promising note. To demonstrate Canada’s good fortune, Trudeau stated that French Canadian nationalism was not an issue as Canadian unity was strong and was expressed daily by federal political institutions and by Canadians at hockey games across the country. Trudeau also deemphasized Aboriginal activism stating that “[t]he

Canadian-Indian problem is kid stuff compared to the problems the Americans have with the

Negro.” Trudeau’s list of problems facing 1970s Canada focused on Americanization; he expressed concerns over Arctic sovereignty and American ownership and investment in Canada.5

Like Eaton’s, Trudeau did not believe that discrimination was a social problem in Canada.

Media reports agreed as many viewed racism as an American peculiarity. Following the Sir

George Williams Affair, a Toronto Star editorial asserted that the smoke over Sir George

Williams was not the same smoke as in Watts, Alabama or Detroit.6 This narrative was common;

5 “Trudeau says our problems ‘kid stuff’ compared with the U.S,” Toronto Star, February 7, 1970 and Editorial, “Racism in Canada,” Toronto Star, February 16, 1970. 6 “Does the student revolution herald an age of darkness or a time of enlightenment?,” Toronto Star, February 22, 1969. 170

newspaper articles often gauged race relations in the United States to demonstrate that racism south of the border was “an insidious problem.”7 The United States was a racial state, whilst

Canada, many believed, was a land free from racism; this was an accomplishment as Canada’s visible minorities comprised twenty-six percent of the total population in 1971.8

In instances where there was evidence of racism in Canada, that racism was conceptualized as incidental and was subsequently branded as minor in comparison to other nations. A story printed in the Toronto Star illuminates this phenomenon. Following the

Anderson Affair the newspaper interviewed a Trinidadian man who settled in Toronto in 1967.

The article described the man as “disillusioned and bitter and ready to give evidence about racial discrimination in Canada.” However, the article emphasized that the 34-year-old welder’s experiences were not representative because most people of colour did not experience discrimination. To prove this, the article interviewed two Black residents of Toronto; one of whom stated that he had experienced “two of three incidents” of discrimination. The other lamented that there was evidence of racism in Canada but racism was far more pervasive in the

Caribbean where skin tone determined one’s social position.9

These interpretations of racism in Canada were challenged by other Blacks who experienced discrimination on a consistent basis. J. Ashton Brathwaite, a Barbadian novelist, poet, editor and Black Power advocate who moved from London, England to Toronto in 1966, challenged this dominant narrative in an editorial to the Toronto Star. Brathwaite argued that

Blacks experienced consistent discrimination in housing and employment. He further argued that he had never encountered overt racial taunts but rather experienced polite and “friendly” racism

7 “Segregation issue: Is there light at the end of the tunnel,” Globe and Mail, September 5, 1970. 8 Howard Palmer, Immigration and the Rise of Multiculturalism (Toronto: Copp Clark Limited, 1975), 1. 9 “West Indians find racial bias here – but it’s just as bad at home,” Toronto Star, April 1, 1969. 171

by White Canadians. This discrimination, he argued, was not isolated but rather pervasive, subtle and engrained a culture which relegated Blacks to the structural position of “modern day slaves.”10 Brathwaite expanded on these assertions in a monograph entitled Niggers, This is

Canada, published in 1971. The widespread belief that Canada was free from racism, he argued, often resulted in either a denial of racism or an assertion by White Canadians that racism operated in isolation.11 For Brathwaite the US-Canada border was simply “an imaginary line” –

Canada was “[a] silent racist society.”12 Raceless utopias did not exist – Canada was not unlike the United States, Britain or South Africa. Brathwaite attempted to educate Black Canadians about the nature of racism in Canadian society; he argued that Blacks were ignorant and needed to cease rationalizing racism as incidental; racism was structural and institutional and functioned to exclude Blacks from positions of power. This exclusion, Brathwaite demonstrated, was an international phenomenon.13

Debate about the nature of discrimination in Canada became more pronounced following the Sir George Williams trial. Race relations were strained, particularly in Toronto, where the city’s Caribbean population reacted to the conviction of eight of the accused with conspiracy to interfere with university space. Thirty Black protesters gathered on Adelaide Street, raised their rights fists and decried Canada as a racist and imperialist nation. The protesters were members of various groups including the West Indian Students’ Federation, the Black Liberation Front, the

League for Socialist Action and the Young Socialists.14 Geddes Granger, a self-described

“Trinidadian Black Power chieftain” who was in the midst of organizing protests in the

10 J. Ashton Brathwaite, “‘Canadians’ subtle racism destroys black men’s minds,” Toronto Star, May 13, 1970. 11 J. Ashton Brathwaite, Niggers, This is Canada (Toronto: 21st Century Book, 1971), 1. 12 Ibid., 69, 70. 13 Ibid., 65-70. 14 “30 Toronto marchers protest conviction of 8,” Toronto Star, March 14, 1970. 172

Caribbean, illuminated the reasons for the protest in Toronto; he argued that Canada was a

“racist, exploiting society” – a fact that was “unmasked” during the trial. Blacks, he argued, experienced the same “humiliation and lack of respect” as Blacks in the United States, and they were ready to fight back.15

These demonstrations – both in Toronto and the Caribbean, concerned White Canadians.

The media and government officials attempted to reassure Canadians that Canada’s reputation was not in disrepute. For example, External Affairs Minister Mitchell Sharp argued that

“suspicions of racism could damage Canada’s relations with the Caribbean” but he claimed that accusations of racism were unfounded because racism was not “more than a vestigial phenomenon in Canada.”16 Similarly, Stuart B. Philpott, an anthropologist at University of

Toronto, reassured Canadians that internationally they were “generally well liked” and blamed various demonstrations on “basically anti-white, anti-colonial, and anti-capitalist” radicals.17

Some middle-class Blacks agreed. When Rosie Douglas appeared on Weekend, a CBMT television program which aired in March 1970, and argued that Canada was a racist state much like South Africa, Rhodesia, and the United States, he was met with opposition from some Black residents in Montréal who rejected his assertions and argued that Douglas did not speak for all

Blacks.18 These ideological and class divisions were also evident in Toronto. The National Black

Coalition of Canada (NBCC), which emerged in Toronto in 1969, took on a moderate approach to correcting discrimination in Canada as it was dominated by middleclass Blacks. Kay

Livingstone, the chairperson for the Ontario chapter, for example, was a 45-year-old mother of

15 “Montreal trial unmasks racism Trinidadian says,” Toronto Star, March 12, 1970. 16 “Sharp calls firebombings work of small minority,” Globe and Mail, March 10, 1970. 17 Stuart B. Philpott, “The deep troubles that spark West Indian violence,” Toronto Star, March 14, 1970. 18 Editorial, “Who speaks for blacks?,” Globe and Mail, March 10, 1970. 173

four who enjoyed a spacious bungalow in Toronto and a summer cottage. She argued that Black

Canadians were a diverse group; not all were poor porters and maids. Toronto, for example boasted 60 Black physicians, 30 or 40 lawyers, many teachers and several professors, nurses, social workers, chiropractors and scientists. The NBCC was an umbrella organization which saw Blacks as a heterogeneous group; Black Canadians came from various nations and from diverse occupations.19 In Toronto alone, the organization functioned as a central body of various organizations including: the Toronto Negro Businessmen’s and Professional Association, the

Canadian Negro Women’s Organization, Toronto Negro Veterans Association, Black Youth

Organization, Black Students Union, Universal Negro Improvement Association, West Indian

Federation, Trinidad-Tobago Association and the Library of Negro Literature. The most militant group in the organization was the Black Youth Organization which focused on equal opportunity in employment, housing and education and social justice. All the organizations, however, rejected violence.20 Militant Blacks, however, rejected the middle-road. In early 1971, Rocky

Jones organized the Black People’s Conference at Toronto’s Harbord Collegiate where he warned White Canadians that Blacks in Canada were ready for revolution. The attendees, who numbered nearly 2000, established the National Black Action Committee and gave evidence of pervasiveness of racism in Canada.21

Claims that racism was prevalent in Canada prompted the Immigration Department to commission a study of the level of tolerance in Canadian society. The study was lauded as the first fully scientific study of how immigrants perceived Canada. Entitled the “Longitudinal Study

19 Livingston argued that Toronto’s Blacks were a diverse group – some were porters and maids and others were physicians, lawyers, teachers, professors, nurses, social workers, chiropractors and scientists. See: Sydney Katz, “New role for black social club –involvement,” Toronto Star, December 26, 1970. 20 Ibid. 21 “No more warnings: Canada’s Black Revolution Under Way, Says Militant,” Toronto Star, February 22, 1971. 174

of the Economic and Social Adaptation of Immigrants,” it was based on 5000 immigrant responses to a questionnaire and was published in 1971. When the interim results were made public in mid-1970, the study made front-page news as it alleged the moral superiority of

Canadians in relation to the United States – Canadians, the study demonstrated, were tolerant and racial problems like those in the United States were unlikely to occur in Canada. The study’s author, Dr. Edgar Ziegler, was amazed at the results and emphasized that there was “no indication of discrimination against immigrants” especially in employment. Zielger argued that immigrants did not experience employment discrimination because there was “obvious tolerance in the character of all Canadians.”22 The notion of a raceless and tolerant Canada was also affirmed in the media. For example, on the occasion of the 105th Dominion Day, the Toronto

Star argued that Canadians were “in luck” because they could be “identified by their moderation, affability and tolerance.”23

The notion that tolerance was a dominant feature of the Canadian social landscape was challenged by the Social Planning Council of Toronto. The Council was dominated by left-wing intellectuals and was particularly active in assessing levels of discrimination in Metropolitan

Toronto. In 1970, the Council released a report which suggested that Toronto’s 600,000 immigrants faced many challenges. Immigrant children, for example, had difficulty adjusting in a school system that ignored their cultural contributions.24 The Council also found evidence of considerable discrimination in housing and employment; most discrimination targeted West

Indians, East Indians, Africans and Black Americans. West Indians were most susceptible to

22 The study was deemed to be ‘sound’ as it followed “the movements, employment, reactions and attitudes of all immigrants arriving in Canada on every eighth day.” See: “Immigrants praise Canada as a tolerant country,” Toronto Star, July 9, 1970 and “Immigrants get jobs despite unemployment, study shows,” Toronto Star, December 23, 1970. 23 “105th Dominion Day: We’re still in luck,” Toronto Star, July 1, 1971. 24 “Metro’s New Canadians desperately need advice,” Toronto Star, June 25, 1970. 175

discrimination by landlords and employers who often did not recognize their education qualifications or stipulated that “Canadian experience” was necessary for the position in question.25

When Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau announced Canada’s policy of multiculturalism in 1971 among other concerns he wished to resolve these debates about the existence of discrimination in Canada. Trudeau stood in the House of Commons on October 8th and announced that his government had accepted all the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism volume IV, which examined cultural and ethnic pluralism in

Canada and was intended to dissolve rising nationalism in French Canada. Trudeau concluded that Canada could not have a cultural policy for French and English Canadians, for Aboriginals and also for “all others.”26 As a result, the federal government determined to proclaim Canada as a bilingual and multicultural nation. Trudeau asserted that multiculturalism as public policy would accomplish several government objectives. First, the policy would allow and assure the

“cultural freedom of all Canadians” as it would promote a society “based on fair play for all.”

Second, multiculturalism would challenge racism because it would “help to break down discriminatory attitudes and cultural jealousies.” Lastly, the policy would foster national unity because solidarity had to be “founded on confidence in one’s own individual identity”; this confidence, Trudeau argued, would result in a self-assured populace which would “share [their] ideas, attitudes and assumptions.”27 The government vowed that it would support all cultural groups in Canada and would do so by providing necessary resources as long as it was

25 “Laws don’t stop discrimination against immigrants,” Toronto Star, November 17, 1970 and “West Indians suffer most. Discrimination in jobs and housing,” Toronto Star, June 25, 1970. 26 Canada, House of Commons Debates (8 October 1971), p. 8545. 27 Ibid. 176

demonstrated that there was “a clear need for assistance.”28

The policy of multiculturalism had four goals. To begin, the government would assist cultural groups so that they could “grow and contribute to Canada.” Second, the federal government asserted that it would help cultural groups “overcome cultural barriers” so that they would be able to fully participate in Canadian society. Third, in the interest of national unity, the new policy would “promote creative encounters and interchange among all Canadian cultural groups.” Lastly, the government pledged that it would assist immigrants in learning one of the

Canada’s official languages. The implementation mandate was given to the Citizenship Branch of the Department of the Secretary of State which was responsible for the integration of immigrants. The agencies entrusted with promoting multiculturalism included the Citizenship

Branch, the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC), the

National Film Board (NFB) and the National Museum of Man.29

Theorizing and Historicizing Multiculturalism

The policy of multiculturalism redefined Canada as a modern and raceless state.

Multiculturalism developed in Canada and later in other modern states including Australia, Great

Britain, Germany and Spain, because demographic heterogeneity could no longer be managed through deception, confinement, supervision and repression - as it had been during the colonial era.30 In essence, Canada adopted multiculturalism to mediate and manage heterogeneity with an official policy of racelessness.31 These policies of racelessness had homogenizing effects. As

28 “Ottawa’s new plan for a Canada of many cultures,” Toronto Star, December 4, 1971. 29 Canada, House of Commons Debates (8 October 1971), p. 8546. 30 David Theo Goldberg, The Racial State, 31. 31 Goldberg argues that the modern historicist state mediates with modernity through raceless policies such as human rights. Human rights policies are expressions of universalism. Goldberg argues that notions of human rights have enabled and effected social movements in many ways successful in turning racist arrangements into racial ones, and racial social ordering into raceless, non-racial, post-racial, and indeed occasionally anti and trans racial ones.” Ibid., 15, 140, 157. 177

David Theo Goldberg argues, modern states promote and enact multiculturalism to

“homogeniz[e] exclusions.”32 Multiculturalism, therefore, developed during a critical period in

Canada’s history as the state needed a program which would continue to impose homogeneity to ensure national stability.33

Because multiculturalism attempted to solve the problem of diversity much of the scholarly work on the state policy focuses of whether the public policy has been a successful solution to Canada’s heterogeneity.34 Policy analysts, philosophers and social scientists have debated multiculturalism since its inception. Will Kymlicka and Charles Taylor – the leading proponents of multiculturalism - argue that multiculturalism results in a more tolerant society and allows for individuals to integrate into Canadian society without having to reject their cultural traditions. Multiculturalism, therefore, aids in preserving minority cultures which allows for individual recognition and self-actualization.35 In contrast, social scientists influenced by

Marxism and Critical Theory argue that multiculturalism creates unequal power relations. This critique was first espoused before the policy of multiculturalism was officially expressed. In The

Vertical Mosaic (1965) John Porter argued that “the concept of the mosaic or multiculturalism” would result in a segregated and compartmentalized social structure which would “become an important aspect of social control by the charter group.”36 In 1983 Kogila Moodley made a

32 Ibid., 5. 33 Goldberg argues that “race extends across modern conceptions of otherness, in some ways defining but certainly pervading them. The racial state, in the generic sense, purports to offer its proponents a way to account for the threat and unmanageability of the unknown, the diverse, the heterogeneous into manageable – that is, at once managed – homogeneity.” Ibid., 34. 34 For example: Jean Burnet, “Multiculturalism Ten Years Later,” in Two Nations, Many Cultures, ed. Jean Leonard Elliot (Scarborough: Prentice Hall, 1983), 235-242 and Neil Bissoondath, “A Question of Belonging: Multiculturalism and Citizenship,” in Belonging: The Meaning and Future of Canadian Citizenship, ed. W. Kaplan. (Montréal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1993), 368-387. 35 Will Kymlicka, Multicultural Citizenship: A Liberal Theory of Minority Rights (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995) and Charles Taylor, Multiculturalism: Examining the Politics of Recognition, ed. Amy Gutmann (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994). 36 John Porter, The Vertical Mosaic: An Analysis of Social Class and Power in Canada (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1965), 73-74. 178

similar argument when she asserted that multiculturalism was “superficial” as it “trivializes, neutralizes and absorbs social and economic inequalities.”37 More recently, Evelyn Légaré and

Himani Bannerji have made analogous arguments. Légaré argues that multiculturalism promotes a “racialist discourse” as it utilizes the concept of culture in place of race. As a result, ethnic groups are inherently racialized and viewed as outside the normative Canadian identity. This

‘Othering’, Légaré argues, is simply a continuation, albeit more subtle, of the hierarchical “racist and racialist notions of Culture that prevailed during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.”38 Multiculturalism, therefore, obscures structural inequalities through the invocation of categories of difference. Bannerji’s interpretation is equally critical; she demonstrates that multiculturalism objectifies, categorizes and marginalizes people of colour as it promotes second-class citizenship and conceals systemic racism. Bannerji argues that the Canadian state uses the discourse of multiculturalism to sustain power in the face of a fragmented nation.

Multiculturalism, she argues, pits non-White people “in the middle of a dialogue on hegemonic rivalry” between French and English Canada. This balancing act requires a large multiculturalism bureaucracy which functions as surveillance and intrudes on the personal lives of people of colour. Furthermore, this bureaucracy emphasizes folklore and also provides

“essential services” for immigrants and therefore displaces and silences discourses of anti-racism and political equality.39 Many of the assertions made by Moodley, Bannerji and Légaré will be demonstrated in this chapter albeit within a historical context.

37 Kogila Moodley, “Canadian Multiculturalism as Ideology,” Ethnic and Racial Studies 6, no. 3 (1983): 326. 38 Evelyn Légaré, “Canadian Multiculturalism and Aboriginal People: Negotiating a Place in the Nation,” Identities 1, no.4 (1995): 347-366. 39 Himani Bannerji, “On that Dark Side of the Nation: Politics of Multiculturalism and the State of Canada,” Journal of Canadian Studies 31, no.3 (1996): 103-129 and Himani Bannerji, Dark Side of the Nation: Essays on Multiculturalism, Nationalism and Racism (Toronto: Canadian Scholars' Press, 2000). 179

Scholars interested in the origins rather than evaluation of the policy of multiculturalism have shown that multiculturalism did not develop in a vacuum; multiculturalism as public policy was expressed within a specific historical context as state agents who designed the policy were aware that they were grappling with political and constitutional problems that had deep historical roots. As scholars have demonstrated, multiculturalism grew out of the constitutional debate over biculturalism and bilingualism.40 Howard Palmer argues that multiculturalism was an inevitable policy as Canada’s inherent diversity was revealed during the proceedings of Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism; once the Commission attempted to evaluate Canada as a bicultural and bilingual nation, the contributions of ‘other ethnic groups’ had to be recognized. In his assessment of multiculturalism, Palmer asserts that Canadian history can be divided into three distinct periods. He demonstrates that Anglo-conformity was the key feature of the post-

Confederation era up to 1920. Nativism and anti-foreignism were key features of this period as immigrants were expected to conform to Anglo-Saxon ideas. In the post WWI era, the idea of the

‘melting pot’ dominated immigration discourse. Much of this can be attributed to increased pressures to open Canada’s doors to immigrants because of lobbying from transportation companies, boards of trade, newspapers and ethnic groups. Melting pot discourse promoted the notion that cultures should blend with into “a new Canadian type.”41 Immigrants were thus largely conceptualized as contributors rather than contaminants to the Canadian state. Palmer argues that this new conceptualization of immigrants can be attributed to the discrediting of race as a biological category and the growth of a Canadian brand of nationalism which demonstrated

40 Howard Palmer, ed., Immigration and the Rise of Multiculturalism (Toronto: Copp Clark Publishing, 1975) and Manoly R. Lupul, The Politics of Multiculturalism: A Ukrainian-Canadian Memoir (Edmonton: Canadian Institute of Ukrainian Studies Press, 2005). 41 Howard Palmer, “Reluctant Hosts: Anglo-Canadian Views of Multiculturalism in the Twentieth Century,” in Immigration to Canada: Historical Perspectives, ed. Gerald Tulchinsky (Toronto: Copp Clark Longman Ltd, 1994), 298. 180

Canada’s transformation from a British colony to a nation-state.42 Furthermore, the rise of liberalism facilitated the transition from Anglo-conformity to Canada as a ‘melting pot.’ As discussed in the introduction, liberals such as John Murray Gibbon rejected the notion of Anglo-

Saxon superiority and advocated a Canadian mosaic where the cultural contributions of immigrants were acknowledged but assimilation in the political and economic spheres was expected. Liberals like Gibbon believed that Canadian unity would not be undermined as national unity did not require uniformity. Palmer argues that the discourse of multiculturalism and cultural pluralism emerged in the post-1960 period in the context of international human rights discourse. The shift to multiculturalism was facilitated by economic prosperity, emerging cultural relativism and political pressure from French Canada as well from other ethnic groups, particularity Chinese Canadians and Ukrainian Canadians, who argued that they too had contributed to the building of Canada.43

Unlike Palmer, Richard Day argues that multiculturalism emerged not because of an evolution in “multiculturalist tolerance” but because of “determined resistance.”44 Day argues that multiculturalism was a solution to the problem of diversity which began with the arrival of

Europeans who attempted to regulate the colonized. He asserts that the problem of diversity and eventual multiculturalism in Canada “descended from ancient forms.” Day demonstrates that the texts of Herodotus, Plato and Aristotle were key as these philosophers established “the rules and categories according to which Western philosophers, missionaries, and colonizers would describe and judge Others...”45 This process was complex and involved the “adaptation and

42 This brand of Canadian nationalism, Palmer argues, was propagated by John W. Dafoe of the Winnipeg Free Press and J.S. Ewart, a constitutional lawyer. Ibid., 309. 43 Ibid., 317. 44 Richard J.F. Day, Multiculturalism and the History of Canadian Diversity (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1999), 3. 45 Ibid., 48. 181

proliferation” of the problem of diversity as discourses of diversity were creatively reproduced in the New World.46 During the European colonization, for example, Aboriginals were Savages,

Pagans and Barbarians because Europeans brought an Old World system of categorization and differentiation to the New World.47 This system deemed Others to be “semi-human beings” and resulted in xenophobia, extermination and exploitation.48 Assimilation was also attempted as the colonial experience “brought modern ideas about individual development to the New World.”49

Following the Conquest, the problem of diversity became more evident as the French became internal Others; assimilation and integration had failed and the language of race began to differentiate the French as a ‘different’ kind of people.50 Day argues that the problem of diversity became increasingly acute as Canada became a ‘modern’ nation – a nation which looked for unity and identity. This problem of diversity translated into “rejection...exclusion...and ejection” as Anglo-conformity ruled.51 Policies of “deportation, disenfranchisement, and internment,” Day argues, attempted to solve the problems of internal diversity. External diversity was controlled by exclusionary immigration laws.52 These ideas were transformed during the 20th century when writers such as J.S Woodsworth began to utilize the ‘Mosaic’ metaphor to press not for Anglo-

Conformity but for the integration of cultures as they believed that Canadian unity could come from diversity.53 This shift, Day argues, was facilitated by an international shift from “racialism” to “culturalism” and was a precursor to the passage of multiculturalism as state policy as it focused on “seductive integration” instead of “coercive assimilation.”54 Multiculturalism, Day

46 Ibid., 7. 47 Ibid., 80. 48 Ibid., 98. 49 Ibid., 90. 50 Ibid., 7-8, 113. 51 Ibid., 9. 52 Ibid., 116. 53 Ibid., 9, 149. 182

argues, emerged as a rational-bureaucratic solution to the problem of diversity as the turbulent

1960s brought awareness to the fact that Canada was a fragmented nation.55 Day, like Palmer, demonstrates that the Bilingualism and Biculturalism Commission, which was intended to solve the problem of diversity, resulted in the state policy of multiculturalism.56 However, unlike

Palmer, who expressed his support for multiculturalism, Day argues that multiculturalism proliferates the “ancient problem of diversity” as it reproduces the racial hierarchy, does not challenge inequality and allows for ethnic groups “to be managed under one policy, while being denied the right to commonly resist this policy.”57

The work of José E. Igartua also demonstrates that the 1960s were a key decade in which

Canada shed its overt ‘Britishness’ and became a “civic nation.”58 Igartua argues that within a short time period, nationalism in Canada shifted from an emphasis on ethnic nationalism (which emphasized descent) to civic nationalism (which emphasized legal-political equality and common culture). Igartua asserts that ethnic nationalism was expressed until the 1960s “and then [it was] abruptly discarded.”59 Although Igartau overstates the ‘abruptness’ of this shift (as it was more gradual), his work demonstrated that the 1960s were a decade of national self- awareness. This search for identity resulted in debates over the nature of Canadian identity, which were expressed during the Bilingualism and Biculturalism Commission and also during the debates over the national flag and the anthem.60 It was this search for identity that facilitated the rise of multiculturalism.

54 Ibid., 173, 146. 55 Ibid., 178. 56 Ibid., 187. 57 Ibid., 3, 188. 58 José E. Igartua, The Other Quiet Revolution: National Identities in English Canada, 1945-1971 (Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press, 2006), 1. 59 Ibid., 4-5. 60 Ibid., 99. 183

The Significance of the B and B Commission

Historians agree that multiculturalism developed out of the Biculturalism and

Bilingualism Commission. This debate began on 19 July 1963 when Prime Minister Lester B.

Pearson established the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism. When the preliminary hearing began in November, the agenda was clearly expressed: the purpose of the

Commission was to examine “the existing state of bilingualism and biculturalism in Canada,” to assess how “an equal partnership between the two founding races” could be developed and to explore “the contribution made by other ethnic groups, to the cultural enrichment of Canada and the measures that should be taken to safeguard that contribution.”61 The Commissioners believed that the role of the Royal Commission was profound:

We believe that today Canada is facing questions as serious as those faced at the time of Confederation. From the province of Québec in particular, there is a growing demand for a new look at Confederation and a better understanding of the basic partnership between the two founding peoples as well as the increasing contribution of Canadians of other origins. Some even question the continued existence of Canada as a federal nation.62

In essence, the Commission was established to ensure national stability in an increasingly diverse

Canada. The Commissioners were aware of this when they stated that “[v]ery few states today are entirely homogeneous…” Canada’s problem was a microcosm of a global dilemma and the

Commissioners believed that if Canada solved the problem of heterogeneity it would “make a constructive contribution to world peace.” They debated the nature of Canadian identity as they examined key constitutional issues and the historical question of whether Canada was single or dual nation. They grappled with key issues such as: French language education, whether federal

61 Canada. Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism. Preliminary Hearings (Ottawa: Queen’s Printer, 1963), 7. The Commission was Co-Chaired by André Laurendeau, who published Le Devoir, and Davidson Dunton, president of Carleton University. 62 Ibid., 11-12. 184

officials should be bilingual and the role of the media in promoting bilingualism. Furthermore, the Commission examined how “other ethnic groups” contributed to Canada’s culture and whether their contributions should be safeguarded.63 The goal of the Commission, therefore, was

“to establish some degree of Canadian identity.”64

The preliminary report of the Commission was released in 1965; the final report was published incrementally in six volumes: The Official Languages (1967), Education (1968), The

Work World (1969), The Cultural Contribution of the Other Ethnic Groups (1969), The Federal

Capital (1970), and Voluntary Associations (1970). Specifically, it was Book IV which attempted to resolve Canada’s crisis in heterogeneity as it demonstrated that Canada was inherently multiethnic. However, to appease French Canada, the Report asserted that Canada was fundamentally a dual nation; French and English Canada had primacy over other cultural groups because they had “the definite advantage of having colonized Canada.”65 The Commissioners examined the long history of immigration to Canada and the political, social and economic roles and contributions of cultural groups in Canada. Although the Commission explored the settlement of Chinese, Japanese, East Indian and Black immigrants, most of the Report examined the agricultural, industrial and cultural contributions of European immigrants; the report focused the immigration of British, French, German, Polish, Italian, Danish, Dutch, Icelandic and

Ukrainian migrants.66 The Report described non-European immigrants in less than flattering

63 Ibid., 12. Canada was not the only nation to implement multiculturalism. Since the 1970s Australia, Great Britain, Germany, and Spain all implemented aspects of multiculturalism into public policy. Recent leaders of those nations, however, have argued that multiculturalism is a failure citing that policies promoting multiculturalism have facilitated the growth of radicalism. This will be explored further in the Conclusion. 64 Canada. Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism. Preliminary Hearings (Ottawa: Queen’s Printer, 1963), 11 65 Canada. Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism. Book IV: The Cultural Contribution of the Other Ethnic Groups (Ottawa: Queen’s Printer of Canada, 1970), 5. 66 Ibid., 18-23. 185

terms. For example, the Commission argued that Black Canadians lacked entrepreneurship:

The Negroes in Canada have not developed an extensive system of businesses serving their own ethnic group. In Toronto in the 1950’s, Negros were accepted as clients and customers by white professionals and businessmen, as professionals and businessmen by white clients and customers. Negro professionals or those operating businesses did not operate exclusively or even primarily within the Negro community. The one exception was two Negro barber-shops which had a considerable Negro clientele.67

The Commission also held that certain groups, like Germans, Ukrainians, Jews and

Scandinavians, were more prone and interested in “political participation and recognition.”68

Moreover, in their assessment of the levels of education in the labour force, the Commissioners focused on British, French, German, Italian, Jewish and Ukrainian experiences. The rest of

Canada’s ethno-cultural groups were categorized as “others.”69 Furthermore, in their examination of mutual aid associations, including social welfare associations, political associations, social and recreational associations and occupational and professional associations, Germans, Ukrainians, the Dutch and Italians were argued to be the most organized because they were the most educated and sophisticated.70 There was a clear message in the Report: Canada was a European settler society that had been built by European sweat.

Although the Commissioners believed that some groups contributed more than others, they also believed that the Canadian state had an obligation to safeguard the rights of all minorities. Biculturalism was rejected as such a policy would relegate non-English and non-

Francophones to second class citizenship. Because Canada had been built on waves of immigration, the Commission argued that the future immigrant “must have complete freedom of choice in his integration; the receiving society must, through its institutions, assure him equal

67 Ibid., 53. 68 Ibid., 86. 69 Ibid., 124. 70 Ibid., 110-112. 186

opportunity for personal fulfillment.”71 Canada had to be an “open and modern” society in order

“to integrate heterogeneous elements into a harmonious system.” The goal was to achieve “unity in diversity.”72 By 1961, Canada’s heterogeneity was evident: 44% of the population was of

British origin, 30 % were of French origin and 26% were ‘other.’73 The conclusion of the

Bilingualism and Biculturalism Commission, that Canada was inherently heterogeneous, resulted in the recommendation that Canada adopt a policy of multiculturalism within a bilingual framework.

The Commission’s recommendations were not novel. Ideas about multiculturalism and the rhetoric of “unity-in-diversity” had been expressed by state officials since the 1950s.74 By the

1960s, cultural pluralism was part of the public discourse. A year after Pearson established the

Bilingualism and Biculturalism Commission, he spoke at an ethnic festival at the O’Keefe Centre in Toronto where he expressed an embryonic policy of multiculturalism. Pearson argued that

Canada was inherently a “multi-racial” nation and he hoped that Canada’s “many races [would] continue to blend without losing their separate values.” The Prime Minister also believed that ethnic minorities had contributed to Canada through “their history, color and vitality” and had to be given the opportunity to express their cultural heritage. He told his audience that ethnic minorities could not be relegated into second-class citizenship as there were “no grades of citizenship in Canada.” The federal government, Pearson argued, envisioned “an equal partnership of all Canadians of every origin and racial background. There is and will be only one

71 Ibid., 5. 72 Ibid., 7. 73 Ibid., 8. 74 These ideas were most notably expressed by Vladimir Kaye, a Ukrainian-Canadian academic who worked for the Citizenship Branch in the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. Franca Iacovetta argues that multiculturalism offered a liberal policy which was grounded in social science. Cultural pluralism was supported by state agents because it would ensure that foreigners were integrated into Canadian society with cultural sensitivity in mind and without disrupting and threatening the dominant classes with its focus on folklore. See: Franca Iacovetta, Gatekeepers: Reshaping Immigrant Lives in Cold War Canada, 80-81, 51. 187

class of Canadian citizen: first class!” [emphasis in original]. Pearson emphasized that all

Canadians had the “same privileges; the same responsibilities; the same hopes; the same goals for our country” and that the multi-racial essence of Canada would eventually “sweep away any form of discrimination and prejudice in our Canadian society.”75 Pearson’s views were supported by the future Prime Minister, Pierre Trudeau, who as professor of law at the Université de

Montréal, argued that Canada was inherently a dual nation which needed to create “a truly pluralistic state.” If pluralism was achieved, Canada, Trudeau argued, would be envied internationally and would have a federal state which was “[b]etter than the American melting pot.” Canada would also offer an example to other multiethnic populations in Africa and Asia on how to govern “with proper regard for justice and liberty.” Trudeau regarded pluralism and multiculturalism “a brilliant prototype for the molding of to-morrow’s civilization.”76

The statements made by Trudeau in 1962 and Pearson in 1964 were echoed in the final report of the Bilingualism and Biculturalism Commission. The Commission believed that multiculturalism would result in several positive outcomes. First, immigrants would have freedom of choice with respect to integration; this was important as the Commission believed that freedom was instrumental in one’s psychological well-being. Full assimilation had the potential to destroy one’s personality and would also “deprive society” of the virtues of cultural diversity.77 Cultural diversity was positive for Canada because historically immigrants brought

75 LAC, Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism (textual records), R5366-2-4-E, MG31 D58, Vol. 8. File 26. [Pearson, Lester B. on Multiculturalism. May 10, 1964 Office of the Prime Minister. Remarks by the Prime Minister The Right Honourable Lester B. Pearson at the Third Freedom Festival O’Keefe Centre, Toronto, Sunday May 10, 1964]. 76 LAC, Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism (textual records), R5366-2-4E, MG31 D58, Vol. 8. File 27. [Trudeau, P.E. on Multiculturalism. 1971. “Pierre Elliott Trudeau on Canada: A Selection of His Views, 1962.”] 77 Canada. Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism. Book IV: The Cultural Contribution of the Other Ethnic Groups, 5. 188

“strength, skills, and traditions to this country.”78 Furthermore, the Commission believed that multiculturalism would bring a “climate of equality” allowing “basic human rights to grow and safeguard the languages and cultures of Canada’s ethnic groups.”79

The Commission made several important assertions about race and racism in Canadian society which expressed the mythology of racelessness.80 First, the Commissioners defined racism as a problem which was often spurred on by immigration and practiced by individuals who were prejudiced; if discrimination did rear its ugly head in Canada it did so because of prejudiced individuals who “spoil[ed] otherwise harmonious relations.”81 Canada was a tolerant nation as Canadian laws were no longer discriminatory, although the Commission admitted that historically almost all groups experienced discrimination and virtually all groups had “practiced” discrimination. Historically, however, discrimination did not always have a negative impact on ethnic minorities because sometimes discrimination spurred ambition and resulted in

“outstanding achievement.”82 With respect to contemporary discrimination, the Commission argued that it was difficult to measure; prejudice did not always result in discrimination and prejudice was difficult to gauge as “discriminatory behaviour… [was] sometimes practiced by the unprejudiced.”83 However, the Commission believed that discriminatory behaviour was uncommon and asserted that racism was diminishing in Canada – discrimination was simply “a residual” phenomenon.84 To ensure that this trend continued, the Commission advocated that

78 Ibid., 12. 79 Ibid., 14. 80 The Commission rejected the concept of ethnicity and the notion of ‘race’ as a biological category and opted to focus on culture as it emphasized “one’s sense of belonging to a group.” Furthermore, the Commissioners asserted that cultural groups were diverse; they believed that conceptualizing cultural groups as a “third force” in Canadian society was too simplistic as a third force did not exist “in any political sense.” The Commission defined “culture” as “a way of being, thinking, and feeling.” Cultural groups shared customs, language, habits and experiences. Ibid., 10, 11. 81 Ibid., 7, 9. 82 Ibid., 60. 83 Ibid., 59. 189

Canadians had to be accepting “and refuse to tolerate any kind of discrimination.”85

Responses to Multiculturalism

Since tolerance was widely believed to be the very essence of Canadian identity,

Trudeau’s announcement of the policy of multiculturalism in the House of Commons on 8

October, 1971 was met with support from all official parties. Robert L. Stanfield, the Progressive

Conservative Leader of the Opposition stated that he was pleased with the new policy as it was an admission by the federal government that “cultural identity of Canada is a pretty complex thing.” Stanfield believed that multiculturalism would ensure “justice for all Canadians.” He also assured French Canadians that multiculturalism did not constitute “an attack on the basic duality of our country” as it was intended to simply recognize the cultural diversity of Canada.86 David

Lewis, Leader of the New Democratic Party expressed his full support for multiculturalism and admitted that he was pleased about the “belated” announcement that Canada recognized “the value of the many cultures in our country.” Lewis hoped the new policy would help diffuse prejudice and cultural resentment as he believed that Canadians would learn “to appreciate the values of diversity” and “welcome enriching differences.” Lewis, who represented the riding of

York South, also emphasized that Torontonians were proud of their increasingly multicultural city. Multiculturalism, Lewis believed, would ensure that Italians, Greeks and West Indians who were settling in Toronto in large numbers, would be able to keep their language, traditions and identity alive. Lewis viewed multiculturalism as a recognition of group rights and believed that the “majority in society” could not impose “cruel” policies on minorities.87 Réal Caouette,

84 Ibid., 58. 85 Ibid., 9. 86 Stanfield’s party put forth an amendment to the Official Languages Bill in 1969 which sought to recognize Canada as a dual nation but also sought to recognize and support the language and cultural rights of other ethnic groups. The amendment was rejected. Canada, House of Commons Debates (8 October 1971), p. 8545-8546. 190

Leader of the Social Credit Party of Canada, supported the government’s statement, yet expressed confusion about Trudeau statement that Canada had no “official culture.” He argued that Canada had “a culture peculiar to us” and hope that the policy world “make good Canadians out of members of all ethnic groups in Canada.” Although Caouette supported multiculturalism in principle, he feared that multiculturalism would undermine national unity; he rejected a

Canada where “a little France, a little England, a little Italy or a little Russia” dominated the cultural landscape.88

Prime Minister Trudeau assured that the balkanization Caouette feared would not occur in Canada because multiculturalism was simply a reflection of Canadian society – it was a sociological fact. At a celebration commemorating the 80th anniversary of the arrival of

Ukrainians in Western Canada, Trudeau asserted that there was no single culture in Canada because of ethnic and linguistic diversity, which was bound to increase in a modern Canada. The idea that “a model or ideal Canadian” existed was simply “absurd.”All Canadians, he argued, were members of an ethnic group and this necessitated the policy of multiculturalism. Imposing uniformity, he believed, would result in “intolerance and hate.” Trudeau believed multiculturalism was inevitable - Canada was so diverse that there was “no alternative but to be tolerant of one another’s differences.” Furthermore, Trudeau reiterated that multiculturalism would counteract the historic “ostracism, contempt, discrimination” experienced by immigrants.

Beyond tolerance, multiculturalism as public policy would ensure that Canada remained

“resilient” and “colourful.” The policy was simply an expression of the essence of Canadian identity as it signified that Canadians were a harmonious people who rejected “national

87 Ibid., 8547. 88 Ibid., 8548. 191

grandeur,” “ostentation” or “might” and simply desired “to cohabit with persons of differing backgrounds, and to benefit from the opportunities which this offers.”89 Trudeau’s assertions were supported by all provincial premiers, with the exception of Robert Bourassa who saw multiculturalism as a contradiction of bilingualism.90

Policy Implementation

Although one of the policy goals of multiculturalism was to break down discriminatory attitudes, when the policy was implemented, anti-racism policies were absent. This is not surprising given the fact that the rhetoric of racelessness dominated the discourse surrounding the implementation of multiculturalism. At times, however, government officials sent contradictory messages to the public regarding its goals. For example, when Gérard Pelletier, the

Secretary of State, elaborated on the programme the day it was announced he argued that Canada was a tolerant nation but simultaneously asserted that multiculturalism would “break down the arbitrary and divisive barriers in our society which are based on country of origin or mere numbers.”91 Yet the policy programme focused on cultural development and short term research projects on Canada’s ethnic groups. The policy which was intended to ensure the “democratic principle of equality for all Canadians” did little to do so. Multiculturalism was a cultural not an anti-racism policy.92

The multiculturalism programme was ambitious and yet convoluted. French and English cultures, where they existed in minority situations, were to be governed by the Social Action

89 LAC, Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism (textual record). R5366-24-E, MG31 D58 Vol. 8, File 27. [“Notes for Remarks by the Prime Minister to the Ukrainian-Canadian Congress, Winnipeg, Manitoba, October 9, 1971.”] 90 LAC, Multiculturalism Directorate. Minister’s Office – Multiculturalism. Multicultural Forecasts, RG 6, 89 90/319. Box 6, File: 3250-1-1. Vol.1. 91 LAC, Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism (textual records), R5366-2-4-E, MG31 D58 Vol. 8, File 27. 92 LAC, Minister’s Office – Multiculturalism. Policy Implementation, RG 6, 89-90/319. Box 5 File: 3250-0 vol.3. 192

Branch of the Department of the Secretary of State. Funding would be provided by the Arts and

Cultural Support Branch of the Department. Non-English and non-French cultures were to be governed by the Citizenship Branch of the Department of the Secretary of State.93 The

Department announced that it would be responsible for projects, cultural research, language instruction and consultation with ethnic groups. Furthermore, the federal government announced that it would provide grants for groups that wished to develop their culture. This included funding for “programmes of citizenship preparation and multicultural gatherings.” All cultural groups, the government argued, were eligible for funding. Second, the government established a short-term research programme to collect data on language and culture among Canada’s ethnic groups. The government also planned to commission histories of ethnic groups to demonstrate the inherent heterogeneity of Canada. Programmes which would display Canada’s multi-ethnic heritage would also be displayed by the National Museum of Man, and the National Library and

Public Archives. The National Film Board would also receive funding to produce films on

Canada’s ethnic groups. The Secretary of State also made important announcements about language training and language retention. First, the government would consult with the provinces to establish teaching aids for third languages to be used by Canadian students. In addition, immigrants would be provided with language training in one of the official languages. Lastly, the government pledged to consult “with all cultural groups on a continuing basis.”94

To ensure that ethnic groups were consulted, Trudeau’s government established the

Canadian Consultative Council on Multiculturalism. The roles of the Council included: advising the Minister on matters relating to multiculturalism and producing an annual report which

93 LAC, Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism (textual records), R5366-2-4-E, MG31 D58 Vol. 8, File 27. 94 Ibid. 193

examined language retention, ethnic broadcasting, folk arts, youth and the ethnic press.95 The

Council consisted of 100 appointed members from across Canada. Trudeau hoped that the

Council would “assess [the] needs, offer advice, and contribute to the good relations of

Canadians of all backgrounds.”96 The membership was intended to be diverse as appointments were given to university lecturers and members of various cultural associations. However, the executive make-up of the Council suggests that the federal government gave the appointments to

White middle and upper-class like-minded citizens. For example, the composition of the first council included its Chair, Julius Koteles, who was a Winnipeg lawyer and national director of the Canadian Folk Arts Council; the two vice chair positions were held by Dr. Agatha

Laourcière-Lacerte from Québec City, a former professor of languages at Laval and Dr. Lino

Magagna from Port Credit, who was president of COSTI – a Toronto-based immigrant aid organization. The five regional chairmen included: Linden MacIntyre, a Nova Scotia journalist,

Saul Hayes, executive vice president of the Canadian Jewish Congress, Thaddeus Glista, president of the Polish Alliance of Canada, M.R. Lupul, president of the Ukrainian Professors

Club, University of Alberta and vice president of the Ukrainian Canadian Professional and

Businessmen’s Federation (western region), as well as Horst Koehler, from West Vancouver who was executive producer and director of ethnic television programming and vice president of the Trans-Canada Alliance of German-Canadians.97

95 The first report was published in 1975. LAC, Minister’s Office – Multiculturalism. Multiculturalism Grants – Guidelines for Submission, July 1972 – Vol. 1, RG 6, Accession 1989-90/319, box 28 File: 3270-3 pt.1. 96 Canadian Consultative Council on Multiculturalism, First Annual Report of the Canadian Consultative Council on Multiculturalism (Ottawa: Canadian Consultative Council on Multiculturalism, 1975), vi. 194

Shortly after the establishment of the Canadian Consultative Council on

Multiculturalism, Bernard Ostry, the Assistant Under-Secretary of State, revealed the grant submission system. Organizations interested in funding were directed to fill out the Grant

Application Form at one of the eighteen Regional Offices of the Citizenship Branch. Regional

Offices then sent the application to the Citizens’ Cultures of the Department of the Secretary of

State which administered the Multicultural Grants’ Programme and the Multicultural Centres’

Programme.98 Ostry advised ethnic organizations to “define the project clearly” so that the grant request could be assessed and processed with expedience by regional officers and ultimately the

Multicultural Grants Committee. Since regional officers were the first to assess a grant application they were given additional information about the grant submission system. Officers were advised to approve requests which would fulfill the objectives of multiculturalism. These objectives were expressed in the guidelines from Ostry. However, much like other multiculturalism initiatives, the guidelines provided were ambiguous and subject to wide interpretation. Officers were to approve funding requests if the funds would assist Canadian ethno-cultural groups “to develop their culture within the Canadian context and to contribute to modern Canadian society.” Grants were also to be approved if a particular group had designed an event or programme by which they could “share their cultural heritage with Canadians.”

Projects that promoted “awareness of Canada’s cultural diversity” and assisted immigrants in

97 LAC, Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism (textual records), R5366-2-4-E, MG31 D58, Vol. 8, File 15. [Canadian Consultative Council on Multiculturalism 1973]. 98 LAC, Minister’s Office – Multiculturalism. Multiculturalism Grants – Guidelines for Submission, July 1972 – Vol. 1, RG 6, Accession 1989-90/319, box 28 File: 3270-3 pt.1.

195

becoming “full participants in Canadian society” were also to be approved. “Original and innovative projects” were welcomed by the Secretary of State as long as they celebrated cultural heritage.99

Ostry also provided guidelines for rejecting grant requests. Projects requiring 100% federal financing were not supported. Officers were instructed to reject funding for projects which did not have the full “participation and financial support of the community to which they are directed.” Organizations interested in funding also had to clearly demonstrate their need for financial assistance with a detailed budget indicating support from their community, other federal agencies and private donors. Moreover, grants for research were not supported because the goal was to “encourage the maximum number of people to take part in cultural development activities.” Research endeavors were to be completed by professional historians chosen by the government. Additionally, funding was not available for capital costs (construction and maintenance) and operational expenses (salaries). Lastly, organizations could not sub-contract the multiculturalism project in question – all grants were to be used exclusively by the cultural organization and its members for one particular event or programme. Organizations which successfully obtained a grant were required to submit a report within two months of the completion of the project to the Citizens’ Cultures division of the Secretary of State through their regional office. The report had to describe the event, evaluate the “degree of success” achieved, list the number of participants, and outline the expenditures.100

With the grant system in place, Stanley Haidasz, the Minister of State multiculturalism,

99 Ibid. 100 Ibid. 196

announced that multiculturalism programs were going to be fully implemented. In a memorandum to the Cabinet, he provided a short list of the agencies responsible for implementing the program. Canada’s National Museums were advised to acquire and exhibit material from Canada’s ethnic groups. Key to organizing exhibits was the Canadian Centre for

Folk Culture and the Communications Division. The Centre researched ethnic communities, collected artifacts and documents and prepared exhibits. The centre focused on the “music, folk art, cuisine, beliefs, rituals and ceremonies” of Canada’s ethnic groups including: Slavs and East

Europeans, German-Scandinavians, French-Romance, Oriental-Asiatics, and Anglo-Celts.101

Canada’s Blacks and East Indians were conspicuously absent. The Public Archives were directed to acquire the records of various ethnic organizations in order to facilitate the establishment of the new National Ethnic Archives.

The National Library was informed that a National Ethnic Language and Literature

Centre would be opening at the Archives on 1 October 1973. The centre would acquire, catalogue and process books in languages other than French and English to “meet the needs of the ethnocultural groups in Canada.” The National Library was also to administer the Ethnic

Canadiana Programme. This programme was designed to collect and archive all material related to Canadian cultural activities announced in ethnic newspapers. The Canadian Broadcasting

Corporation was similarly encouraged to establish a regular series devoted to ethnic groups.102

The National Film Board was also instructed to produce, promote and distribute films on

Canada’s ethnic groups, while the Film Board was advised to produce “tool films.” These films were intended to facilitate immigrant adjustment and examined various topics including personal

101 LAC, Minister’s Office – Multiculturalism. Policy Implementation, RG 6, 89-90/319, Box 5 File: 3250-0 vol.3. 102 By 1975, the centre circulated books in 14 languages. The centre hoped to circulate books in 60 languages. The books could be loaned for up to 3 years to public libraries. Ibid. 197

economics, human rights, work and leisure and legal responsibilities. The first films produced, nonetheless, focused on Canada’s inherent heterogeneity and examined the history, traditions, folklore and crafts of various cultures. For example, I’ve Never Walked the Steppes (1975) explored three generations of the Karaseviches – a Ukrainian family from Winnipeg. Seven

Shades of Pale, also produced in 1975, put the spotlight on rural Blacks living in Upper Big

Tracadie and Weymouth Falls, Nova Scotia. The film emphasized that the community was comprised of descendents of slaves who fled during the American Revolution.103 Other projects included films on the Dauphin Festival of Ukrainian Canadians, Oktoberfest in Kitchener-

Waterloo, Chinese New Year in Vancouver, the ‘cultural mosaic’ of Regina, and ‘heritage’ in

Saskatoon.104 The Canadian Identities Programme was also developed and involved organizing

12 regional folk festivals that would culminate in the National Folk Art Festival in Ottawa. The

Department of the Secretary of the State also commissioned 16 ethnic histories under the newly established Multicultural Studies Programme. An Ethnic Studies Programme was also established. This program provided funding for institutions to hire visiting professors who could

“increase academic interest in ethnicity.” The Directorate also committed itself to the promotion, distribution and sale of ethnic crafts.105

The federal government split the budget into several parts; grants and contributions would be used to fund multiculturalism projects, multicultural centres and third language teaching aids. A budget was also proposed for professional and special services which included

103 The NFB was also asked to version films about modern “ethno-cultural life styles” (sic) into non-official languages. Ibid. 104 LAC, Minister’s Office – Multiculturalism Policy, RG 6, 89-90/319. Box 5 File: 3250-0 vol.1. [“The Federal Multicultural Policy,” September 1973]. 105 Ibid.

198

the Canadian Consultative Council on Multiculturalism and the Canadian Identities Program.

Funds were also allocated for the development of educational interest in ethnic studies and cultural research through the Multiculturalism Studies Programme. Various cultural institutions, which would be responsible for administering multiculturalism, also received substantial funding. (See Appendix B).

Table 1.7

The Multiculturalism Bureaucracy

Multicultural Grants Professional and Multicultural Studies Federal Cultural Special Services Programme Institutions

• Project Grants – • Canadian Consultative • Ethnic Studies Advisory • Public Archives designed to support the Council on Multiculturalism – Committee – est. to advise •National Library main objectives of the council designed to assist the Programme on how to •National Museum of Programme. Grants were member of various ethnic develop and Ethnic Studies Man intended to encourage the groups to have access to the Programme – goal to • National Film Board development of a society consultative process with the coordinate research, review • Canadian Radio “in which individuals and government. literature and promote Television groups have an equal • Canadian Identities Program ethnic instruction. Commission chance to develop and – intended to strengthen the • Scholarly Ethnic express their cultural cultural identities of ethnic histories. identity as an integral part groups by allowing them to • Cultural Research of Canadian life.” communicate with the major Development – “Different • Multicultural Centres ethnic groups (English/ studies on minority groups, Grants – centres where French) as demonstrate to the their problems, their needs cultural groups could majority the minority and their acceptance in meet to share their contributions. Canadian society.” heritage. Identities program was • Multicultural •Third Language facilitated by various Communication Teaching Aids – teaching programmes: Programme – aimed at aids for children of a) Folklore Arts – government educating ethnic groups immigrants. Textbooks would sponsor regional about multiculturalism and other materials. festival. Certain groups would through: be selected to participate in the a) Ethnic media national festival. b) Ethnic Press Analysis b)Theatre – local theatre Service – aimed at programmes would be funded assessing how ethnic c)Literature – ethnic authors groups gauged who wrote about the Canadian multiculturalism through experience would have funds an analysis of 200 ethnic provided to translate their newspapers and periodicals work into one or both official published in 30 different languages. languages. Government d) Crafts – goal to “respond hired 15 translators and To Ethnic Canadian craftsmen analysts to “provide [sic] and their needs in order 199

that their craft contribution information on pinion can be given recognition it analysis on trends and truly deserves.” events in the Canadian e) Special Projects – Culinary Ethnic Community.” Arts projects. Analysis would be printed f)Popular Ethnic histories – in the monthly Ethnic Press to develop academic interest Review which would be in ethnic studies. variable for government officials. Ethnic events – would be advertised. Source: LAC, Minister’s Office – Multiculturalism Policy, RG 6, 89-90/319. Box 5 File: 3250-0 vol.1. [Jan 1973-sept 1974. Memorandum – Multicultural Programme. Sept 25, 1974].

Table 1.8

The Multiculturalism Program – The Roles of Federal Cultural Institutions

Department of the Secretary of the State

• Multiculturalism Project Grants

• Multicultural Centres • Cultural Research • Ethnic Press Review • Ethnic Histories • Third Language Teaching Aids •Consultations with Ethno-cultural groups

National Museum National Canadian Radio Public Archives The National Canadian of Man Film Board Television Library Consultative Commission Role Council on Role Role Role Multiculturalism Role Acquisition of the

Versioning films records of ethnic •Multilingual Acquisition and Role into non-official Studies on organizations. Biblioservice exhibition of historic languages (new multicultural •Ethnic Canadiana material from •Advise the Minister films in English and broadcasting in Programme Canadian ethnic on matters relating to French) on modern Canada. multiculturalism. groups. Canadian ethno- • Produce Annual

cultural life styles. Report.

Source: LAC, Minister’s Office – Multiculturalism. Policy Implementation, RG 6, 89-90/319. Box 5 File: 3250-0 vol.3.

Ontario’s Response to Multiculturalism

Although the policy of multiculturalism sought to redefine the essence of Canadian

identity, initially the policy received limited debate and acknowledgment in Ontario’s press. The

200

English Canadian press, particularity in Canada’s immigrant metropole, neglected to fully debate and examine the new policy. The Globe and Mail remained silent on the new policy. The

Toronto Star, however, provided its readers with a synopsis of multiculturalism nearly two months after the policy was announced. It argued that the Star and other news agencies had ignored the new policy because of a focus on the tabling of a “mini-budget.” The article attempted to compensate for the oversight by examining the main objectives of multiculturalism: the new policy would provide government assistance to cultural groups and facilitate the full participation of ethnic groups in Canadian society through cultural interchange which would strengthen national unity. The article also described how multiculturalism was being implemented including the grant system and the roles of cultural agencies in the functioning of multiculturalism including: museums, the National Film Board, the National Library and Public

Archives. The Star asserted that the nature of program was not important, what was, was the government was “for the first time officially confim[ing] the country as a mosaic of peoples.”106

The Toronto Star article was accompanied by an editorial cartoon which demonstrated that pluralism was the essence of Canadian identity [see image below].

Generally, multiculturalism received praise from ethnic groups. For example, Pat

Shewchuck, former president of the Ukrainian Professional and Businessmen’s Club and vice- president of the Ukrainian-Canadian Committee, stated that the new policy was “an important milestone” in Canada’s history. Similarly, Luis Avelar, president of the Portuguese Canadian

Congress, described the policy as “beautiful and long overdue.” However, not all assessments of multiculturalism were positive. Elio Costa, vice-president of the Italian-Canadian Federation argued that multiculturalism would support “quaint folklore” and stated that the policy would do

106 “Ottawa’s new plan for a Canada of many cultures,” Toronto Star, 4 December, 1971. 201

A Toronto Star editorial cartoon demonstrating the inherent diversity of Canada. Note the absence of Black Canadians. Source: Toronto Star, 4 December, 1971.

202

nothing more than encourage “frivolous entertainment.” Such critical comments prompted a civil servant in change of the administration of multiculturalism to blame negative assessments of multiculturalism on “a lack of understanding” of the public policy. The Canadian government was not “going to subsidize ethnic groups to dress up in old-country costumes”; the intention of multiculturalism was to encourage cultural groups “to retain their cultures insofar as the cultures have existed in Canada and enriched the country.”107

To ensure that multiculturalism was successful public policy in Ontario, Premier Bill

Davis established Heritage Ontario.108 Established in June 1972 and fully operational in 1973, the objectives of Heritage Ontario were to promote cultural identity in Ontario and examine

Ontario’s cultural heritage. One of the first initiatives of the organization was a three-day conference entitled “Multiculturalism in Ontario.” It focused on Ontario’s cultural history and included an extensive exhibit which traced the arrival of more than fifty cultural groups to

Ontario.109 State officials argued that the conference was significant as it emphasized the importance of multiculturalism as public policy – a policy which was “preferable” in relation to the melting pot of the United States.110 The conference, however, received mixed support as not all cultural groups were pleased with the conference or with how multiculturalism was being implemented as public policy in Ontario. For example, Gloria Ocnitw, a third generation

Ukrainian Canadian and member of the Ukrainian Women’s Association of Canada, argued that she rejected multiculturalism because it categorized and hyphenated her identity – she simply wanted to be Canadian, not Ukrainian-Canadian.111 The Ontario Native League for Youth argued

107 Ibid. 108 “Ontario to spend $50,000 on June Culture Congress,” Toronto Star, 21 January, 1972. 109 LAC, Correspondence – Heritage Ontario, R11585. Vol. 6. File number 3: “Organizational – Heritage Ontario, 1972.” 110 “Ontario’s Cultural Mosaic,” Toronto Star, April 29, 1972. 203

that the conference was “just another fancy idea put on by the government” and asserted that

Natives should focus on economic self-sufficiency. Additionally, the Canadian Portuguese

Congress was not satisfied with the mandate of the conference and proclaimed that recent

Portuguese immigrants experienced high unemployment and language barriers. Fernando Dias

Costa, a 25 year old law clerk, expressed his disappointment to the Toronto Star; he argued that

50,000 of the 75,000 Portuguese in Ontario lived in Toronto and as a recent immigrant group they faced structural problems including streaming into low-paid employment despite professional qualifications. Costa saw multiculturalism as a “public relations” ploy and argued that Portuguese Canadians lacked community leadership and political power to press for significant changes. Costa was suspicious of multiculturalism. “For a long, long time two languages have been supreme. Suddenly the federal government has allocated millions for multicultural projects and the provincial government is full of ideas.”112 The sense of disappointment and distrust was evident; multiculturalism for some ethnic groups failed to examine structural inequalities. John Yaremko, the provincial secretary, Minister of Citizenship and chairman of the conference, however, dismissed these concerns and argued that the multiculturalism was an effort “to build a society in Ontario where human dignity and self- fulfillment abound.”113

Some delegates used the conference as a forum to discuss problems of integration and discrimination in Ontario. The conference, therefore, evolved from solely a celebration of heritage to an examination of minority group grievances. For example, Leslie Currie, president

111 “I resent being categorized as Ukrainian,” Toronto Star, April 29, 1972. 112 “The Portuguese: ‘A deprived group,’” Toronto Star, April 29, 1972. 113 “Most delegates – but not all – are happy about our big multiculturalism conference,” Toronto Star, April 29, 1972. 204

of the Ontario Native League for Youth, discussed the disproportionate number of Aboriginals in the prison system and argued that nothing was “being done to find out how they got there, the social and economic factors that led to prostitution, alcoholism and other drug taking.” Currie also argued that Ontario’s Aboriginals were the subject of police harassment in Toronto’s streets and that a large portion of Aboriginals could not survive in a new technical world with an average grade eight education.114 Several delegates also argued that Ontario’s textbooks did not incorporate the experiences of ethnic minorities into the school curriculum – if Canada was indeed multicultural this was certainly not evident in Ontario’s curriculum. Delegates also recommended that language training had to be made available so that minorities would be able to successfully integrate into Canadian society and obtain employment; several delegates also argued that there was little ethnic representation in the public sector.115

Ontario’s conference on multiculturalism was the first of its kind and resulted in a series of recommendations mainly as a result of presentations by various ethnic delegates who argued that policies of equal opportunity needed to be implemented to ensure that minorities were part of the social order. Following the Conference, the provincial government established that Ontario

Advisory Council on Multiculturalism. The goal of the Council, which began to operate in the fall of 1973, was to implement the recommendations of the congress delegates.116 Some of these recommendations were implemented in the late 1970s as the next chapter will demonstrate.

The Heritage Ontario Conference also fueled a heated public debate about multiculturalism. The conference highlighted the confusion surrounding multiculturalism as delegates “had trouble articulating a theory of multiculturalism.”117 The large bureaucracy

114 “An Indian: ‘Native people are subject to racial slurs,’” Toronto Star, April 29, 1972. 115 “Ethnic delegates foresee new hope for minorities,” Toronto Star, June 5, 1972. 116 LAC, Correspondence – Heritage Ontario, R11585. Vol. 6. File number 16. [Organizational – The Ontario Advisory council on Multiculturalism 1976-1980]. 205

created by the federal government was so convoluted that few, it seemed, understood how the policy functioned. Additionally, for some, like the Toronto Star, the most perplexing aspect of multiculturalism was that it separated culture and language. In an editorial, the Star retracted its earlier support for multiculturalism:

[the] splintering of Canada into a multitude of official cultures has proved to be a mistake. It would have been far more sensible to stick to the old principle that when immigrants arrived here they were bound to accept that Canada was a nation created by the two founding races, French and English, and they must live with one culture or the other...Multi-culturalism in truth, is such a cloudy idea that it constitutes a dubious rationale for nationhood. It is far less clear than the position developed by the leaders of the Franco-Ontarian community that Canada’s institutions have developed from those of the English and the French founding peoples, that the contributions of other ethnic groups have enriched both these societies; but that the historic partnership of the primary cultures and languages cannot be cancelled out now – unless Canada itself is being cancelled out.118

These arguments were echoed by French Canadian sociologist Guy Rocher. Speaking at the 34th

Annual Conference of Canada’s Learned Societies, Rocher argued that multiculturalism would change Canada’s political and cultural future as multiculturalism rejected the notion that Canada was established by “two founding peoples...two societies...[and] two principal cultures.” Rocher feared that bilingualism would no longer have cultural support and that it would be abandoned in the context of multiculturalism. Furthermore, like the Star, Rocher believed that multiculturalism would undermine national identity. Canada could not be a nation “represented here by groups of greater or lesser numerical importance, all having equal rights to recognition and financial support....” as this would create a “fluid and unglamorous foundation” – a foundation so fragile that it would result in “cultural atomization” and the eventual disintegration of Canada as a nation.119

117 “Canada’s heritage is two cultures,” Toronto Star, June 6, 1972. 118 Ibid. 119 Guy Rocher, “A multi-cultural policy threatens Québec – and Canada,” Toronto Star, June 8, 1972. 206

These assertions further fueled the multiculturalism debate. One Star columnist argued that Canada had to be “more responsive to the needs of Canada’s diverse peoples” but argued against special status conferred on to minorities through multiculturalism. Multiculturalism, he argued, allocated funds “into programs which trend to entrench past feuds, or even past glories, rather than foster future harmony.”120 Articles against multiculturalism were opposed through many letters of support for the public policy, mostly from members of ethnic groups. Bohdan

Yarymowich, President of the Ukrainian Canadian Committee, Ottawa Branch, argued that biculturalism “was no longer valid” as Canada had been a multiethnic nation for nearly 100 years. Cultural pluralism was a Canadian reality and needed to be fostered to ensure that cultural groups were “equally Canadian.”121 Henry Weisbach, President of the Trans-Canada Alliance of

German Canadians attempted to diffuse the debate by arguing that Canada could be bilingual and multicultural. Weisbach emphasized that Canada was a bilingual country but not a bicultural one; multiculturalism was intended to give ethnic groups “the right to maintain their cultural heritage if they wish to do so.”122 Ken Raudys, a Toronto resident, attempted to sway the public in support for multiculturalism by arguing that it was the only logical solution to Canada’s heterogeneity as multiculturalism helped to foster a sense of national unity. To prove his point,

Raudys used the example of Austro-Hungry. He argued that the nation disintegrated in the post

World War I era because of a policy of assimilation which resulted in the balkanization of the diverse Slavic population. This, he proclaimed, would occur in Canada if equality was not given to all multiethnic groups.123

120 “Multi-culturalism is our newest wisdom,” Toronto Star, June 10, 1972. 121 Editorial, “Multiculturalism not a new concept,’ Toronto Star, June 13, 1972. 122 Editorial, “Canada can be bilingual and multi-cultural, too,” Toronto Star, June 13, 1972. 123 Editorial, “Cultural diversity aids Canadian unity,” Toronto Star, June 13, 1972. 207

Canada’s Secretary of State, Gerard Pelletier, however, was not concerned about the multiculturalism debate. Speaking at an international symposium on cultural and linguistic diversity in September 1972, Pelletier argued that multiculturalism was “destined to result in widespread criticism…in a country such as Canada.” He elaborated on this by arguing that all non-minority communities exhibited “underlying conservatism and xenophobia.”124 Shortly after these comments, Pelletier announced that he was retiring from his post.

Evidence suggested that Pelletier’s comments were correct. Toronto’s racialized minorities in particular argued that the admission of 5000 Ugandan refugees in 1972 paradoxically demonstrated that Canadians were not tolerant. The refugees, who were of Indian and Pakistani decent, were displaced after they were accused of “sabotaging the Ugandan economy” by the nation’s president Idi Amin. Canada’s admission of the refugees received mixed responses. Trudeau believed that the refugees would add to the “cultural richness” of

Canada.125 Similarly, despite rising unemployment, the Ontario Federation of Labour called the admission of the refugees admirable and “defensible” as the refugees were well educated and had the potential to become economic assets. The Canadian Council on Social Development, however, argued that the refugees needed to disperse otherwise “they become highly visible in groups” and “they’ll invite the displeasure of other Canadians.”126 This ‘displeasure’ was evident in the dozens of letters to the editors which were written by White Canadians who protested against the admission of the refugees. One Torontonian argued that “they may indeed be excellent and in some cases exceptional people, but it is senseless to imagine that Canada can maintain or increase its homogeneity as a nation if it further dilutes its gene pool.” Others argued

124 “Pelletier admits multiculturalism brings problems,” Toronto Star, September 26, 1972. 125 “Canada will admit some Uganda Asians,” Toronto Star, August 25, 1972. 126 “Government’s decision ‘is defensible’: Archer,” Toronto Star, August 25, 1972. 208

the refugees should go back to their countries of origin – their “true homeland.”127

These expressions of racism, debates about immigration and increasing racial tension in the United States and Great Britain prompted the Toronto Star to attempt to ascertain whether the surge of non-White immigration would result in a “racial crisis” in Canada’s most diverse city.128 Toronto’s racialized minorities argued that race relations were already strained. The

University of Toronto Black Students Union argued that the existence of racism was undeniable.

The Union boycotted the 1972 Caribana celebrations to demonstrate that “[i]t is time for black people to understand that we must struggle, not dance, if we are going to survive…” Jamaican- born Dudley Lewis argued that as a Black man he experienced employment discrimination.129

Toronto novelist Austin C. Clarke argued that Canada was becoming “more blatantly racist” and proclaimed that race relations would become a public policy concern “as soon as whites notice that when they get on a bus, they have no choice but to sit next to a black man.”130 Stan Grizzle of the Brotherhood of the Sleeping Car Porters agreed and argued that “[a]nyone who says there is no racism here doesn’t know what he is talking about… Anybody who expects to have immigration and not have problems is not being relevant.”131 Another Toronto resident described as a Black “housewife” argued that Canada would see more racism because of Canada’s proximity to the United States, the presence of “racist organizations” and the real possibility that ethnic groups would unite.132

Yet these assertions were met with contrasting interpretations of race relations in Canada

127 “Asian Ugandans,” Globe and Mail, September 7, 1972; “Applicants for entry to Canada first prove they will be useful,” Toronto Star, August 30, 1972; “Why must Canadians Share the Burden?,” Toronto Star, August 30, 1972; “Hear from Unemployed about Immigration,” Toronto Star, August 30, 1972; “Is invitation to Uganda Asians a favor?,” Toronto Star, August 30, 1972. 128 “Blacks are hopeful Metro will avoid a racial crisis,” Toronto Star, September 13, 1972. 129 “Blacks in Metro developing own pattern of life,” Toronto Star, January 18, 1972. 130 “Black Power in Toronto: Self-help projects chart the way,” Toronto Star, January 19, 1972. 131 “Blacks in Metro: Racism exists but hope does, too,” Toronto Star, September 9, 1972. 132 “Black Power in Toronto: Self-help projects chart the way,” Toronto Star, January 19, 1972. 209

which demonstrates the diversity of experience among racialized individuals. Lawrence Henry, a teacher from the West Indies, argued that “[t]here is no concerted policy of racism practiced against [B]lacks.”133 Similarly, a Black instructor from Barbados who taught at Humber College argued that race relations in Canada were not going to reach US proportions because:

[t]he history of blacks in the United States is completely different from Canada. We are talking about numbers and people’s reactions to numbers. In the United States, blacks feel they have an inalienable right to be there. In Canada, our population is largely a migrant one and the native black does not have the history of oppression anything like the United States.134

Evidence of growing racial violence, however, was undeniable. One resident “found his car with its tires slashed and daubed with KKK symbols.” Others received messages: “Nigger your time is up” and “Niggers you are next.” These expressions of racism, however, were interpreted to mean different things to various organizations. The moderate newspaper Contrast blamed these incidents on the Ku Klux Klan and the far-right John Birch Society.135 The Ontario

Human Rights Commission concurred. Daniel Hill, the Commission’s Chairman, argued that racism was incidental as it was caused by personal bigotry which was embedded in rural areas and small towns. The targets of this bigotry were usually visible minorities because they were

“instantly recognized” because of their colour.136 Militant Blacks, however, believed that racism was more pervasive; they established a “defence force” of 100 volunteers to monitor “[B]lack- owned businesses and buildings” in Toronto. George Brown of the Ontario Human Rights

Commission, however, argued that “militants” in the Black community were exaggerating the threat of racism “without cause.”137

133 “Blacks in Metro developing own pattern of life,” Toronto Star, January 18, 1972. 134 “Black Power in Toronto: Self-help projects chart the way,” Toronto Star, January 19, 1972. 135 “Blacks in Metro: Racism exists but hope does, too,” Toronto Star, September 9, 1972. 136 “The man who’s fighting Ontario’s ‘dignified bigotry,’” Toronto Star, January 15, 1972. 137 “Blacks in Metro: Racism exists but hope does, too,” Toronto Star, September 9, 1972. 210

A Toronto Star poll suggested that the majority of Torontonians believed that their city would be able to “maintain peace” for several reasons. Unlike the United States, Canada did not envision itself as a “melting pot” society. Furthermore, the Star indicated that most Canadians believed that Canada lacked “ingrained patterns of prejudice.” Additionally, since immigration targeted skilled workers, the newspaper believed that this would inhibit the growth of “U.S. style slum ghettos.” These assertions were confirmed by the publisher of Contrast, Al Hamilton. He believed that Canada lacked the deep “polarization” that was evident in the Unites States. He blamed the rise of racial tension on competition for jobs and argued that “patterns of discrimination elsewhere” could not be applied to explain increased intolerance in Canada:

Britain was “based on elitism,” the United States was “based on confrontation and conflict” and

Canada, Hamilton argued, was a “multi-ethnic” society – a “situation” which was of “great help.”138 The Toronto Star agreed. After interviewing various Black “authorities” in Toronto, it concluded that race relations in Toronto were “harmonious” but warned that Canadians had to be diligent as “the roots of discrimination and distrust are already here.”139

Evidence of racism and discrimination, however, was downplayed by Premier Bill Davis who argued that Ontario “basically works:…[it] functions with a minimum of friction, especially considering its multicultural composition…” Ontario, Davis argued, was “a model of how people from all parts of the globe can live together in relative harmony.”140 State officials blamed criticisms of multiculturalism on public ignorance about the public policy. Many believed that the appointment of Stanley Haidasz to the new post of Minister of State for Multiculturalism in late 1972 would improve perceptions of multiculturalism.141 Haidasz was known as an

138 “Blacks are hopeful Metro will avoid a racial crisis,” Toronto Star, September 13, 1972. 139 “Blacks in Metro: Racism exists but hope does, too,” Toronto Star, September 9, 1972. 140 “Davis ‘uncomfortable’ with the word ethnic wants it eliminated,” Toronto Star, June 3, 1972. 211

“ambassador of ethnic minorities” as he often spoke in support of ethnic diversity in parliament.142 As minister Haidasz made his policy goals known: he would promote cultural pluralism in Canada with a specific agenda “to sensitize members of the dominant groups to the needs and aspirations of other groups.”143 This cultural interchange, the minister believed, would ensure that Canada remained a “harmonious society” with a strong sense of national unity.144

One of Haidasz’s first initiatives was to promote public awareness about multiculturalism in Canada. On 11 March 1973, the federal government released an educational flyer to be inserted in national newspapers entitled “Of particular interest to all Canadians: The Canadian

Government Policy on Multiculturalism.” The large flyer expressed the objectives of multiculturalism and emphasized Canada’s rejection of homogeneity as uniformity led to

“intolerance and mediocrity.” Much of the text emphasized that Canada was leading an increasingly heterogeneous world into an era of tolerance and mutual respect as multiculturalism was: the best means of reducing tensions and conflicts in the world…the world can no longer sustain the terrible costs of such divisions. Increasingly the various peoples of the world are being brought into closer contact with one another, and if the world is to avoid many of the shameful errors of the past, people must learn to seek out what is good, unique, and worth preserving and encourage it in others. The Government of Canada believes that the most fitting place for such a policy of mutual respect and understanding to begin is here in Canada so that people everywhere may see that Canada’s urgings are made on the basis of example rather than precept.145

141 “Ethnic delegates foresee new hope for minorities,” Toronto Star, June 5, 1972. 142 “Haidasz: Evangelist for minorities,” Toronto Star, March 5, 1973. 143 LAC, Minister’s Office – Multiculturalism Policy, RG 6, 89-90/319. Box 5 File: 3250-0 vol.1. [Jennifer McQueen, Chairperson of the Multicultural Programme Group, Department of the Secretary of State]. 144 “Haidasz: Evangelist for minorities,” Toronto Star, March 5, 1973. 145 LAC, Minister’s Office – Multiculturalism Policy, RG 6, 89-90/319. Box 5 File: 3250-0 vol.1. [Memorandum Multicultural Programme. Sept 25, 1974]. 212

The flyer also listed Canada’s first multiculturalism grants. Groups interested in obtaining a grant simply had to send a proposal to one of the eighteen Citizenship Branches across Canada.146 The grants were awarded to not-for-profit organizations or associations and municipal agencies mainly to celebrate cultural pluralism. Their goal was to make Canadians responsive to diversity through cultural events that celebrated folklore and ancestry. For example: the Gaelic Society of

Nova Scotia was awarded $6000 to organize a series of seminars on folk arts and crafts; the

Society of Artists of Québec was given a grant of $3000 to organize a Ukrainian Art Exhibit; the

Indo-Trinidadian Cultural Society in Toronto was endowed with $1000 for social and cultural activities and the Croatian Peasant Society of Toronto was awarded $5000 for a dance and choir ensemble.147

Grants were also intended to assist immigrant integration. In Québec, the Sephardic

Jewish Organization, La Fraternité Canadianne de Québec and Arc-en-Ciel all received substantial funding for immigrant orientation sessions. Ontario’s non-profit agencies including the Young Women's Christian Association, the Jewish Immigrant Aid Services Society and the

Inter-Agency Council for Services to Immigrants and Migrants in Toronto also received substantial funding for immigrant services aimed at adaptation and integration. Organizations in the Prairies and the West Coast – including the Portuguese Association of Manitoba and the

Chinese Canadian Citizens association of Vancouver - also received grants for immigrant adaptation programs.148 Grants which were intended to directly examine racism and

146 In Ontario these offices were located in Hamilton (150 Main Street West), London, (395 Dundas Street), Ottawa (110, rue Argyle, and piéce 109), Sudbury (19 Lisgar Street), and Toronto (55 St. Clair Avenue East). LAC, Correspondence – Heritage Ontario- multiculturalism – 1972-1982, R11585. Vol. 6. File number 7. 147 LAC, Minister’s Office – Multiculturalism Policy, RG 6, 89-90/319. Box 5 File: 3250-0 vol.1. [Memorandum – Multicultural Programme. Sept 25, 1974]. 213

discrimination or promote equal opportunity for Canada’s ethnic groups were absent. (See

Appendix C).

On 25 June 1973, Haidasz announced that his ministry was funding fourteen additional grants totaling $58,650. Once again, the grants were intended to promote cultural pluralism in

Canada and to assist immigrant integration. A large portion of the funds were allocated to groups who provided immigrant services; for example, the Luso-Canadian Association of Edmonton was awarded $10,000 to provide services for incoming Portuguese immigrants and Toronto’s

Greater Riverdale Organization, a community development organization, was given $7860 to hire interpreters, translators and to assist in the establishment of a multilingual newspaper. In

Ottawa, the Lebanese Canadian Association was awarded $4000 to hire an immigrant coordinator and to assist in the establishment of an ethnic library and Arabic courses at

Algonquin College. Significant portions of the fund were allocated for cultural festivals. For example, $6740 was allocated to the Orleta Folklore Dancing and Songs Group, a Polish dance group in Montréal to “upgrade quality of songs and dances” and $6000 was presented to the

Association Culturelle Hongriose St.Etienne in Montréal to fund a festival celebrating the 1000th anniversary of the birth of St. Etienne, the first Christian King of Hungary.149

The Citizenship Branch of the Department of the Secretary of State believed that prejudices would be broken down through cultural interchange. The Afro Canadian Association of Ottawa, for example, was awarded $3000 to organize a symposium on Black culture in

Canada. The symposium was intended to break down White stereotypes about Blacks in

148 Ibid. 149 LAC, Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism (textual records), R5366-2-4-E, MG31 D58 Vol. 8, File 28, 7) – Multiculturalism Press clippings 1973. 214

Canada.150 (See Appendix D). Additionally, to ensure that bilingualism was fostered, the new

Secretary of State, Hugh Faulkner, announced seven grants totaling $20,355. The grants were administered by the Language Administration Branch of the Secretary of State and were aimed at helping associations cover the translation of official documents and interpretation and translation of documents for large conferences (See Appendix E). Like multiculturalism grants, bilingualism grants did not examine human rights, citizenship, and employment. However, the federal government further declared its commitment to multiculturalism and tolerance in 1973 when it was announced that Canada would undertake programs to promote the objectives set out by the

United Nations Decade for Action to Combat Racism and Racial Discrimination. Canada signed on promising to promote human rights and fundamental freedoms and committed itself to eliminating racial prejudice and racial discrimination.151 The Multiculturalism Program, however, did not reflect this commitment.

Editorials continued to demonstrate that Canadians were divided over multiculturalism as public policy. The Toronto Star argued that Stanley Haidasz was on a “quest for ethnic votes” and was living a “pipe dream” if he believed in “equality for all cultures.” Once again, the Star argued that multiculturalism could not function because it separated culture and language.

Language was “the foundation of a culture” and “it would be impossible to give true equality too all languages.” The Star believed that equality of all languages was simply “grotesque” and that multiculturalism “encourage[d] false hopes and incite[d] unrealistic demands” from ethnic minorities.152 These criticisms were heightened when the Toronto Board of Education recommended that languages other than French and English be incorporated into the curriculum.

150 Ibid. 151 Canada, Department of the Secretary of State, Prejudice and Discrimination - A Study Guide, 1975, 45. 152 “All cultures cannot be equal in Canada,” Toronto Star, March 24, 1973. 215

The Board also proposed a pilot project to allow 35 Italian students to begin kindergarten in their native language. The goal was to help the children transition into the English language. The

Chairman of the Special Committee on Education New Canadians at the Toronto School Board believed that such policies were necessary to ensure that Canada would not become a melting pot

– he hoped Toronto’s cultural groups would integrate, not assimilate. These policies, the

Chairman believed, would foster national unity and eliminate “any notion of inferiority or of a second-class citizenry.”153 The Star expressed dismay at this program as it diverted immigrant children from “adapting to one of the two mainstreams of Canadian society.” Furthermore, the newspaper argued that the acquisition of an ancestral language was a private not public matter.154

Others were supportive of third-language acquisition; one key critic who supported the teaching of ancestral languages was Paul Yewchuk, a Progressive-Conservative MP from Athabasca,

Alberta. On 30 May 1973, Yewchuk stood up in Parliament and pressed on the federal government to offer more support for language acquisition. Yewchuk criticized the government for half-hearted measures and asserted that multiculturalism was “reluctant and token recognition” of the contribution of ethnic minorities to the building of Canada.155

It seemed that all multiculturalism policies were controversial. By the end of 1974, support for multiculturalism was deteriorating and even the Multiculturalism Directorate admitted that the program “has failed to excite most Canadians.” In an internal memo the

Directorate blamed this on several factors. First, officials argued that most Anglo-Canadians saw the program as “something for the ethnics.” The Directorate argued that the low visibility of the program, particularly among mainstream Canadians, was caused by a lack of government

153 “Extra cultures not divisive, trustee says,” Toronto Star, March 25, 1973. 154 “Multiculturalism pushed too far,” Toronto Star, May 9, 1973. 155 “Policies for ethnic tokenism PC charges,” Toronto Star, May 31, 1973. 216

advertising – the government, the Directorate asserted, had to “seek to sell the ‘message’ of multiculturalism with the objective of influencing attitudes towards greater acceptance of the concept.” Secondly, the Directorate argued that there was an apparent lack of government commitment to the policy and its programs – government advertisements did not propagate the notion of a multicultural Canada, and those that did, did not reflect its multiethnic nature.

Government ministers rarely promoted the concept of multiculturalism as they often referred to Canada as a bilingual and bicultural nation. The Directorate argued that state officials did not want to do or say anything that would “upset the francophone opposition.” Thirdly,

Directorate officials claimed that federal cultural agencies, which the exception of the National

Archives, were less than enthusiastic about multiculturalism. This lack of enthusiasm was evident in the fact that the CBC and NFB had not hired any ethnic minorities to their organizations.156 The Directorate was also highly critical of the administration of the multiculturalism program. Program officers were criticized for failing to understand multiculturalism policy and programs. 157 Because its programs and funding were unstructured and its policy objectives were ambiguous, the Directorate admitted that program officers were

“unclear about what, exactly, they are suppose to be doing.” These administrative deficiencies were made more acute because of a lack of funding; this resulted in programs which were very similar. Most funds were used to support folklore and language retention. Funds, the Directorate admitted, were not available for newly emerging groups or for those groups that needed funds for organizational strength. The federal response to the concerns expressed by the Directorate was

156 LAC, Minister’s Office Multiculturalism, Multicultural Forecasts, RG 6 89-90/319, Box 6 File: 3250-1-1. Vol.1. [“Multiculturalism – focus 1978. A Discussion Paper. Prepared by the Multiculturalism Directorate, November 1977”]. 157 Most program officers were Social Development Officers within the Department of the Secretary of State. Officers were not always sympathetic to multiculturalism because they were assigned to the program according to their workload. Ibid. 217

simplistic: on 1 April 1974, the multiculturalism program was decentralized so that regional officers could administer to the needs of their regions.158

One of the key failures of multiculturalism’s implementation was that programs failed to examine discrimination. This was a major concern for some ethnic groups in Canada from the very onset of the policy. By 1974 there was a clear disconnect between the language of tolerance and diversity which multiculturalism promoted and evidence of increasing racism in Canadian society. Disenchanted with the multiculturalism as public policy, Toronto’s Guyanese

Community Association and Students for a Democratic Society organized a forum at

St. Lawrence Centre in Toronto entitled “Institutional Racism – In Canada?.” The forum examined questions like: “Is racism a subtle part of Canadian society? Do we refuse to acknowledge the possibility of racism in courts, schools and universities, in labour unions, government agencies and in the news media?.”159 The meeting concluded with an unequivocal affirmation that systemic racism existed in Canadian society.

The federal government still rejected these sorts of assertions. A 1974 study financed by the Department of the Secretary of State and conducted by the Hamilton Racial and Ethnic

Encounter Group argued that racism was caused by stereotyping. Most people, the study claimed, did not even know that they harbored prejudice: “One person sees another as a civil servant, a clergyman, a nurse, a Black, a Jew, a Gentile, and then behaves towards that person according to stereotype rather than seeing and responding to the person in the relationship.” If individuals were aware of how stereotyping functioned, discrimination could cease to exist.160

An emerging discourse of institutional racism was therefore managed and at times silenced by

158 Ibid. 159 “Forum will discuss racism,” Toronto Star, May 17, 1973. 160 “Some people are not even aware they are prejudiced,” Toronto Star, February 20, 1974. 218

the belief that racism was caused by individuals not institutions.

Growing awareness of institutional racism was also undermined by the belief that

Canadians were inherently tolerant. During a panel discussion comparing Canadian and

American cities (sponsored by the Canadian Association of Geographers) Toronto’s mayor

David Crombie acknowledged that Toronto, like other cities, had urban problems. However, the mayor argued that Toronto was different from American cities in that the city had “an instinct for law and order” and “tolerance for minority groups.” Toronto and other Canadian cities would not experience the racial strife that plagued American cities because Canadians were inherently moral and tolerant.161 The belief that Toronto was an open and diverse city was also expressed by the Ontario Human Rights Commission which argued that the Commission’s battle against discrimination “has been greatly assisted by most Ontario residents, who genuinely abhor bigotry.”162 Shortly after these proclamations of tolerance, Torontonians began to see “Keep

Canada White” signs across the city. The signs and graffiti were intended to send a clear message to the federal government to end the immigration of Caribbean and South Asian newcomers. A Toronto newspaper warned the federal government that this “[r]esentment against…darker faces on Toronto’s streets is a fact that must be faced” – especially with rising unemployment, inflation and housing shortages. The signs, however, were downplayed by many

Toronto residents. Only a few were visible and they were being smeared and painted on

Toronto’s buildings by extremists. This evidence of overt racism, however, made the claim that

Toronto was a “harmonious” place to live difficult to swallow for the city’s racialized minorities.163

161 “Mayor says Toronto is no miracle city,” Toronto Star, May 28, 1974. 162 “Human rights chief warns we’re creating ‘closed societies,” Toronto Star, September 15, 1973. 163 “Immigration: Is it black vs. white?,” Toronto Star, October 26, 1974. 219

Conclusion

The policy of multiculturalism allowed for the state to govern racial others through overt commitments to racelessness and attempted to silence the voices of many racialized groups who believed in the existence of institutional and systemic racism. Multiculturalism policies and programs, therefore, largely did not address the racist and biased assumptions of institutions and did not critically examine laws, customs and practices which secured and entrenched whiteness as privilege. For racialized minority groups the policy objectives of multiculturalism had not been fulfilled.

The bureaucratization of ethnic politics was evident once the policy of multiculturalism began to function. State agents managed and controlled which ethnic groups received government support. Those who adhered to the rigid procedures and definitions of ‘appropriate’ cultural projects received funding. As a result, ethnic organizations began to take on the characteristics of a bureaucracy - groups applied for programs which they knew would get funding.164 As the evidence demonstrates, the majority of the funding was allotted to ethnic organizations that utilized the grants for organized activities such as ethnic festivals and other highly visible events. Groups which were known for anti-racism agitation such as the National

Black Action Committee failed to receive funding.165

Multiculturalism, therefore, failed to respond to discrimination and the immediate concerns of racialized ethnic groups in Canada. Furthermore, there was growing concern that ethnic groups were growing disenchanted with multiculturalism. After John Roberts, Secretary

164 The Multiculturalism Directorate argued that the lack of uniqueness of multiculturalism projects was a result of a lack of funding and “imprecise program implementation strategies.” See: LAC, Minister’s Office Multiculturalism, Multicultural Forecasts, RG 6 89-90/319, Box 6 File: 3250-1-1. Vol.1. [“Multiculturalism – focus 1978. A Discussion Paper. Prepared by the Multiculturalism Directorate, November 1977]. 165 See Appendix C and D. 220

of State, met with ethnic groups in Toronto, the Multiculturalism Directorate admitted that there was a disconnect between “theory and practice.” Although the intent of multiculturalism policies was to “address the cultural aspirations of Canadians,” the Directorate found that some groups who sought assistance were “still experiencing problems of social adjustment.” Groups whose primary concerns were social in nature were rejected for funding as the Directorate found that the multiculturalism program could not address their problems.166 State officials saw racism as a problem of cultural and social adjustment on the part of the immigrants, rather than an institutionalized phenomenon. As a result, various ethnic groups began to see the multiculturalism program a ploy to keep ethnic groups subdued. White Canadians too were seeing multiculturalism as “grant-giving device.” 167 As the next chapter will demonstrate, by

1975 multiculturalism was beginning to unravel as state policy. Debates about immigration policy were also revived with the publication of “A Report of the Canadian Immigration and

Population Study.”168 Increased racial tensions in Toronto put further pressure on state officials to reexamine multiculturalism and its programs. Overt racial violence also resulted in a public debate about the nature of racism in Canadian society.

166 LAC, Minister’s Office Multiculturalism, Multicultural Forecasts, RG 6 89-90/319, Box 6 File: 3250-1-1. Vol.1. [“Multiculturalism – focus 1978. A Discussion Paper. Prepared by the Multiculturalism Directorate, November 1977] 167 Ibid. 168 Louis Parai, “Canada’s Immigration Policy, 1962-74,” 449. 221

Chapter Five: Race, Racism, and Resistance in 1970s Toronto

Why are we so blind we cannot see? Why are we so deaf we can’t hear the call of liberty? I would like to be able to walk the streets, to choose my direction, north, south, west or east. Why do we complicate that which is simple? Why do we make ugly that which is beautiful? Why do we imprison that which is free? Is it not at all possible to live in harmony?1

This poem, written in 1977 by 29-year-old Farida Ali, a Guyanese student at Ontario’s

College of Art, conveys the frustration among Toronto’s people of colour. They were no longer safe from violent attacks. Farida felt threatened and uncertain of her safety; the week her poem was printed three racially motivated attacks occurred in the city. For Toronto’s visible minorities,

Toronto had become “a time bomb of racial tension.” 2

Attention to racial problems began in 1974 when both the Globe and Mail and Toronto

Star featured cases of police brutality against visible minorities.3 Reports of police brutality led to the establishment of a municipal inquiry and later a Royal Commission on police practices in

Toronto.4 The 1976 Royal Commission Report into Metropolitan Police Practices, also known as the Morand Report, challenged the practice of internal police investigations into police transgressions and called for an independent complaints bureau but a semi-independent bureau was

1 “Why do we make ugly that which is beautiful?,” Toronto Star, January 6, 1977. 2 “TV shows claims racial strife eroding Toronto,” Toronto Star, January 1, 1977. 3 For example, “Boy says 2 policemen ‘so awful, so mean’ during drug search,” Toronto Star, April 5, 1974, “Some Metro Policemen are Accused of brutality,” Toronto Star, April 20, 1974, Editorial, “On a democratic police,” Globe and Mail, April 18, 1974, “Review is ordered of complaint bureau as police criticized,” Globe and Mail, April 20, 1974 and Darryl Dean, “Viewpoint,” Contrast, February 4, 1974. 4 “Godfrey Wants Inquiry into way police investigate police,” Toronto Star, May 16, 1974 and “Judge Named to Head Police Brutality Probe,” Toronto Star, October 24, 1974. 222

not established until 1981.5

Police brutality was only one aspect of growing racial tensions in Ontario and specifically Toronto. Throughout the spring months of 1974 a Toronto Sikh Temple was desecrated several times.6 In June, two Black musicians were attacked during the filming of a television program by members of the Western Guard, a White supremacist organization.7

Additionally, “Keep Canada White” and “White Power” slogans began to appear on Toronto’s buildings (see image below). In one incident a White Power slogan was spray painted on the walls of a high school auditorium.8

Source: “Racists worry Metro’s blacks.” Toronto Star, May 12, 1975. C03.

5 As the next chapter will demonstrate, police departments continue to record, investigate, and adjudicate complaints against the police. 6 “Vandals deface Sikh temple, police set up surveillance,” Toronto Star, May 29, 1974. 7 “Nazi-saluting brownshirt stop CITY-TV Show,” Toronto Star, June 17, 1974. 8 “White power slogans greet anti-racist group,” Toronto Star, December 9, 1974. 223

These events, however, did not result in a sustained debate over strained race relations.

That debate began in May 1975 when a White man shot and killed Michael Habbib, a 15-year old student from Jamaica, in broad daylight. It was a senseless death that shocked the city and signified the beginning of deteriorating race relations in Toronto. Deputy Police Chief believed that there was “a distinct possibility” that Habbib’s killing was racially motivated as there was no other obvious motive - the suspect had never met the victim.9 Following a police investigation it was revealed that the suspect had also attempted to shoot two Black musicians in a parking lot outside a Yonge Street tavern in January.10 Months after the shootings, the suspect admitted to targeting Blacks in opposition to Canada’s liberal immigration laws; his goal was to start a “race war.”11

Habbib’s violent death was interpreted in a variety of ways. Some believed that his death was a random incident perpetrated by a “twisted person.”12 Others believed that the case was an example of premeditated racial violence increasing on Toronto’s streets. Initial media reports, for example, suggested that Habbib’s killer suffered from mental illness – the 20-year-old was described as a below-average student who was shy, awkward, friendless, depressed and unhappy.13 Habbib’s distraught mother agreed. She did not believe the attack was a hate crime.

Following her son’s death she stated that she rarely experienced discrimination since her arrival in Canada in 1972; some people, she said, believed she was White because of her “light skin.”

Habbib’s stepfather agreed. He believed that the incident was not racially motivated although he

9 “Racism: Is Metro ‘turning sour?,’” Toronto Star, May 10, 1975 and “Youth Shot to Death, Police Wound Suspect,” Toronto Star, May 7, 1975. 10 “Man held in slaying charged with shootings,” Toronto Star, May 13, 1975. 11 “Father says son on trial for killing planned a race war,” Toronto Star, April 14, 1976. 12 “A true friend, one of us’ classmates salute dead boy,” Toronto Star, May 8, 1975. 13 “A Quiet Kid’ Lies Accused of Murder,” Toronto Star, May 8, 1975. The suspect was later acquitted on the grounds of insanity by the Supreme Court. See: “Shot black youth ‘race war’ killer insane, court decides,” Toronto Star, April 15, 1976. 224

lamented that as a Black man living in a predominately White neighborhood, at times, he felt

“scared.”14 The evidence, however, suggested that Habbib’s race played a role in his untimely death. When it was announced that Habbib’s funeral would be held at St. James Bond United

Church, vandals drew crossbones and skulls on the church wall and wrote “no more nigger meetings.”15

Among the mourners at Habbib’s funeral was Willis O. Isaacs, the High Commissioner for Jamaica. Isaacs learned of the incident after dozens of Jamaican Canadians called him to voice their anger about growing discrimination in Metropolitan Toronto. For many, Habbib’s death demonstrated that racism was reaching new heights. Others expressed their concerns with law enforcement in Toronto. The High Commissioner concurred and argued that Toronto police were “extremely racist, uncultured and inhuman.” Although Toronto police could not be blamed for the youth’s death, the High Commissioner was expressing his dissatisfaction with alleged police brutality against Blacks in Toronto. Isaac claimed that he had proof; at his office he kept a diary of complaints of numerous incidents against Blacks in Metropolitan Toronto.16

Municipal and federal officials were surprised by such an accusation. Toronto’s Police Chief

Harold Adamson argued that such charges against his force were “unfair.”17 In the House of

Commons, MP John Diefenbaker argued that such an accusation went against the “reputation of

Canada for respecting the equality of all, regardless of colour.” Diefenbaker also criticized the

High Commissioner for making statements that were “totally out of keeping with the position of one who is high commissioner” and he demanded an official apology.18 Some White Toronto

14 “A true friend, one of us’ classmates salute dead boy,” Toronto Star, May 8, 1975 and “Bereaved parents talk about their son, a quite boy, aware of his blackness,” Globe and Mail, May 8, 1975. 15 Some police hate blacks, Jamaican says,” Toronto Star, May 12, 1975. 16 Canada, House of Commons Debates (20 May 1975), p. 5907. 17 “Some police hate blacks, Jamaican says,” Toronto Star, May 12, 1975. 225

residents concurred and argued that it was “regrettable” that the High Commissioner was using

Habbib’s funeral as “a platform to attack our police.”19 Allan J. MacEachen, the Secretary of

State for External Affairs, called the High Commissioner’s allegations “unfortunate” and reassured the public and the House of Commons that the Toronto Police Force was “a competent, humane and efficient body.”20 Reassurances were also issued by Ontario’s premier W. G.

Davis who argued that the “vast majority of Ontario citizens” were accepting of every “race, colour or creed.”21

In spite these reassurances, Habbib’s tragic death spurred on a larger debate about race relations in Toronto; it was difficult to rationalize the death of this hardworking, well-liked and ambitious soccer enthusiast. The Toronto Star, for example, wondered whether Toronto was

“turning sour?.” Evidence suggested that it was. The Star demonstrated this by interviewing

Toronto-area residents. A White 9-year-old boy stated that at his Etobicoke school Black children were told “Get out of here, Nigger.” A White 19 year-old housewife believed that

Pakistanis were “dirty” or at least that it was she was told by her friends. These remarks, the Star argued, were unexpected, except from people “in Mississippi or the worst racist sectors of

Britain.” The Star blamed overt racism on extremists and increasing racial antagonism on rising unemployment and non-White immigration. Poll results, for example, indicated that 70 percent of Torontonians wanted immigration to “return to a discriminatory quota system.” Only 1 in 10

White respondents believed that race relations in Toronto were harmonious. 22

18 (P.C. Prince Albert). Canada, House of Commons Debates (22 May 1975), p. 6002 and “Jamaican’s apology demanded,” Toronto Star, May 21, 1975. 19 Editorial, “High commissioner abetted hate-mongers,” Toronto Star, May 17, 1975. 20 Canada, House of Commons Debates (22 May 1975), p. 6003. 21 (PC from Peel North). Ontario, Legislative Assembly, Debates and Proceedings (12 May 1975), p. 1734. 22 “Racism: Is Metro ‘turning sour?,’” Toronto Star, May 10, 1975. 226

This chapter aims to make several important points. First, increased racist incidents in

1970s Toronto made headlines and, in turn, fostered a broad conversation about racism in the city. The discourse expressed by various individuals and organizations demonstrates that competing interpretations of the nature of racism existed in Canadian society. Some individuals and organizations viewed overt racism as fortuitous; media outlets and municipal, provincial and federal officials, for example, often argued that racial attacks were perpetrated by unbalanced youths who were outside the parameters of citizenship. These individuals were conceptualized as outside the ‘norm’ – they exhibited intolerance, hate and prejudice - attributes which officials argued were outside the essence of Canadian identity. As the case of Michael Habbib demonstrates, racism and discrimination were seen as foreign to Canada’s social landscape – racial tensions and an “undeclared race war” were seen as an American peculiarity.23 The belief among many White Canadians was that prejudice was an “emotional disease” common to countries like the United States and India where “caste distinctions” prevailed.24 Racial violence, when it did occur, was therefore blamed on the frustrations of individuals seeking a scapegoat.

The media and government officials also blamed increasing overt racism on social forces including unemployment, inflation and emerging debates about the future of Canada’s immigration policy. Many people of colour and several rights organizations agreed – these social forces affected levels of prejudice. However, many of these organizations and individuals believed that racial violence was symptomatic of institutional racism - a system of inequality which reproduced itself because it was rooted in the policies, procedures and culture of Canada’s public and private institutions.

23 “Racists worry Metro’s blacks,” Toronto Star, May 12, 1975. 24 Canada. Secretary of State. Fair Employment Practices Branch, Toward Understanding - Prejudice, Discrimination, 1974, 2. 227

This chapter will also demonstrate that the prevailing notion of a raceless Canada during the period between 1975 and 1981 attempted to silence arguments for the existence of institutional and systemic racism in Canada. When organizations and individuals argued that racism was inherent in Canadian institutions, they were met with denial from public officials who often used the rhetoric of multiculturalism to argue that claims of racism were absurd as

Canada was a nation of acceptance and cultural pluralism. This discourse of multiculturalism functioned as a form of hegemony. Canada, state officials asserted, was a tolerant society. This universal norm was seen as a constitutive element of Canadian identity. As a result, the realities of being a person of colour in 1970s Toronto were complex. State officials and media reports proclaimed that Canadians were colourblind and full of goodwill. Reality, however, was much different.

Increasing racial violence experienced by people of colour, mostly new immigrants from decolonizing Asian, African and Caribbean countries, challenged these official pronouncements of harmony. Consistent reports of overt racism – including racial slurs, insults, assaults and racist graffiti - were so common that officials, the media and various ethnic and rights organizations began to believe that racism was reaching uncontrollable levels. Calls for tolerance and acceptance by state officials were having little effect. Increased reports of racial violence played a key role in challenging the notion of a raceless Canada as the spike in racist incidents resulted in private and public enquiries which attempted to explain deteriorating race relations. These enquiries played a fundamental role in redefining the nature of racism in Canadian society and ultimately challenged existing conceptualizations of citizenship as Canada’s people of colour made claims to full and equal citizenship. Moreover, analysis of the enquires reveals that overt violence was ascribed multiple definitions as various organizations and individuals interpreted

228

racial events through various lenses. For example, government sponsored enquiries blamed the increase of racism on the rapid influx of visible minorities and focused on individual acts of violence against minorities. These reports conceptualized racism as a disease as they blamed

‘sick’ individuals or extremist groups for the increased racial hostility. As race relations continued to deteriorate, state-sponsored studies began to examine other causes for the increase in racial violence; many reports blamed the increased visibility of immigrants, unemployment, inflation and urban sprawl. In contrast, privately sponsored enquiries (studies commissioned by non-governmental organizations) blamed increased racial tensions on institutionalized racism.

However, the conclusions of private enquiries were not taken seriously by the provincial and federal governments. It was further probing and sensitivity to race relations in subsequent enquiries which confirmed that racism was not only caused by only by personal prejudice but also by Canadian institutions.

Toronto the Sour? The Significance of Michael Habbib’s Death

Following the death of Michael Habbib the debate about deteriorating race relations in

Metropolitan Toronto raged on. Toronto’s people of colour were not surprised by Habbib’s death or the worrisome poll results which suggested that 70 percent of Torontonians wanted immigration to return to a discriminatory quota system. Steve Evans, an 18-year old Black student who had never met the victim argued that Habbib’s death was a reflection of “the rise in racism in our schools.” In response, Evans organized a march from Nathan Phillips Square to

Queen’s Park following one of Habbib’s memorial services “to make our presence and our feelings known.”25 At the protest Evans and his fellow classmates chanted “Racist fools ruin our

25 “High school students are invited to service for slain black youth,” Toronto Star, May 12, 1975. 229

schools.”26 The protest was also attended by various rights and anti-racism organizations including: the Task Force Against Racial Injustice and Political Repression; the East Indian

Defence Committee and the Scarborough Black Students Association.27 It was a peaceful demonstration until Ontario’s Labour Minister John MacBeth appeared in front of the group and proclaimed: “You have come to one of the happiest lands in the world.” His comments were interrupted with shouts for “action.” Roosevelt Douglas, who was in the crowd, asserted on a loudspeaker that Canada’s Blacks had been tolerant for too long and called on all Blacks to march to Ottawa in protest.28

Mourners who attended a memorial service at Toronto’s Ethiopian Orthodox Church agreed – Habbib’s death was most certainly an expression of racism and a reflection of race relations spiraling out of control. Two hundred members of the church resolved to march to

Parliament Hill to protest growing racism in Canada.29 The call to march in protest was initiated by the church’s Reverend, Kess Zacharias. Zacharias proclaimed that Canadians had to realize that “this country doesn’t belong to the “[W]hites.” He saw racism as an institutional phenomenon – it was the school system, he believed that taught Whites that “[B]lack people are animals and should be shot.” Zacharias’s comments were not taken lightly by municipal officials. The director of the North York Board of Education labeled Zacharias’s accusations

“absolute nonsense.” Most, Canadians, particularly young people, he claimed, were not racist and full of “good will.” The superintendent of curriculum for the Toronto Board of Education concurred – he was at a complete “loss to know what he [Zacharias] is referring to.”30

26 “Racism not new to Toronto,” Toronto Star, May 16, 1975. 27 “500 high school students join activists in racism protest,” Globe and Mail, May 16, 1975. 28 “Racism not new to Toronto,” Toronto Star, May 16, 1975. 29 “Some police hate blacks, Jamaican says,” Toronto Star, May 12, 1975. 30 “Racism not new to Toronto,” Toronto Star, May 16, 1975. 230

Another group of concerned citizens, mostly members of the Committee Against Racism, also organized a protest. The Committee, a Toronto chapter of the Detroit-based International

Committee Against Racism, was established in October 1974 by left- wing academics and professionals, including Charles Roach, a Toronto lawyer, Dr. S. Rowes of the University of

Toronto and Tony Leah of the Canadian Party of Labour.31 The Committee called on “Latinos,

Asians, Whites, Blacks, [to get] together [and] fight racism.”32 The membership of the

Committee was diverse – members included West Indians, South Asians and White participants who resolved that they needed to unite to battle racism. The Committee’s mandate was to oppose restrictive immigration regulations, support injured workers as well as fight exclusionary policies in education.33 On 14 May the Committee’s 300 members marched from Christie Pits Park to the

Trinity United Church on Bloor Street in protest of state indifference to racism. The protesters carried signs reading: “Fight Racism in Memory of Michael Habbib,” “Stop Harassment of

Immigrants,” “Create Jobs, not Racism” and “Workers of the World Unite, Same Bosses, Same

Fight, Committee Against Racism.” The killing of Habbib, the protesters argued, was symbolic of the hostility against Blacks and other racialized groups which was growing in Metropolitan

Toronto and Canada. The problem of racism, the Committee argued, was uncontrollable as federal laws and the Ontario Human Rights Commission could do little to protect its citizens.

Furthermore, the Committee’s co- chairman, Charles Roach, blamed the publication of the

“Canadian Immigration and Population Study” (hereafter Green Paper on Immigration) which was released in February 1975 for fueling anti-immigration sentiments as the report debated the costs and benefits of immigration.34 The Report suggested that Canada was at a crossroads –

31 “Anti-racism committee’s goals relevant to Canada, member claims,” Toronto Star, November 20, 1974. See also: “Problems of race relations different here,” Toronto Star, October 29, 1974. 32 Editorial Image, Toronto Star, May 29, 1975. 33 “Anti-racism committee’s goals relevant to Canada, member claims,” Toronto Star, November 20, 1974. 231

without an appropriate immigration policy, it argued, Canada would experience urban overcrowding, housing shortages, and other “social stresses” particularity in major urban centres like Toronto, Vancouver and Montréal. Furthermore, the Green Paper expressed reservations about the changing composition of the immigrant intake – Caribbean and Asian immigrants, the report assumed, would have a more difficult time adjusting to Canadian life than immigrants from traditional [White] source countries.35

Christie Pits was also the site of a rally on 24 May. Organized by Roosevelt Douglas and the Black Liaison Committee, which sought to address discrimination in the schools, the rally was originally slated to commemorate African Liberation Day. However, the protest of about

500 activists who were against the foreign domination and exploitation of Africa was also used as a forum to critique the pervasiveness of racism in Canadian society. Protesters marched from

Christie Pits to Moss Park and chanted: “African liberation.” Many carried signs protesting racism in Canada; one sign read “Racism is as Canadian as Maple Sugar,” another stated

“Quality Education. Not Discrimination.” Of particular concern to the Black Liaison Committee was the streaming of Black children into technical programs instead of academic ones. However, it was Roosevelt Douglas’ speech that was the highlight of the protest. He demanded an end to racism in Canada and told his audience that “[B]lack people had better get serious about the struggles we face in this country.”36

These claims of racism resulted in a series of media stories which highlighted the realities

34 “Racism in Metro ‘terrible disease’ 300 told at rally for slain youth,” Toronto Star, May 15, 1975 and “Immigration Report Warning: Metro Facing Racial Difficulties,” Toronto Star, February 3, 1975. 35 Canada. Manpower and Immigration. Canadian Immigration and Population Study. Three Years in Canada: First Report of the Longitudinal Survey on the Economic and Social Adaptation of Immigrants (Ottawa: Manpower and Immigration: Information Canada, 1974), 11-12. 36 “Black speaker demands ‘end to racism,’” Toronto Star, May 26, 1975. 232

of daily life for people of colour. The stories brought to light the fact that Toronto’s race relations, were, in fact, very strained. When a 37-year-old Toronto-born Black woman was interviewed by the Toronto Star about ‘being Black’ in Metropolitan Toronto, she hesitated to give her name for she feared an attack by extremists.37 Another Black woman interviewed by the

Star feared that her 17-year old son would be apprehended by the police – she often awoke in the middle of the night in a cold sweat thinking about it. Her neighbourhood had witnessed a

The Committee Against Racism protests growing discrimination in Canada. Source: Toronto Star, May 15, 1975.

37 “Racists worry Metro’s blacks,” Toronto Star, May 12, 1975. 233

particularly memorable incident of police profiling; when a neighborhood bank was robbed, the

Toronto Police Force lined all the Black men from the neighborhood against a building wall and searched them with shot guns in hand. There were other incidents. On Toronto’s streets her family was told “to go back where you came from.” This was perplexing to the woman as her family had been in Canada for three generations. For some, these incidents were not aberrations.

Dr. Donald Meeks, a Black social work professor at the University of Toronto argued that racial incidents reflected a racist society. The police were simply reflecting the general will of the community. On a personal level, Meeks noted that he had experienced overt racism first-hand.

After seeing a movie with his wife he was followed home by a carload of youths who yelled obscenities and threatened him with a switchblade. Meeks predicted that overt racism was going to increase in Toronto. Similarly, when Bromley Armstrong was appointed to the Ontario

Human Rights Commission, his house was vandalized by White supremacists. Armstrong believed that Toronto was “the North American capital for racism.” An East Indian cab driver concurred. He argued that racism was a “real problem” as he encountered racial name-calling on a daily basis. He planned to leave his job and look for work elsewhere. 38 These media stories revealed that being a person of colour in 1970s Toronto meant being frustrated, wary and on edge. It meant feeling like a newcomer. It meant living a life of second-class citizenship.

Debates about Racism in Toronto, 1975

The OHRC’s Community Relations Unit affirmed that race relations were in fact deteriorating – and rapidly. The Commission noted that East Toronto was particularly affected by racial harassment against Pakistanis. Scarborough also experienced school violence.

Furthermore, Jamestown Crescent in Toronto became a highly publicized area where fights,

38 “Racism: Is Metro ‘turning sour?,’” Toronto Star, May 10, 1975. 234

stabbings and vandalism were problematic.39 These reports and Michael Habbib’s death stimulated a debate about racism in Toronto. Much of the public debate focused on deciphering why race relations were disintegrating in Toronto. Reverend Gregory Baum, a professor of theological studies at St. Michael’s College, argued that racism was being expressed because of

“fear, insecurity, and a lack of leadership by government.” He also blamed the publication of the

Green Paper on Immigration for increased tensions and hostility.40 The Social Planning Council of Metropolitan Toronto agreed. The Council found the Green Paper “disturbing” because of some of the assumptions it expressed, the context in which the immigration debate was occurring and the timing of the release of the report. One of the main failures of the Green Paper was that it argued that Canada was allowing too many unskilled immigrants into the country which burdened the Canadian economy – a position which the Council questioned since most immigrants who settled in Canada did so under the ‘points’ system. This premise also constructed the immigrant as a “villain” which the Social Council argued could have detrimental social effects in Toronto, especially in a recessionary period. A debate about Canada’s future population policy was ill advised given the context and the Council believed that it was contributing to “inflame[d] tensions which heretofore have remained below the surface.” The

Council blamed the federal government for correlating unemployment with the admission of immigrants who gravitated to urban centres like Toronto.41 The federal government further reinforced the notion that immigrants contributed to urban problems when immigration

39 The unit attempted “to get to the roots of human rights problems in the community before they get out of hand.” See: Trent University, Thomas Symons Fonds, Accession number 01-003, Box 32, Folder 16: “Community Relations Report for All Regions, 30 November, 1975,” and Trent University, Thomas Symons Fonds, Accession number 01-003. Box 32, Folder 7: “Community Relations Report for All Regions, 30 November, 1975.” 40 “Racism in Metro ‘terrible disease’ 300 told at rally for slain youth,” Toronto Star, May 15, 1975. 41 Social Planning Council of Metropolitan Toronto, Community Review and Research Group, Who Comes Here? A Background Analysis of the Federal Green Paper on Immigration (Toronto: Social Planning Council of Metropolitan Toronto, 1975), 20. 235

officials were instructed to give temporary preference to immigrants who would settle in rural areas.42 The government perception was that urban racial violence was caused by ‘too many, too soon.’

Others argued that increased racism was due to the emergence of right-wing organizations. Reverend Bruce McLeod, former United Church of Canada moderator and member of the Committee Against Racism and the OHRC, argued that increased racial tensions were caused by White supremacists. He publicly asked the extremists to “wake up” from their delusions.43 Rabbi W. Gunther Plaut of Holy Blossom Temple agreed – he believed that racism was propagated by “subterranean groups” who were trying to save “‘white values.”

He warned that “[t]he plague” of racism was among Torontonians and to ensure a “healthy community” people had to work on breaking down divisions in social relationships, in education, employment practices and in housing.44

Mayor David Crombie attempted to negate the negative publicity his city was attracting.

Crombie argued that racism was not novel in Toronto and noted that a small percentage of the population had always showed intolerance. Crombie cited the Jewish riots at Christie Pits during the 1930s to demonstrate that racism in Toronto was “not new.”45 Elected officials representing the metropolitan region also tried to gauge increased racial violence. Robert Stanbury (Liberal,

42 “Racism fostered by debate on immigration, MP says,” Toronto Star, May 16, 1975. 43 “Racism in Metro ‘terrible disease’ 300 told at rally for slain youth,” Toronto Star, May 15, 1975. 44 An elegy for us,” Globe and Mail, May 15, 1975. 45 “Racism not new to Toronto,” Toronto Star, May 16, 1975. The riot occurred on 16 August 1933 between Anglo Protestants and Jewish immigrants following a baseball game between the Harbord Playground, a predominately Jewish team, and church sponsored team called St. Peter’s. Christie Pits was a contested site – the public space was open to ‘Jews and Gentiles’ and as a result caused much animosity between the Anglo-Canadians (particularly the right-wing Swastika Club) and the predominantly Jewish Spadina Avenue gang. Following the baseball game, young Black and Italian men joined their Jewish compatriots while British residents emerged from their homes with broomsticks and baseball bats to join the Swastika Club gang. The riot lasted for 6 hours; no one was killed although many were injured. See: Cyril H. Levitt and William Shaffir, The Riot at Christie Pits (Toronto: Lester & Orpen Denys, 1987). 236

York-Scarborough) called Habbib’s death “tragic” and “racially motivated.” Stanbury believed that increased racial tensions were caused by the Green Paper which he believed focused

“attention on immigration and their effects on Canadian society.” He argued that most of the violence was perpetrated by prejudiced individuals – individuals who, he believed, existed in every society. He called on Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau to consult with the Secretary of State responsible for citizenship and national unity, the Minister of Manpower and Immigration and multiculturalism officials to ensure that the Canadian public was aware of “the positive contributions which immigrants have made and are making…both economically as well as socially.” Racial violence, Stanbury believed, undermined the multicultural nature of Canadian society.46 Pierre Trudeau took Stanbury’s criticisms seriously. At a speech in Montréal he admitted that “racism is evident in this country and…violence is coming to our land.”47

Such comments resulted in an admission by multiculturalism officials that the policy which was intended to foster national unity and cultural freedom was failing. In November 1975,

John Munro called on the multiculturalism program to shift its focus from “folkloric activities” to “unfavorable social practices, discrimination, prejudice, racial attacks, etc.” The

Multiculturalism Directorate argued that it did not have the funds to reorient the program. The

Directorate, however, proclaimed that discrimination “continues to be an area of serious concern to visible minorities and must therefore continue to be a prime area of focus for the multiculturalism program.” Funding, however, did not reflect a shift in focus towards

46 “Racism fostered by debate on immigration, MP says,” Toronto Star, May 16, 1975. 47 James W. St. G. Walker, Racial Discrimination in Canada: The Black Experience (Ottawa: Canadian Historical Association, Historical Booklet no. 41, 1985), 19. 237

‘eliminating’ discrimination. The majority of the funding went to folklore and language retention. The trends described in the previous chapter continued; battling racism was not on the agenda.48 The public continued to criticize multiculturalism as public policy. Some Toronto residents believed the deteriorating race relations were caused by multiculturalism which divided the nation “into competing minorities.” Immigration from diverse regions in the world, one resident argued in a letter to the Toronto Star, resulted in a society which had a high degree of conflict - cultures which were “radically different” could not live in harmony in a society which

“developed from common bases and common experiences.” She advised those “who want to live in their own culture …[to] stay in their homeland.”49

Letters to the editor also revealed that the public was divided on whether Toronto was

“turning sour.” Many believed that the media focus on overt racial violence was overrated. For example, one White Toronto resident believed that the implications of Habbib’s death were being blown out of proportion. He asserted that it was hard to determine whether racism was the

“real motive” behind the killing and expressed his frustration with ‘supposed’ White indifference to racial violence:

we are made to feel guilty because of the collective “indifference” of the white community…I, for one, am not indifferent to racism and I’m not sure at all that I am in the minority of Canadians. In any case, how should Canadians act actively against something which, so far, to the extent that it exists at all, is so very remote from our experience?...I do not wish to be made to feel guilty because of undefined passivism in relation to undefined racism.50

48 LAC, Minister’s Office Multiculturalism. Multicultural Forecasts, RG 6, 89-90/319, Box 6 File: 3250-1-1. Vol.1. [“Multiculturalism – focus 1978. A Discussion Paper. Prepared by the Multiculturalism Directorate, November 1977]. 49 Letter to the Editor, “Multiculturalism can divide nation into competing minorities, she fears,” Toronto Star, May 23, 1975. 50 Letter to the Editor, Untitled, Toronto Star, May 17, 1975. 238

Another resident from Toronto agreed; there was little evidence that Habbib’s killing was an

“incident based on race.” Not all “interracial conflict [was]…due to racism.” If officials focused on race, he believed, Toronto would be plunged “into racial conflict.”51 Others criticized the media for printing stories about racism as they believed attention to racial conflict would increase hate. For example, a resident from the Agincourt region of Toronto criticized the

Toronto Star for reporting on racism and prejudice. She argued that the Star had created “rascist feelings [sic]” by magnifying the “isolated bad mouthing” of Toronto’s residents. Racism, she believed, was a “latent” phenomenon.52 A resident from Willowdale concurred. She believed that the Toronto Star was sensationalizing these stories. Printing stories about racism, she argued, blew “the issue out of proportion and sow[ed] seeds of fear and hate in many minds.”53

Another resident was “disgusted” with the stories of racism in Toronto and claimed that

Torontonians “have always prided ourselves on the fact that there is less of it [racism] here than in other cities.” Racism, the resident believed would “be produced if [Torontonians] become paranoid.”54

Some editorials disagreed with these contentions. Following Michael Habbib’s killing, many Toronto residents called for strict gun regulations and capital punishment for violent crimes.55 The racially motivated nature of Habbib’s death also resulted in letters to the editor which expressed sorrow. One Mississauga resident wrote “Canadians have to hang our heads in shame.” Another Toronto resident felt “angry and ashamed that someone grew up in Canada

51 Letter to the Editor, “Irresponsible statement,” Toronto Star, May 17, 1975. See also: Letter to the Editor, “Racism little to do with murder,” Toronto Star, May 17, 1975. 52 Letter to the Editor, “The subtlety of a sledgehammer,” Toronto Star, May 17, 1975. 53 Letter to the Editor, “Sensationalist quotes hurt defenceless citizens,” Toronto Star, May 17, 1975. 54 Letter to the Editor, “She says youth’s death responsibility of us all,” Toronto Star, May 29, 1975. 55 For example: Letter to the Editor, “Government must protect us,” Toronto Star, May 17, 1975, and Letter to the Editor, “Too soft with our criminals,” Toronto Star, May 17, 1975. 239

believing it [was] acceptable to take another’s life because of the color [sic] of his skin.”56 This sense of “shame and anger” was most acutely expressed in a petition. Organized by Reverend

Bruce McLeod of the United Church of Canada, Reverend Brad Massman, director of social services for the Catholic archdiocese in Toronto and Rabbi Erwin Schilds of Adath Israel

Synagogue in Toronto, the petition of 6000 names was delivered to Michael Habbib’s family. It stated:

We extend our concern and sympathy to the members of his family and black community and we pledge ourselves to work towards the elimination of every vestige of racism from our own lives and from the life of our city.57

This call was met with support from many citizens. One Toronto resident argued that the public had to be educated about “social dangers” of racism. The goal, he believed was “to create a healthier attitude within our own race” about minority groups. He called on citizens not to be passive as he believed that “[p]ersecution usually arises out of a situation where there are a few active racists, and a lot of passive ones who just go along with the ride and allow it to happen.”58

Toronto’s racialized groups also expressed their views in letters to the editor. These letters often made claims to citizenship and challenged the myth of racelessness in Canada. One woman argued that Toronto had “been turning sour for some time” and pressed Canadians not to compare race relations in Toronto to race relations in the United States – a tactic she believed

Canadians used to console themselves.59 Several immigrants from Pakistan also offered their opinions on growing racial antagonism towards them. One argued that people from his homeland

56 Letter to the Editor, “Too soft with our criminals,” Toronto Star, May 17, 1975 and Letter to the Editor, “Speak out against racist attitudes,” Toronto Star, May 17, 1975. 57 “‘Shame and anger’ petition sent to slain boy’s home,” Toronto Star, May 26, 1975. 58 Letter to the Editor, “Canadians are often too passive in fight against racism, citizen says,” Toronto Star, May 29, 1975. 59 Letter to the Editor, “Toronto turning sour for some time states resident of African descent,” Toronto Star, May 23, 1975. 240

were “mostly doctors, engineers, teachers, accountants” and other professionals. He felt that immigrants were an asset to Canada and that they were “admitted after stringent immigration screening.” He believed that racist individuals threatened the effort to build a multicultural

Canada.60 Asif A. Khan, the Director of the Association of Pakistani Canadians in Toronto, agreed. He feared that the stereotype of the “dirty Pakistani” was beginning to gain ground although most Pakistanis were highly educated and were “contributing in their way towards the progress of [Canada].”61 Similar sentiments were also expressed by a Willowdale resident who attempted to educate the Canadian public about the religious and cultural differences of his people:

The basic rule of our religion Islam is to offer prayer to God five times daily and before performing each and every prayer we have to wash our face, hands and feet. Basically Islam teaches us to remain clean not only physically but in our thoughts, acts, performance and in service to the country where we live. Pakistanis living here are trying their best to contribute towards the progress of Canada. They love this country and the people of this country.62

It was in this context that the Urban Alliance on Race Relations (UARR) formed. In the summer of 1975, a group of prominent community and government leaders came together with two concerns; “first, the rise of racial tensions in Toronto…and secondly, the lack of firm and immediate response from credible leaders.”63 Many involved were members of the Social

Planning Council of Metropolitan Toronto. The goal of the organization was “to try to create a stable and harmonious society in Metropolitan Toronto.”64

Media outlets also attempted to ease the evident racial tensions in Toronto. The Toronto

60 Letter to the Editor, “Inflammatory article on racism,” Toronto Star, May 29, 1975. 61 Letter to the Editor, “Pakistanis contribute to progress,” Toronto Star, May 29, 1975. 62 Letter to the Editor, “Islam teaches us to remain clean,” Toronto Star, May 23, 1975. 63 Social Planning Council of Metropolitan Toronto and the Urban Alliance on Race Relations, Law Enforcement and Race Relations (Toronto: Publications Department of the Social Planning Council, 1976), preface. 64 Wilson Head, A Life on the Edge: Experiences in “Black and White” in North America (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1995), 297. 241

Star, for example, printed several editorials aimed at educating the public about racism which continued to conceptualize racism as a phenomenon perpetuated by individuals, not institutions.

In “Fight the Menace of Racism,” the Star argued that human nature predisposed all people to prejudice as most people were afraid of the unknown and also emphasized that racism was a disease or a sickness. Racism occurred when prejudice “flare[d] up.” Like a disease, racism could be “combated” as most racism was expressed by “purveyors of hate propaganda” who were responsible for spreading prejudice. Through education and fellowship, the Star believed,

Canadians could “root out incipient racism before it spreads its evil tentacles and destroys our freedom and our peace of mind.” But the Star also assured its readers that “a substantial reservoir of goodwill” remained in Toronto and argued that Canada was an “open, tolerant and safe

[nation] for all its citizens.”65

Two days later in a piece titled “Some Myth of Prejudice,” the Toronto Star provided a list of eight “racist myths.” First, the newspaper argued that visible minorities - “black and brown skins” – were a diverse groups with varied “origins and outlooks.” Some were recent immigrants, while others settled in Canada generations ago. Second, immigrants contributed to the Canadian economy and no ethnic group in particular made “excessive demands on welfare funds.” Third, all Canadians were immigrants – even “Indians and Eskimos,” the newspaper argued, “found their way here from somewhere.” Further, the Star attempted to dispel the myth of White superiority by arguing that intelligence tests among racial groups were inconclusive because of cultural differences. Fourth, Blacks, the newspaper argued, were not responsible for crime as most crime in Toronto was perpetrated by Whites. Fifth, immigrants were not “taking

65 “Fight the menace of racism,” Toronto Star, May 10, 1975. 242

our jobs” as new immigrants were admitted to Canada if they arranged employment. The Star also argued that Canada was not being “taken over by a great flood of colored [sic] immigrants” as most immigrants came from predominately White nations. Lastly, most illegal immigrants were White, not “colored” [sic] and illegal immigrants were “roughly in proportion to the size of those groups in Canada.”66

An Toronto Star article entitled “How to Rate Yourself on Racial Bias,” also attempted to ease racial tensions in Toronto. It argued that there were steps citizens had to take to ensure that they kept their racial stereotyping in control. To overcome prejudice, citizens had to make sure that they were self-confident in their “own uniqueness and identity.” Only then could they appreciate the “personal qualities” of others. Torontonians had a duty to challenge racist remarks; this was “very key to survival in a city as racially diverse as Toronto.” Violence, however, was discouraged: “You don’t have to get into a fight at a dinner party, but you can make it clear to your red-neck neighbor that you don’t agree with what he’s saying.”

The Toronto Star, much like the dominant White population, conceptualized racism as a phenomenon that occurred because sick individuals practiced discrimination. Through self- awareness, however, the attitudes and actions of individuals could be controlled. Those who were consciously racist could cure themselves of their prejudice through self-awareness of their particular biases. People who were unaware of their prejudices also had a duty to challenge their beliefs. Having Black or East Indian friends, the Star believed, was “no guarantee” that a person would remain “unprejudiced.” Unconscious prejudice was passed down and reinforced by the family and individuals had to ensure that they did not agree with “racist remarks” on a personal level. The newspaper also encouraged citizens not to exaggerate cultural differences through

66 “Some myths of prejudice,” Toronto Star, May 12, 1975. 243

“spreading of false stories” about a particular group. Most important, the Star emphasized the advice given by officials at the Ontario Human Rights Commission: “Don’t panic, keep cool – and enjoy your neighbours.”67

The Wilson Head and Walter Pitman Enquiries

It was in this highly tense atmosphere that various institutions began to commission social science studies to gauge the changing nature of ethnic relations in Toronto. It was clear that multiculturalism programs and existing human rights policies were unable to address growing racism in Canada’s most diverse city. The Ontario Human Rights Commission, with its mandate to protect individuals from discrimination in employment, housing and public services, was first to assess the nature of discrimination in Toronto. The OHRC approached Wilson Head, the Director of Research and Planning for the Metro Social Planning Council and associate professor of social work at York University to conduct a study for public education purposes.

Wilson Head’s 1975 study entitled The Black Presence in the Canadian Mosaic: A Study of the

Perception and the Practice of Discrimination against Blacks in Metropolitan Toronto, examined the attitudes, perceptions and opinions of Black and White respondents to a questionnaire in an attempt to determine the causes of increased racial tensions in Toronto. The

250-page study was based on 349 interviews and focused on West Indian Blacks from Jamaica,

Trinidad- Tobago, Guyana and Barbados.68

Survey results revealed that many Blacks believed discrimination existed in the areas of employment, housing, education and immigration. Some also expressed concerns over police

67 “How to rate yourself on racial bias,” Toronto Star, May 10, 1975. 68 Head’s study was Commissioned by OHRC and partly funded by the Department of the Secretary of State. See: Wilson Head, The Black Presence in the Canadian Mosaic: A Study of the Perception and the Practice of Discrimination against Blacks in Metropolitan Toronto (Toronto: Ontario Human Rights Commission, 1975). The study surveyed 210 Black adults, 54 Black youths, 32 Black ‘community leaders” and 53 ‘non-Blacks.’ 244

activities. Blacks reported having difficulty in getting promotions but also stated that housing discrimination was decreasing because “liberal attitudes” made people more willing to accommodate Blacks.69 With respect to education, the study revealed that some teachers channeled students into vocational rather than academic work because of the perception that

Blacks were slow learners.70 Head also criticized the police for stereotyping all Blacks as criminals and accused the Metropolitan Police Force of harassment, name-calling and inappropriate treatment of Blacks in Toronto’s streets. Despite these findings, the study emphasized that Blacks generally felt accepted in Canadian society. Many Blacks had a “positive experience” living in Toronto and only occasionally felt discriminated against. For example, 47.1 percent of the respondents were satisfied with Black and White relationships and only 19.8 percent were dissatisfied.71 79.3 percent expressed satisfaction with their neighbourhood stating that Toronto streets were friendly and travel to work and school was convenient.72 Nearly 90 percent believed that racism was “subtle.”73 Black youths were especially hopeful that racism would subside within five years because of “liberal attitudes of young people and a general increased open-mindedness.”74 Head asserted that “progress had been made” but action was still

“required to eradicate this blot [racism] from community and national life.”75

Head argued that racial tension was on the rise because of a few “racist groups.”76 He expressed particular concern over the activities of the Western Guard Party, a White supremacist organization which emerged in Ontario in 1972 and had contributed directly to the rise in racial

69 Ibid., 57, 59. 70 Ibid., 60. 71 Ibid., 132. 72 Ibid., 146. 73 Ibid., 151. 74 Ibid., 160. 75 Ibid., 196. See also: “Polite Racism Pervades Life in Metro, blacks say,” Toronto Star, September 27, 1975. 76 Ibid., 1. 245

tensions.77 For example, in the 1974 Toronto municipal elections one candidate ran on a “White power” platform. That same year, the Western Guard Party circulated a letter stating that the

“Afro-Asian invasion” had to stop. The organization also began a telephone hate campaign.

When the number was dialed, a message calling for an end to non-White immigration and a change in marriage laws to restrict inter-race unions was heard.78 One of Head’s main recommendations was that the media represent the multicultural nature of Canada so that the

Western Guard and other racists could not perpetuate racial hostility and antagonism.79 He argued that increased inter-racial contact and communication would result in better understanding and more open-mindedness.80 This could be achieved by promoting an understanding of cultural differences in schools and the police force.

Wilson’s report was seen as a significant contribution to the understanding of social relations in Ontario and was sent to each member of the Provincial Legislature.81 A Toronto newspaper praised the report and asserted that racial harmony was possible in the city. Certainly there was evidence of discrimination, however, “prejudice and racial hatred [was] not as virulent as may be found in most American cities…” Toronto’s Blacks, the article asserted, “enjoyed many opportunities to actively participate in the life of the general community.” Toronto was therefore a unique city where “social barriers” were nearly non-existent.82

77 The party’s predecessor, the Edmund Burke Society, was established in 1967. The extreme conservative and anti- communist organization changed its name to the Western Guard Party in 1972 and adopted an overtly racist platform. See: Stanley R. Barrett, “White Supremacists and Neo-Fascists: Laboratories for the Analysis of Racism in Wider Society,” Canadian Ethnic Studies 16, no.1 (1984): 4. 78 Wilson Head, The Black Presence in the Canadian Mosaic: A Study of the Perception and the Practice of Discrimination against Blacks in Metropolitan Toronto, 2. 79 Ibid., 223. 80 Ibid., 224. 81 Trent University. Thomas Symons Fonds, Accession number 01-003, Box 32, Folder 2 [“Ontario Human Rights Commission minutes 1975-1977.” 28 November 1975 meeting]. 82 “Polite Racism Pervades Life in Metro, blacks say,” Toronto Star, September 27, 1975. 246

These assertions were soon challenged by increasing complaints of police brutality against people of colour in Toronto. Racial violence was also increasing. Subway stations, parks, public housing complexes, school playgrounds and streets were areas where visible minorities suffered harassment and physical attacks. By 1976, cases of overt racism were a daily occurrence in Toronto.83 Toronto was not, however, the only Canadian city affected by racial tensions. In

Ottawa, various leaders from the South Asian and Indochinese communities argued that vandalism, racial harassment and overt acts of violence were common.84 Furthermore, in

Vancouver, school violence, vandalism and overt attacks on East Indians were also reported.

Vandalism was reported in many forms: racial slurs were painted on walls, stones and eggs were thrown at homes of East Indians, porches were set on fire, and houses were fire-bombed.85

However, most of the racial violence occurred in Toronto. One particular story that gripped Toronto headlines was that of Shamshudin Kanji, a 48-year-old recent immigrant from

Tanzania who was crippled when three youths pushed him off a subway platform in January

1976. The victim was on his way home from a religious service when the youths attacked him, called him a “Paki,” pushed him off the subway platform and crippled his knees.86 What was troubling about the story was that no one came to the victim’s aid even after several pleas for help.87 After spending four months in a Toronto hospital, doctors determined that Kanji would

83 For example, “Youths Hit, Insulted Black Woman,” Globe and Mail, January 12, 1976, “Boredom, heat led to violence, Regent Park residents say,” Toronto Star, June 9, 1976, “Taunted, Assaulted Pakistani, Youth, 18, Jailed for 30 Days,” Globe and Mail, June 13, 1977 and “Hit Immigrant, Man Gets 90 Days,” Globe and Mail, April 1, 1977. 84 Canada, Multiculturalism Directorate, “Perceptions of Discrimination and Race Relations in the Nation’s Capital: A Study Prepared for the Multiculturalism Directorate,” 1982, 42. 85 Walter Pitman, Now Is Not Too Late: A Report Submitted to the Council of Metropolitan Toronto (Toronto: Task Force on Human Relations, 1977), 131. 86 “Man Is Shoved On to Tracks, Breaks His Legs,” Globe and Mail, January 5, 1976, “Tanzanian Immigrant Faces Lengthy Therapy After Subway Attack,” Globe and Mail, February 19, 1976, “Harassed, Shoved Man off Subway Platform, Two Defendants Admit,” Globe and Mail, October 15, 1976. 87 “Crippled Victim of Assault in Subway Station Tells How Two Strangers Threw Him On Tracks,” Globe and Mail, October 8, 1976 and “Man Shoved on to Rails, Trial Told,” Globe and Mail, October 7, 1976. 247

most likely never walk again. The accused youths were subsequently tried and convicted of assault causing bodily harm in December 1976.88

Like Michael Habbib’s death, the violent assault on Shamshudin Kanji was interpreted in a variety of ways. The Toronto Star argued that the assault occurred because the attackers were under the influence of alcohol. The Star claimed the case demonstrated that Canada needed stricter liquor regulations.89 TTC Chairman Gordon Hurlburt assured the Toronto public that subways were safe and called Kanji’s assault “an isolated incident.”90 Michael Warren, the general manager of the TTC, was not sure whether the incident was isolated or it was “a general trend to higher crime on TTC property.” But he did not attribute the incident to rising racial tensions.91 The judge presiding over the criminal case concurred – he believed that the key was to ensure that “[o]ur streets, subways and transit systems …remain places where the citizens can walk or rise in safety.” The judge stated that the case was one of “cowardice or hooliganism” and did not take race into account during his sentencing.92 A police officer in charge of the investigation, however, held that the attack was racially motivated. Kanji agreed; however, he did not want “to bring a bad name to Canada,” a well respected country in his homeland.93

Toronto residents responded to the attack in a variety of ways. Surprisingly, the seventy witnesses who watched the attack were not criticized by the media. Instead, they were commended for being helpful a day after the attack. Many came forward to help Toronto police

88 “They Came and Hit Me from Behind,” Globe and Mail, November 22, 1976, and “Push the Paki – bang!,” Globe and Mail, November 23, 1976, “Mr. Kanji is a fellow human being. ‘Streets must remain safe’ Two jailed for subway attack,” Toronto Star, December 5, 1976. 89 “Nobody seems to care: Young say drink is fun, easy to get,” Toronto Star, January 5, 1976. 90 “Drunks beat subway rider legs broken,” Toronto Star, January 5, 1976. 91 “TTC studies subway design to fight crime,” Toronto Star, January 9, 1976. 92 “Mr. Kanji is a fellow human being. ‘Streets must remain safe’ Two jailed for subway attack,” Toronto Star, December 5, 1976. 93 “Drunks beat subway rider legs broken,” Toronto Star, January 5, 1976. 248

draw sketches of the three perpetrators. Curiously when the Star asked Toronto’s residents if they would intervene in a physical attack, many said yes. These newspaper reports emphasized that Canadians were generally tolerant people full of benevolence. Those who were unstable and sick had the disease of prejudice and practiced racism.94

Many of Toronto’s people of colour saw the incident through another lens; racial attacks and slurs were common and indicative of a racist society. When a Black student at the University of Toronto was interviewed by the Toronto Star, he lamented that he had already experienced racial insults but he was no longer surprised when they occurred. He stated: “It hasn’t got anything to do with Toronto through, it’s the same no matter where a black person goes.”95

Toronto’s people of colour also expressed their disquiet in letters to the editor. One East

Indian man called Kanji’s assault “the most disgusting and discriminatory act in Toronto.” He blamed rising racial tensions on the increase of non-White immigration which was destabilizing to racists, who he believed, were mostly “white immigrants of a few societies which practice racism openly.” Canada, he believed, was generally a “harmonious society” with “good people”; however, he feared that people of colour would soon retaliate against discrimination. He also made claims to full citizenship. He believed that visible minorities had rights as many were

“highly educated professionals and merchants who have contributed a great deal to this country – not only in professional services but with their rich-cultural heritage.” If all Canadians accepted this, then Canada would become “a true multicultural and multi-racial society.”96

An East Indian man from West Hill believed that Kanji’s assault reflected a much bigger problem; he believed that racism was caused by ingrained social stereotypes which were

94 “Dozens offer police help to find subway attacker,” Toronto Star, January 6, 1976. 95 Ibid. 96 Letter to the Editor, “Non-whites could retaliate reader warns,” Toronto Star, January 13, 1976. 249

reproduced by Canadian institutions:

In recent months many East Indians in Toronto areas have encountered racial insults. Some have experienced physical attack and damage to properties. Children have suffered racial abuse in schools. In most cases the police could not offer any help, and the spectators and the teachers remained indifferent. The troubles are usually created by teenagers and youths in early 20s. However, it would be unwise to blame the young for the ills of society. The racism is incited by the older people who control the families, the schools, the governments and other institutions.97

Another East Indian resident of Downsview concurred. He believed that Toronto was not unique in its racism as racial violence was evident across Canada. His letter to the editor challenged

Canada’s myth of racial harmony. He stated: “For a country that has for so long boasted of freedom and tolerance, I think it is just about time that it lived up to it.”98

Many White Canadians of Toronto agreed as Kanji’s assault challenged the image of

‘Toronto the good.’ A White resident from Weston argued that the case was not “an isolated incident” as TTC’s Chairman suggested. He argued that such comments typified “the callous indifference which many elected officials are showing towards the rising tide of racism in our city.” He saw the incident as an example of blatant racism and believed that the attack reflected class divisions in society; he believed that a White and “prosperous Bay St. businessman” would not have been attacked.99 A White reader from Kingston, Ontario agreed and expressed his surprise that Canadians were “stupid enough to honestly believe the [sic] prejudice in North

America lies only in the United States.”100 Another reader from Bramalea believed that the bystanders who watched Kanji’s assault lacked decency and courage; he wondered: “What happened to that much vaulted sense of justice and fair play that Anglo-Saxons pride themselves

97 Letter to the Editor, “Minority groups must be protected,” Toronto Star, January 13, 1976. 98 Letter to the Editor, “Racial violence plaguing nation,” Toronto Star, January 13, 1976. 99 Letter to the Editor, “‘Callous indifference’ to racism by many officials, he claims,” Toronto Star, January 13, 1976. 100 Letter to the Editor, “‘Horrified at sentences reader says,” Toronto Star, December 9, 1976. 250

on?” He also disapproved of the lack of official condemnation of the incident and believed that official silence on the attack could “only be interpreted as a tacit condemnation of the incident because of the victim’s color.”101 A resident from Waterloo agreed. She did not want to be

“ashamed to be a Canadian…ashamed for Canada and of Canadians.” She called on “all

Canadians of all colors [sic] and races to examine themselves.”102

Shamshudin Kanji’s assault, as some officials suggested, was not an isolated incident. A week after Kanji was attacked an East Indian woman was taunted and punched on a subway platform. Bystanders did not help her and she was refused help from a Toronto Transit

Commission worker.103 In December, 1976, three South Asian men were beaten by three White men at a subway station. Police apprehended the suspects but no one was charged. 104 In another incident, a 61-year-old Torontonian intervened when he saw some men harassing South Asians in a subway car. He was harassed and thrown onto a subway platform.105 Despite his pleas for assistance, TTC personnel offered none.106 In another case, a West Indian man was called a

“Paki” and attacked by White youths in a subway car. The victim was knocked to the ground by three men and kicked while other transit riders watched. The victim believed “things were going to get worse” for dark-skinned people. The OHRC expressed concerns over these acts of violence and argued that the streets erupted “daily with incidents that remind us that concern for human rights ought to be high on the province’s list of priorities.”107

101 Letter to the Editor, “What happened to decency, courage?,” Toronto Star, January 13, 1976. 102 Letter to the Editor, “Rise in bigotry across Canada,” Toronto Star, January 13, 1976. 103 “Subway crowd ignored pleas woman says after racial attack,” Toronto Star, January 12, 1976. 104 “Racist Attack On Subway Reported by 3 Cousins,” Globe and Mail, January 12, 1977. 105 “TTC Investigating Actions of Crew in Subway Assault,” Globe and Mail, January 4, 1977. 106 “TTC Crew Kept Train Moving Despite Racial Attack,” Globe and Mail, January 5, 1977. 107 Canada. Ontario Human Rights Commission, Life Together: A Report on Human Rights in Ontario (Toronto: Ontario Human Rights Commission, 1977), 11. 251

Shamshudin Kanji, 1976. Source: Toronto Star, November 30, 1976.

252

Besides overt racism in the streets and subway stations, racism was also apparent in

Ontario’s schools. For example, a study released in early 1977 found that 64 percent of the 255 students surveyed in Toronto and Ottawa held prejudiced views against East Indians. The survey, entitled Multiculturalism in the Classroom, argued that “Paki-busting” was a hobby for many school children. The report argued that overt racism in the schools was caused by ignorance and concluded that racism and racial violence in the schools demanded “emergency action.”108

Following overt physical attacks and the release of the Multiculturalism in the Classroom report,

100 demonstrators marched from Toronto’s Chinatown to City Hall to protest the growing racial tensions. The demonstrators, mostly South Asians and West Indians, chanted “Death to racists.

Self-defence is the only way.”109

With growing evidence of racial discrimination, Canadian magazines began to probe the causes of racial tensions. In late 1976, an article in Weekend Magazine argued that the increase in racial violence was caused by the belief amongst native born Canadians that too many non-

Whites were entering the country. In light of the growing tensions, the article concluded that the federal government had to curb immigration.110 Rising racial tensions were also examined in

Maclean’s magazine. In fact, the magazine dedicated its February 1977 cover to this issue. The cover featured a Sikh demonstrator holding a sign reading “Death to Racists” at Toronto’s City

Hall. This issue contained two stories about the growing racial violence. One featured a Sikh family that endured racial violence at school, in their neighbourhood and on Toronto’s subways.

After residing in Canada for eight years the family decided to move back to India.111 Another

108 “East Indians Found Butt of Student Prejudice, Report Says Talk of ‘Paki-busting’ is Horrifying,” Globe and Mail, January 13, 1977. 109 Angela Ferrante, “Racism? You Can’t Argue with the Facts,” Maclean's, February 7, 1977. 110 Doug Collins, “Fear and Loathing in the Canadian Mosaic,” Weekend Magazine, September 11, 1976. 111 Hubert De Santana, “Score One for the Racists: This Family is Going Home,” Maclean's, February 7, 1977. 253

more extensive story probed the causes of the increase in racial tensions. Ontario’s Human

Rights Commissioner blamed the overt racism on the fact that East Indians were new immigrants. A York University sociologist agreed with the Commissioner, and argued that

Canadians were less tolerant because they were seeing “a visible change in the racial makeup of their society” during a time of unemployment.112 East Indians, the sociologist contended, were targeted because they were “the most different” out of new visible minorities and, “unlike blacks, many refuse to fight back for religious reasons.” East Indians were also more threatening to

Canadians because they were professionals and technicians who “were relatively well off, [and] capable of competing in the marketplace for good jobs.” The story concurred with Wilson

Head’s earlier study by arguing that most of the perpetrators of racial attacks were “thugs and hoodlums,” some of whom belonged to White power organizations. The author pressed for more action by police and teachers in the fight against racial tensions and argued that racial violence would end when Canadians accepted “the ever-changing nature of their society.”113

In early 1977, the increased incidents of racial violence and the evident racism in

Toronto’s schools were examined by NBC’s “Weekend,” an American television program which argued that Toronto was a “time bomb of future racial strife.” The twenty minute special blamed the deterioration of race relations in Toronto on the influx of visible minorities and charged that overt acts of violence were being perpetrated by members of the Western Guard Party.114 The report challenged the perception that Canadians were tolerant. These assertions were disputed by

Toronto media and government officials. One Toronto newspaper called the show “a horrible example of sensational journalism…[which] provided a very warped view of Toronto.”115

112 In 1974, Canada’s unemployment rate hovered at 12 percent and Toronto’s unemployment rate was 9 percent. See: John Huot, “Fight-Back against Racism,” Canadian Dimension, December 1978, 2-5. 113 Angela Ferrante, “Racism? You Can’t Argue with the Facts,” Maclean's, February 7, 1977. 114 “Black Editor Criticizes NBC View of Toronto Racism,” Globe and Mail, January 3, 1977. 254

Toronto’s major David Crombie denounced the NBC program calling it “irresponsible journalism.”116

Visible minorities disagreed with Crombie’s comments. Jagdish Bhadauria of the

Canadian Council for Racial Harmony called the NBC show “absolutely true” and argued that the reality was far worse than the NBC portrayal. The same sentiment was expressed by Ranvir

Sharda, editor of the India Digest, who argued that racism was increasing “day by day.”117

Nonetheless, for many the NBC special did have one positive attribute: it reflected the common perception among Canadians that only a small minority held racist views. By implicating the

Western Guard Party, the NBC special echoed the conclusions of Wilson Head’s earlier study.

On the heels of the NBC Report, the story of Eugene Onwumere sparked anxiety at

External Affairs and caused the Minister of Multiculturalism to express worry about future race relations in Canada. Following the NBC report, Eugene Onwumere, who spent 5 years in Canada as a foreign student, published a scathing assessment of race relations in Canada in a Nigerian newspaper. In the article, entitled, “A Story of Racial Discrimination,” Onwumere lamented that he was attracted to Canada because of its foreign policy, particularly Canada’s peacekeeping and middle power image. He also had believed that Canada was an accommodating place because of its policy of multiculturalism. In 1972, Onwumere arrived in Waterloo and enrolled at Wilfrid

Laurier University. From the onset, he attempted to take part in the community; he took part in conferences and talks to expose Canadians to the history of Nigeria and West Africa. Soon after his arrival, however, he was ostracized and physically assaulted. He also suspected that his professors were downgrading his marks. Onwumere soon realized that Canadian society was

115 “Toronto the Bad? No, NBC the Entertainer,” Globe and Mail, January 3, 1977. 116 Angela Ferrante, “Racism? You Can’t Argue with the Facts,” Maclean's, February 7, 1977. 117 “NBC View of Toronto as Racial Time Bomb Called True,” Globe and Mail, January 13, 1977. 255

anti-Black; he heard of reports of physical violence and acts of vandalism by the Western Guard which he called “a terrorist organization.” The problem, however, was much larger. Onwumere argued that the general public did not like people of colour because they believed that unemployment and inflation were caused by immigration. He also argued that people of colour were subjected to housing and employment discrimination. Racism, Onwumere argued, was part of the fabric of Canadian society and he concluded that multiculturalism was simply “well- organized propaganda.”118

Following the overt acts of racism against visible minorities and international attention to race relations problems in Canada, the Ontario government expressed concern over the increased racial hostility, but, like Wilson Head and the NBC show, members of the provincial legislature blamed the overt racism on “the extremities of some tiny segments of the white community.”119

Similar sentiments were expressed in the House of Commons where Ron Basford, the Minister of Justice, recognized that “verbal and physical assault and harassments” were common but remained hopeful because he believed the vast majority of Canadians found “these attitudes and actions despicable, distasteful, not wanted and not needed.”120

Reaction in Toronto was far more proactive. The Toronto Police Commission met with the Toronto Transit Commission to improve security in Toronto’s subway stations. The first reaction to racism by the authorities occurred on 31 January 1977, when Metro Toronto Police established the Police Ethnic Relations Unit. The Ethnic Squad was comprised of Black and

South Asian police officers who were responsible for discussing “Canadian law, police powers

118 Eugene Onwumere, “A Story of Racial Discrimination,” Daily Times (Lagos, Nigeria), February 16, 1977. Found in LAC, Minister’s Office Multiculturalism, Multiculturalism – Alleged cases of Discrimination, RG 6 Acc. 1989- 90/319. Box 10, file 3250-15. 119 Ontario, Legislative Assembly, Debates and Proceedings (12 May 1975), p. 1733. 120 Canada, House of Commons Debates (17 February 1977), p. 3146. 256

and police practices” with ethnic minorities. The Squad did not mediate alleged cases of police brutality.121 Dressed in plainclothes, members of the Squad went into ethnic neighbourhoods and were responsible for “bridging the communications gap between the police and ethnic groups.”

The goal was to build more trust and confidence in Toronto’s police force. One member of the

Squad described his role as “half-trouble–shooter, half public relations man.”122 Besides the

Ethnic Squad, Toronto’s Police Commission established a Liaison Group on Law Enforcement.

Community liaison officers were hired and local police-minority committees were established to open the lines of communication between the police and minority groups.123 To control the overt cases of racial violence, preventative measures were taken to decrease individual acts of violence against visible minorities. Public telephones were installed in Metro subway stations and more security was hired. Off-duty police officers were also encouraged to ride the subway system for additional security.124 Security and surveillance on subway cars was also increased with the installation of alarm systems and mirrors.125

Despite these measures, acts of violence against visible minorities continued. Many did not report the incidents to the police but turned instead to the Ontario Human Rights

Commission, which argued that the numbers of acts against visible minorities, particularly South

Asians, were unprecedented.126 Some victims reported that they felt unsafe in public places and

121 Walter Pitman, Now Is Not Too Late: A Report Submitted to the Council of Metropolitan Toronto, 128. 122 “How you can help to fight racism. Hotline, ethnic police help head off trouble,” Toronto Star, January 22, 1977. See also: “These cops smooth ethnic relations. East Asian policemen help build trust in their community,” Toronto Star, August 5, 1979. 123 Daiva K. Stasiulis, “Minority Resistance in the Local State: Toronto in the 1970s and 1980s,” 72. 124 “Off-duty police asked to ride subway system,” Toronto Star, January 17, 1977. 125 Walter Pitman, Now Is Not Too Late: A Report Submitted to the Council of Metropolitan Toronto, 99-100 and “Police Promise ‘an ethnic squad,’ TTC to Promote Security Plans,” Globe and Mail, January 15, 1977. 126 Bhausaheb Ubale, “Equal Opportunity and Public Policy: a Report on Concern of the South Asian Canadian Community Regarding their Place in the Canadian Mosaic,” (Draft Copy), Submitted to the Attorney General of Ontario by the South Asian Canadian Community, 1977, 1. 257

did not feel protected by the law.127 In one incident, East Indians who gathered for a religious festival in Toronto were assaulted by a group of people who threw rotten vegetables and shouted racial slurs.128 Toronto’s East Indian community complained of police inaction during the racial attack, noting that the “attackers were still visibly present when the police were there.” Although the attackers were identified to the police, they took no action against them.129 Many believed police officers “delight[ed] in the racist actions of vandals” and some contended that the police contributed to racial tension by making racial slurs during routine checks.130

As a result of these accusations and the general concern over racism in Toronto, Metro

Chairman Paul Godfrey established the Task Force on Human Relations in early 1977. Godfrey appointed Walter Pitman, President of Toronto’s Ryerson Polytechnical Institute, to conduct a study on racism in Toronto.131 The purpose of the study was to assess “racism in the minds of

Metro Toronto’s citizens.”132 After several months of study, Pitman’s report, entitled Now Is Not

Too Late, declared that racial attacks were both violent and increasing in frequency. To address the rising racial tensions, Pitman submitted 41 recommendations, many of which were pragmatic. For example, Pitman called for increased safety on subways and argued that racism had to be condemned by Metro Council as a declaration of public policy.133

Pitman’s focus, however, was on the Metropolitan Police Department. Several recommendations, 18 of the 41 to be exact, pertained to the police. The main recommendations

127 Walter Pitman, Now Is Not Too Late: A Report Submitted to the Council of Metropolitan Toronto, 48. 128 Ontario, Legislative Assembly, Debates and Proceedings (10 December, 1976), p. 5595 and Ontario, Legislative Assembly, Debates and Proceedings (26 October, 1976), p. 4115. 129 Ontario, Legislative Assembly, Debates and Proceedings (26 October, 1976), p. 4115. 130 Walter Pitman, Now Is Not Too Late: A Report Submitted to the Council of Metropolitan Toronto, 109 and “Screen Racists in Recruits, Police Told,” Globe and Mail, November 29, 1977. 131 “Racism: the Fight Starts with Facts,” Globe and Mail, January 14, 1977 and “Pitman Appointed to Direct Racism Inquiry,” Globe and Mail, January 12, 1977. 132 Walter Pitman, Now Is Not Too Late: A Report Submitted to the Council of Metropolitan Toronto, 26. 133 Ibid., 1. 258

focused on recruitment, selection, orientation and training of police officers. To begin, Pitman argued that police needed training in “cross-cultural understanding.”134 To weed out racists from the police force, Pitman believed that the Metro Police Force should perform psychological tests on police applicants. To improve relations between visible minorities and the police, the report suggested hiring visible minorities to the Metro Police Force. To achieve this, Pitman argued, the

Police Force had to drop the height and weight requirements “to accommodate members of visible minorities whose physical size does not normally meet these requirements” and implement affirmative action.135

The Pitman report also addressed the rise of racial tensions in Toronto. The massive immigration of visible minorities to Toronto caused a “cultural shock” for White Canadians.136

Torontonians, Pitman argued, were not ready for the “shift in the racial mix of Toronto’s population.”137 He attempted to support this claim with a statistical analysis of the racial composition of Toronto’s immigrants. For example, in 1951 Toronto’s population totaled 1.2 million, with 19 percent born outside Canada. By 1971, Toronto’s population increased to 2.1 million and foreign born residents comprised 37 percent of Toronto’s population. Furthermore, during the 1950s, the majority of immigrants were of European origin, by the mid 1970s only 34 percent of immigrants settling in Toronto were of European stock.138 This massive influx and increase of visible minorities, Pitman argued, contributed to the increase in racial tensions. South

Asians and West Indians were particularly targeted not only because of the colour of their skin but their cultural traditions. The sari or turban was an oddity for most White Canadians. Canada,

134 Ibid., 2. 135 Ibid., 4. Police officers had to be at least 5’8 and 150 pounds. 136 Ibid., 38. 137 Ibid., 200. 138 Ibid., 36-38. 259

Pitman argued, was undergoing a national identity crisis and many people rejected those who did not fit into their conception of who was authentically “Canadian.”139 The Pitman Report also blamed the rise of racial tensions on Canada’s economic conditions. With rising unemployment and inflation, some White Canadians blamed new immigrants for taking away jobs that they believed rightfully belonged to native-born Canadians. Since most immigrants were highly educated and their economic level was quite high when they entered Canada, unemployed

Canadians often resented their success.140

Unlike Wilson’s Head’s earlier study, Walter Pitman did not merely single out racist groups such as the Western Guard Party for the increased racial violence in Metropolitan

Toronto. Pitman’s report contained a “scenario of a racial attack” in which the typical racist was described as a White young unemployed male with an aggressive predisposition, little education, weak family relationships and problems with alcohol or drug use.141 Pitman agreed with Head that certain types of individuals perpetuated racism, but his conclusions demonstrated that racism was far more widespread than Head argued. Racists were simply unemployed youths who

“act[ed] out their passions.”142 Those who fit the criteria of Pitman’s racial composite could potentially take part in acts of racial violence against visible minorities.

Pitman also suggested that racist attitudes and prejudice could have been imported. He found that there was evidence, for example, that “‘Paki’ jokes and unflattering comments about the South Asian communities” were transmitted from England to Toronto.143 Pitman also challenged those who believed that racism was an institutional phenomenon. He believed it did

139 Ibid., 35. 140 Ibid., 40. 141 Ibid., 51-92. 142 Ibid., 32. 143 Ibid., 43. 260

not exist, dismissing it as a ‘conspiracy theory’:

‘evidence’ of so-called conspiracy on the part of government, business and media, a case for malevolent, planned racism involving leaders of every political party at every level of government and the corporate elite who control both the might of industry and communications in Canada, could not be made. Our society, motivated as it is by materialistic considerations, has tended to concern itself with human needs at a lower priority level than it should. That cannot be denied. But the forces of policy planning and initiation are too dispersed and complex to allow this conspiracy theory any plausibility.144

Pitman believed that the conspiracy theory of institutional racism would remain “until more members of visible minorities are included in those places of power and influence” - only then would suspicions dissipate.145

Since Pitman’s report blamed individuals for racism, his recommendations to eliminate racism centered on educating individuals and addressing individuals’ perceptions, behaviors and attitudes. Education was the long term solution to racism because through education “tolerance for differences” could be attained.146 The report argued that the media and Metro schools had a responsibility to foster tolerance and improve social relations in the community. With respect to the media, Pitman argued that newspapers and television often perpetuated negative images of visible minorities. For example, charitable organizations often portrayed many South Asian countries as filthy, destitute and poverty stricken, thus creating ignorance among the general

White population.147 Pitman argued that these images propagated the notion that visible

144 Ibid., 46-47. 145 Ibid., 47. 146 Ibid., 166. 147 Ibid., 43. These arguments were not new. In 1971, Dr. Stanley Elkin produced a report for the Ontario Human Rights Commission entitled The Employment of Visible Minority Groups in Mass Media Advertising. Elkin found that only 3.7% of television advertisements employed a visible minority actor. Those who were shown played secondary roles – they were used in group scenes. See: Frederick Elkin, The Employment of Visible Minority Groups in Mass Media Advertising: A Report Submitted to the Ontario Human Rights Commission (Toronto: Queen's Printer, 1971). A 1977 study commissioned by the Canadian Consultative Council on Multiculturalism made a similar conclusion. The Council assessed 2064 actors in hundreds of advertisements. People of colour accounted for 48 of those actors. See: Canada, Parliament, House of Commons, Special Committee on Participation of Visible 261

minorities were “poor, emaciated and hungry beggars.”148 Newspapers also contributed to racial tensions by reporting racial strife instead of providing greater coverage of the positive contributions of visible minorities.149 Schools also had a responsibility to promote tolerance and they could do so by establishing multiculturalism programs, programs to combat racism among children and adolescents and establishing professional training of teachers and administrators to be sensitive to multiculturalism.150 These initiatives, Pitman argued, would circumvent the reported cases of name-calling and harassment in Metro’s schools.

Pitman’s conclusions made headline news in Toronto because Pitman revealed that racism was far more prevalent than most assumed. Headlines such as “All Minorities Hit by

City’s Racism, Pitman Suggests,”151 “Metro’s Blacks and Asians Live in Constant Fear of Racial

Violence, Pitman Report Says,”152 and “We All Must Learn to be More Tolerant, Pitman

Stresses,”153 challenged the perception that Toronto was “a non-violent, loving community.”154

Some expressed urgency in implementing Pitman’s suggestions and called the report “sensible and intelligent.”155 Others rejected Pitman’s view that racism was increasing. For example, a

Globe and Mail columnist bluntly called Pitman a “subdued socialist” and dismissed his allegations of racism in Toronto.156 Others also bluntly rejected the idea that a ‘racism crisis’ existed in Toronto or Ontario for that matter. For example, the MPP from Scarborough-

Minorities in Canadian Society. Equality Now!: Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence of the Special Committee on Participation of Visible Minorities in Canadian Society (Ottawa: Queen's Printer, 1984), 104. 148 Walter Pitman, Now Is Not Too Late: A Report Submitted to the Council of Metropolitan Toronto, 252. 149 Ibid., 233. 150 Ibid., 7-9. 151 “All Minorities Hit by City’s Racism, Pitman Suggests,” Globe and Mail, November 10, 1977. 152 “Metro’s Blacks and Asians Live in Constant Fear of Racial Violence, Pitman Report Says,” Globe and Mail, November 29, 1977. 153 “We All Must Learn to be More Tolerant, Pitman Stresses,” Globe and Mail, November 29, 1977. 154 “Pitman Appointed to Direct Racism Inquiry,” Globe and Mail, January 12, 1977. 155 Editorial, “The Other Sides of Toronto,” Globe and Mail, November 30, 1977. 156 “Minds at Sea, Report Drifts,” Globe and Mail, January 20, 1978. 262

Ellsesmere stated:

The whole problem of new Canadians, as they have tried to adapt themselves to our Metro Toronto and have tried to be part of the Canadian society while still retaining their language and their culture, is that it has been focused through what the media has termed “racism”…157

If racial tension did exist, the MPP argued, it was caused by the “biases built into some of the members of that [Metro] police force.”158 Toronto’s Police Commissioner rejected the view that his force was racist and rejected Pitman’s suggestion that height and weight requirements be lowered to promote the hiring of visible minorities.159 Ontario’s Solicitor General agreed.

Racism, he argued, was an individual disease and he called on schools and the media to try to overcome the “matter of racial slurs and racial attacks.”160

Other Voices Recognize Institutional Racism

Various non-governmental organizations also became involved in inquiring into the causes of increased racial tensions. Joe Morris, the President of the Canadian Labour Congress argued that:

Recent manifestations of racial violence in Canada are a warning sign that cannot be ignored. Canadians urgently need to grow in appreciation of the value of our cultural pluralism and its implications. Only with acceptance of our own differences and with mutual respect will racial prejudice be eliminated.161

In 1977, the Canadian Labour Congress acquired the assistance of Daniel Hill, former director and chairman of the Ontario Human Rights Commission, to produce a study on human rights.

157 Comments made by NDP member D. Warner. See: Ontario, Legislative Assembly, Debates and Proceedings (5 April 1977), p. 205. 158 Ibid. 159 “Criticism of Police Report on Racism Unjust, Givens Says,” Globe and Mail, November 29, 1977. 160 Solicitor General: Mr. J.P MacBeth (PC Humber). See comments in: Ontario, Legislative Assembly, Debates and Proceedings (25 April 1977), p. 837. 161 Daniel G. Hill, Human Rights in Canada: A Focus on Racism (Ottawa: Canadian Labour Congress, 1977). Inside cover. 263

That year, Hill produced a booklet “to foster an increased awareness of racism in Canada.”162

The Canadian Labour Congress, with its long history of agitation for human rights and protective legislation,163 co-sponsored the study with several dozen non-governmental organizations that supported human rights. The report was also supported by Emmett M. Hall, retired Justice of the

Supreme Court of Canada and the National Honorary President of the Canadian Civil Liberties

Association.164

In the report, entitled Human Rights in Canada: a Focus on Racism, Daniel Hill argued that racism was not new to Canada. He stated that “never at any time in its relatively short history has [Canada] been free of successive waves or epochs of this social evil.”165 The study argued that the Canadian belief in “cultural pluralism” which Trudeau espoused in 1971 was neither believed nor translated into practice. Canadians, Hill argued, had to re-examine their

“complacency and confront the clear evidence of racism throughout Canada.”166

In his report, Hill argued that racism was not only a Toronto or Ontario phenomenon. For example in 1976, a Sydney, Nova Scotia high school announced an “Annual Nigger Jamboree” calling all students to beat Blacks to “death or at least [until they were] crippled.” In Calgary car

162 Ibid. 163 The Canadian Labour Congress worked closely with the Jewish Labour Committee. For example, in 1946 the two organizations established local committees for human rights that pressed for anti-discrimination legislation by publicizing instances of discrimination and educating the general public on human rights issues. Labour organizations were instrumental in pressing for fair employment, fair accommodation and fair housing legislation during the 1950s. Ibid., 19-21. 164 The NGO’s who supported the study were: Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks; Canadian Brotherhood of Railway, Transport and General Workers; Canadian Food and Allied Workers; Canadian Paperworks Union; Canadian Union of Public Employees; International Woodworkers of America; National Union of Provincial Government Employees; Public Service Alliance of Canada; United Automobile Workers; United Steelworkers; Provincial Federations of Labour of: Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta; Anglican Church of Canada; United Church of Canada; Canadian Jewish Congress; Canadian Association for Adult Education; Canadian Association of Social Workers; Prince Edward Island Human Rights Commission; Inuit Tapirisat of Canada; National Indian Brotherhood; Native Council of Canada. Ibid,. preface. 165 Ibid., 1. 166 Ibid., 4. 264

bumper stickers were sold calling for Canadians to “Keep Canada Green. Paint a Paki.” And in

Burnaby, British Columbia, residents protested the establishment of a Muslim mosque and socio- cultural centre at a municipal meeting.167 Hill blamed these overt acts of discrimination on economic insecurity and the increased visibility of minorities. When inflation and unemployment collided in an era of increased immigration, people often looked at immigrants as a burden on society.168

According to Hill, while these overt acts of discrimination were cause for concern, they should not be the focus of the state. Hill disagreed with Head’s earlier study which blamed much of the racial tension on extremist groups. Hill contended that groups such as the Western Guard were not a “serious threat.” Overt acts of discrimination reflected a much wider problem. Hill argued that institutions, not individuals, were “perpetuating racism.”169 According to Hill, it was institutional racism that was the most difficult to combat.170 Although fundamental human rights such as the right to obtain employment, to purchase or rent housing and commercial property, or to use public facilities of hotels and restaurants regardless of race were fully protected by law,

Hill found that institutional prejudice often inhibited the full realization of these protective laws.

These protective laws needed social action and educative measures to be successful. Hill argued that government inaction against institutional racism demonstrated “a lack of concern at best, tacit approval of racists at worst.”171

Hill’s report argued that employers and the education system often perpetuated racism because they were “functionally discriminatory.” He noted that various employers barred

167 Ibid., 5 168 Ibid., 12. 169 Ibid., 42. 170 Ibid., 15. 171 Ibid., 42. 265

visible minorities from positions and accused the Canadian education system of ignoring the multiracial character of Canada by perpetuating “the white, middle class, largely urban population’s experience, culture and values,” and ignoring the history of various minority groups that had contributed to the development of Canada.172 Hill pressed for improved teacher training and revisions to the curriculum to emphasize the history of discrimination in Canada.173 With respect to employment discrimination, Hill recommended the implementation of an affirmative action program which was necessary “to compensate minorities for the sins of the past.”174 In the private sector, affirmative action could be attained by contract compliance legislation whereby the government could pressure businesses and industries to implement a policy of equality of opportunity.175 The emphasis of the report was that the government had to make a firm commitment to affirmative action.

South Asian organizations also expressed their concerns with increased racial tensions in

Ontario. In 1977, Bhausaheb Ubale, a South Asian economist, was approached by the Indian

Immigrant Aid Services Association to prepare a draft on racial violence. The report, entitled

“Equal Opportunity and Public Policy: a Report on Concern of the South Asian Canadian

Community Regarding their Place in the Canadian Mosaic,” was submitted to the Attorney

General in 1977. The report demonstrated that South Asians lived in fear and were subject to physical attacks in public places. Ubale described racial attacks in subways, TTC buses, cars, streets, taverns, restaurants, parks, shopping plazas, places of worship, work, homes, apartments, laundries and parking lots. Ubale criticized the Ontario government and the Metro Toronto

172 Ibid., 15. 173 Ibid., 41. 174 Ibid., 31. 175 Ibid., 37. Hill also called for the revitalization of local labour human rights committees which he hoped would press for anti-discriminatory measures in employment and in the community. 266

Council for addressing racial violence inadequately. Measures such as the establishment of the

Ethnic Squad and increased security on the subways were just temporary preventative measures which would not solve racial tensions. Ubale partly blamed extremist groups for an increase in racial violence against South Asians. He noted that South Asians received threatening phone calls and were targets of a hate literature campaign by extremist groups. For example, in 1977, the Canadian Society for Commonwealth Relations, an organization active in sponsoring families from Pakistan, received the following letter:

To: - (A South Asian Organization) From: - The Nazi Party of Canada, Toronto

Mr. X. You are warned that if you do not shut down the above named PAKI-ORGANISATION by – June 15th, 1977, our execution squad will liquidate your wife and children soon after the date told to you above. This will be followed by you; the other members of your committee, their families; and prominent members of your association- until there is no more bloody PAKI-ORGANISATION. Take this warning seriously- we mean business with you, and your bloody PAKI- ORGANISATION!

YOUR SUPREME WHITE MASTER, DER FUERER, 176

Besides circulating hate literature, Ubale noted that extremist groups also contributed to vandalism. In July 1976, the Bharat Bhavan Hindu Temple in Toronto was vandalized by the

Western Guard Party. The vandals spray-painted the words “Pakis ruin God” on the temple walls. The windows of the temple were also continually broken. The following July the words

“Paki, go home” were painted on the walls of the Hindu Prathana Samaj Temple, also located in

Toronto.177 Ubale believed that the increase in racial violence was partly caused by extremist groups; however, unlike Wilson’s Head’s 1975 study, he did not suggest that extremist groups

176 Bhausaheb Ubale, “Equal Opportunity and Public Policy: a Report on Concern of the South Asian Canadian Community Regarding their Place in the Canadian Mosaic,” submitted to the Attorney-General of Ontario, 1978, 69. 177 Ibid., 31. 267

caused an increase in racial tension, but rather asserted that they simply reflected the attitudes of the general population. Racial hostility, Ubale argued, had “permeated Canadian life at all levels.”178 Ubale proved this with an examination of discrimination by police and unequal opportunity in employment and education.

In his report, Ubale demonstrated police discrimination by describing responses by police to incidents of racial violence against South Asians. After interviewing members of the South

Asian community, Ubale concluded that many South Asians did not feel protected by the police.

Many felt police sided with their attackers.179 Ubale substantiated his claims with evidence. For instance, on 20 February 1977 C. Singh was attacked while returning from a Sikh temple. By chance, police saw the incident and took Singh to the police station for an hour of “hostile interrogation” instead of taking him to the hospital.180 Ubale gave further examples of police hostility. When a South Asian entrepreneur was attacked leaving his Toronto store, police did little to protect him. In fact, police refused to arrest his attackers and told the bruised victim “you do not like it here, you can go back to your country.”181 In another case, a victim of a racial attack was told to “shut up” by police.182 Police inaction was also a common complaint. For example, K. Kumar purchased a shop on Queen Street in Toronto and reported that he had experienced harassment, property damage and physical violence on nearly a daily basis. After calling the police several times, Kumar felt powerless and frustrated because the police were unwilling to lay charges.183 His frustration was expressed by many other South Asians. The

178 Ibid., 174. 179 Ibid., 54. 180 Ibid., 24 181 Ibid., 35. 182 Ibid., 24. 183 Ibid., 36. 268

police were also accused of not responding to calls, and not serving summons against the accused.184 The common response by police was to claim that they could not make arrests without an independent or impartial witness to each crime. Many police officers refused to consider circumstantial evidence.185 Ubale argued that police inaction actually encouraged racial violence because many knew they would get away with violence against people of colour.

Furthermore, police hostility and inaction had psychological effects on South Asians. Ubale noted that:

an average South Asian feels that although he pays taxes and contributes to the economy like any other Canadian, he is not protected by the state. He feels his freedom of movement is eroded. It is not that he is attacked every time he goes out, but whenever he goes out, he has at the back of his mind the fear that he is likely to be attacked or abused.186

In addition to police discrimination, the Ubale report demonstrated that employment discrimination was widespread in both the private and public sectors. Ubale argued that the main constraint non-Whites faced in the private sector was the denial of jobs because of a lack of

“Canadian experience.” The Canadian experience constraint was “a convenient method of discriminating against them without violating the formal provisions of the Human Rights Code,” which forbade employment discrimination.187 Employers often argued that they listed “Canadian experience” in employment ads because applicants had to understand “codes, standards, regulations laws, communication skills, office procedures, etc.” Ubale argued that even when a

Canadian employee moved from one job to another he or she had to readjust and learn new codes and undergo initial training. “South Asian Canadians would learn codes, regulations, procedures, etc. in a new job as easily as anyone else,” he noted. Ubale argued that there was no justification

184 Ibid., 82. 185 Ibid., 62. 186 Ibid., 54. 187 Ibid., 119. 269

in the requirement for “Canadian experience.”188

The Ubale report was also critical of evident discrimination in the public sector. For example, the federal government made citizenship a requirement for federal jobs. Provincial governments also had discriminatory hiring policies; citizenship for government jobs was not required but applicants had to have “provincial experience.” This requirement effectively barred recent immigrants from government positions.189 As Ubale noted, not one South Asian was appointed to a high position in various provincial institutions.190 The employment restriction in both the private and public sectors resulted in a large number of unemployed South Asians with university undergraduate and post-graduate degrees. As a result, many South Asians took up menial jobs to survive even if they were over-qualified for these positions.191

In addition to addressing employment discrimination, Ubale also argued that Ontario educational policy did not reflect a multiracial society. He maintained that it was “rare to find a school which has not experienced either racial slurs or physical attacks.”192 South Asian children were continuously targeted by peers and again, “Paki-busting” remained popular in schools. One

Cambridge school youth complained about being “hassled” on the school bus, called “Paki” on the playground and surrounded at lunch by students who are curious about “what the Pakis are eating.”193 Ubale concluded that the racial strife in the schools demanded emergency action.

The Ubale report concluded that there were many causes of the increase in racial tensions in Ontario. Racism was not a new phenomenon in Canada. A brief look at the history of visible

188 Ibid., 125. 189 Ibid., 133-134. 190 Ibid., 147. 191 Ibid., 143-144. 192 Ibid., 91. 193 Ibid., 93. 270

minorities in Canada demonstrated this.194 Furthermore, Ubale found that there was a general apathy toward race issues in Canada. Specifically, Ubale accused the federal and provincial governments of failing to create a favourable “social climate for the absorption of non-white immigrants into the mainstream of Canadian life.” Racial tensions grew because Canadians saw a “visible change in the racial make-up of their society.”195 The report also blamed already well established immigrants who were often not accepting of new immigrants. Many established immigrants contended that because they went through hardships, so too must newer immigrants.

This trend, Ubale argued, was an “established pattern.”196

Ubale also attributed increased racial tensions to high unemployment. The general perception by native-born Canadians was that unemployment was caused by immigrants. Ubale rejected this view and argued that “in the longer run, their [immigrants’] expenditures as consumers, savers and tax payers undoubtedly stimulates goods and services, thereby contributing to the employment of native born Canadians as well as other immigrants.”197

Nonetheless the dominant perspective was that South Asians took jobs away from native born

Canadians. Because many South Asians were professionals and did not have language difficulties, they were, unlike European immigrants, seen as competitors.198 Furthermore, South

Asians tended to save money quickly and attain “visible prosperity” which encouraged backlash.199

Ubale blamed some of this anti-immigrant backlash on the 1975 Green Paper on

Immigration. The aim of the Green Paper was to foster discussion on what role immigration

194 Ibid., 161. 195 Ibid., 157. 196 Ibid., 155. 197 The findings were published by the Economic Council of Canada in 1976. Ibid., 157. 198 Ibid., 169. 199 Ibid., 171. 271

should play in creating a “society [Canadians] wish[ed] for themselves and their children…”200

It questioned the wisdom of “the ‘expansionist’ immigration philosophy” and argued that it was not in Canada’s national interest to welcome too many immigrants.201 It projected that Canada’s labour force would grow too quickly and would eventually pose a challenge to the economy “in terms of the number of new jobs that will have to be created each year.” The Green Paper called for a “dispersed pattern of immigrant settlement” to ease the problems associated with urban growth and to ensure “the quality of life Canadian city dwellers seek.” Housing demands, transit facilities and community services, the report argued, were under constraint and caused a “high degree of social tension, if not outright friction.”202 These conclusions, Ubale argued, contributed considerably to the increase in racial tension.203 The Green Paper raised the issue of race and

“not only warned us about social tension but in fact has deliberately created it.”204

The Ubale report made several recommendations. The goal, he argued, was for Canada to become a multi-racial and multicultural society “based on the principles of equality of opportunity.” The first step needed was for the federal and provincial governments to make a public declaration against racism.205 To ease racial tensions, the report argued that a major education campaign was needed to inform native born Canadians about the value of immigrants.206 It was the role of governments, he argued, to foster support for “social justice and equality of opportunity.”207 If the government failed to act, misunderstandings and

200 Canada, Department of Manpower and Immigration, Highlights from the Green Paper on Immigration and Population (Ottawa: Canadian Immigration and Population Study, 1975), 7. 201 Ibid., 12. 202 Ibid., 11 203 Bhausaheb Ubale, “Equal Opportunity and Public Policy: a Report on Concern of the South Asian Canadian Community Regarding their Place in the Canadian Mosaic,” 158. 204 Ibid., 159. 205 Ibid., 177, 179. 206 Ibid., 152-153. 207 Ibid., 178. 272

misconceptions about immigrants would continue. Ubale argued that the media also had a role in educating White Canadians by not perpetuating stereotypes in reports and focusing on the positive contributions of immigrants.208

To ease the hostile and suspicious relationship between the police and visible minorities,

Ubale expressed support for the initiatives that were suggested by Pitman. For example, he argued for the recruitment of non-White police officers and training of recruits in community relations.209 With respect to employment discrimination, Ubale urged the state and private employers to utilize the available skills of many professional South Asians by implementing affirmative action programs.210 Additionally, Ubale called for an emphasis on multiculturalism in the schools. Teachers needed training in multiculturalism and the curriculum needed revisions to make children aware of cultural diversity.211

Ubale also recommended revisions to the Ontario Human Rights Commission, including the establishment of one large Human Rights Commission, or a stronger Ontario Human Rights

Commission to launch a “comprehensive attack on race relations.”212 He argued that the Ontario

Human Rights Commission was not effective because it placed more emphasis “on dealing with discrimination once it has taken place rather than on creating a social climate in which discrimination will not occur.”213 When complaints were filed with the OHRC, the victims could not pursue legal action if they found the Commission response inadequate. The report called for a revision of this regulation. Lastly, Ubale argued that the Commission should be able to

208 Ibid., 165. 209 Ibid., 181-82. 210 Ibid., 193-194. 211 Ibid., 183. 212 Ibid., 225. 213 Ibid., 162. 273

investigate cases of discrimination on its own and should not only depend on complaints.214

Responses to the Hill and Ubale Reports

Following the Hill and Ubale reports, newspapers continued to focus on overt racism.

Many articles, however, suggested that racism was more widespread than previously suggested.

The Globe and Mail reported that discrimination was apparent in accommodation and real estate.

The assertion was based on a study conducted by the Canadian Civil Liberties Association which examined the practices of 30 real estate brokers in Ontario. A staggering 27 of the 30 real estate agencies surveyed stated that they would comply with a seller’s request not to sell their home to a person of colour.215 Reports of racism in Ontario’s schools were also common. Many visible minority children experienced name-calling, taunting, physical violence and social ostracization.216 Government responses to these reports suggested that state officials were increasingly concerned about continued racial tensions in Toronto. Immigration Minister Bud

Cullen announced that he would personally address racism by speaking at schools about the

“strengths other nationalities bring to this country.”217

Concerns over racism were also expressed in the House of Commons. MP Gus Mitges

(PC, Grey-Simcoe) argued that racism could only be eradicated with “relentless forces of social change” and called on the government to address overt racism “in order to attempt to create a climate in which racism and discrimination will not flourish.” Mitges called for more education and more funding by the Multiculturalism Directorate for programs which supported multiculturalism.218 Similar calls were made by MPP Ed Ziemba (NDP, High Park-Swansea)

214 Ibid., 191. 215 “Real Estate Bias Practice Attacked,” Globe and Mail, January 13, 1977. 216 “Teenagers show prejudice against East Indians: study,” Toronto Star, January 13, 1977, “Racism lives in our schools students say,” Toronto Star, January 15, 1977. 217 “Cullen Planning to Fight Racism in the Schools,” Globe and Mail, January 14, 1977. 218 Canada, House of Commons Debates (31 May 1978), p. 5939. 274

who criticized the government for not providing enough funds to combat racism in the police services. Specifically, Ziemba argued that community liaison officers were difficult to contact or visible minorities were told that the officers were unavailable.219

Media reports and government officials, however, did not comment on Hill’s and Ubale’s contentions that racism functioned on an institutional level. In fact, the Ontario government chose to ignore the existence of structural racism. This is evident in the Ontario government’s response to Ubale’s extensive report. In Forward Together: A Statement of the Position of the

Government of Ontario on the Issues Raised in the Ubale Report on the Concerns of the South

Asian community, the provincial government expressed surprise and outrage that racism managed “to manifest itself in Ontario.” In the official statement, the provincial government committed itself to fighting racial violence with criminal law and promised to counter racial discrimination with human rights legislation and “educative initiatives.” Although the provincial government committed itself to eradicating racism, the commitment centered on addressing racial violence against visible minorities. In fact, the government failed to react to

Ubale’s evidence of institutional racism and blamed a “racist minority” for racism. Specifically, the response argued that “callous [and] cruel” individuals perpetuated racism.220

The provincial government assured South Asians that progress was being made to ensure that racially motivated acts of violence would subside. The response noted that various initiatives such as the establishment of the Ethnic Squad and police training in race relations had been in

219 Comments made by Mr. E. Ziemba. (NDP High Park-Swansea) See: Ontario, Legislative Assembly, Debates and Proceedings (25 April 1977), p. 841. Sociologist Daiva K Stasiulis argues that the Liaison Group on Law Enforcement was ineffective in Toronto because visible minorities were frustrated and suspicious of working with police. See: Daiva K. Stasiulis, “Minority Resistance in the Local State: Toronto in the 1970s and 1980s,” 72. This will be discussed in more detail in the following chapter. 220 Government of Ontario, Forward Together: A Statement of the Position of the Government of Ontario on the Issues Raised in the Ubale Report on the Concerns of the South Asian community, Toronto: 1978, 1. 275

place since January 1977. The provincial government also planned to review the police complaints system.221 With respect to Ubale’s complaint that many employers were listing

“Canadian experience” as a job requirement, the government responded that many newspaper publishers had refused to publish “Canadian experience” in job advertisements.222 However, the provincial response did not elaborate on the discriminatory nature of such job advertisements.

The government asserted that Ontario schools were responding to the multicultural nature of the student body. For example, the Curriculum Branch was looking at how to incorporate multiculturalism into schools and the Ministry of Education had introduced a certificate course entitled “Multiculturalism in Education” to address teacher training. These initiatives would

“develop a climate of opinion…which will reject racism” in the school system.223 Although the provincial response demonstrated that certain measures were implemented to quell racial violence, the response did not address the structural racism which was the focus of Ubale’s report.224

The provincial government’s refusal to recognize structural racism in Canadian society continued to be expressed by the media. For example, several articles in Canada and the World argued that individuals were at fault for increased racial tensions. One article argued that racial attacks were perpetrated by “drunken youths.”225 Another article, entitled “People Cause

221 Ibid., 3. 222 Ibid., 7. 223 Ibid., 6. 224 On 18 February 1978, Premier Bill Davis appointed Ubale as the Race Relations Commissioner for Ontario. Ubale used the post to critique race relations in Ontario. His arguments focused on police relations and employment discrimination. He argued that police problems were most acute. Because police carried “the cloak of authority,” the Commissioner believed it was essential to address the issue of police harassment. Ubale also expressed concerns over employment discrimination which he argued was not only emotionally detrimental to the victim but also to Canada’s economic productivity. See: Province of Ontario, Legislative Assembly. Debates of the Resource Development Committee. 2nd session, 31st l Legislature, 1978. R-1433-R1434. 225 Charles A. White, “New Victims of an Old Sickness,” Canada and the World, April 1977, 6-7. 276

Discrimination,” suggested that racists were often White men who were fervent nationalists and argued that racists were often aggressive and frustrated people with “[l]oveless and harsh childhoods.” Racism, the article suggested, could be fought with laws that would regulate behaviour.226 This sentiment was also espoused by Ontario’s Attorney General who believed that it was the responsibility of each individual to eradicate “the disease of discrimination.”227

Once again these claims were challenged by Toronto’s people of colour. Manjit Olivio, a volunteer counselor to new immigrants with a graduate degree in cultural anthropology, wrote a lengthy editorial that challenged this narrow conceptualization of racism. Olivio argued that racism was not perpetrated by “hoodluns”; instead, she argued, racism manifested itself in myriad places such as “government agencies, schools, the police force and the courts.” The danger, she argued, lay in government inaction and she was astonished “to see the lengths to which some politicians will deny the obvious.”228 Her editorial did not elicit a response from government officials.

The Frances Henry Report: Racism a Widespread Phenomenon

Since state agents continued to define the problem of racism as one caused by individuals, they continued to look for solutions which would defeat personal prejudice. In early

1978, the Department of the Secretary of State asked Frances Henry, a York University anthropologist, to examine personal racism in Toronto. The point of the study was to determine what types of people held prejudiced and hostile feelings against visible minorities. The report, entitled The Dynamics of Racism in Toronto, made the dramatic and surprising conclusion that

226 Frederick Johnstone, “People Cause Discrimination,” Canada and the World, December 1977, 12-13. The same sentiment was expressed in Errol Townshend, “Smugness May Be the Worst Enemy,” Canada and the World, December 1977, 20- 21. 227 Comments made by Mr. R. McMurtry (PC. Eglinton) Ontario, Legislative Assembly, Debates and Proceedings (20 June 1978), p. 3705. 228 Editorial, “I think…,” Toronto Star, January 29, 1977. 277

racism was a widespread phenomenon. Based on a random sample of 617 White Torontonians, the study demonstrated that overt hostility against immigrants was prevalent. For example, when

Torontonians were asked if there were too many immigrants in Toronto, 35 percent believed that there were too many West Indians and 44 percent believed there were too many South Asians.

Furthermore, 41 percent believed West Indians and 33 percent believed South Asians did not work as hard as Whites. 79 percent expressed the belief that race relations would deteriorate to a similar situation as in the United States and the same percentage of respondents believed that the government should curtail immigration. Henry also found a startling statistic: 33 percent of the sample believed that racial differences were “brought by God; for reasons we cannot now know.”229

Based on these responses, Frances Henry concluded that 16 percent of the population was extremely racist, 35 percent were inclined to racism, 19 percent were tolerant and 30 percent were inclined towards tolerance. The study found that half of the people surveyed held some negative stereotypes against visible minorities.230 Henry’s study also looked at variables such as age, work status, education, religion and ethnicity to determine what types of people held racist views. The study demonstrated that people who had little social contact with visible minorities were more likely to be racist. Henry’s study concluded that older, unemployed, fervently religious people with little education espoused the most racist views. Housewives were also more prone to racist feelings because of social isolation. Out of all ethnic groups interviewed, Southern and Eastern European immigrants expressed the most intolerance towards visible minorities.231

229 Frances Henry, The Dynamics of Racism in Toronto: Research Report (Ottawa: Department of the Secretary of State of Canada, 1978), 38-4. 230 Ibid., 3. 231 Ibid., 1-2. Henry argued that Southern and Eastern Europeans immigrants were more racist because they were far less likely to have had contact with Asians and Blacks before immigrating to Canada. See: 94. 278

With respect to the psychological aspects of racism, Henry argued that people with a “rigid, inflexible and authoritarian” personality were the most likely to hold racist views. The study made an astonishing conclusion that over half of the population exhibited these traits.232

Frances Henry argued that the goal should be to increase people’s tolerance of visible minorities. Based on the findings of her study, Henry made several recommendations to ease racial tensions in Toronto. Since the more educated exhibited more tolerance, Henry recommended that the school curriculum should expose both elementary and secondary students to multiculturalism. To eliminate racism in the general population, Henry advised more “contact opportunities,” or inter-cultural activities, to encourage contact between visible minorities and the dominant White population. The study also suggested that it was the responsibility of provincial and federal governments to educate the general public. Henry proposed a public information campaign to educate the general public about various cultures and reduce hostile feelings towards visible minorities and decrease stereotypes.233 She also noted that churches and the media had a responsibility to educate the public. Because religious people were more likely to be racist, Henry suggested that churches should reduce “inter-group hostility amongst their membership” and should encourage “greater contact opportunities between their members and immigrants.”234 Henry also suggested that media and television had a responsibility to actively address positive inter-group relations.

Frances Henry’s report generated much discussion. The Globe and Mail, for example, found it surprising that half of Torontonians were racist.235 Earlier state-funded studies blamed a

232 Ibid., 3. 233 Ibid., 91- 94. 234 Ibid., 94-95. 235 “Half of Torontonians Racist, Study Says,” Globe and Mail, February 28, 1978. 279

small faction of society for the spreading of racial tensions. Recall, Wilson Head’s 1975 study blamed extremist groups such as the Western Guard Party for the increased racial violence.

Similarly, Pitman’s study had blamed much of the tension on the young and unemployed.

Henry’s study shifted the racism debate by emphasizing that racism was a widespread phenomenon. Although the study continued to blame individuals for racist acts, it also offered evidence that racism was pervasive.

Following Henry’s report, state official began to devise polices which would combat the widespread racism described by the study. One area of concern was racism in Ontario’s schools.

At a conference sponsored by the Urban Alliance on Race Relations, several officials expressed concern over race relations in the schools. For example, Duncan Green, the Director of

Education for the Toronto Board of Education, argued that Toronto schools had to do more to assist visible minority children as many did not feel accepted by other students and teachers in

Toronto’s schools.236 Robert McPhee, the Executive Director of the Citizenship and

Multiculturalism Division in the Ministry of Culture and Recreation, also pressed for a revision of textbooks which he argued did not examine the contributions of visible minorities.237

This emphasis on battling racism in Canada’s schools was initiated by Norman Cafik who was appointed the Minister of State for Multiculturalism in 1977. Like John Munro, Cafik wanted to promote multiculturalism through public events including fairs, exhibitions and conferences which depicted Canada’s cultural pluralism. However, Cafik also wished to improve race relations; he believed this to be a “high priority as anxieties caused by deteriorating

236 Duncan Green, “The New Socialization of Multi-ethnicity,” in The Impact of Multi-ethnicity on Canadian Education, ed. Vincent D’Oyley, (Toronto: Urban Alliance on Race Relations, 1977), 30. 237 McPhee, Robert W. “New Dimensions in Race Relations: Impact on Society and Schools,” in The Impact of Multi-ethnicity on Canadian Education, ed. Vincent D’Oyley, (Toronto: Urban Alliance on Race Relations, 1977), 9. 280

economic conditions become manifested in discriminatory tendencies and practices.” Cafik believed that strained race relations could be resolved through education and mass media campaigns which would support and foster “intergroup connections.”238 Multiculturalism, Cafik held, could counteract racism if Canadians were aware that multiculturalism was “a vital and living aspect of Canadians life.”239

By 1978, school boards across Toronto admitted that racism was evident in the

238 LAC, Minister’s Office – Multiculturalism. Multicultural Forecasts, RG 6, 89-90/319. Box 6 File: 3250-1-1. Vol.1. [“Multiculturalism – focus 1978. A Discussion Paper.” Prepared by the Multiculturalism Directorate, November 1977]. 239 LAC, Minister’s Office – Multiculturalism. Multicultural Forecasts, RG 6, 89-90/319, Box 6 File: 3250-1-1. Vol.1. [“The Mass Media and Multiculturalism.” Prepared by Ricardo Smith, Helen Eriks of the Multiculturalism Directorate. Nov, 9, 1977]. Cafik’s plans were to sell the idea of multiculturalism to the Canadian people through an education and media campaign; he believed that racism existed in Canadian society because multiculturalism was not being advertised. Cafik’s public relations and marketing campaign was exhaustive; he consulted with the Canada Council, the CRTC and the CBC. He also met with the Canadian Advertising Advisory Board, the Canadian Association of Broadcasters, the Institute of Canadians Advertising and the Canadian Newspaper Publishers Association and pressed them to promote the Multiculturalism Program. These changes were part of a larger multiculturalism program review which expanded the Multiculturalism Directorate’s bureaucracy. One of the first changes was the establishment of the Ethnic Liaison Division. Under this new program the government hired Ethnic Liaison Officers who were required to have close contact with ethnic groups. The officers had two primary functions. First, they had to communicate government programs available to ethnic groups under the Multiculturalism Program. Second, officers were required to collect and classify information about ethnic groups and report this information to the minister who would use the information “as required.” Cafik also established the Ethnic Press Analysis Service which was responsible for monitoring “opinion trends and major events with Canadian ethno-cultural communities through the analysis of 200 ethnic newspapers and periodicals published in over 30 languages.” The analysis was then published in the Ethnic Press Review available to Government Departments and Agencies. Cafik saw these changes as contributing to the “building of inter-group understanding in the interests of Canadian unity.” Cafik’s leadership resulted in a clear policy shift; celebrations of folklore and heritage were downplayed and a more pragmatic form of multiculturalism was adopted which attempted to alter the ways in which Canadian institutions, particularly schools, celebrated multiculturalism. The budget priorities for 1979-1980 demonstrate this shift. Priorities were given to: official language training for minorities, promoting multiculturalism as a concept through Canada’s cultural institutions, book publishing, the Canadian Ethnic Studies Programme and language and textbook agreements. These changes, Cafik believed, would challenge the ways in which Canadian institutions reinforced cultural and racial prejudices. The changes, he asserted, would also increase intergroup understanding, foster national unity and breakdown inequality. The policy shift would also result in a clear understanding that Canada was inherently diverse and “built on the principles of freedom and democracy.” By teaching multiculturalism, Cafik believed, “respect for all our uniqueness and an understanding of our difference” would be safeguarded. Multiculturalism would result in “peace and harmony” because the policy would “help eliminate discrimination by understanding the distinctiveness and uniqueness of Canada’s cultural plurality.” See: LAC, Minister’s Office – Multiculturalism. Multicultural Forecasts, RG 6, 89-90/319. Box 6 File: 3250-1-1. Vol.1; LAC, Minister’s Office – Multiculturalism. Policy Implementation, RG 6, 89-90/319, Box 5 File: 3250-0 vol.3. and LAC, Minister’s Office Multiculturalism Policy. RG 6, 89-90/319 Box 5 File: 3250-0 vol.2. 281

playgrounds and in the curriculum and asked the province for more money to implement multiculturalism programs. School boards argued that if funding was not forthcoming, multiculturalism would not be a reality in Ontario.240 The primary focus no longer remained on incidents of name-calling or racial attacks but on structural problems such as biased textbooks which fuelled racial animosity among students.

It was in this context that Canadian periodicals began to examine institutional racism.

These exposés, however, were not common. One article in the leftist magazine Canadian

Dimension examined employment and housing discrimination. The article echoed the arguments of the Ubale report and argued that visible minorities were denied equality of opportunity in employment because Canadian employers often used “the lack of Canadian experience” to bar

South Asians from specific jobs. As a result, most visible minorities ended up “in low-paying, overworked jobs in light industry, hotels, restaurants, and sales.” Furthermore, the author argued that housing discrimination was evident because landlords and real estate agents often refused to assist visible minorities in their search for housing.241

Much of the criticism with respect to systemic racism, however, was directed against police practices in Ontario. A study of police practices in Ottawa, for example, revealed instances of “acrimonious relations with visible minorities.”242 For instance, when East Indians complained to the police about racial incidents they were either told “to keep quiet” or treated more like “the suspect than a victim.” Some also reported being hassled by police officers during routine checks.243 Similarly, police relations did not improve in Toronto despite Pitman’s

240 Rosemary Boyle, “Money Not Enough to Eradicate Racism,” Globe and Mail, April 14, 1978. 241 John Huot, “Fight-Back against Racism,” Canadian Dimension, December 1978, 2-5. 242 P. D. Forcese Begin and D. Gould, Policing in a Multicultural Society: Ottawa Police Department Relations with Immigrants and Public Housing Residents (Ottawa: Carleton University, 1978), 10. 243 Ibid., 8-10. 282

recommendations regarding recruitment, selection, orientation and training of police officers.

Much of the criticism centered on the failure of the Police Force to lower the height and weight requirements in order to accommodate the hiring of members of visible minorities.244 The Police

Force also maintained that racism was not a problem in policing. The chairman of the Metro

Board of Police Commissioners further roused conflict when he assured South Asians and West

Indians that Toronto was a relatively safe place to live. His comments were criticized by visible minorities and the chairman was denounced for not adhering to Pitman’s proposals on police relations.245

These deteriorating race relations prompted many Ontario MPPs to call for a strengthening of the Ontario Human Rights Code. The MPP for Mississauga North argued that

“[t]he evidence of discrimination in Ontario is all too obvious to be ignored.”246 Similarly, another MPP frustrated by the lack of action by the government, called on other MPP’s to “set aside our fears and let us act in deep humanity in the full interest of the democracy and the democratic principles which we all in this House espouse.”247 The MPP’s colleague agreed, noting that Canada often sat back “smugly and look[ed] at the United States of America with its dreadful racial problems” without examining its own society.248 The leader of the Opposition,

Liberal MPP Stuart Smith also called on the Ontario government to give “a higher priority” to human rights in Ontario. He called on a “beefed up” Human Rights Commission “with more money and more staff.” 249

244 “Relax Police Size Rule to Attract Minorities, Metro Group Urges,” Globe and Mail, May 13, 1978. 245 “Givens is Lambasted at Hearing on Racism for ‘Patronizing’ Talk,” Globe and Mail, January 18, 1978. 246 Trent University, Thomas Symons Fonds, “OHRC Some correspondence and papers, 1977.” 01-003. Box 32, Folder 20. 247 Ontario, Legislative Assembly, Debates and Proceedings (4 May, 1978), p. 2253. 248 Ontario, Legislative Assembly, Debates and Proceedings (4 May, 1978), p. 2259. 249 Ontario, Legislative Assembly, Debates and Proceedings (4 May, 1978), p. 2261-2262. 283

With continued criticism of the state of race relations, Premier William Davis issued a response to concerned citizens in Ontario:

My personal view of racism may be stated in a short sentence. Racism is intolerable and it will not be tolerated by any government I lead. My government will respond to racial violence with the full force of the law, will confront acts of discrimination with the effective enforcement of human rights legislation and will conquer prejudicial attitudes with widespread educational initiatives.250

In spite of his concerned statement, Davis did not promise forthcoming legislation. The Minister of Labour, however, was not willing to commit to a definite timetable of when a revision of the

Ontario Human Rights Code would occur, arguing that the role of the OHRC would expand in the future to minimize “the damaging effect of discriminatory behaviour based on ignorance and fear.”251 Such statements demonstrate that the government continued to define discrimination and racism as a problem perpetuated by individuals.

Police relations deteriorated significantly in August 1978 when a Black man was gunned down by a police officer at a local disco. The circumstances of the shooting were questioned; the constable who shot the young man argued that it was in self defence while Toronto’s Blacks argued that it was a clear case of racism. Protests were held at Toronto City Hall where 100 demonstrators accused the police force of harassment and police brutality. With pressure to demonstrate public accountability, an inquest was established to determine whether the killing was race related.252 The inquest was to be tabled on 28 November, but when it was remanded to

December it sparked further protests. In November 1978, 2,000 South Asians and Blacks united and marched from Toronto’s City Hall to the Provincial Legislative Buildings to protest the lack of police and government action against racist attacks and the evident police brutality. Signs and

250 Ontario, Legislative Assembly, Debates and Proceedings (4 May, 1978), p. 2262. 251 Ontario, Legislative Assembly, Debates and Proceedings (4 May, 1978), p. 2272. 252 “Minorities urge police be disarmed,” Toronto Star, October 2, 1978. 284

slogans such as “Toronto Police, Dead Body” and “Toronto Police, Shame, Shame!” expressed the loss of faith in the public institution that was responsible for ensuring public safety.253 When the inquest into the death of the Black man was tabled, it exonerated Toronto police and argued that the killing was not racially motivated.254

Police relations with ethnic minorities deteriorated even further in 1979. That summer,

Albert Johnson, a Jamaican immigrant, was gunned down in his own home. Toronto police apprehended Johnson in the kitchen, clubbed him with a two pound flashlight and shot him in the chest. Police officers involved in the case stated that they were investigating a citizen’s complaint into a disturbance and argued that Johnson’s behaviour caused the shooting.255

Neighbours, however, denied filing a complaint. During the trial of the two police officers who allegedly killed Johnson, it was argued that Johnson had been mentally ill. Defaming of the victim was a tactic used by the Police Force to exonerate their officers.256 In spite of a well documented list of police shootings in the Toronto Star, the police chief denied allegations of police brutality.257 What was troublesome for many was that Johnson had filed a complaint at the

OHRC arguing that he had experienced discrimination. However, because of the backlog of cases at the OHRC, his case had been ignored.258

A few weeks after the Johnson shooting, 32 organizations, including the Jamaica

Nationals League and the New Democratic Party organized a large march in downtown Toronto.

Over two thousand demonstrators gathered, chanting “We Want Revenge” and “Murderer” to

253 John Huot, “Fight-Back against Racism,” Canadian Dimension, December 1978, 2-5. 254 “Inquest on Evans Fair Court Rules,” Toronto Star, December 20, 1978. 255 “Police gun down father of four waving lawn tool,” Toronto Star, August 27, 1979. 256Ontario, Legislative Assembly, Debates and Proceedings (19 May, 1981), p.779. 257 “11 Shootings in past year,” Toronto Star, August 27, 1979 and “Angry Metro police chief denies racist charges,” Toronto Star, September 1, 1979. 258 Ontario, Legislative Assembly, Debates and Proceedings (19 May, 1981), p.786. 285

protest the shooting.259 Contrast described the protest as “reminiscent of the civil rights era in the

American deep south.”260 A second large demonstration was organized for 14 October 1979 at which the United African Improvement Association, the Albert Johnson Committee Against

Police Brutality, and the Sikh-led Action Committee Against Racism demonstrated against police violence.261 Toronto’s people of colour alleged that they were targeted for aggressive searches and arrested for minor infractions. Furthermore, allegations of police delays in reaching scenes of racial attacks and the unwillingness of officers to seriously investigate citizen complaints were voiced by visible minorities.262 Some ethnic minorities argued that overt racist attitudes were also prevalent in the monthly magazine of the Metropolitan Police Association, called News and Views. Many argued that the magazine published racist remarks about Blacks,

Pakistanis and homophobic remarks about homosexuals. The magazine, however, was defended by senior police officials who argued that the publication was an example of freedom of expression. In light of these demonstrations and accusations, the Toronto Metro Council passed a non-confidence vote regarding the Metro Police Board, arguing that “it no longer reflected the mentality of an ethnically-mixed community.”263 Toronto’s new mayor John Sewell also expressed his disappointment with police training and stated that it was his personal mission “to deal with racial strife in Metro.”264

The Carter and Head Enquiries

With police accountability under scrutiny the Chairman of the Council of Metropolitan

Toronto asked Cardinal Gerard Emmett Carter, Archbishop of Toronto, to be a conciliator

259 “2000 Protest Johnson Killing,” Toronto Star, September 2, 1979. 260 Editorial. “One voice, one purpose,” Contrast, September 6, 1979. 261 “1200 rally against racism, police violence,” Contrast, October 18, 1979. 262 “‘Abuse of power’ the issue in Johnson killing,” Contrast, September 20, 1979. 263 Ibid. 264 “Sewell declares he’ll drop everything to talk to Carter,” Toronto Star, September 8, 1979. 286

between the Police Commission and South Asians and West Indians who complained about police alienation and protested against the killing of Albert Johnson. Carter saw himself as someone who was “attempting to defuse a potentially explosive situation by providing the principals with an opportunity to express their grievances; to be heard by those in authority, and

…to suggest some steps which might be of a positive and progressive nature.”265

In his 1979 study entitled Report to the Civil Authorities of Metropolitan Toronto and Its

Citizens, Carter noted that there was “a growing apprehension on the part of visible minorities of

[Toronto] that their rights were either infringed upon or, at the very least, downgraded.”266 After interviewing many of Toronto’s people of colour, Carter concluded that the “recurrent theme [in the interviews] was always that there was no mechanism by which a complaint [against the police] could be properly placed and a fair hearing ensured.”267 Carter also found that those who filed a complaint at the police station feared retaliation by the police. When one man filed a complaint against the police, the next day his car was ticketed in his own driveway. In another altercation with a Black man, a police officer threatened the victim not to file a complaint because he would simply report the victim as fitting the description of a wanted suspect.268

Carter also noted that visible minorities were targets of verbal insults by police. Many complained of being called ‘niggers’ ‘chinks’ and ‘pakis.’269

With this evidence of ill treatment against visible minorities by police, Carter concluded that racism in the Police Force existed “beyond a doubt.” Although Carter’s report revealed

265 Cardinal Gerard Emmett Carter, Report to the Civil Authorities of Metropolitan Toronto and Its Citizens, Toronto, 1979, 4. 266 Ibid., 5. 267 Ibid.,16. A Complaint Department was under the jurisdiction and administration of the Metropolitan Police Department. No independent body to investigate complaints existed. 268 Ibid., 16. 269 Ibid., 20. 287

pervasive racism within the police department, he hesitated to put the blame on the police department. Instead, Carter asserted that racism existed in each individual and argued that “it would be impossible to imagine that some of our racism would not spill over into those in authority over the enforcement of law.”270 Most law enforcement officers, he argued, “were men and women of dedication and integrity with a great sense of justice for all.”271 Carter’s report is somewhat contradictory. As stated above, Carter believed racism existed in all people but later asserted that only a small number of police officers were racist. His hesitancy reveals that although entrenched racism was evident in the police force, there existed a reluctance to admit its pervasiveness, especially in a state-funded report. Nevertheless, Carter was thinking of racism in ways that later became known as institutional and systemic racism. It is clear that understandings of institutional racism were forming among state officials; they were organic and evolving and resulted in contradictory conclusions as exemplified by those made by Carter.

Thus while Carter’s report did not name institutional racism per se, his recommendations focused on institutional changes to quell the complaints of visible minorities against the

Metropolitan Police Force. To begin, since the Complaint Department existed within the

Metropolitan Police Department, Carter urged the establishment of an independent body to investigate complaints. To retain impartiality, Carter argued, complaints against the police had to be aired publicly and not be left in the hands of the police department.272 Police officers were to be the “intermediaries of the system of justice, they are not executioners.”273

To improve relations between the police force and ethnic minorities, Carter called for the

270 Ibid., 9, 11. 271 Ibid., 9. 272 Ibid., 17. 273 Ibid., 20. 288

periodical training of police officers in race relations. The report also recommended the hiring of more visible minorities to the Police Force by lowering height and weight restrictions. When conducting his study, Carter also noted that the Toronto Police Force did not have one Black sergeant and recommended promotions based on merit to ensure equal opportunities for minorities within the force.274 By training police officers in race relations and changing the visible character of the Police Force, Carter believed racial tensions and the alienation visible minorities felt against the Police Force would subside.

The Carter Report did prompt immediate action from the Police Commission. The Chief of Police issued a “Declaration of Concern and Intent,” which stated that police officers had to

“avoid bias and prejudice and the appearance of it in all of [their] activities, public and private” and warned police officers that if they did not comply, disciplinary action would be taken.275 The

Metropolitan Police also established a training program in which all new recruits had to undergo training in human behaviour and race relations.276 On the other hand, no policies were instituted to deal with the lack of visible minorities in the Police Force.

The Carter Report also prompted official government action. With evidence of pervasive discrimination in policing, the Ontario government sought to address the issue with more funding for multiculturalism. In an official statement the Minister of Labour announced that the Ontario

Human Rights Commission would be granted funds to establish a race relations committee to promote racial harmony in Ontario. The goal, the Minister argued, was to:

increasingly move out to the community, to our schools, to places of employment, to volunteer organizations, to trade unions, to our churches, and indeed every sector and

274 Ibid., 24. 275 Urban Alliance on Race Relations, “A Statement of Concerns and Recommendations Regarding Human Rights in Ontario,” Brief Submitted to the Government of Ontario. November, 1980, 14. 276 Ibid., 15. 289

institution in our society, with an active educational and preventative program, aimed at eradicating all forms of racial bias and discrimination.277

Some were skeptical of such initiatives. The Urban Alliance on Race Relations argued that these measures were examples of “lip service” to multiculturalism and equality.278 The lack of a clear and concrete policy to combat evidence of systemic discrimination prompted the Urban Alliance to fund an enquiry into individual and institutionalized racism.

In 1980, the Alliance sponsored and distributed a study entitled Adaptation of Immigrants in Metro Toronto: Perceptions of Ethnic and Racial Discrimination. The study was written by the organization’s chairman, Wilson Head. The goal of the study was to assess the “perceptions, attitudes and experiences” of visible minorities in Toronto.279 The survey was based on a sample of 324 West Indian, South Asian and European respondents.280 Unlike Head’s earlier study, the

Adaptation of Immigrants found that most visible minorities had negative attitudes towards living in Canada and the majority reported that they personally experienced discrimination.

Many, in fact, felt that discrimination was increasing.

Again in contrast to Head’s earlier study, the Adaptation of Immigrants in Metro Toronto focused on institutional rather than individual racism. The survey examined discrimination in employment, housing, media, and public services and concluded that institutionalized racism was a major problem. The majority of visible minority respondents expressed that racial discrimination inhibited them from full participation in Canadian society. For example, when asked if discrimination existed in Toronto, 90 percent of West Indians, 72.2 percent of South

277 Mr. R. Elgie (PC. North York). See: Ontario, Legislative Assembly, Debates and Proceedings (22 November 1979), p. 4705. 278 Urban Alliance on Race Relations. “A Statement of Concerns and Recommendations Regarding Human Rights in Ontario,” 30. 279 Wilson Head, Adaptation of Immigrants in Metro Toronto: Perceptions of Ethnic and Racial Discrimination: An Exploratory Study (Toronto: York University, 1980), 5. 280 Ibid., 19. Respondents were chosen from a list of community agencies such as the Children’s Aid Societies, the Family Service Association, Mental Health Services, etc. 290

Asians and 35.3 percent of Europeans agreed.281 Furthermore, the survey revealed that racial discrimination was a common experience for visible minorities. In fact, the majority of visible minorities reported that they personally experienced discrimination. For example, 63.7 percent of

West Indians and 67.7 of South Asians experienced discrimination whereas only 27.6 percent of

Europeans stated that they had experienced discrimination.282 Clearly, it was Toronto’s people of colour who suffered most.

Wilson Head found most discrimination in employment. Employers continued to demand

“Canadian experience” as a requirement for many positions. Many West Indians and South

Asians felt that through this practice employers could legitimately discriminate against them by arguing that an applicant did not have the required skills.283 Similar to Ubale’s earlier report,

Head argued that the “artificial requirement” of ‘Canadian experience’ barred visible minorities from equal employment opportunity. This was reflected in higher unemployment rates among visible minorities. While the national unemployment rate hovered at nine percent, visible minorities experienced an unemployment rate anywhere from 13.2 to 20 percent.284 Respondents also expressed that they were often denied employment in an overt way because of their ethnicity. One respondent recounted:

I phoned about a job once. The personnel staff said we have a job and you can come in and join us tomorrow. I went in, and when they saw that I was [a West] Indian, they said, “We don’t have any jobs – you must have come to the wrong place.”285

281 Ibid., 69. 282 Ibid., 72. 283 Ibid., 54. 284 Ibid., 113. 285 Ibid., 73. Other groups also conducted studies which revealed institutional discrimination. For example, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA) conducted a study which revealed systemic discrimination in employment. The CCLA telephoned 25 employment agencies in Halifax, Toronto, Winnipeg and Vancouver. The organization told the agencies they were representing an American firm which was interested in establishing a business in their respective community. The CCLA then advised the employment agencies that they wanted only white people to fill the positions involved. Of the 25 agencies approached by the CCLA, only three flatly refused 291

Visible minorities also reported that they experienced housing discrimination. For example, one respondent applied for a vacant apartment and was refused without reason.

Another respondent applied for an advertised vacancy and was told it was available. Once he went to look at the apartment, he was told that it was already occupied.286 These blatant forms of discrimination were forbidden by law, but few respondents stated that they complained about the overt discrimination. Those who did not report the incident gave several reasons. Some did not like conflict, others did not believe the law would change people’s attitudes and others believed that “no benefit would come from reporting the incident, that officials would be biased.”287

Wilson Head also reiterated the point made by all preceding studies: the media perpetuated stereotypes and did not contribute to fostering cultural harmony. For example, media representations of countries such as India and Pakistan tended to depict the areas as poverty- stricken countries with widespread starvation. These images, Head argued, created a false impression that the poor were immigrating to Canada, when in reality it was members of the skilled middle class who were immigrating to Canada.288

Wilson Head’s survey concluded that because of institutionalized discrimination many visible minorities were dissatisfied with life in Canada. One Malaysian respondent summarized his feelings:

The picture I was given and the one experienced are two different things. Canadian virtues are ‘phonified’ and these did not meet my own expectations. Canadians are not as

such a discriminatory order. See: Ontario, Legislative Assembly, Debates and Proceedings (1 December, 1981), p. 4128. 286 Wilson Head, Adaptation of Immigrants in Metro Toronto: Perceptions of Ethnic and Racial Discrimination: An Exploratory Study, 74. 287 Ibid., 75-76. Head found that 65.9 percent of South Asians, 52.2 percent of West Indians took no action against discriminatory treatment. See: 74. 288 Ibid., 28. 292

friendly as they were portrayed to be. They are very alienated and culturally, they are mildly racist and very much misinformed.289

The survey results revealed that a majority of South Asians and West Indians did not feel accepted by Canada.290 To Wilson Head’s surprise, only half of the respondents (48.5 percent) stated that they would remain in Canada, 25 percent stated that they would return to their home country, 4.3 percent intended to move elsewhere and 21 percent remained uncertain.291 These statistics reinforced the idea that many people of colour were not satisfied with life in Canada and many felt unwelcome. Minorities clearly felt that discrimination and racism were “barriers to their opportunities in Canada.”292

With evidence of systemic discrimination, Wilson Head called for education and the elimination of institutional racism through equal opportunity programs and affirmative action.

Since structural discrimination was the “most stubbornly resistant to positive change,” the study called for a strengthening of the Ontario Human Rights Code. Head also advised government agencies, businesses, media, religious institutions, law enforcement agencies and community service agencies to address institutional racism to serve the needs of visible minorities in

Canada.293

The findings of Wilson Head’s reports were not new and reflected the general trend in

Ontario. Head’s study was released at an opportune time: racial incidents were once again increasing. A Globe and Mail feature on racism expressed this concern in a subheading which stated: “First come the taunts and the insults. Then the broken windows and slashed tires. Then the fights begin, and the racial tension flares again in Toronto.”294 Similarly, the Toronto Star

289 Ibid., 93. 290 Ibid., 91. Only 34.5 percent of West Indians and 36.5 percent of South Asians felt accepted. 291 Ibid., 100. 292 Ibid., 120. 293 Ibid., 128. 293

featured a series of articles on racism in Toronto, fearing that racial violence was “the wave of tomorrow.”295 Racial tensions, however, were not only evident in Toronto. Overt racism was also evident in other major cities across Ontario. Violence against property was most common. For example, a story in the Windsor Star in June 1980 featured a Black family who rented a house, but before they moved in it was completely vandalized. The article stated that “[r]acial slurs and sexual obscenities had been written in the living room, kitchen, bathroom, stairway and the bed rooms of the two storey house.” Racial slurs on cars, destroyed gardens and broken windows were also reported.296 Furthermore, when Windsor’s unemployment rate hit an all time high of

17 percent in 1980, the auto industry blamed visible minorities by “playing up the theme of

‘unemployment made in Japan,’” referring to Japanese cars which they blamed for the slow rate of sales of American cars. When retailers began selling “Unemployment made in Japan” bumper stickers, Chinese and Japanese residents became scapegoats and often targets of name-calling.297

Race relations were also tense in Vancouver. In January 1980, a gang of 20 attacked an

East Indian couple while they were sitting in their car. That same month, an East Indian family home was fire-bombed and 15 East Indian students were involved in a brawl with White students. The gravest incident occurred when a twenty year old East Indian man was beaten to death in a Vancouver park while on his way home. One of the killers later said proudly: “Today,

I’ve killed a Hindu.”298

In addition to reports of cases of overt personal prejudice, the media also began to

294 “Racism,” Globe and Mail, May 31, 1980. 295“Racial Violence: Wave of Tomorrow?,” Toronto Star, January 7, 1980. Also: “Riots, Sit-ins Things of the Past as Protest Comes of Age,” Toronto Star, December 26, 1979. 296 Incidents appeared in the Windsor Star and were discussed in Canada, Multiculturalism Directorate, “Race Relations in Windsor: A Situation Report,” 1982, 155. 297 Ibid., 41. 298 Incidents reported in the Vancouver Sun and were discussed in Canada, Multiculturalism Directorate, “Race Relations in Vancouver: A Situation Report,” 1982, 13-28. 294

examine societal racism. Articles in newspapers and periodicals began to appear that argued that racial incidents were not mere aberrations. For example, a story featured in Chatelaine magazine examined racism in a Hamilton school and discussed the plight of the Gill family, who moved to

Hamilton from India in 1975 and purchased a variety store. The story emphasized that racism was a societal problem. At the Hamilton school, the Gill children experienced taunting, hitting and name-calling. However, the school denied that racism was an issue. The family variety store was also repeatedly vandalized but the police refused to apprehend the vandals. The story concluded that many visible minorities felt disillusioned and disdained Canada’s “so-called liberties and rights” 299 Another story featured in the Toronto Star argued that overt discrimination had lessened but that subtle discrimination had become more apparent especially in employment and housing:

An employer knows better than to tell a man he has no job for him because he is black. He now gets an employment agency to do it for him…A homeowner doesn’t have to suffer all the embarrassment of telling a prospective buyer he won’t sell to Pakistanis. He gets a real estate agent to divert them from the neighbourhood.300

An article featured in Maclean’s expressed a similar concern, arguing that evidence of employment discrimination suggested that Canada was “back peddling” on human rights issues.301 Another more extensive article in Maclean’s declared that “Canadians have ingrained racism that we choose to pretend is not there.” The article criticized Canadians for denouncing race relations in the United States without examining institutional racism in their own country.302

The media not only examined societal racism but contributed to it. For example, in

299 Val Ross, “Anatomy of a Racist Incident,” Chatelaine, March 1979, 51- 3, 68-69, 72, 74, 76-78. 300 “Human Rights: We’re Falling Behind,” Toronto Star, April 27, 1980. 301 Eleanor Wachtel, “The True North Semi-Free. (the erosion of the civil rights codes),” Maclean's, February 11, 1980, 41. 302 Terence Macartney-Filgate, “Warming up the melting pot. (Racial attitudes in Canada),” Maclean's, May 10, 1982, 10. 295

September 1980, W-5, a CTV program, aired a special report on Chinese students in Canadian universities. The show, entitled “The Campus Giveaway,” featured a young Canadian girl who was denied entry to a pharmacy school. The special report showed lecture halls filled with

Chinese students and argued that there were 100,000 visible minority students in Canadian universities, and contended that 60 percent of these students were from South Asia and 30 percent were from Hong Kong. The show further noted that there were 400 foreign students in all medical schools in Canada, and argued that the University of Toronto Pharmacy Faculty excluded Canadians in favour of foreigners. The special report argued that it was costing

Canadians $1 billion dollars to educate foreign students.303

The W-5 program was an example of blatant racism. For example, the University of

Toronto’s Faculty of Pharmacy had no foreign students enrolled and foreign students numbered fewer than 100 in Canadian medical schools.304 The program received much protest by the

Chinese community in Canada. In fact, in response to it, the Chinese community established the

Chinese-Canadian National Council for Equality to fight racism.305 Government officials also criticized the W-5 program calling it “a national disgrace.”306

In light of the growing racial tensions and evident institutional discrimination, the

Ontario government expanded personnel and funding for the Ontario Human Rights

Commission307 and introduced a bill to revise the Ontario Human Rights Code.308 By the early

303 Canada, Multiculturalism Directorate, “Race Relations in Metropolitan Toronto: A Situation Report,” 1982, 40. On 16 March 1980, CTV aired an official apology followed by a statement: “our critics – particularly Chinese Canadians and the universities criticized the program as racist: they were right, although it was never our intention to produce a racist program.” See: Ibid., 56. 304 Ibid., 41. 305 Ibid., 41-42. 306 Canada, House of Commons Debates (23 April 1980), p. 345. 307 Ontario, Legislative Assembly, Debates and Proceedings (6 May 1980), p. 1505. 308 Ontario, Legislative Assembly, Debates and Proceedings (9 December 1980), p. 5096. 296

1980s, the problem of institutionalized racism was no longer dismissed by the provincial legislature.

Situation Reports: Towards An Official Recognition of Systemic Discrimination

The reaction by the federal government was equally proactive. On 8 February 1982 Jim

Fleming, Minister of State for Multiculturalism, announced a federal plan to combat racism called the “National Programme to Combat Racism.” As a part of the programme, Fleming commissioned situation reports in eleven cities across Canada (Vancouver, Williams Lake, B.C.,

Calgary, Regina, Winnipeg, Windsor, Toronto, Ottawa, Montréal, Halifax and Saint John). The purpose of these reports was to get insight into race relations and problems facing communities across Canada. Written by academics from each respective city, the reports discussed individual and institutionalized racism and were completed in 1982.

The most extensive report came from Toronto, where acts of racial violence were most widespread and where entrenched racism was evident as Toronto’s people of colour consistently claimed that they had differential access to the goods, services, and opportunities. The report blamed act of overt racism against individuals on the declining economy, the activities of the

Western Guard Party, the arrival of Ugandan refugees in Canada and the 1975 Green Paper on immigration which stirred up a debate on non-White immigration to Canada.309 These conditions, the report argued, generated a wave of racial attacks on visible minorities, especially in Toronto’s subway system. The report explained why:

Here in this microcosm of the city’s people, non-Whites may at certain points and certain times closely match the number of Whites in a subway car. These Whites traveling on the subway, compared to those who are not, tend not to own private automobiles and are at the lower end of the occupational scale. They are more likely to perceive themselves to be in competition with non-Whites for jobs and social services….[this contributes to ] the

309 Canada, Multiculturalism Directorate, “Race Relations in Metropolitan Toronto: A Situation Report,” 1982, 5- 6. 297

conviction that non-Whites are ‘taking over’ even to the point of ‘destroying our culture.’310

These violent attacks were common in the mid to late 1970s. By 1982, the report argued, racism in Toronto’s public places had decreased. Although overt racism was less evident, the report demonstrated that many individuals expressed a dislike of visible minorities. This was very evident in public opinion polls. For example, in January 1981, 58 percent of Torontonians believed racial prejudice was a serious problem and 49 percent admitted that they themselves were prejudiced. In December 1981, 62 percent admitted that they held some prejudice against visible minorities. Furthermore, 15 percent of Metro residents expressed that they were hesitant to sit next to an East Indian on the public transit system, 13 percent stated that they would not allow their child to bring home a “Paki friend,” and 11 percent objected to their child visiting an

East Indian home. A further 10 percent indicated they would be uneasy conducting business with an East Indian. Respondents also expressed prejudice against Blacks. For example, 5 percent expressed uneasiness about sitting next to a Black person, 6 percent stated they would object to their child bringing home a Black friend and 8 percent indicated they would be hesitant about conducting business with a Black person.311 A Gallup Poll conducted in late 1981 also painted a rather bleak picture of race relations in Canada. The poll indicated that 30 percent of Canadians supported organizations which “worked towards preserving Canada for Whites only.”312

The Situation Report argued that institutional racism fuelled these hostile attitudes. The report put much blame on the structural racism evident in the media, arguing that newspapers and particularly television and advertising communicated racism. Advertising, for example, communicated to Canadians that being Canadian meant being White. Government advertising

310 Ibid., 15. 311 Ibid., 7-9. 312 Ibid., 31. 298

also did not represent the “significant racial constituencies in the province.”313 For example, a

Ministry of Energy advertisement used the slogan “Preserve it, conserve it, Ontari-ari-o.”

Although Ontario’s population was multi-racial and multi-cultural, the ad showed only White men and women.314 The lack of visible minorities in the media perpetuated the belief among

White Canadians that all visible minorities were recent immigrants to Canada. This, in turn, caused many to feel hostility towards visible minorities who were perceived to be “competitors for scarce employment and housing.”315 The common perception was that immigrants “live off welfare, …they take jobs, houses and school places from Canadians.” 316 The sense of displacement felt by White Canadians contributed to their hostile feelings.

According the Situation Report, television programming also contributed to prejudice.

The report recommended that both the federal and provincial governments show racial diversity in government advertising and encourage “producers of films, exhibitions and plays to create positive racial images.” Furthermore, news agencies had to create standards of reporting to avoid stereotyping visible minorities.317

The report also noted that employment discrimination was very evident in Toronto.

Visible minorities experienced lower incomes and less job security than White Canadians despite high levels of education. The report blamed much of the discrimination on Toronto’s unemployment rate, which rose from 3.8% to 6.1% between 1981 and 1982.318 To address the institutional discrimination in employment, the report called for a comprehensive affirmative

313 Ibid., 38. 314 Ibid., 36. 315 Ibid., 16. 316 Ibid., 33. 317 Ibid., 55-56. 318 Ibid., 67. 299

action program.319

Other Situation Reports for Ontario also emphasized that institutional racism was a major problem. For example, the Situation Report for Windsor concluded that racism in Windsor was a

“historical fact” and found evidence of systemic discrimination in employment, education, housing and the media. The report argued that institutional racism was the most dangerous form of prejudice because it enabled “one to deny the existence of prejudice in oneself and at the same time enable[d] one to act in a legitimate discriminatory manner.”320 The effects of institutionalized racism, the report argued, were long lasting and detrimental to the victims.

The Windsor report based its finding on interviews and found that employment discrimination was the most apparent form of systemic discrimination. Evidence revealed that many visible minorities were barred from certain positions because they were seen as undeserving. As one White Windsor public service officer explained, it was appropriate to appoint native-born Canadians to various positions “because Canadians were born here and they built this country…the newcomers have to prove themselves.”321 The report also found that employers rarely promoted visible minorities to managerial positions. One employer explained the rationale behind not promoting minorities:

it is not that we don’t want to promote someone who is non-White, but the person may not be able to cope with the position if the people under that person do not respect the visible minority group member.322

The report also found evidence of harassment on the job and unfair dismissals or layoffs. To redress the institutional racism in employment, the report called for affirmative action and the establishment of incentives for those businesses and industries that employed visible

319 Ibid., 84. 320 Canada, Multiculturalism Directorate, “Race Relations in Windsor: A Situation Report,” 1982, 2. 321 Ibid., 127. 322 Ibid., 135-136. 300

minorities.323

Racism was also evident in Windsor’s schools. Name-calling and racist graffiti were the most evident problems in schools. Evidence also existed that White students often ostracized visible minority children. To improve the atmosphere in schools, the report called for teacher training in race relations and a curriculum which would reflect “the contributions of all nationalities.”324

The Situation Report for Windsor also found that visible minorities felt prejudice in housing. Some landlords refused to rent to visible minorities. Other non-Whites reported that they had been told that a given apartment was available over the phone, but that once they arrived and their ethnicity was evident, they were told that the apartment was already rented. The report believed public education directed at landlords was needed to address the issue of discrimination in accommodation.325

The report on race relations in Windsor also noted, like so many other enquiries, that the media did little to promote harmonious relations between various ethnic groups. For example, in

1981, a local Windsor radio station invited the chief of the KKK to its morning show. During the morning show the leader argued that Asians and Blacks should go back to their country of origin.

The Windsor Star later reported that the KKK leader was a rather “likeable young Canadian.”

Incidents like this, the Windsor Report argued, did not promote interracial harmony but rather added fire to racial tensions.326

The Situation Report for Ottawa also found that the media did little to promote positive

323 Ibid., 132. 324 Ibid., 112. 325 Ibid., 147-150. 326 Ibid., 158. 301

race relations. Concerns over irresponsible reporting, as in the case of Windsor, were also expressed in Ottawa. The report argued that sensationalist reporting, such as the nationally aired

W-5 program, did not embrace Ottawa’s “multi-ethnic character.”327

The Ottawa report, however, was most concerned about the systemic exclusion that existed in employment. The report found that most discrimination was aimed at South Asians,

East Asians and Caribbean Blacks. With respect to the public sector, the report argued that visible minorities found “difficulty getting in, staying in and getting promoted.”328 The report accused the public sector, specifically the civil service, of being an “old-boy network.”329

Furthermore, those minorities who were employed by the public sector experienced “slow promotions, slow access and a ceiling on promotion to senior levels.”330 The private sector was equally stratified and many visible minorities were exploited on the job.331 Those with language barriers had particular difficulties. Some were paid below minimum wage and others worked in poor conditions. Moreover, the report demonstrated that those who were educated often had their qualifications unrecognized or ignored. Employment discrimination, the report argued, was

“entrenched racism.”332

The Ottawa report also found that visible minorities were vulnerable to exclusion in public housing because of the lack of government-sponsored accommodation. In privately owned housing, visible minorities were often subjected to outright exclusion. Landlords were most unwilling to rent to Blacks and West Indians.333 The report also demonstrated that non-Whites

327 Canada, Multiculturalism Directorate, “Perceptions of Discrimination and Race Relations in the Nation’s Capital: A Study Prepared for the Multiculturalism Directorate,” 1982, 44. 328 Ibid., 29. 329 Ibid., 59. 330 Ibid., 86. 331 Ibid., 32. 332 Ibid., 80. 333 Ibid., 80. 302

experienced discrimination in social services because welfare workers and employment centres often refused to provide services to minorities or treated them more harshly.334 The report summarized the situation in Ottawa as:

one of economic integration and structural separateness; of ethnic stratification and racial exclusiveness; of multiculturalism as a government programme, not a political reality successfully reflected in the make up of government itself.335

The Ottawa report also noted that there was a consensus among visible minorities that discrimination was systemic and that an apprehension existed among minorities that things would “get worse rather than better.” To address systemic discrimination, the report recommended an independent commission on equal opportunity and a clear public policy to eliminate systemic exclusion.336

Situation Reports in other Canadian cities arrived at the same conclusion: visible minorities were blocked from structural integration.337 All reports called for an expansion of positive coverage of visible minorities in the media and advised the government to initiate an affirmative action program.338

334 Ibid., 38. 335 Ibid., 48-49. 336 Ibid., 127-130. 337 For example, the Situation Report for Montréal found systemic and institutional racism in employment, education, housing, and the media. See: Canada, Multiculturalism Directorate, “Race Relations in Montréal: A Situation Report,” 1982, 16-17. The Situation Report for Saint John found that Black Canadians experienced the most discrimination especially in housing sales and rentals. See: Canada, Multiculturalism Directorate, “Race Relations in Saint John: A Situation Report,” 1982, 2. The Situation Report for Williams Lake, British Columbia found that banks often refused loans to Natives and West Indians and apartments frequently refused accommodation to visible minorities. See: Canada, Multiculturalism Directorate, “Race Relations in Williams Lake BC: A Situation Report,” 1982, 21. The Halifax Report also demonstrated institutional racism in housing, policing, education, and employment. See: Canada, Multiculturalism Directorate, “Race Relations in Halifax: A Situation Report,”1982, 93- 106. 338 Canada, Multiculturalism Directorate, “A Study of Race Relations in Montréal,” 1982; Canada, Multiculturalism Directorate, “Perceptions of Racial Discrimination in Calgary: A Situation Report,” 1982; Canada, Multiculturalism Directorate, “Perceptions of Discrimination and Race Relations in the Nation’s Capital: A Study Prepared for the Multiculturalism Directorate,” 1982; Canada, Multiculturalism Directorate, “Race Relations in Windsor: A Situation Report,” 1982; Canada, Multiculturalism Directorate, “Race Relations Situation Report: a Synthesis Report on Race Relations and Race Discrimination in the City of Saint John, New Brunswick,” 1982; Canada, Multiculturalism Directorate, “Situation Report on the Current State of Race Relations, Vancouver, British Columbia,” 1982; Canada, Multiculturalism Directorate, “Situation Report on the Current State of Race Relations, Williams, Lake, British 303

Conclusion

The official recognition of structural racism was a gradual process. The perception that

Canada was a tolerant and peaceful society inhibited the recognition that racism was rooted in

Canadian institutions. When racist acts did occur, they were blamed on the personal prejudice of a small faction of society. It was only with the rise of racially motivated violence in the mid-

1970s that Canadians began to examine the causes of the “sudden appearance” of racism. This rise in racial incidents resulted in various public and private enquiries that were conducted in an attempt to explain the increased racial tension. These enquiries, it has been argued, contributed to a major paradigm shift in race relations in Ontario.

In the course of attempting to explain increased racial violence across Canada, particularly Toronto, a more chronic problem of structural racism was revealed. Initial enquiries reflected the general perception that only a few Canadians were responsible for the increased racial violence. Both Wilson Head and Walter Pitman, for example, described a phenomenon that would soon be called institutional racism, but neither study argued that institutional racism was the main cause of racism. Both studies, which were publicly commissioned, argued that individuals were responsible for racism in society. Head, for example, argued that it was extremist groups such as the Western Guard Party which contributed to the overall increase in racial tensions. In their discussion of racism in various institutions, Head and Pitman did not blame the institutions themselves but individuals within those institutions. Pitman’s recommendation that the Metro Police Force should perform psychological tests of police applicants demonstrated the belief that it was only a few individuals within the Police Force who

Columbia,” 1982; Canada, Multiculturalism Directorate, “Situation Report on the State of Race Relations in Halifax and Digby,” 1982; Canada, Multiculturalism Directorate, “Survey on Race Relations in Regina,” 1982; Canada, Multiculturalism Directorate, “Winnipeg Situation Report: Situation Report on Race Relations in Winnipeg,” 1982. 304

were racist.

In contrast, private enquiries commissioned by ethnic and labour groups, were first to emphasize that racial violence was perpetuated by the inequalities rooted in Canadian institutions. Both Bhausaheb Ubale’s and Daniel Hill’s enquiries revealed that pervasive racism existed at all levels of government, in educational institutions and in places of employment.

However, the evidence of institutional racism was largely ignored by government officials who focused on individual acts of violence which were reported by Canadian newspapers.

Since officials continued to define the ‘problem’ of race relations as one perpetuated by individuals, they looked for solutions which would effectively curb individual prejudice. With this goal, the federal government sponsored Frances Henry’s study on personal prejudice in

Toronto. The findings of the study suggested that the majority of Torontonians were racist. This conclusion went against earlier state-sponsored studies that blamed extremists for increased racial tensions and contributed to the shift in race relations policy by demonstrating that racism was a widespread phenomenon.

Following Henry’s study, continued criticisms of police practices and increased probing into blatant acts of police brutality by Toronto newspapers resulted in the establishment of a municipally sponsored study on police practices in Toronto. The study, written by Cardinal

Carter, recommended institutional changes within Toronto’s Police Force, although Carter did not use the language of institutional and systemic racism. Furthermore, a more extensive study, sponsored by the Urban Alliance on Race Relations reinforced the conclusions made by earlier studies that discrimination existed in employment, housing and the media. These two studies resulted in more probing into systemic racism by the media and brought the issue of institutional

305

discrimination into the public discourse.

From these studies emerged a new understanding of the ‘problem’ of race relations in

Ontario. Because this new definition emphasized systemic discrimination, officials responded with systemic solutions to the problem. In Ontario, more funding was provided for programs which promoted multiculturalism and provincial officials announced that the Ontario Human

Rights Code would be revised to give special protection to visible minorities against systemic exclusion. The federal government commissioned a large study to gauge and address structural inequalities which were evident in Canadian institutions. This shift in focus from individual prejudice to institutional discrimination is examined in the following chapter.

306

Chapter Six: The State Response: A Recognition of Systemic Racism

The state funded Situation Reports confirmed beyond a doubt that institutional racism existed in Canadian society.1 Armed with this evidence, municipal, provincial and federal governments began to initiate anti-discrimination policy changes in education and policing. The

Ontario Human Rights Code was also revamped to protect minorities from systemic racism. At the federal level, the government sought solutions to address structural exclusion by adhering to the conclusions made by Equality Now! Report of the Special Committee on Visible Minorities in

Canadian Society (1984). By the mid-1980s, the shift in public policy from a focus on individual racism to institutional racism was evident and resulted in a major paradigm shift in race relations policy as governments and institutions established race relations committees, programs, commissions and consultative organizations which sought to challenge racist attitudes and behaviours and improve the status of racialized minorities in Canada. Racism, prejudice and discrimination became part of the political discourse and part of the agenda of policy analysts – by the early 1980s governments at all levels were ‘race conscious’ and ethnic politics received substantial media coverage. Ultimately the recognition of institutional racism was asserted with the policy of employment equity during the mid 1980s. This chapter demonstrates that

1 The academic community and various non-governmental organizations continued to provide evidence of systemic racism in Canadian society. For example, the World Council of Churches Program to Combat Racism argued that institutional racism in Canada was “the most oppressive” form of discrimination as it maintained inequality. In 1981, the organization produced a booklet which examined the historic nature of racism in Canada. The publication challenged the myth that World War II ended racism and asserted that the last decades of the 20th century were demonstrating that racism was becoming “more powerful and destructive.” The organization called on “the support and solidarity of the Canadian churches” against racism. See: Pat Bird, Racism in Canada (World Council of Churches Program, 1981), 1, 20. Meeting and conferences on race relations also continued. For example, a large conference entitled “Race Relations in Canada: Problems, Strategies and Solutions” was organized by Syed M.A. Hameed and Gurbachan S. Paul from the University of Alberta. The conference brought scholars and human rights activists to Edmonton where they discussed the effects on institutional racism on racialized minorities. See: Syed M.A. Hameed, Gurbachan S. Paul. “Race Relations in Canada: Problems, Strategies and Solutions” (Conference, Edmonton: University of Alberta, Department of Industrial and Legal Relations, 1980).

307

the state recognition of institutional racism resulted in a shift in government discourse on racism.

State actors began to focus not only on the social causes of racism but on how racism became rooted in social structures and institutions. This chapter will also demonstrate that some anti- racism policy changes were significant while others did little to challenge systemic exclusion.

The failure of certain policies can be attributed to three important factors. First, ideas of

‘racelessness’ continued to contribute to a lack of authentic change. Many of the policies instituted at the time continued to deny the historic nature of racism in Canadian society. The discourse surrounding their implementation emphasized that Canada was a modern nation that needed to implement egalitarian rights so that visible minorities could successfully integrate into

Canadian society. As a result, White Canadians continued to believe that Canada was a tolerant and accepting nation; much of this discourse was grounded in the rhetoric of liberal multiculturalism which obfuscated the existence of systemic racism in Canada. Secondly, there was institutional resistance to anti-racism programs. Thirdly, in the process of recognizing institutional racism, the Ontario government did not challenge the concept of ‘race’ – there was little emphasis on deconstructing race as a biological category. As a result, in spite of the recognition of systemic racism and the elimination of racial preferences from legislation and public policy, racial bias and the belief in ‘race’ continues.

Public Policy Changes in Education

Increased racial violence in Toronto and the enquiries which brought the existence of institutional racism into the limelight resulted in many policies which attempted to challenge racist behaviour and institutional practices. The education sector was the quickest to respond to evident personal and systemic discrimination in Ontario’s schools. Policy changes in education can be attributed to pressure from minority groups but also because of unequivocal support from

308

the provincial and federal governments.

The Toronto Board of Education was the first school board to implement reforms. Many of these reforms were initiated as a result of a conference sponsored by the Urban Alliance on

Race Relations in 1977. During the conference, the Urban Alliance argued that the inherent multiethnic character of Canada’s population was not represented in the curriculum.2

Textbooks, for example, championed the White ‘race’ and Canada’s connection to Britain and there was little emphasis on the historic contributions of Canada’s immigrant population. These calls for revisions of Canadian history textbooks were not novel. Dating back to the proceedings of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism, Ukrainian Canadians argued that textbooks needed to be revised to demonstrate and articulate the contributions of cultural groups to Canada. The Commission agreed and called for “[a]n extensive revision of school textbooks for public schools.”3 In spite of this recommendation, substantial policy changes did not occur.

By the late 1970s, however, officials agreed that social studies material presented biased material. Robert McPhee, the Executive Director of the Citizenship and Multiculturalism

Division, for example, pressed for a revision of textbooks which, he argued, did not examine the contributions of visible minorities.4 In Toronto, education officials concurred but argued that policy changes needed to go further; the Director of Education for the Toronto Board of

Education, for example, argued that Toronto schools had to do more to assist the integration of visible minority children in the school system.5

2 Vincent D'Oyley, The Impact of Multi-ethnicity on Canadian Education (Toronto: Urban Alliance on Race Relations, 1977). 3 Canada. Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism. Book IV: The Cultural Contribution of the Other Ethnic Groups (Ottawa: Queen’s Printer of Canada, 1970), 146. 4 Robert W. McPhee, “New Dimensions in Race Relations: Impact on Society and Schools,” in The Impact of Multi- ethnicity on Canadian Education, ed. Vincent D’Oyley (Toronto: Urban Alliance on Race Relations, 1977), 9. 5 Duncan Green, “The New Socialization of Multi-ethnicity.” in The Impact of Multi-ethnicity on Canadian Education, ed. Vincent D’Oyley (Toronto: Urban Alliance on Race Relations, 1977), 30. 309

Just prior to and throughout this period, the mythology of racelessness which was being propagated by Canada’s education system began to be challenged in academic circles. For example, the work of Robin Winks (Blacks in Canada, 1971), Howard Palmer (Nativism and

Ethnic Tolerance in Alberta, 1973), Ken Adachi (The Enemy that Never Was, 1976), Peter Ward

(White Canada Forever, 1978) and Donald Avery (Dangerous Foreigners: European Immigrant

Workers and Labour Radicalism in Canada, 1979) challenged the ingrained myth of a harmonious past expressed in the curriculum.6 These claims had also been made by Canadian sociologists during the 1960s.7

Calls for revisions to Canada’s school curriculum also came from the federal government. Many changes, in fact, were mandated by the Multiculturalism Directorate. These officials believed that public education was a powerful tool of cultural transmission; it was vital to present the multicultural essence of Canada to inculcate children with values of tolerance and understanding. It was also imperative to socialize young Canadians to become active participants in a multicultural society in order to solidify Canada’s new multicultural identity. These assertions were voiced in 1977 by Directorate officials who were concerned that Canadians were indifferent and skeptical about the purpose of multiculturalism. Between 1971-1976, the federal government spent 19 million dollars on implementation of multiculturalism, yet the general

6 Robin Winks, Blacks in Canada: A History (Montréal: McGill-Queen's University Press, 1971); Howard Palmer, Nativism and Ethnic Tolerance in Alberta, 1920-1972 (Toronto: York University, 1973); Ken Adachi, The Enemy that Never Was: The History of the Japanese Canadians (Toronto: McClelland and Stewart, 1976), Peter Ward, White Canada Forever: Popular and Public Attitudes Toward Orientals in British Columbia (Montréal: McGill- Queen's University Press, 1978); Donald Avery, Dangerous Foreigners: European Immigrant Workers and Labour Radicalism in Canada, 1896-1932 (Toronto: McClelland and Stewart, 1979). 7 See: John Porter, The Vertical Mosaic: An Analysis of Social Class and Power in Canada (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1965). During the 1970s, social scientists continued to examine education and unequal relations. See for example: S. Ramcharan, “Adaptation of West Indians in Canada” (PhD thesis, York University, Department of Sociology, 1974); J. Adair and D. Rosenstock, Multiculturalism in the Classroom: A Survey of Interracial Attitudes in the Schools (Ottawa: Secretary of State, 1976); John Porter, The Measure of Canadian Society: Education, Equality and Opportunity (Toronto: Gage, 1979). 310

population remained unknowledgeable or apathetic about the policy. The Directorate also admitted that multiculturalism had failed to “respond to the immediate concerns of the client group” [cultural and ethnic minorities]. A more pragmatic implementation of multiculturalism was needed to respond to the “real needs of the groups.”8

Norman Cafik as Minister of State for Multiculturalism provided additional funding for

Ethnic Studies programs. Cafik advised provincial Boards of Education to revise textbooks to sensitize Canada’s youth to the value of cultural pluralism. He also ordered the revision of the

Canadian Family Tree. Originally published by the Citizenship Branch in 1968, the textbook was to be revised and published by the Multiculturalism Directorate to incorporate the diverse stories of Canada’s ethnic and cultural groups into the narrative. 9

These proposed changes to schools curriculum were supported by Ontario’s Ministry of

Education. Bette Stephenson, the Minister of Education, announced in 1979 that the province was going to review “multicultural education.”10 The Ministry consulted with various institutions, agencies and non-governmental organizations for a solution – they included: the

Association of Canadian Publishers, the Black Liaison Committee, the Toronto School Board of

Education, the Canadian Book Publishers’ Council, the Canadian Council of Christians and

Jews, the Canadian Society of Muslims, the Council of Muslim Communities of Canada, the

Advisory Council on Multiculturalism, the Ontario Human Rights Commission, the Ontario

Teachers’ Federation, the Sikh Community in Toronto and the Urban Alliance on Race

8 LAC, Minister’s Office – Multiculturalism. Multicultural Forecasts, RG 6, 89-90/319. Box 6 File: 3250-1-1. Vol.1. [“Multiculturalism – focus 1978.” A Discussion Paper. Prepared by the Multiculturalism Directorate, November 1977]. 9 LAC, Minister’s Office – Multiculturalism. Multicultural Forecasts, RG 6, 89-90/319. Box 6 File: 3250-1-1. Vol.1. [“Multiculturalism – focus 1978.” A Discussion Paper. Prepared by the Multiculturalism Directorate, November 1977]. 10 Ontario, Ministry of Education, Report of the Minister of Education 1979-1980 (Toronto: The Ministry, 1980), 5. 311

Relations. The consultations resulted in the 1980 publication of Race, Religion, and Culture in

School Materials. In the publication the Ministry advised authors, editors and publishers on how to avoid racial, religious and cultural bias in their preparation of learning materials.11

Institutions which prepared graduate students for the profession of teaching followed suit.

The Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, for example, produced a teachers’ guide to social and Canada studies to sensitize teachers to the “positive and problematic aspects of Canada’s ethnic diversity.” The goal of the guide was to bring “meaningful change in social studies education.” The guide introduced teachers to ethnic studies which the Institute argued was necessary for Canadian students to appreciate Canada’s ethnic diversity. Understanding the essence of cultural pluralism would result in the growth of understanding, respect and tolerance in Canada. The guide also provided teachers with social science background material, examples of teaching units and a selected bibliography of instructional materials on Canada’s ethnic groups.12

The Toronto Board responded to these new anti-racism policies and programs by establishing a Sub-Committee on Race Relations. The Committee was composed of 19 representatives from various organizations including: the Toronto Public School Principals’

Association, the South Asian Liaison Committee, the Black Liaison Committee, Toronto’s

Secondary School Principals’ Association, the Korean Education Society, the Toronto Teachers’

Federation, the Ontario Human Rights Commission, the Urban Alliance on Race Relations and the Ontario Secondary School Teachers’ Federation. After nineteen months of consultation with students, teachers, administrators and ethnic groups, the sub-committee tabled its report which

11 Ibid. 12 Dean, E. Wood, Multicultural Canada: A Teachers’ Guide to Ethnic Studies (Toronto: The Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, 1978), v. 312

emphasized that schools had to address both overt and institutional racism. To control overt racism, the report recommended that teachers be trained in race relations so that they could respond to racial incidents. To address institutional racism the subcommittee called for textbook revisions to incorporate the contributions of ethnic minorities to combat racism in the curriculum.13 The report concluded that schools had a vital role in helping racialized children

“develop the ability to face and overcome prejudice, to reject the role of victims and to challenge with confidence the notion that they have a less than equal part to play in Canadian life and institutions.”14 Following the release of the Report, the Toronto Board implemented a five year plan and committed five million dollars to eliminate both individual and systemic forms of discrimination in Toronto’s schools. To address incidents of racial prejudice, the school Board officially condemned racism by stating that Toronto schools would not “tolerate any expressions of racial/ethnic bias in any form by its trustees, administration, staff and students.”15 A strict policy, the Board believed, would “change the attitudes of staff and students who were prone to bigotry.”16 With respect to systemic discrimination, the school board initiated a comprehensive plan to promote multiculturalism in the classroom. The goal was to redress the institutionalized ignorance in schools across Toronto. The first step involved the immediate withdrawal of biased textbooks which promoted racial stereotyping or ignored the existence of visible minorities in

Canada.17

Contemporary studies of the history of education demonstrate that history textbooks

13 Ontario, Toronto Board of Education, Draft Report on the Sub-Committee on Race Relations (Toronto, May 1978). 14 Ontario, Toronto Board of Education, Final Report of Sub-Committee on Race Relations (Toronto, 1979), preface. 15 Ibid., 35. 16 Ibid., preface. 17 See: Arthur Dorland, Our Canada (Toronto: Copp Clark, 1949); Donalda Dickie, The Great Adventure: An Illustrated History of Canada for Young Canadians (Toronto: Dent, 1960); Arthur Lower, Canada: A Nation and How it Came to Be (Toronto: Longmans, 1968). 313

during this period delivered a Eurocentric view of Canadian history and venerated Canada’s

British heritage. Many textbooks also utilized the language of race to emphasize Anglo-Saxon superiority.18 History textbooks, for example, dismissed the experiences of Canada’s First

Nations peoples and ignored the experiences of non-English and non-French immigrants. If textbooks acknowledged the existence of the Natives and other immigrant groups in Canada’s history, the acknowledgement often (re)produced negative stereotypes and justified assimilation.19 Some textbooks also propagated the notion that Canada was morally superior to the United States because of the expressed policy of cultural pluralism.20

These biased textbooks, the Toronto Board believed, contributed to the belief that

“certain races are innately more Canadian than others and that minority people have not made any contribution to Canada or World Development.”21 The Toronto Board resolved that only textbooks that mentioned positive contributions of ethnic groups would be adopted. To accomplish this goal, the Board planned to establish review teams to examine existing textbooks and preview committees to examine new textbooks for racial and ethnic bias.22 The Board also initiated race relations courses to be taught as a part of social studies.23 With respect to teacher training, the Toronto Board established seminars on race relations for all new teachers and committed itself to hiring visible minorities.24

18 Daniel Francis, National Dreams: Myth, Memory, and Canadian History (Vancouver: Arsenal Pulp Press, 1997), 53, and Ken Montgomery, “Banal Race-Thinking: Ties of Blood, Canadian History Textbooks and Ethnic Nationalism,” Paedagogica Historica 41, no. 3 (June 2005): 321-322. 19 José Igartua, The Other Quiet Revolution: National Identities in English Canada, 1941-71, 63-83. For example, titles included: Indians of Canada, I Am An Indian, Indians in Transition, and Trapping is My Life. See also: Ontario, Ministry of Education, Circular 14, 1972, 36-40. 20 Daniel Francis, National Dreams, 56, 78. 21 Ontario, Toronto Board of Education, Final Report of Sub-Committee on Race Relations (Toronto, 1979), 7. 22 Ibid. The Board planned to implement the textbook review by 1984. 23 Ibid., 9-11. 24 Ibid., 49, 58. 314

By 1982, school boards across Ontario were more aware of systemic racism. The North

York Board of Education, for example, implemented in-service programs for teachers and principals for on-going training in race relations and instituted affirmative action in hiring and promotions to increase the visibility of racialized minorities in North York schools.25 The

School Board also established a criterion for the purchase of textbooks, visual aids and other materials. Furthermore, to avoid streaming visible minorities into vocational schools, the Board decided to hire a “multicultural consultant” to ensure that proper assessments were made.26

Similar initiatives were taken in Ottawa where the School Board established a multiculturalism committee and hired a consultant to implement policies which would ‘weed out’ systemic racism in Ottawa’s schools.27

The Ontario Ministry of Education also continued to implement anti-racism policy changes. The first order of business was an overhaul of Ontario’s primary and intermediate curriculum. Past textbooks that celebrated Canada’s colonial heritage were phased out and new textbooks which examined the history of immigration to Canada were introduced including:

Canada: Land of Immigrants by Maureen Radley-Walters, Early Days in Upper Canada:

Experiences of Immigration and Settlement, 1790-1840 by David Williams, Immigrants in

Canada by Edith Ferguson and Canada: History in the Making by Gillian Bartlett and Janice

Galivan. Textbooks that highlighted the history of prejudice and discrimination were also introduced. Among them: Black and White in North America by Terence D. Tait, The Exodus of the Japanese by Janice Patton, and The Hutterites: A Study in Prejudice by David Flint.28

25 Ontario, North York Board of Education, Race and Ethnic Relations Policy and Procedures (Toronto, 1982), 7-9. 26 Ibid., 2-5. 27 Canada, Multiculturalism Directorate, “Perceptions of Discrimination and Race Relations in the Nation’s Capital: A Study Prepared for the Multiculturalism Directorate,” 1982, 46. 28 Ontario, Ministry of Education, Circular 14, 1977. See: “History, Intermediate Division.” 315

However, the majority of textbooks sanctioned by the Ministry of Education celebrated and highlighted Canada’s multicultural heritage. Many of these works were produced by The

Multicultural Canada Series – a Ministry program which commissioned various authors to write ethnic histories for classroom use. The series examined various cultural groups in Canada including: Ukrainians, Jews, Scots, Mennonites, the Chinese, Italians and the Japanese. Other

Ministry sanctioned titles included: Many Cultures, Many Heritages by Norman Sheffe and

Origins: Canada’s Multicultural Heritage by Julia Saint and Joan Reid.29 Although these textbooks had their limitations as they did not challenge race as a biological concept, they no longer venerated Whiteness and Anglo-Saxon superiority.

The Ministry also produced race relations packages for Ontario’s schools. These packages included a government statement on race relations which emphasized that Ontario was a “multicultural community.” The Ministry also provided teachers a resource guide entitled

Black Studies which emphasized the cultural and social contributions of Black Canadians to

Ontario.30 These pragmatic initiatives, however, ended by the mid-1980s. The Ministry decided that priority would be given to the expansion of the Heritage Languages Program at the elementary level.31 The Ministry, however, continued to express its commitment to an education system which supported “the principle of equality of status and opportunity for all.”32

By the mid-1980s race relations policies across Ontario were firmly in place. The Metro

Separate School Board, for example, promised to expand ethnic studies programs. The Board also established “cultural exchange programs” to encourage cultural interchange and discourage

29 Ontario, Ministry of Education, Circular 14, 1980. See: “History, Intermediate Division.” 30 Ontario, Ministry of Education, Report of the Minister of Education 1982-1983 (Toronto: The Ministry, 1983), 7. 31 Ontario, Ministry of Education, Report of the Minister of Education 1983-1984, (Toronto: The Ministry, 1984), 13. In 1984, the Heritages Languages Program supported the teaching of 57 languages to 88,853 students. 32 Ontario, Ministry of Education, Report of the Minister of Education 1985-1986 (Toronto: The Ministry, 1986), 14. 316

expressions of racial intolerance. Reviews of texts and teaching materials for racial bias were also underway. Furthermore, School Boards across Ontario also promised to hire and promote teachers and staff “without ethnic or racial bias.” The goal was to ensure that children from minority ethnic backgrounds had the same chance to develop their potential as White children.33

Substantive changes in education occurred for several reasons. It is important to recall that calls for textbook revisions were made during the 1960s. However, it was not until ethnic and human rights organizations exerted substantial pressure on the provincial government during the late 1970s that policy officials began to debate and eventually admit that textbooks needed revisions. One must also emphasize the role of the provincial and federal governments in curriculum revisions. Many of these changes were initiated by the Multiculturalism Directorate and the Minister of State for Multiculturalism; both believed that multiculturalism had to function as a human rights policy. Officials believed that multiculturalism, with its emphasis on heritage, did not elevate “friction of a racial and/or cultural nature” – multiculturalism needed to be a policy of action.34 As a result, officials recognized that multiculturalism needed to be reoriented to serve not only the “ethnics” but Canadian society at large. Other anti-racism policy changes in education were initiated because of increased racial violence in urban centres like

Toronto. No tolerance policies against overt racism and race relations courses for students and teachers were reactive policy changes intended to cure individuals from bias and prejudice.

Public Policy Changes in Policing

Changes in education were followed by public policy changes in policing. As noted in the previous chapter, during the late 1970s, the Toronto Police Force attempted to mediate relations with Toronto’s people of colour by establishing the Police Ethnic Relations Unit consisting of

33 Editorial, “Promoting tolerance in school,” Toronto Star, February 22, 1984. 34 LAC, Minister’s Office – Multiculturalism Policy, RG 6, 89-90/319. Box 5 File: 3250-0 vol.2. 317

Portuguese, Black, Italian, East Indian, Pakistani and Latin American officers. The Police Force believed that the establishment of the Ethnic Squad would serve the needs of Toronto’s ethnic community as the officers were ordered to patrol certain ethnic neighbourhoods. The Chief of

Police argued that the Squad was an example of the force’s commitment to easing strained race relations. Ethnic relations, however, remained uneasy particularly following the fatal shooting of

Albert Johnson. The 12 man Unit of a force of 5400 could do little to mediate problems of cultural conflict in ethnic neighbourhoods. Furthermore, the Unit was not responsible for arbitrating conflicts between racialized minorities and the police force – those complaints had to be filed at the Police Complaints Review Board.35 The small Unit, therefore, had little effect on police relations in Toronto; one member of the Squad admitted that his job was simply a “public relations job” – the idea behind the Unit was to “sell the [police] department” to the people of

Toronto to counter the negative publicity the police force was receiving.36

Similarly, the Liaison Group on Law Enforcement which established four police and minority committees across Metropolitan Toronto was not successful in quelling the distrust between racialized minorities and the Toronto Police Force. Although committees were composed of visible minority representatives and police officials, committee members had little power to initiate change in the methods and procedures associated with policing as they were governed by senior law enforcement officers who were dismissive of claims of police misconduct and police brutality. As a result, many committee members felt frustrated and powerless. The goal of fostering communication between police officials and racialized minorities was therefore unsuccessful and resulted in consistent complaints about police brutality

35 Daiva K. Stasiulis, “Minority Resistance in the Local State: Toronto in the 1970s and 1980s,” 70, and “Ethnic squad walks beat to sell force,” Toronto Star, September 15, 1979. 36 “Ethnic squad walks beat to sell force,” Toronto Star, September 15, 1979. 318

and critiques of police practices. These complaints, however, could not be substantiated because the Police Force refused to release statistical data on racial incidents in the city.37

Poor police and minority relations, however, had the potential to improve according to

Cardinal Gerald Emmett Carter. His 1979 report, discussed in Chapter 4, was seen by government officials as a means to improve police relations with visible minorities. Following the tabling of the report, the provincial government pressed Toronto’s Police Force to implement policies which would result in significant changes to police practices. Toronto’s Police Force responded with many policy initiatives. First, height and weight restrictions of applicants were removed which the Police Force believed would result in the hiring of visible minorities.38

But the new policy was not instituted without resistance from Metro police officers. The union representing nearly 6000 police officers in Toronto opposed any changes to hiring practices as it believed that the new regulations would lower the standards of police work in the city. The union’s president, Mal Connolly, was staunchly opposed to any changes; he believed that Blacks, who were the loudest agitators for change, had no difficulty reaching the existing height and weight standards. Furthermore, Connolly believed that the “so-called racial problem” in the Police Force was being “blown out of proportion.”39 Similar statements were made by

Metro Police Commission Chairman Phil Givens; he agreed that not all police officers were

“angels and paragons of virtue,” however, he asserted that public scrutiny was unwarranted because the Police Force ensured public safety. Police officers, he claimed, were “not philosophers” and he argued that the public expectation that police officers should “sit down and have a god-damn democratic meeting during a shoot-out or burglary” was simply out of the

37 Daiva K. Stasiulis, “Minority Resistance in the Local State: Toronto in the 1970s and 1980s,” 71-72. 38 “Police union vows it will fight change in height, weight rules,” Toronto Star, October 26, 1979. 39 Ibid. 319

question. Givens, therefore, continued to blame strained race relations on individual officers.40 It was after pressure from the Working Group on Police- Minority Relations, which consisted of 20 civil and minority groups, the Liaison Group on Law Enforcement and Race Relations and the

Albert Johnson Committee, that height and weight restrictions were finally removed.41

The Metropolitan Board of Commissioners of Police also formed a race relations committee that had also been recommended by the Carter Report. The committee met with ethnic groups on a bi-weekly basis to discuss race relations in Toronto. Jack Ackroyd, the chief of police, believed that these new policies would “encourage individual officers and members of the public to get to know each other better and thus engender a greater sense of harmony and co- operation between the community and the policeman.” Ackroyd also believed that these policy initiatives would “improve the caliber of policing” Toronto.42

The major policy change in policing in the city was the establishment of an independent complaints system – a topic which had been deliberated in the 1976 Royal Commission Report into Metropolitan Police Practices.43 Calls for a more transparent complaints system were also made by several enquiries discussed in the previous chapter and by the Liaison Group on Law

Enforcement since 1977. It was Carter’s Report, however, that resulted in change. The

Archbishop who was appointed by the city, was very critical of the fact that the responsibility for investigating and adjudicating citizens’ complaints remained under the purview of the Police

Force. The provincial government agreed with the Archbishop’s assertion that an independent body to investigate complaints needed to be established and promised forthcoming legislation.

40 “Minorities put police leader under the gun,” Toronto Star, April 5, 1980. 41 Ibid. 42 “Police force is changing with the times, chief says,” Toronto Star, April 20, 1981. 43 Ontario. Royal Commission into Metropolitan Toronto Police Practices. Report of the Ontario Royal Commission into Metropolitan Toronto Police Practices (Toronto: Ministry of the Attorney General, 1976). 320

Calls for the establishment of an independent investigation bureau gained momentum following police raids on Toronto’s gay bathhouses. Minorities saw these raids as an infringement of civil liberties and an example of excessive police powers. Debates about excessive police powers resulted in the formation of several groups including the Group on Minority-Police

Relations and the Citizen's Independent Review of Police Activities (CIRPA) which formed in

1981. The Group on Minority-Police Relations was established in 1980 following the publication of racist comments in News and Views, the Toronto Police Association journal. The group’s efforts focused on pressing the Police Commission and the Solicitor-General, Roy McMurtry, to establish a citizens’ review board of police actions. The group also called for the recruitment of visible minorities to the police force and improved race relations training of police officers.

CIRPA was particularly active in critiquing police misconduct. The group had several aims. The organization vowed that it would review all allegations of police misconduct in Toronto and promised to assist victims of police brutality and misconduct in pursuing their complaints by funding legal representation. CIRPA also believed in public education; the organization prepared briefs, produced educational articles in the CIRPA Review and published information about the police officers accused of misconduct. Like the Group on Minority-Police Relations, CIRPA also called for affirmative action and major reforms to ensure that Toronto’s citizens received fair treatment from police officers and the Metro Toronto Police Commission.44

These citizens groups were effective in pressuring the provincial government into action.

In 1981, the provincial legislature passed the Metropolitan Police Force Complaints Project Act

44 See: “Bad climate in police debate,” Toronto Star, April 1, 1980; “Minorities put police leader under the gun,” Toronto Star, April 5, 1980; and Munyonzwe Hamalengwa, “A Contribution to the Debate on Civilian Control of Police Powers in Toronto, 1980-1989” (Paper Presented to Investigating Crime and Apprehending Suspects: Police Powers and Citizens Rights, Conference Organized by the Society For The Reform of the Criminal Law, Sydney, Australia, March 19th-24th, 1989). 321

which established a public Complaints Investigation Bureau where any member of the public could go and file a complaint against a police officer.45 The legislation, however, had many deficiencies and did little to alter police relations with Toronto’s racialized minorities. The largest weakness of the new Act was that the Complaints Bureau lacked independent oversight as it was established as a branch of the Metropolitan Police Force and was governed by the chief of police who was responsible for receiving, recording and investigating complaints against police officers. Furthermore, procedural rules limited structural changes in the Police Force as complainants were encouraged to resolve their grievance in an informal matter with the accused police officer. If a complainant chose to pursue the grievance in a formal manner, their complaint was filed by the chief of police to the civilian Public Complaints Commissioner who was responsible for monitoring the investigation. The final review of the investigation, however, was conducted by the police chief who had the power to pursue the complaint with further investigation or take no action at all. If the police chief decided to pursue the complaint, it was referred to the Police Complaints Board. The Board was comprised of 24 individuals chosen by the Attorney General, the Police Commission and the Toronto Council. If the police officer in question was found guilty, disciplinary proceedings were taken under the Police Act. 46

The new system of filing complaints did not significantly alter previous ways of handling citizen-police complaints. The Police Commission continued to receive, investigate and adjudicate complaints of police wrongdoing. Many complaints were not taken seriously by the Complaints

Bureau. Most cases, Cyril Cole, the head of the Complaints Bureau argued were “frivolous” and

45 An Act for the establishment and conduct of a Project in the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto to improve methods of processing Complaints by members of the Public against Police Officers on the Metropolitan Police Force, Statutes of the Province of Ontario 1981, Bill 68. 46 Ibid. 322

he worried that continued criticism of Metropolitan Police would lower recruitment and bring a bad name to Toronto.47 Ethnic minorities, however, believed that the police exercised too much power. Between December 1981 and March 1982, 460 complaints were filed against Toronto’s

Police Force, mainly for name-calling and excessive use of force.48

The newly-established Public Complaints Bureau failed to scrutinize institutional racism within the Toronto Police Force. The Complaints Bureau simply became a forum where grievances were heard and little action was taken. Systemic racial profiling was never discussed and police relations rested on the opinions of the chief of police. Other initiatives also failed to examine race relations training within the police force and did not critically assess the hiring practices or promotional procedures of the force. Although height and weight restrictions were removed, proactive policies were not implemented and the police force failed to attract ethnic minorities to the police force.49 Furthermore, the lectures designed to teach immigrants about policing and law in Canada assume that strained race relations were a result of a lack of adaptation on the part of new immigrants. As a result, debates about police relations with ethnic minorities continued and relations remained strained. Despite this, Sergeant Ed Pearson, head of the Ethnic Squad and many senior police officers argued that relations with minorities were

“fine.” Ethnic groups disagreed. Many felt that if they filed a complaint against the police they were often reprimanded with a charge of mischief.50 Bromley Armstrong, for example, argued that Toronto’s people of colour continued to have no confidence in the police. Nothing, he argued, had changed.51 These criticisms prompted the Metropolitan Police Force to hire a

47 “Hero of Noronic fire, ‘tough cop’ Cole calling it quits,” Toronto Star, January 11, 1982. 48 “Policing the police,” Toronto Star, March 27, 1982. 49 “Policeman, panel disagree on treatment of minorities,” Toronto Star, October 25, 1981. 50 Ibid. 51 Ibid. 323

civilian general manager and a public relations director. Police officers on the streets were also ordered not to speak the media about police relations in the city.52

The Revision of the Ontario Human Rights Code

The lack of substantive changes in police practices and procedures resulted in continued pressure for institutional changes from racialized minorities in Toronto.53 The Ontario Human

Rights Commission believed that concerns about the structural nature of racism in Canadian society could be resolved by strengthening the existing Ontario Human Rights Code which seemed archaic because it focused on expressions of individual, rather than systemic racism. The original Ontario Human Rights Code was enacted in 1962 and was designed to protect individuals from discrimination in employment, housing and public services. It was a conciliatory vehicle where individuals could bring forth their grievances. The existing process relied heavily on conciliation and “a process of re-education with the respondent” that was

“practicing discrimination.” If the respondent was not willing to take the “settlement-oriented approach” a board of inquiry was called to adjudicate the dispute in question.54

Calls for a revision of the Code had been expressed for some time. In 1974, the New

Democratic Party pressured Premier Bill Davis to establish a committee to assess the “broad aspects” of discrimination and to determine whether the Commission placed “too much emphasis upon the individual coming forward and instituting a complaint.”55 Another criticism of the

Code was that it did not extend to religious, philanthropic, educational or social organizations.

Private clubs were also not bound by this legislation which resulted in the continued existence of

White supremacist organizations.56 The NDP also pressed for protection against discrimination

52 “300 offer to help police relations (for $50,000 a year),” Toronto Star, October 24, 1982. 53 “Policeman, panel disagree on treatment of minorities,” Toronto Star, October 25, 1981. 54 M. Eberlee and D. G. Hill, “The Ontario Human Rights Code,” 50. 55 Ontario, Legislative Assembly, Debates and Proceedings (15 November 1974), p. 5347. 324

based on sexual orientation and physical disability to be enshrined in the Ontario Human Rights

Code.57 Various ethnic and human rights groups, most notably the Urban Alliance and the Civil

Liberties Association, also argued for a stronger Code as the existing Code was viewed as ineffectual. One major weakness of the legislation was that the OHRC could not initiate complaints.58 This major inadequacy was highlighted when Toronto’s people of colour experienced racial violence. The debate over strengthening the existing legislation was lengthy and demonstrates that state agents struggled with notions and definitions of “rights.” Ultimately the Ontario Human Rights Code was revised in 1981; its revision demonstrates that racial incidents in Toronto contributed to the philosophical shift in the meaning of rights in Ontario.

A Review of the Ontario Human Rights Code

In 1975, the Minister and Deputy Minister of Labour of Ontario resolved that continued political pressure to assess the effectiveness of the Ontario Human Rights Commission would require a review of the existing Ontario Human Rights Code. Thomas Symons, founding president of Trent University, was appointed to head the review. Symons argued that a complete review was needed “in order to keep abreast of changing and emerging social tensions in the province” and because of the “changing human rights needs of the residents of Ontario.”59 The

56 M. Eberlee and D. G. Hill, “The Ontario Human Rights Code,” 451. For example, the Loyal Order of Moose, a white supremacist organization required recruits to certify the following: “…I am of sound mind and body, being a member of the Caucasian, white race, and not married to one of any other race, and a believer in a Supreme Being.” 16,000 Ontarians claimed membership to the society. The OHRC had no jurisdiction under the Code to challenge such blatantly racist organizations. See: Ian A. Hunter, “The Development of the Ontario Human Rights Code: A Decade in Retrospect,” 252. 57 Ontario, Legislative Assembly, Debates and Proceedings (6 May 1976), p. 2032. NDP members of Parliament also argued that Ontario had an international commitment to harmonize provincial laws to ensure the equality provisions which were outlined in the United Nations International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; covenants which Canada had signed in 1975. See: Ontario, Legislative Assembly, Debates and Proceedings (16 December 1975), p. 1741. 58 Trent University, Thomas Symons Fonds, Accession number 01-003. Box 32, Folder 2: “Ontario Human Rights Commission minutes 1975-1977.” [28 November 1975 meeting]. 59 Trent University, Thomas Symons Fonds, Accession number 01-003. Box 32, Folder 2: “Ontario Human Rights Commission minutes 1975-1977.” [1 May 1975 meeting]; and Trent University, Thomas Symons Fonds, Accession 325

Ontario Human Rights Commission agreed that a revision was necessary “to strengthen the

Human Rights Code, to improve the structure and operations of the Human Rights Commission, and to encourage responsive, effective community and educational programmes in the field of human rights.”60

The review process consisted of two stages. The first was a period of research which was undertaken by the OHRC. The goal was to get an understanding of the state of human rights in

Ontario, to learn about human rights legislation and to clarify the judicial ramifications of a possible revision of the Code. The second stage consisted of public hearings to discuss relevant issues with respect to human rights in Ontario.

In January 1976, the OHRC placed advertisements in newspapers and magazines and the ethnic press to encourage organizations interested in human rights issues to submit briefs. The

OHRC also issued a news release which gave the public a notice of the public hearings which were to begin in April. Following seventeen public hearings, the final public meeting on the review of the Code was held in Toronto on 16 September 1976. When the hearings concluded, the OHRC had received 334 submissions from concerned groups and individuals. The result of the review and public hearings was the publication of a report entitled Life Together: A Report on Human Rights in Ontario.61 The report catalogued discrimination according to race, creed, colour, nationality, ancestry, place of origin, age, sex, marital or family relationship, physical disability, criminal record and sexual orientation.

number 01-003. Box 32, Folder 4: “Some Documents and Correspondence regarding the Review of the Ontario Human Rights Code.” [Letter dated 29 January 1976]. 60 Trent University, Thomas Symons Fonds, Accession number 01-003. Box 32, Folder 2: “Ontario Human Rights Commission minutes 1975-1977.” [Undated letter of T.M. McMillan, Executive Officer, OHRC]. 61 Canada. Ontario Human Rights Commission. Life Together: A Report on Human Rights in Ontario (Toronto: Ontario Human Rights Commission, 1977), 5. 326

The Life Together Report made ninety-seven recommendations with respect to the revision of the existing Code and demonstrated that a “full scale revision” of the Code was necessary. The Report argued that it was essential to redefine and extend human rights so that

Ontarians could continue to live in an “atmosphere of mutual understanding.”62 Since there was an increase in intolerance and overt racism, the Report argued that the Commission needed a stronger “legislative mandate to move preventatively into areas of inter-group tension before crises develop.”63 The Report stated: “[i]f there is not freedom for the community to develop in harmony and peace, then there cannot be secure freedom for the individual who lives within it.”64 The OHRC believed its mandate should be to develop “community standards” which all groups would have the right “to live in harmony.”65

The Report also suggested a stronger Ontario Human Rights Commission that could deal with the changing nature of social relations. One of the Commission’s major criticisms of the government was that not enough funds and resources were available to adequately deal with victim complaints. In fact, in the fiscal year of 1975-1976, five hundred complaints were left unresolved because of an inadequate budget.66 Since 1975, the Commission had experienced a

“tremendous increase in the number of community related cases of a racial or ethnic nature” and as a result, it called on the government for more funds.67

The Report also emphasized the increasingly multicultural nature of Ontario and saw the need for a more accessible Ontario Human Rights Code which would be a “document for the

62 Ibid., 5. 63 Ibid., 9. 64 Ibid., 18. 65 Ibid., 18. 66 Ibid., 9. The budget for human rights for 1974-1975 was $59,000. The following year, the budget was reduced to $22,000. See: 38. 67 Ibid., 10. 327

people.”68 To make the OHRC more accessible, the Report called for a more easy-to-read Code and the creation of translated versions to accommodate the language needs of Ontario’s residents. The Report also recommended that the government and all governmental agencies be bound by the Code to assert the importance of human rights in Ontario.69 Furthermore, Life

Together suggested that the government reconsider the placement of the Commission within the

Ministry of Labour because it made the Commission less accountable and accessible to the public.70

Lastly and most importantly, the Report argued that human rights legislation needed to go beyond protecting individuals from discrimination to the institutional roots of discrimination.

The Report was important because it demonstrated and argued that racism was not caused by overt discrimination perpetuated by individuals but by some deeper-rooted problems in society.

Unlike some who expressed the belief that racial tensions were caused by an increase in immigration or bigoted individuals, Life Together argued that racial tensions were a part of a long tradition of attitudes.71 The philosophical shift from the original 1962 Act was evident.

This philosophical shift accompanied a policy shift that emphasized redress, positive rights and community building rather than protections against individual acts of discrimination. This shift emphasized moving toward anti-racism programs instead of simply reacting to individual complaints. Institutionalized discrimination, the Report argued, is “the most pervasive discrimination today [and] often results from unconscious and seemingly neutral practices which

68 Ibid., 23-25. In 1976, one in 4 Toronto residents were Anglo-Saxon as compared to 8 out of 10 during the 1950s. 69 Ibid., 92-93. 70 Ibid., 93-95. Wilson Head, chairman of the Urban Alliance on Race Relations, criticized the OHRC because it was “an official agency funded by the Government of Ontario.” The Ontario Advisory Council on Multiculturalism argued that the OHRC “ought to be an independent instrument of government, answerable and accountable directly to the legislature and responsible for its own budget.” Ibid., 27-29. 71 Ibid., 14. 328

may, none the less, be as detrimental to human rights as the more overt and intentional kind of discrimination.”72 As this form of discrimination was more complex, the Commission recommended that the Code include the opportunity for complaints to be filed by a “class of persons” rather than merely on an individual basis. Furthermore, the Report called for affirmative action programs and a stronger more viable Ontario Human Rights Code and concluded with a draft of the legislation envisioned by the OHRC.73

The Life Together Report was completed and published in July 1977 but was neglected until 4 May 1978 when it was officially tabled by the Minister of Labour, Bette Stephenson.74

This neglect can be attributed to the lack of public support and the hesitance of the Progressive-

Conservative government to enact legislation which would prohibit discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation. In fact, much of the debate in 1977 focused on the inclusion of sexual orientation into the Code.75

72 Ibid., 33. 73 Ibid., 34, 36. 74 Ontario, Legislative Assembly, Debates and Proceedings (4 May 1978), p. 2251. 75 In Life Together, the discussion of discrimination based on sexual orientation spanned a mere two pages. The Report argued that homosexuals lived in “constant fear” and were subjected to “frequent and extensive discrimination.” Despite the brief manner in which the Report dealt with the inclusion of sexual orientation into the Code, it was the most widely discussed aspect in the media. Supporters argued that the inclusion of sexual orientation would “provide homosexuals with the security of knowing that they have legal rights, including the right the appeal unfair treatment in housing and employment.” Many, however, opposed the inclusion of sexual orientation on moral and religious grounds. One article stated, “[t]he question, then, is how far society can go in guaranteeing [homosexuals] civil rights without actually encouraging homosexuality.” See: Canada. Ontario Human Rights Commission. Life Together: A Report on Human Rights in Ontario (Toronto: Ontario Human Rights Commission, 1977), 108 and Ontario Archives. RG 7-1, Acc 20569, Box 2. Code Review- Press Reports: Life Together 1977. Political opposition to the inclusion of sexual orientation into the Code was also voiced. For example, John William, a Progressive-Conservative MPP argued that the Legislature was attempting to legalize social behaviour and argued that homosexuality was a “sartorial preference or perhaps leisure time preference….compulsively-repeated homosexual acts when heterosexual partners are freely available constitute a distortion or deviation from basic, instinctual drives. The fact that society as a whole recognizes abnormality in homosexual behaviour does not mean that the homosexual is deprived of his civil rights, as suggested by the homosexual community.” In contrast to William’s view, the NDP wholeheartedly supported legislation to protect gays and lesbians arguing that many had “a quite natural ability to relate sexually and emotionally to others of the same sex…homosexuality is not an illness and not a mental disorder and that it is a predominant and permanent characteristic of a significant portion of the population.” See: Ontario, Legislative Assembly, Debates and Proceedings (6 May 1976), p. 2034-2035 and Ontario, Legislative Assembly, Debates and Proceedings (28 April 1977), p. 1018. On a point of interest: the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation had banned public service 329

The Movement for the Revision of the Ontario Human Rights Code

Strained race relations and consistent enquiries into racism in Toronto resulted in the provincial government’s admission that there was a need for more comprehensive human rights legislation to effectively address “the problems of the minorities and disadvantaged groups in society…”76 During the 1980 Throne Speech, the Minister of Labour promised to amend the

Code and expressed the government’s commitment to “educational and preventative programs.”77 The minister also hired nine new field officers and a lawyer to act as counsel for the Commission. The roles of the new field officers were preventative and focused on education.78 On 25 November 1980, the provincial government introduced Bill 209 “An Act to revise and extend Protection of Human Rights in Ontario.”79 The new Act introduced 23 new provisions which expanded the Code to cover new groups, extended protection against certain types of conduct and introduced new provisions with respect to the administration of the Code.

The revisions were nearly identical to the recommendations made in the Life Together Report.

The acceptance of Life Together by the government had, as the Minster of Labour noted,

“symbolic importance.”80

As the Act was debated in the Legislature, the OHRC was given new remedial powers.

The Boards of Inquiry, for example, could “issue orders requiring landlords and employers to

announcements for gay groups and York University refused to rent rooms to same-sex couples. See: Ontario, Legislative Assembly, Debates and Proceedings (28 April 1977), p.1018. 76 Ontario, Legislative Assembly, Debates and Proceedings (19 June, 1980), p. 3071. The NDP was particularly critical of Dorothea Crittenden, the chair of the OHRC, who had done little to ease racial tensions. In fact, since her appointment in 1978, Crittenden had not made any public statements about “matters affecting racism.” What concerned the NDP most was the 900 case backlog which the party argued had shaken the credibility of the Ontario Human Rights Commission among ethnic minorities in Ontario. See: Ontario, Legislative Assembly, Debates and Proceedings (6 May 1980), p.1505. 77 Ontario, Legislative Assembly, Debates of the Resource Development Committee (1979), R-961- R-964. 78 Ontario, Legislative Assembly, Debates and Proceedings (24 October 1980), p. 3728. 79 Ontario, Legislative Assembly, Debates and Proceedings (25 November 1980), p. 4592. 80 Ontario, Legislative Assembly, Debates and Proceedings (25 November 1980), p. 4594. 330

take appropriate action to prevent future harassment”81 This measure was instituted to “prevent the vicious incidents of racial taunting and attacks” which had been plaguing large cities like

Toronto. More importantly, the Commission was given the power to recommend and implement affirmative action. This new measure, according to the government, was meant to rectify systemic discrimination and serve as a means of “overcoming historic disadvantage.”82

Although the bill was supported in principle, the passage of the legislation was once hampered with debate over the inclusion of sexual orientation into the Act. The drafted legislation omitted sexual orientation to the dismay of many Liberal and NDP MPP’s who argued that the “simple inclusion would have shown leadership on the government’s part.”83 The

1980 legislative session expired before the third reading and the proposed Act to revise of Code died on the Order Paper.84

In the spring of 1981, the “Act to revise and extend Protection of Human Rights in

Ontario” was once again reintroduced as Bill 7.85 Both the Liberal party and the New

Democratic Party moved to have sexual orientation included in the revised Code.86 As debates continued over the inclusion of sexual orientation, Progressive Conservative MPP’s pressed for the passage of the Bill arguing that although the legislation was no perfect it was “a sincere attempt to reach what we may call perfection in our relations with our fellow human beings.”

The goal was to change the “bigoted” society.87 The emphasis from the 1962 Code had shifted –

81 Ontario, Legislative Assembly, Debates and Proceedings (25 November 1980), p. 4593. 82 Ontario, Legislative Assembly, Debates and Proceedings (9 December 1980), p. 5098-5099. 83 Ontario, Legislative Assembly, Debates and Proceedings (9 December 1980), p. 5133. 84 Ontario, Legislative Assembly, Debates and Proceedings (15 May 1981), p. 788. 85 Ontario, Legislative Assembly, Debates and Proceedings (24 April 1981), p. 70. 86 Ontario, Legislative Assembly, Debates and Proceedings (15 May 1981), p. 746 (Liberal amendment.) Ontario, Legislative Assembly, Debates and Proceedings (19 May 1981), p. 773-774 (NDP amendment.) The amendment was supported by the Canadian Labour Congress, the Ontario Federation of Labour, union labour councils in Toronto and Oshawa, and the Canadian Civil Liberties Association. Much of the debate focused on whether homosexuality was a ‘legitimate’ or ‘acceptable’ lifestyle. 331

the legislature realized that prejudice was rooted in social structures and institutions. It was not only individuals who harboured discrimination. The new Act challenged the notion that individuals needed protection and emphasized the need to attack systemic discrimination.

A few MPP’s expressed hesitation at supporting the revised Code. For example, one

Progressive Conservative MPP argued:

I do not think we have the power as a government or that we have the mandate from the electorate to demand how people will think or act. We want people to act decently and civilly and humanely, one to another. That is the ideal of democracy. I think we are farther along that road than anyone else.88

Justice McRuer, Chief Justice of Ontario disagreed:

Although freedom of the individual is a basic right, it is a limited one…In a well-ordered society, there cannot be freedom in the abstract nor in the absolute. If there is not freedom for the community to develop in harmony and piece, there cannot be secure freedom for the individual who lives within it…89

The Ontario Human Rights Commission concurred arguing that “[i]t is too easy to say that morality cannot be legislated. Acts of discrimination can be prohibited. That in itself ultimately reduces the level of prejudice.”90 The Minister of Labour, Robert Elgie attempted to balance the views of his party and the opposition arguing that the government had to balance individual rights with group rights:

We all know there is a very fine balance in society with regard to respect for human rights. There will be many who will say we have gone too far, and there will be many who will say we have not gone far enough….

Elgie’s goal was to ease social and racial tensions and to create “respect for our fellow human beings.”91 In June 1981, the “Act to revise the Ontario Human Rights Code” was sent to the

87 Ontario, Legislative Assembly, Debates and Proceedings (15 May 1981), p. 789-790. 88 Ontario, Legislative Assembly, Debates and Proceedings (22 May 1981), p. 900. 89 Ontario, Legislative Assembly, Debates and Proceedings (9 December 1980), p. 5100. 90 Canada. Ontario Human Rights Commission. Life Together: A Report on Human Rights in Ontario, 20. 91 Ontario, Legislative Assembly, Debates and Proceedings (25 May 1981), p. 957. 332

Standing Committee on Resource Development where it went through inspection, 26 days of hearings and 150 public submissions. While there was no unanimity on the bill, when it returned to the House it received its third reading on 7 December and Royal Assent on 11 December,

1981.92 The new Ontario Human Rights Code came into effect on 15 June 1982.93 After many years of debate, the new Act had been enacted proclaiming that it was now:

public policy in Ontario to recognize the dignity and worth of every person and to provide for equal rights and opportunities without discrimination that is contrary to law, and having as its aim the creation of a climate of understanding and mutual respect for the dignity and worth of each person so that each person feels a part of the community and is able to contribute fully to the development and well-being of the community and the Province.94

The eventual revision of the Code represented a significant shift in the meaning of human rights in Ontario and enhanced role for the Ontario Human Rights Commission within society.

The focus shifted from an emphasis on protecting individuals from individual acts of discrimination to providing individuals with positive rights. With respect to visible minorities, the Code proclaimed certain rights which promoted equal opportunity. For example, the Code declared that all citizens, regardless of race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship or creed, had “the right to equal treatment with respect to services, goods and facilities… [and] equal treatment with respect to the occupancy of accommodation.” The Code also declared that visible minorities had the right to equal treatment in employment and a “right to freedom from harassment in the workplace.”95

The revamped Human Rights Code also established a Race Relations Division within the

92 Ontario, Legislative Assembly, Debates and Proceedings (7 December 1981), p. 4313 and Ontario, Legislative Assembly, Debates and Proceedings (11 December 1981), p. 4568. 93 Judith Keene, Human Rights in Ontario (Toronto: Carswell, 1992), 1. 94 An Act to Revise and Extend Protection of Human Rights in Ontario, Statutes of the Province of Ontario 1981, c.53. p. 249. 95 Ibid., 249-250. 333

OHRC. Bhausaheb Ubale was appointed as head commisioner of the Divison. Ubale made addressing institutional racism his top priority as he believed that ignoring structural discrimination would result in “terrible consequences, 10 to 15 years from now.” His 10 year plan included fighting “discrimination in the workplace, in academic institutions, and everywhere that denial of opportunity exists.”96 Ubale made the role of the Race Relations

Division clear: the Division existed to attack systemic racism in Ontario. His mandate included establishing a policy of “equal rights and opportunities,” actively promoting the Human Rights

Act, establishing public educative measures “designed to eliminate discriminatory practices,” examining laws which conflicted with the new Human Rights Code and assisting organizations and agencies in their fight against discrimination.97

Although the new Ontario Human Rights Code excluded protections against discrimination based on sexual orientation, the new Act represented an important achievement in the history of human rights in Ontario. 98 The Act was a significant step forward in both real and symbolic terms. The new Code expanded the prohibited grounds of discrimination and enacted wide-ranging remedial measures to prevent discrimination based on race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sex, age, marital status, family and handicap.

On the practical side, the new Ontario Human Rights Code differed greatly from the previous 1962 Act. The system which once focused on individual expressions of racism was replaced by preventative legislation which sought to achieve equality and equity. The preamble of the new Code expressed this philosophical shift noting that the province recognized “the

96 “Racial Violence: Wave of Tomorrow?,” Toronto Star, January 7, 1980. 97 An Act to Revise and Extend Protection of Human Rights in Ontario, Statutes of the Province of Ontario 1981, c.53. p. 259-260. 98 In 1986, an amendment was passed extending protection against discrimination because of sexual orientation. See: Judith Keene, Human Rights in Ontario, 1. 334

inherent dignity and the equal and inalienable rights of all” and expressed that it was the “public policy of Ontario that every person is free and equal in dignity and rights without regard to race, creed, colour, nationality, ancestry or place of origin.”99 (See Appendix F for substantive parts of the 1981 Act.) Furthermore, the Act proclaimed that the Human Rights Code took precedence over all legislation; all government agencies and government statutes were bound to the principles of the Code. This primacy of the legislation was significant as it reinforced the notion that Ontario accepted the principle of freedom from discrimination.

Federal Initiatives – Equality Now!

The federal government also began to initiate anti-discrimination policies. With the passage of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 1981, the federal government argued that the new constitutional era demanded a new approach to combat racism. The Charter coupled with the tabling of the Situation Reports in 1982, resulted in significant policy endeavours aimed at eradicating systemic racism. The most significant commitment to eradicating structural inequality in Canada occurred on 13 December 1982 when the House of Commons announced a

Task Force on the Participation of Visible Minorities in Canadian Society.100 The goal of the

Task Force was to investigate “models of harmonious relations between visible minority

Canadians and other Canadians, particularly in institutional areas” and to seek the views of

Canadians on how to improve racial tolerance.101 The establishment of the Task Force was

99 An Act to establish the Ontario Code of Human Rights and to provide for its Administration, Statutes of the Province of Ontario 1962, c. 93. 100 The Task Force was chaired by Bob Daudlin (Liberal MP from Essex-Kent, Ontario) and was composed of the following members: Norm Kelly (Liberal from Scarborough Centre), Laverne Lewycky (NPR from Daughin-Swan River, Manitoba), Gary McCauley (Liberal from Moncton New Brunswick), Gus Mitges (Progressive Conservative from Grey-Simcoe, Ontario), Steve Paproski (Progressive Conservative, Edmonton North, Alberta), Michel Veillette (Liberal from Chaplain Quebec) See: Canada. Parliament. House of Commons. Special Committee on Participation of Visible Minorities in Canadian Society. Equality now!: Minutes of proceedings and evidence of the Special Committee on Participation of Visible Minorities in Canadian Society (Ottawa: Queen's Printer, 1984). 101 Ibid., preface. 335

significant as it was a recognition by the Canadian state that structural inequality was a common problem – the problem of racism was no longer exclusive to Toronto and other major urban centres in Canada. Racism was widespread and needed collective action. The Task Force was therefore intended to result in a comprehensive national policy on race relations.

The Task Force received hundreds of briefs and submissions as they travelled to nine cities across Canada (Ottawa, Halifax, Montréal, Toronto, Winnipeg, Regina, Yellowknife,

Whitehourse, Edmonton and Vancouver).102 The Task Force’s final report, entitled Equality

Now!, concluded that visible minorities were “not participating fully in Canadian society” because of the belief that they would “not fit the structures of public and private institutions.” As with earlier enquires into racism, Equality Now! found that visible minorities were denied participation in institutions such as police departments, government services, universities, media organizations and private companies.103 Employment practices at various institutions demonstrated this reality.104

Equality Now! made important observations about the nature of racism in Canadian society. First, the Report rejected the notion that individuals were the sole purveyors of discrimination. The Report, for example, rejected Walter Pitman’s composite of a typical racist and argued that the solutions expressed by Pitman were too “elusive.” The Task Force argued that discrimination was expressed by both individuals and society at large because

“[i]ndividuals are influenced by the manner in which they see others being treated.”105 The

Report argued that policies and practices of institutions, however, were unintentional and as a

102 Ibid., 6. 103 Ibid., 1. 104 Ibid., 1. 105 Ibid., 123. 336

result they needed immediate attention.106 The observations and conclusions made by the

Committee echoed those made in the Situation Reports; Canada, the Task Force argued, was a

“vertical mosaic.”107 The federal government, the report concluded, had a responsibility “to remove all roadblocks preventing the full participation of all citizens in the cultural, social, economic, and political life of the country.” The government had a duty to keep “individual and institutional practices [in check] to ensure that minorities are able to retain their culture and are not denied equality of opportunity.”108

Equality Now! made 80 recommendations which focused on social integration, employment, legal and justice issues, media representation and education. The report concurred with previous studies and asserted that institutional racism restricted equal opportunity. With respect to social integration the Task Force argued that it required “mutual adjustment and mutual resolution” on the part of visible minorities and the White majority.109 This would be achieved through language training programs and continued funding for immigrant settlement programs, broad based community organizations, inter-cultural training programs, majority youth organizations and multicultural events. Many of these programs were funded by the

Multiculturalism Directorate; the Task Force emphasized that multiculturalism would continue to ameliorate racial tensions in Canada. Social integration, the Report argued, could also be facilitated if the federal government encouraged visible minorities to participate in the political process including electoral politics.110

To rid Canada of systemic discrimination in employment, the Task Force recommended

106 Ibid, 6. 107 Ibid., 5. 108 Ibid., 5. 109 Ibid., 12. 110 Ibid., 9-28. 337

the implementation of affirmative action in the public and private sectors as a remedial measure to ensure equality and equity in employment opportunities. The Report also called on the government to recognize foreign credentials so that visible minorities would not experience employment discrimination and economic hardship.111 To control the spread of racial hatred, the

Report called for stronger legislation against hate propaganda and stricter penalties for racially motivated crimes.112 To ensure that visible minorities were protected by the law, the Report called for continued cross-cultural training of law enforcement personnel.113

The report also accused the media of not reflecting the multiracial nature of Canada and advised the government to encourage media institutions to contribute to “promoting harmonious relations among the ethnic and racial groups which make up Canada’s population.”114 Media representations were important because they shaped social values and fostered national unity.115

With respect to education policy, the Task Force was reluctant to make many recommendations because education fell under the purview of provincial governments. However, the Report advised school boards across Canada to develop and implement race relations policies to improve “sensitivity, tolerance and respect” in Canada’s schools.116 These policy recommendations included: reviews of their curricula, the establishment of programs to control verbal and physical racial harassment, teacher training in “multicultural education” and “cultural pluralism” and the implementation of affirmative action by School Boards and post secondary institutions across Canada.117 The Task Force also recommended that the federal government

111 Ibid., 32-41. 112 Ibid., 69-74. 113 Ibid., 83-84. 114 Ibid., 94-95, 96. 115 Ibid., 94, 96. The Report argued that progress was being made. For example, the CBC established a training program for visible minorities in 1983 and promised to hire 8 trainees. A Toronto radio station, CKFM, hired a minority journalist. Lastly, the Toronto Star promised to increase coverage of ethnic minorities and initiated a policy of not referring to a person’s ‘race’ in reports. 116 Ibid., 117. 338

increase its support for multiculturalism; the committee called for the creation of a Ministry of

Multiculturalism and a Standing Committee on Multiculturalism as well as increased support for the Canadian Multicultural Council to ensure that race relations would not deteriorate as they had in the past.118

A Critique of Equality Now!

Following the release of the Equality Now! report, the federal government responded with a firm commitment to implement the policies suggested in the report.119 The government response to the Equality Now! report affirmed its recognition of institutional racism. Although the report expressed the government’s unequivocal commitment to ridding Canada of social inequalities, it did have several shortcomings and expressed many contradictions. First, with the exception of the internment of Japanese Canadians during World War II, the report did not emphasize that racism and discrimination had a long history in Canada.120 In fact, the report asserted the very opposite as it argued that Canada was a modern nation which had “a long history of innovation, accommodation and tolerance.”121 It was the “increasingly multicultural and multiracial” aspect of Canadian society that had brought many roadblocks to Canada’s people of colour.122 Simultaneously, the report argued that Canada had “always been multicultural and multiracial.”123 The report also argued that there were not many institutions

117 Ibid., 117-133. 118 Ibid., 55-56. 119 Canada. Parliament. House of Commons. Special Committee on Participation of Visible Minorities in Canadian Society. Response of the Government of Canada to Equality now! : The report of the Special Parliamentary Committee on Visible Minorities in Canadian Society (Ottawa: Minister of Supply and Services Canada, 1984). 120 Ibid., 61. The Task Force recommended that the federal government offer Japanese Canadians a formal apology and a redress package for the internment and forcible relocation of 21,000 Japanese Canadians during World War II. The Japanese Canadian Redress Agreement was signed on September 22, 1988 by Prime Minister Brian Mulroney. 121 Ibid., 1. 122 Ibid., 1. 123 Ibid., 3. 339

with rules which denied people of colour equality of access – most institutions, the report suggested, were unintentional in their exclusion. Furthermore, the report asserted that most

Canadians were accepting and did not exhibit intolerance. The Task Force asserted that “there are significant numbers of Canadian who are not racists and who would not consciously deny equality of opportunity.”124 Only 15% of the Canadian population was “blatantly racist” and only

20-25% exhibited “racist tendencies.” Racism, the Commission asserted, was often unintentional as even those who were “very tolerant…[could] engage in racism without knowing it or meaning to do so.”125 The report, therefore, was saturated with the mythology of racelessness in Canada.

The strength of Equality Now! lay in its emphasis on racialized voices. Sam Singh from

Toronto argued that as an East Indian immigrant he consciously rejected his culture as to act like the “white majority” and avoid “troubles.” Singh conformed his “dress, attitudes [and] habits” to exude to what he believed meant being Canadian.126 He believed that discrimination occurred because of White intolerance and immigrant “clannishness.”127Angela Kan from Vancouver asserted that Chinese immigrants experienced limited employment opportunities because may lacked English language skills. A lack of employment opportunities, Kan argued, could result in

“family tension, medical ailments, psychological breakdowns [and] criminal behaviour.”128 Kan believed that Chinese immigrants experienced difficulties finding employment because they continued to be seen as “outsiders” despite being “prosperous, intelligent and hard working” contributors to Canada for more than 125 years.129

Zaleena Pancham, a Guyanese immigrant from Nepean, argued that Immigration Canada

124 Ibid., 3. 125 Ibid., 3. 126 Ibid., 10. 127 Ibid., 9. 128 Ibid., 29. 129 Ibid., 31. 340

exhibited discrimination towards people of colour. Her personal story was used as an example by the Task Force to demonstrate that immigration regulations needed revision. Pancham’s cousin, who came for a 3 week visit, was detained upon his arrival at the Ottawa Airport for questioning as immigration officials believed that he was an illegal immigrant. Pancham’s argued that such experiences left many visitors with “a very bad image of Canada.”130 Lynda Armstrong, a fifth generation Black Canadian from Toronto, argued that she experienced racial discrimination;

Armstrong blamed this on the media, especially advertising, for implicitly and explicitly presenting “white values” and a WASP Canada. She believed this occurred because whiteness was normative and because “WHITE SELLS.” Armstrong argued that boycotts of companies which promoted whiteness would result in the realization by the companies that “BLACK WILL

SELL.”131

Although Equality Now! had many shortcomings, the report had symbolic importance.

Because it made several recommendations that were identical to the recommendations made by past enquiries, the report formally recognized and authenticated the assertions made by existing enquiries. Furthermore, Equality Now! formally asserted that systemic and institutional racism permeated Canadian society. With the shift in focus from individual prejudice to institutional discrimination, the Canadian government sought to alter public policy to address the inequalities which Equality Now! made evident.132 For example, with evidence of employment discrimination, the federal government passed the Employment Equity Act in 1986. The purpose of the Act was to:

130 Ibid., 48. 131 Ibid., 91-93. 132 Canada. Parliament. House of Commons. Sub-Committee on Equality Rights. Equality for All: Report of the Parliamentary Committee on Equality Rights. Ottawa: Queen's Printer for Canada, 1985. 341

achieve equality in the workplace so that no person shall be denied employment opportunities or benefits for reasons unrelated to ability and, in the fulfillment of the goals, to correct the conditions of disadvantage in employment experienced by women, Aboriginal peoples, persons with disabilities, and visible minority people by giving effect to the principle that employment equity means more than treating persons in the same way but also requires special measures and the accommodation of differences.133

The Act brought an evident increase in the representation of visible minorities in private companies regulated by the federal government.134 Furthermore, in 1995 the New Employment

Equity Act extended employment equity programs to the public service which greatly increased the number of visible minorities in government agencies.135

Conclusion

The official recognition of systemic racism in Canada resulted in a shift in government discourse on racism. State actors at all levels no longer merely focused on personal prejudice; rather, they began to initiate public policies aimed at ridding Canadian institutions of structural racism. However, as the Conclusion will demonstrate, many programs and initiatives were not successful because they did not critically assess equal opportunity and failed to realize that without assessing historically produced and reproduced inequities, change was not possible.

Anti-racism polices were also hampered by institutional resistance as demonstrated by police resistance to the establishment of an independent police complaints system. Lastly, government

133 Employment Equity Act, Statutes of Canada 1986, c. 31. 134 Ibid. 135 Employment Equity Act, Statutes of Canada 1995, c. 44. Moreover, in 1988 the Multiculturalism Act was revised to provide more funding for programs that promote multiculturalism. For example, initiatives such as heritage- language courses, multicultural festivals and grants for official histories of various ethnic minority groups were established to foster cultural pluralism. See: Canadian Multiculturalism Act, Statutes of Canada, 1988, c. 93. Ontario also established programs to promote multiculturalism and racial harmony. For example, the provincial government used the revenue accumulated from the Wintario lottery to fund the Multicultural History Society of Ontario. The organization was established to disseminate information about the contributions of ethnic minorities to Ontario and Canada. See: R. D. Francis, Richard Jones, and Donald B. Smith, Journeys: A History of Canada (Toronto: Nelson College Indigenous, 2009), 550.

342

policies did not debunk the concept of ‘race’ – an important factor which contributes to the persistence of racism in Canadian society. As the Conclusion will demonstrate, ‘race’ as a category continues to be associated with ethnicity, colour and nation which has significant and detrimental consequences for Canada’s people of colour.

343

Conclusion

The experiences of immigrants in postwar Canada were diverse. This study has demonstrated that racism was an integral part of the daily experiences of racialized minorities in

Ontario. For much of the postwar period discrimination was not part of the public discourse as state actors believed that racism functioned in isolation; municipal, provincial and federal governments conceptualized racism as a phenomenon that was perpetuated by individuals. This understanding of racism resulted in public policies that sought to control overt expressions of racism. Large-scale immigration from decolonizing nations during the late 1960s changed the dynamics of racism in Canadian society as some immigrants experienced racial violence in urban centres like Toronto. Many of those who experienced overt racism were members of various ethnic organizations and associations which argued that increased racial incidents revealed a broader problem of systemic racism.

The official recognition of the existence of institutional racism did not occur, as some scholars have suggested, because the Canadian state ‘matured’; rather it was a slow process because Canadians’ self-perception as a tolerant, colourblind and raceless society inhibited their recognition that racism was rooted in Canadian institutions. This narrative of a raceless and tolerant nation was rejected by activists and intellectuals from newly decolonizing nations. It was after the concerted efforts of visible minority groups who challenged racial inequality, existing understandings of racism and pressed for democratic representation that the state acknowledged that institutional racism affected the full participation of visible minorities in Canadian society.

Their arguments, as this dissertation has demonstrated, were not new. In 1969, Blacks at Sir

George Williams University in Montréal organized a protest and argued that racism manifested itself in institutions and social practices. The protest challenged Canada’s racial order as it was

344

one of the first organized expressions against institutional racism; however, the discourse of institutional racism was dismissed by government officials as many saw the protest as an example of student radicalism.

At the core of the state’s denial of structural racism was the contention that racial exclusion was not a Canadian phenomenon. The mythology of racelessness was so pervasive that it managed emerging discourses of institutional racism. As the discussion of the hate law debate illustrates, racism, state officials believed, was a foreign peculiarity. This denial of racism is an integral feature of raceless nations.1 Canada was a tolerant and enlightened nation. This belief was encapsulated in the rise of official multiculturalism. The rhetoric of multiculturalism, as this dissertation has shown, reinforced the notion of a raceless Canada and obfuscated the existence of institutional racism. Moreover, multiculturalism failed to challenge discrimination because the policy conceived racism to be a phenomenon which was external to the Canadian state; officials often invoked the politics of multiculturalism to affirm that Canada was a nation that embraced cultural pluralism and rejected policies of exclusion. These arguments were rejected by many ethnic groups who expressed their disappointment with multiculturalism as the policy did not address the racist and biased assumptions of institutions.

This study has shown that racist attacks in 1970s Toronto were key to the recognition of structural inequality in Canada as unprecedented racial violence challenged the notion that tolerance was a dominant feature of the Canadian social landscape and brought the subject of discrimination and racism into public discourse. Racial violence played a key role in the politicization of people of colour and resulted in the emergence of organized and loosely-based

1 David Theo Goldberg, The Racial State, 234. 345

ethnic policy networks that made claims to full citizenship. For many people of colour, racial violence was symptomatic of institutional racism – Canada, they argued, had a system of inequality which reproduced itself because it was rooted in the policies, procedures and culture of Canada’s institutions. These assertions were clearly expressed by enquiries conducted by ethnic groups. It became clear to state officials that racism was not only caused by personal prejudice but also by Canadian institutions. By the early 1980s, racism, prejudice and discrimination became part of the political discourse and part of the agenda of policy analysts.

Ethnic politics received considerable media representation which resulted in the establishment of the Task Force on the Participation of Visible Minorities in Canadian Society.

Although some changes to the policies and practices of institutions occurred following the Equality Report and were intended to make state officials more accountable to Canada’s people of colour, the policies did not have a significant effect on the persistence of institutional racism. As the economy weakened during the 1980s, momentum to enforce the recommendations of Equality for All subsided; social programs were cut back and goals of equality and equity began to receive less commitment from the federal government. There was also backlash against equity programs from White Canadians who argued that the federal government was attempting to impose racial quotas. For many, employment equity equated reverse discrimination - discrimination against the majority group by giving preferential treatment to minority groups. The common belief was that qualified White workers were being bypassed for less qualified people of colour. Some wrongly implied that employment equity programs were quotas. Many were unaware that employment equity programs did not set numerical targets but rather encouraged institutions and organizations to seek and promote qualified members of minority groups. These debates have waged on since the passage of

346

Employment Equity in 1986.2 Those who rejected (and continue to reject) employment equity did not see that such programs were intended to end the long history of White privilege.3

Additionally, policies which fall under provincial jurisdiction have been less than successful and have done little to alter the systemic exclusion and coercive relations between institutions and organizations and Canada’s people of colour. Although the Ontario Human

Rights Commission sought to establish programs aimed at promoting equity and equality, many of those programs were limited in their effectiveness because human rights complaints continued to function by the complaint-driven model. In contemporary Canada, those who experience institutional racism can take their case to their provincial human rights commission which investigates the claims and orders conciliation and mediation. If neither is achieved, the commission sends the complaint to a board of inquiry where the problem is resolved through redress or restitution.4 This process manages to obscure the existence of institutional racism in

Canada as it operates in a reactive manner and does not expose systemic racism to the public.

Institutional racism - which is a widespread phenomenon in Canadian society - receives little attention and allows Canadians to assert that equality, tolerance, justice and diversity are at the core of Canadian values. Ontario’s schools also continue to propagate the notion of ‘race’ as a normative category which contributes to the cyclical nature of systemic racism.

The following discussion is aimed at evaluating anti-racism policies in education and policing since the 1980s and will demonstrate that institutional racism persists. The discussion

2 Harish C. Jain and Rich D. Hackett, “Measuring Effectiveness of Employment Equity Programs in Canada: Public Policy and a Survey,” Canadian Public Policy 15, no 2 (1989): 189-204. 3 Frances Henry, Carol Tator, Winston Mattis, and Tim Rees, The Colour of Democracy: Racism in Canadian Society (Toronto: Harcourt Brace and Company, 1995), 288. 4 Ibid., 263 and Nancy A. Eber, A Practical Guide to the Ontario Human Rights Code (Aurora: Aurora Professional Press, 1995), 67-88. 347

will illustrate that the official recognition of systemic racism and the policies which followed did not result in a deep transformation of Canadian society. Contemporary issues will also be explored to assert that combating systemic racism is no longer a public policy priority, or concern. To demonstrate this, Canada’s current immigration policy and the existing state of multiculturalism will be examined. This discussion will prove that historical power relationships continue and Whiteness in Canadian society is the essence of privilege.

Education – ‘Race’ Made and Remade

As demonstrated in Chapter 5, changes in the curriculum and policy initiatives aimed at increasing awareness, tolerance and understanding in Ontario’s schools did ease immediate minority apprehensions about racism in education. However, disquiet about racism in Ontario’s schools quickly resurfaced.5 As cities in the greater Toronto area grew, so did concerns that race relations could once again become strained. In 1984, Scarborough’s Chinese, Pakistani and

Filipino residents, for example, called for affirmative action and heritage language training in

Scarborough schools. The arguments were not taken seriously as the mayor ignored these policy concerns. Media reports also downplayed minority concerns; the Toronto Star, for example, argued that the concerns expressed by minority groups in Scarborough were based on previous racial reports and hearsay evidence. Much of the anti-racism momentum expressed during the late 1970s and early 1980s was gone. The Star argued that most minorities who were agitating for “social services, fair employment and race relations” were “Yuppies”:

These are not timid, uncertain greenhorns fresh off the boat…[these are] doctors, social workers, teachers and businessmen. They are really a northern branch of the famous Young Urban Professionals. These “Yuppies” from Agincourt are forcing Scarborough to grow from a suburb fussing over neighbourhood protection into a modern city whose major concern is the treatment of people.6

5 Editorial, “Promoting tolerance in school,” Toronto Star, February 22, 1984. 6 Editorial, “Can Harris keep up with growth of Scarborough?,” Toronto Star, January 11, 1985. 348

Concerns expressed by racialized minorities in Scarborough demonstrate that people of colour were attempting to become part of the political process. Many media reports, however, suggested that racialized minorities had already ‘arrived.’ Much of this discourse was grounded in the politics of multiculturalism.7

By the mid-1980s, Metropolitan Toronto was described as the essence of the

“multicultural mosaic” – Toronto was “vibrant” and “cosmopolitan.” Surveys revealed that many, if not most racialized Torontonians felt pleased with life in Toronto. For example, a survey of 1400 racialized minorities in 1986 showed that “a staggering 92 percent” were somewhat satisfied or very satisfied with the quality of life in Toronto. Many cited “job opportunities,” “freedom,” a “clean environment,” a “good educational system” as attractive aspects of the city. Only a small percentage cited a lack of “[e]mployment opportunities, discrimination, language problems, cultural retention problems” and problems with police relations. These issues, however, were “not urgent” according to the pollster.8 The pollster, however, had a narrow view of minority grievances. The Canadian Association for Black

Educators, for example, argued that Black teachers were rarely promoted. The organization’s assertions were substantiated by Ann Vanstone, chair of the Toronto Board of Education, who argued that they were “implementing policies consistent with [Toronto’s] multicultural mosaic.”9

Many studies of education and the curriculum demonstrate that the policy changes made during the 1980s did not categorically rid Ontario’s schools system of racism. Although the curriculum underwent significant changes to incorporate narratives of immigration, cultural

7 The poll was conducted by Martin Goldfarb of Goldfarb Consultants. See: “Most minorities satisfied with their lives, forum told,” Toronto Star, February 3, 1986. 8 Ibid. 9 “Few black teachers promoted in Toronto, black educator says,” Toronto Star, February 3, 1986. 349

heterogeneity and the consequences of discrimination and racism, systemic problems persist. In contemporary society, the ideas, beliefs and attitudes expressed in the curriculum continue to be problematic. Scholars have demonstrated that racism as ideology and race-thinking (the compartmentalization of humanity according to kinship and blood ties) continues to be espoused in textbooks. Much of this is caused by abstract multiculturalism which propagates ethnic rather than civic nationalism.10 Textbooks continue to essentialize ethnicity and conceptualize certain groups as being “endowed with packaged sets of innate traits.”11 Furthermore, high school

Canadian history textbooks continue to propagate the idea of ‘race’ as a biological category through overt references to race and more nuanced references to “origin,” “ethnicity,” and

“descent” – neutral categories which perpetuate the belief that a human typology exists. This has significant implications as textbooks do not deconstruct the social construction of race – race is simply conceptualized “as a fact of Nature.”12 Textbooks, therefore, continue to partition and divide humanity along lines of origin and descent and ethnicity which contributes to racialization.13 Furthermore, the language of race reproduces racism; this is ironic as multicultural education seeks to do the very opposite.14 Furthermore, some textbooks not only ignore critiques of race, they often contribute to the reproduction of racism as they present nationalist narratives which ignore the history of racism.15

This can be shown through an analysis of textbooks issued since 2000. For example,

Spotlight Canada, a Grade 10 history textbook discusses race as a legitimate biological category.

10 Ken Montgomery, “Banal Race-Thinking: Ties of Blood, Canadian History Textbooks and Ethnic Nationalism,” 313-314. 11 Ibid., 319. 12 Ibid., 315. 13 Ibid., 319. 14 Ibid., 315. 15 Timothy J. Stanley, “Why I Killed Canadian History: Towards and Anti-Racist History in Canada,” Social History 33, no. 65 (2000): 79-103. 350

For example, the authors’ analysis of racial-thinking during World War II is not problematized; they assert that Hitler “pronounced that Aryans… were the master race.”16 Similarly, Canada, A

Nation Unfolding discusses Aryans, Jews and Slavs without clarification over the meaning of race.17 These textbooks, therefore, do not problematize ‘race’ nor do they refute the existence of a biological race and as a result they perpetuate the belief that race exists. One scholar argues that “current textbooks actually fix “race” more solidly that some earlier textbooks by representing it as a commonsensical way to divide people in the world.” These textbooks also propagate the notion that certain cultures and ethnicities exude certain characteristics. Canadian identity, for example, is conceptualized as “distinct” because of Canada’s “ethnic composition.”

The discussion often emphasizes that Canada was once dominated by the English, the French,

Western Europeans, and Americans; however, since the liberalization of immigration regulations, Canada’s “face” has undergone “radical change.”18 The discourse of multiculturalism also promotes discourses of race as the narrative often emphasizes that Canada is composed of many racialized groups who somehow are able to live together in harmony because of Canada’s inherent predisposition to tolerance and harmony.19

Analysis of textbook glossaries also reveals problems as many textbooks reinforce the notion of ‘race’ as a legitimate category in their analysis of various terms related to racism.

Making History – the Story of Canada in the Twentieth Century, for example, defines ethnocentric as “believing that one’s own race or culture is the best.” Similarly, Canada: Our

Century, Our Story, defines the “melting pot” as “a place where immigrants of different cultures

16 Ken Montgomery, “Banal Race-Thinking: Ties of Blood, Canadian History Textbooks and Ethnic Nationalism,” 327 and J. Bradley Cruxton and W. Douglas Wilson, Spotlight Canada, 4th ed. (Toronto: Oxford University Press, 2000), 216. 17 Ibid., 208 18 Ibid., 328-329. 19 Ibid., 331. 351

or races form an integrated society.”20 The idea of race continues to be a taken for granted fact much as it had been prior to the curriculum changes which occurred following the recognition of institutional racism in Canada. What is needed is a conceptual deconstruction of ‘race’ as a biological category; otherwise crude expressions of racial superiority will continue.21

Scholars have also drawn on the experiences of racialized minorities to demonstrate that systemic racism remains a barrier in the way of academic achievement. As mentioned in Chapter

4, studies conducted during the late 1970s and early 1980s revealed that streaming of visible minority children into non-academic fields by educators was problematic. Contemporary studies concur; racialized youth continue to experience differential treatment by students, teachers and administrators. A recent study on Black youths in Canada, for example, demonstrates many problems. Some teachers continue to hold negative stereotypes about Black students; ‘race’ therefore continues to influence how teachers perceive achievement.22 Blackness is associated with “negative school outcomes.”23 This is fueled by various stereotypes including the notion that Black people lack “the values of scholarship and study” because of some genetic inferiority; these stereotypes are grounded in history and contemporary visual representations of people of colour in the media. Academic achievement is therefore conceptualized as something only White

20 Ibid., 332. See: Colin M. Bain et al. Making History – the Story of Canada in the Twentieth Century (Toronto: Prentice Hall, 2000), 427 and John Fielding and Rosemary Evans, Canada: Our Century, Our Story (Scarborough: Nelson, 2001), 465. 21 Ken Montgomery argues that “[w]hen “races” are thought to exist naturally, it is but a small step to imagining that conflict between them is inevitable, that domination and oppression on the basis of “race” are instinctive, or that inherent differences justify unequal relations of power.” See: Ken Montgomery, “Banal Race-Thinking: Ties of Blood, Canadian History Textbooks and Ethnic Nationalism,” 334-335. 22 This has been demonstrated by C.E. James and K. Brathwaite, “The Education of African Canadians: Issues, Contexts, and Expectations,” in Educating African Canadians ed. K. Brathwaite and C.E. James (Toronto: James Lorimer and Company, 1996), 13-31 and Enid Lee, Letters to Marcia: A Teacher’s Guide to Anti-Racist Education (Toronto: Cross-Cultural Communication Centre, 1992). 23 Henry M. Codjoe, “Fighting a ‘Public Enemy’ of Black Academic Achievement – the persistence of racism and the schooling experiences of Black students in Canada,” Race Ethnicity and Education 4, no. 4 (2001): 344. 352

students are capable of.24

Some scholars argue that institutional racism goes beyond differential treatment, low teacher expectations and negative stereotyping based on skin colour; some argue that Black and African perspectives are not part of the curriculum and the histories and experiences of people of colour are not incorporated into the curriculum.25 This has resulted in calls from Black educators and parents to establish Black-focused schools or African-centred schools in Canada, particularly Toronto, as Black-focused schools in the United States demonstrate that the schools

“boost marks and morale among urban black children.” The debate, which reached its height in

2007, was divisive as many saw the establishment of ‘Black Schools’ as the institutionalization of segregation and a form of reverse racism. The Toronto Sun, for example, argued that “it is not clear if a racially segregated type of school designed for a society with a history of slavery would translate to Canada, a country built largely on immigration…”26 The Sun’s ahistoric and inaccurate assessment of the history of slavery in Canada did not bring much reaction; however, debates about the establishment of Black-centred schools continued (and continue). In 2008, the

Toronto District School Board approved the plan and in September 2009 Toronto’s first

“Africentric school” opened its doors.27 The school has been very successful. The demand for

Black-centred schools demonstrates that at its core Ontario’s education system is not comprehensive, anti-racist or multicultural as school administrators and politicians claim.

The Police: Policing Themselves

Structural racism is also evident in police practices. Despite various policy initiatives police relations continued to be strained during the mid to late 1980s and beyond. The provincial

24 Ibid., 345-346. 25 , C.E. James and K. Brathwaite, “The Education of African Canadians: Issues, Contexts, and Expectations,” 29. 26 “Black only, but don't use the 'S' word,” Toronto Sun, November 17, 2007. 27 “80 kids set for Toronto black school,” Toronto Sun, September 2, 2009. 353

government attempted to mediate these grievances with various policies and stronger legislation.

In 1984, Metropolitan Toronto Police Force Complaints Project Act of 1981 was repealed and replaced by the Metropolitan Toronto Police Force Complaints Act. Under the 1981 Act, an individual had to file the complaint with the police force. The 1984 Act allowed a person to file a complaint either through the Police Complaints forum or to the Public Complaints

Commissioner. However, the investigation and adjudication of the complaint remained the function of the police and this continued to garner minority protest. Another point of contention was that the police force refused to implement employment equity to increase the representation of minorities on the police force. In 1985, for example, visible minorities accounted for 3% of the Metro police force which numbered 5,395 officers.28 The Police Force blamed this on low job turnover which slowed the hiring of additional minorities. Bromley Armstrong observed that at this rate “I think our grandchildren will still be complaining of the same problem.”29

Police brutality and police shootings of Black citizens in Metropolitan Toronto also continued. These shootings included: Lee Savoury (30 January 1985), Lester Donaldson (8

August 1988), Michael Lawson (8 December 1988) and Marlon Neil (4 May 1990).30 The

28 Daiva K. Stasiulis, “Minority Resistance in the Local State: Toronto in the 1970s and 1980s,” 73, 83. This was an improvement. In 1983, Toronto’s police force was composed of 5472 officers. Visible minorities accounted for 0.27% of the total force. See: Canada. Parliament. House of Commons. Special Committee on Participation of Visible Minorities in Canadian Society. Equality now!: Minutes of proceedings and evidence of the Special Committee on Participation of Visible Minorities in Canadian Society, 80. 29 “Police hiring of minorities slowing down officer admits,” Toronto Star, February 3, 1986. 30 Savoury was shot and killed during a suspected robbery. Donaldson, who was disabled and unarmed, was shot and killed in his Toronto apartment. Lawson was shot in the back during a stolen car investigation. Neil was shot twice during a traffic stop. He survived the shooting. See: Harry Glasbeek, “Analysis of the Attorney-General’s Files Arising out of, and the Coroner’s Inquest into the Death of Leander Chesterfield Savoury”; “Analysis of the Attorney-General’s Files and Persecution Arising Out of the Shooting of Lester Donaldson – R. v. Deviney; and out of the Litigation Arising out of the Inquest into the Death of Lester Donaldson”; “Analysis of the Attorney- General’s Files and Persecution Arising Out of the Shooting of Michael Wade Lawson”; “Analysis of the Attorney- General’s Files and Persecution Arising Out of the Shooting of Marlon Neil –R.v. Rapson,” in Supplementary to a Report on Attorney-General’s Files, Prosecutions and Coroners’ Inquests Arising out of Police Shooting in Ontario to The Commission on Systemic Racism in Ontario’s Criminal Justice System (Toronto, 1994). See also: Harry Glasbeek, Police Shootings of Black People in Ontario (Toronto: The Commission, 1994). 354

disproportionate number of police shootings of Black citizens resulted in several inquests and reports. The most noteworthy response came from the Solicitor-General for Ontario who established a task force to examine police-minority relations. Dubbed the Race Relations and

Policing Task Force (RRPTF), the Task Force was intended to examine police training with respect to visible minorities, hiring practices and ways in which the police could be monitored and scrutinized by the public. The Task Force demonstrated that former studies such as the Carter report, had not resolved relations between the police and visible minorities in Toronto.31 RRPTF hearings also validated the point that legislation such as the establishment of an independent

Complaints Bureau had not alleviated minority concerns about police relations. The hearings also demonstrated that visible minorities were not represented in the police force. A 1989 study by the

Environics Group confirmed this – it found that the Ontario police force was composed of 92 percent White males; 5 percent White women; 2.3 percent visible minorities and 0.2 percent

Aboriginals.32

The 1990s continued to bring challenges to policing. The provincial government attempted to alleviate minority complaints against the police by passing the Police Services

Act.33 The legislation required all municipalities to establish Public Complaints Investigations

Bureaus based on the Toronto model. However, the lack of transparency in the existing complaints system was evident as only 1 percent of complaints resulted in the discipline of a police officer.34 Increasing reports of police brutality and police profiling resulted in the

31 “Fear of Police has Ruined System,” Globe and Mail, February 2, 1989. 32 “Problem Will Stay Until it is Admitted,” Globe and Mail, January 24, 1989. 33 Police Services Act, Statutes of Ontario 1990, c.10. 34 Between 1992-1996, 5,629 complaints were filed against Toronto police officers. Only 59 were disciplined. Discipline was implemented in several ways. A third of the officers were demoted, another third were fined and the remaining third received a letter of reprimand which was attached to their officer’s file. Only 2% of cases resulted in formal action. See: “99 percent of complaints against police dismissed,” Toronto Star, December 1, 1997. 355

establishment of the Commission on Systemic Racism in Ontario’s Criminal Justice System in

1992. The goal of the Commission was to “inquire into and make recommendations about the extent to which criminal justice practices, procedures and policies reflect systemic racism.”35

After three years of study the 445 page report argued that “a new institution for police accountability with a specifically remedial mission” was required to examine systemic concerns rather than individual complaints.36 The Commission’s Report demonstrated that Black citizens experienced systemic discrimination and harassment including name-calling and unwarranted questioning by the police.37 This, the Commission argued, was a historic phenomenon.38 The report argued that Blacks were overrepresented in the prison system; once charged, Blacks were

27 times more likely to be imprisoned before their trials on charges of drug trafficking and importing charges. Moreover, Blacks were 20 times more likely to be imprisoned for drug possession charges than their White counterparts. Blacks also experienced differential treatment during detention hearings because of employment status prior to conviction - employment status made a marked difference to imprisonment before trial and during detention hearings.39 The

Commission concluded that the principle of the rule of law was not being applied to people of colour which could not be justified by the state. The Commission’s recommendations

35 Ontario, Report of the Commission on Systemic Racism in the Ontario Criminal Justice System (Toronto: Queen’s Printer for Ontario, 1995), 1. 36 Ibid., 389. 37 Ibid., iii, vii, 115-119, 143, 346- 356. 38 In a draft working paper for the Commission, Clayton Mosher examined systemic racism in the criminal justice system between 1892 and 1961. He demonstrated that differential treatment was a historic phenomenon and that racialized minorities continued to experience differential treatment. Blacks, for example, were more likely to be imprisoned and convicted of crimes and they served longer sentences for their offence(s). Mosher argued that these facts (which he substantiated with statistics) demonstrated the prevailing discourses of race in larger society influenced how the justice system treated people of colour. See: Clayton Mosher, Crime and Colour, Cops and Courts: Systemic Racism in the Ontario Criminal Justice System in Social and Historical Context - 1892-1961; Draft Working Paper (Toronto: Commission on Systemic Racism in the Ontario Criminal Justice System, 1993), 1- 20. 39 "Black imprisonment trends 'shocking,' says racism report," Globe and Mail, January 16, 1996. 356

demonstrated that the law had to express equality, “not only in its content and administration but also in its consequences.”40

Charles Roach who had been active in anti-racism agitation during the 1970s and 1980s applauded the Commission because it was “the first time in a very clear way there has been an acknowledgment by any organized body of government in Canada that there is differential treatment because of race.” In an interview with the New York Times, Roach stated that the report challenged the pervasive mythology of racelessness in Canada and was the “first step in purging the system of these legally unjustified differentials."41

The Commission resulted in limited government action. First, Rod McLeod, a Markham lawyer, was appointed by the Attorney General and Solicitor General to advise the government on how to improve the complaints system. McLeod called for a more transparent system to allow complainants to file official complaints not only at local police stations but also at professional standards offices and community resource centres.42 McLeod’s recommendations were ignored.

Furthermore, the provincial government called on police forces to implement additional race relations training courses for police officers. This measure, however, was criticized by people of colour and by legal scholars as the policy initiative focused on ‘curing’ individual actors within a racist criminal justice system. Scholars argued that systemic racism was difficult to prove in the criminal justice system as the system is compartmentalized and in turn feeds the notion that that justice system is independent and objective and that it is individuals officers perpetuate and express racism.43 Policy initiatives such as race relations training did not combat systemic racism

40 Ontario, Report of the Commission on Systemic Racism in the Ontario Criminal Justice System, 147. 41 “Canada's Justice System Faces Charges of Racism,” The New York Times, January 24, 1996. 42 R.M. McLeod, Q.C, A Report And Recommendations On Amendments To The Police Services Act Respecting Civilian Oversight Of Police (Toronto: Queen’s Printer for Ontario, 1996). See: Appendix E. 357

in the police force as the initiatives did not examine the norms and practices of the criminal justice system. As a result, reports which demonstrated that police officers lacked neutrality continued. Simultaneously, however, the justice system was viewed as a system governed by the rule of law – a neutral system which promised equality. As a result, the justice system continued to perpetuate systemic racism because the daily operation of the criminal justice system did not challenge ingrained patterns of race-thinking.

The Commission on Systemic Racism in Ontario’s Criminal Justice System resulted in the eventual passage of the Police Services Amendment Act in 1997. However, the new legislation was flawed and ensured that police relations would not improve. The goal of the legislation was to “enhance community safety;” however, the legislation completely stripped civilian oversight from the complaints system.44 The new legislation deemed the Police Complaints Commission, the independent complaints commissioner, the Board of Inquiry and civilian review commission unnecessary. Under the new legislation complaints against police conduct were to be made to the chief of police who would deem the complaint as either legitimate or frivolous. If the complaint was legitimate it would go to the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services which gave the chief of police investigative powers. The ultimate decision in each case was to be made by the police chief who could choose to: throw the complaint out due to unsubstantiated evidence, settle the matter through an informal resolution, find the officer in question guilty of misconduct and impose a fine or decide to send the case to a police disciplinary hearing. Appeals related to penalties imposed on police officers were disallowed. Complaints related to the policies and

43 Harry Glasbeek, Supplementary to a Report on Attorney-General’s Files, Prosecutions and Coroners’ Inquests Arising out of Police Shooting in Ontario to The Commission on Systemic Racism in Ontario’s Criminal Justice System, 5-8. 44 Ontario. Legislative Assembly. Standing Committee on Administration of Justice. Bill 105, Police Services Amendment Act, 1997. 358

services provided by the police would be made to the Chief of Police. If a complainant was not satisfied with the Chief’s response, the complaint could be forwarded to the Toronto Police

Services Board or other local police review boards for appeal. The Solicitor-General Bob

Runciman supported the new legislation as it would save Ontario’s taxpayers $3 million annually.45

The legislation passed in the midst of police scrutiny. One Ontario senior judge interviewed by the Toronto Star argued that police misconduct was a “routine” and “institutional thing.” The Star also interviewed Toronto’s racialized citizens and concluded that “lying, assault and evidence tampering” occurred on a regular basis. Police officers, the report found, often embellished facts “to frame an innocent man…[or] to convict someone who is probably guilty.”

The key was to apprehend someone.46 If there was a lack of protocol in investigating police misconduct prior to the passage of Police Services Amendment Act, the new legislation further reinforced the point that police misconduct would not be subject to civilian oversight. Comments made by the new head of the Metro police association, Craig Bromell, suggested that the police force was encouraged by the new legislation. Bromell supported the new legislation as he believed that most complaints against police officers were “unwarranted and “casue[d] great distress to officers.” He also asserted that those who continued to file frivolous complaints would be charged with public mischief – this Bromell believed, would keep Toronto’s citizens accountable.47

The 1997 Police Services Amendment Act continues to govern police-citizen relations today.48 Since the passage of the legislation, scholars have demonstrated that a lack of public

45 “New era for complaints against the police,” Toronto Star, December 8, 1997. 46 “‘An Abuse of process’ by officers,” Toronto Star, November 30, 1997. 47 “99 per cent of complaints against police dismissed,” Toronto Star, December 1, 1997. 359

confidence in the complaints system continues. Racial profiling is still endemic.49 Racial bias and harassment of racialized minorities is a daily occurrence despite statistics that reveal that most offenders are White.50 Racial profiling continues to be a systemic problem as the burden of proof is placed on people of colour because of stereotypical assumptions of race and criminality which are perpetrated by the police force, the media and popular culture. Racialized citizens are under increased police surveillance in public places not because of their behaviour but their phenotypical appearance.51 As a result, racialized Canadians, particularly Black men, live in a constant state of exception as their blackness marks them as individuals likely to commit criminal acts.52 Police profiling is therefore a form of not only surveillance, but discipline.53

Once apprehended, racialized minorities are more likely to be arrested, overcharged for their crime and less likely to receive bail in comparison to White citizens. Aboriginals and Blacks continue to be overrepresented in the prison system suggesting that racialized communities are

‘over-policed.’54 Many of the problems described in the Commission on Systemic Racism in

Ontario’s Criminal Justice continue today. A troubling aspect of police profiling is that accusations of profiling are often met with vehement denials by the police chief, the police union

48 Toronto Police Service, “Professional Standards: Making a Complaint,” http://torontopolice.on.ca/professionalstandards/complaint.php (accessed September 10, 2011). 49 Ontario Human Rights Commission, Paying the Price, The Human Cost of Racial Profiling: An Inquiry Report (Toronto: the Commission, 2003). See also: Toronto Star series: “Singled Out,” Toronto Star, October 19, 2002; “Police target black drivers,” Toronto Star, October 20, 2002; “Summit urged on police arrests, Toronto Star, October 21, 2002; “New calls for arrests summit,” Toronto Star, October 22, 2002. 50 In 2003, 69.8% of dangerous offenders serving time in federal prisons were White. See: David M. Tanovich, The Colour of Justice: Policing Race in Canada, 32. 51 Ibid., 1-2. 52 Italian political philosopher Giorgio Agamben defines “states of exception” as “a legal civil war that allows for the physical elimination not only of political adversaries but of entire categories of citizens who for some reason cannot be integrated into the political system.” See: Giorgio Agamben, State of Exception, trans. Kevin Attell (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2005), 1-2. 53 David M. Baker, Forms of Exclusion: Racism and Community Policing in Canada (Oshawa: de Sitter Publications, 2006), 85-99. 54 David M. Tanovich, The Colour of Justice: Policing Race in Canada, 66. 360

and the Police Services Board.55 Accusations of police profiling cannot be proven since police officers are not required to record the ethnicity of the people they stop and search. Accusations which reach the review process often deem the accusations as bogus.56 The lack of discourse about police profiling contrasts the experiences of racialized minorities who continue to be stopped, searched, ticketed and arrested in disproportionate numbers. Scholars have argued that this typifies “democratic racism” as evidence of police profiling is often overshadowed by liberal

“commitments to justice, fairness, and equality conflict with, but at the same time coexist with, negative feelings about people of color and differential treatment of them.”57

It is important to emphasize that racial profiling is an historic phenomenon; slavery and segregation were forms of surveillance and control over racialized others. In contemporary society, race continues to be policed through racial profiling.58 Racial profiling also affects

Aboriginals, Asians and Latinos, although there is little scholarly research from these perspectives.59 These realities of life for racialized people suggest that “[t]he colour of justice in

Canada is White.”60 Racial profiling and a lack of transparency in the complaints system results in second-class citizenship, mistrust of institutions and a sense of alienation. Anti-racism training and diversity education within enforcement agencies has not had a significant impact on police- minority relations. Race, therefore, continues to be an operative factor in policing.61

55 “There is no racism. We do not do racial profiling,” Toronto Star, October 19, 2002; “Chief Defends His Force: Police Act Powers Enough to Curb Any ‘Bad Apples.’: We’re Not a Bunch of Corrupt, Racist No-Goods: Fantino,” Toronto Star, June 4, 2003. 56 Julian Tanner and Scot Wortley, “Data, Denial and Confusion: The Racial Profiling Debate in Toronto,” Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice 45, no. 3 (2003): 367-389. 57 Frances Henry and Carol Tator, Racial Profiling in Canada: Challenging the Myth of a “Few Bad Apples,” 8. 58 David M. Tanovich, The Colour of Justice: Policing Race in Canada, 59. 59 Frances Henry and Carol Tator, Racial Profiling in Canada: Challenging the Myth of a “Few Bad Apples,” 3. 60 David M. Tanovich, The Colour of Justice: Policing Race in Canada, 2. 61 Ibid., 37, 41. 361

Racism Endures But Is Denied – Race, Immigration and Multiculturalism in Contemporary Canada

This discussion of education and policing in Ontario demonstrates that race persists in

Canadian society and has a fundamental role in determining one’s life chances– it is a permanent feature and it is demonstrated by the presence of a system of racial meanings and stereotypes.

Furthermore, the continued existence of structural inequality speaks to the persistence of institutional racism in Canada.

It is clear that the mythology of racelessness continues to be espoused in Canada; these arguments are grounded in the rhetoric of democratic liberalism. Canadians are fair, tolerant and a harmonious people who embrace cultural pluralism and individual rights. Canada is a place where success is based on merit. Such discourse overshadows evidence of White privilege and systemic racism. The myth of racial harmony in Canada allows people to espouse their commitments to liberal democracy and egalitarianism while simultaneously expressing racist attitudes and ideologies.62 As a result, although social scientists have demonstrate that racialized minorities continue to face prejudice in the labour market, in policing, in educational institutions and housing, there is little public discourse and public debate about race and racism in contemporary society. The myth of racelessness pervades. Racism is silenced by official statements of tolerance and colour-blindness which is grounded in the discourse of multiculturalism.

There is also clear opposition to changes in the status quo by institutions as the White majority rejects state intervention against racism; anti-racism policies are often seen as a threat to liberal democracy.63 Social scientists have demonstrated that institutions and organizations are

62 Frances Henry, Carol Tator, Winston Mattis, and Tim Rees, The Colour of Democracy: Racism in Canadian Society, 13, 17. 362

often reluctant to enact or express equity statements and many use “cultural explanations of difference” to rationalize why their particular institution lacks employment equity.64 Moreover, some organizations do not have sufficient resources, monitoring and evaluation practices of equity programs to make them truly effective.65 As a result, Canada’s people of colour remain disenfranchised – for many, life is characterized by poor health, poverty, crime, racial profiling, and substandard social services. Simultaneously, however, many ethnic groups in Canada take refuge in multiculturalism – this propagated and accentuated ethnic identity is often seen as a space in which ethnic groups can fulfill their political, social and economic goals.

Social power and prestige remains in the hand of White elites – institutional racism continues because the institutional structure is created and perpetuated by the powerful White elite. The racial violence which occurred during the 1970s may have shifted attitudinal beliefs about racism, but the policy changes which followed have not restructured and redistributed power relations in Canadian institutions. Discrimination is not a residual and historic phenomenon but rather a part of the established social order.

Since September 11th a new form of racism has emerged; this modern racism is often rationalized as necessary for security reasons. Post 9/11 national security policies in Canada demonstrate that racelessness pervades as the Canadian public has not debated the discriminatory nature of antiterrorism legislation, border controls, and other measures that undermine civil liberties. A close examination of anti-terrorism regulations reveals that policies which have been instituted since 9/11 have restored the historical discriminatory practice of dividing immigrants

63 Ibid., 21. 64 Ibid., 281. 65 Ibid., 13,17. 363

into “preferred” and “non-preferred” groups based on country of origin. Canada’s state security practices continue to reflect a form of race-thinking. This has resulted in a sense of exclusion of

Arab and Muslim communities from the imagined Canada.

Immigration

The passage of the Anti-Terrorism Act and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act in 2001 signaled a new era in immigration policy in Canada. In contemporary Canada these Acts are used to exclude certain applicants and include those who demonstrate that they are assimilable. Immigrants, therefore, are now classified as preferred and non-preferred.66 For example, in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the term ‘foreign national’ is used to describe a person who is neither a Canadian citizen or permanent resident and one who is stateless.67 The way in which the term is used focuses on people who have questionable loyalties to Canada since they do not exhibit the same (meaning Western) societal norms and values.

Moreover, the Anti-Terrorism Act insinuates that foreign nationals are potential terrorists.68

Foreign nationals and terrorists, therefore, are interchangeable in the legislation.69 This connection is problematic as all foreign nationals, who are associated with terrorism, are now conceptualized as potential threats to Canadian security.

The new legislation also expresses Western superiority, and it does so through insinuation. Both the Anti-Terrorism Act and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act promote the idea of race as they echo historic immigration regulations which asserted that

66 Erin Kruger, Marlene Mulder, and Bojan Korenic, Canada After 9/11: New Security Measures and ‘Preferred’ Immigrants (Edmonton: Prairie Centre of Excellence for Research on Immigration and Integration, 2004), 7. 67 Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, Statutes of Canada 2001, c. 27 and Anti-terrorism Act, Statues of Canada 2001, c. 41. 68 Erin Kruger, Marlene Mulder, and Bojan Korenic, Canada After 9/11: New Security Measures and ‘Preferred’ Immigrants, 7. 69 Ibid, 7-8. 364

European peoples (precisely Northern Europeans) possessed superior qualities to other ‘races.’

The 1910 Immigration Act was based on the same foundation as it overtly stated that Canada preferred immigrants were from the United States, the British Isles, and northwestern Europe because of their assimilability.70 Non-preferred immigrants, most notably “Orientals,” were barred by various regulations including the Head Tax. The 1952 Immigration Act also expressed categories of preference as immigration was based on nationality, ethnic group, occupation, lifestyle, unsuitability with regard to Canada’s climate, and perceived inability to become readily assimilated into Canadian society.71 Although the language of race was not explicit in the 1952

Act, the legislation made it clear that certain groups were preferred as potential immigrants.

Current legislation, therefore, exhibits the same focus on race and country of origin as the criteria for the selection of preferred and non-preferred immigrants in the past. A “foreign national” who is from a country that appears to promote religious fundamentalism and terrorism can be excluded from Canada because they may pose a security threat.

Security Regulations

Contemporary security practices also exhibit the historical continuation of racial profiling and surveillance. The events of September 11th resulted in intense media coverage of Arab and

Muslim men and women who were conceptualized as religious fanatics and irrational jihadists.72

Arab men were further profiled because of the belief that they are prone to violent misogyny.73

70 Bojen Korenic, Erin Kruger, and Marlene Mulder, “Canada after 11 September: Security Measures and ‘Preferred’ Immigrants,” Mediterranean Quarterly 15, no. 4 (2004): 73. 71 Ninette Kelly and Michael Trebilcock, The Making of the Mosaic: A History of Canadian Immigration Policy, 324-327. 72 Wayne Hanniman, “Canadian Muslims, Islamophobia and National Security,” International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice 36, no. 4 (2008): 271-285 and Sherene H. Razack, Casting Out: The Eviction of Muslims from Western Law and Politics (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2008). 73 Sujit Choudhry, “Protecting Equality in the Face of Terror: Ethnic and Racial Profiling and s. 15 of the Charter” in The Security of Freedom: Essays on Canada’s Anti-Terrorism Bill, ed. Ronald J. Daniels, Patrick Macklem and Kent Roach (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2001), 367. 365

As a result, surveillance and profiling has expanded since September 11th. Police forces, the

Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service now focus their profiling efforts on young Arab or Muslim men who fit the profile of a potential terrorist. Many support profiling as a reasonable and necessary form of anti-terrorism policy.74

The use of security certificates under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act is another way in which the Canadian state attempts to ensure security. The regulations governing the certificates demonstrate that race-thinking is embedded in public policy. The implementation of certificates also demonstrates that like Black Canadians, Arab and Muslim individuals live in states of exception as their public presence is under constant surveillance.75 Security certificates

(Sections 33 and 76-87 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act) declare that “permanent residents” and “foreign nationals” are inadmissible to Canada for reasons of “national security.”76 Detainees do not have an opportunity to be heard before a certificate is issued and a designated judge of the Federal Court reviews the government’s case against the detainee in a private hearing at which neither the detainee nor his or her counsel is present. The detainee only receives a summary of the evidence against him or her. Detention is mandatory for non- permanent residents held under a security certificate and there is no possibility of release unless the ‘suspect’ leaves Canada, then the certificate is struck down, or if 120 days have elapsed and deportation has not taken place. In contrast to non-residents, permanent residents are entitled to a review of the detention order after the first 48 hours and subsequently at six month intervals until a final decision is made by a Federal Court judge concerning the security certificate. However,

74 Reem Bahdi, “No Exit: Racial Profiling and Canada’s War Against Terrorism,” Osgoode Hall Law Journal 41, no. 2.3 (2003): 293-317. 75 Colleen Bell, The Freedom of Security: Governing Canada in the Age of Counter-Terrorism (Vancouver: UBC Press, 2011), 81. 76 Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, Statutes of Canada 2001, c. 27, s.77. 366

for “foreign nationals” and permanent residents alike, there is no appeal with respect to the judge’s decision on the security certificate; the Court has to simply demonstrate that there is a possibility that the person is a terrorist or a member of a terrorist organization.77

Although Public Safety Canada describes security certificates as “a rarely used mechanism for removing a person from the country” and “a way to ensure Canada’s immigration laws are not misused by people who pose a threat,” the certificates result in racial profiling and the suspension of habeas corpus.78 Security certificates, therefore, suspend civil liberties and human rights but they are seen as necessary because they safeguard what they temporarily suspend – liberty and freedom. Racial profiling, therefore, is seen as necessary. However, as one scholar emphasizes, “when unfettered state power is defended as bureaucratic rationality, it is easy to lose sight of how race gives coherency to the idea of the suspension of rights.”79

77 Ibid. In February 2007, the Supreme Court of Canada struck down security certificate provisions expressed in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (see Charkaoui v. Canada 2007). In a rather contradictory decision, the Supreme Court argued that security certificates contravened the Charter of Rights and Freedoms; specifically section 7 (right to life, liberty, and security of the person), section 9 (freedom from arbitrary arrest and imprisonment) and section 10 (the right to legal counsel and habeas corpus). However, the Court upheld security certificates “in principle.” The Court gave the federal government a year to reform the law. New security certificate provisions were introduced in 2008. Under the modified system, security certificates are issued by Public Safety Canada and are signed by the Minister of Public Safety and the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Once signed, the certificates go to the Federal Court. The Court then has to determine whether or not the issuing of a certificate on the part of the ministers was reasonable. The legitimacy of the evidence is not accessed. In comparison to security certificates issued pre-2008, the new security certificate system does allow more frequent judicial reviews of detention and allows the accused to have “special advocates” [lawyers who serve as watchdogs] who have access to government information/ evidence. Advocates also have power to challenge the Crown’s evidence. However, the lawyers are approved by the government and appointed by a judge and their roles are limited as they can only work with the evidence they are presented. Ultimately, Federal Court judges continue to order detention if they believe that the accused poses a security threat. It is clear that security certificates allow for the state to continue to impose exceptional practices and policies on foreign nationals. Furthermore, the system continues to function on suspicion rather than concrete evidence. As a result, immigrants and refugees from certain areas of the world continue to be racialized as security risks because of the elastic concept of “public safety.” See: Colleen Bell, The Freedom of Security: Governing Canada in the Age of Counter-Terrorism , 55-86. 78 Sherene H. Razack, “Your Client has a Profile: Race and National Security in Canada After 9/11,” Studies in Law, Politics and Society 40 (2007): 5, The right to habeas corpus has been suspended on three occasions in Canadian history: the internments of “enemy aliens” during World War I and World War II and during the FLQ Crisis of October 1970. See: Sarah Hamilton, “Terrorizing (Un)Citizens: A Genealogy of Security Certificates,” in Engaging Terror: A Critical and Interdisciplinary Approach, ed. Marianne Vardalos et al. (Boca Raton: Brown Walker Press, 2009), 309-322. 79 Sherene H. Razack, “Your Client has a Profile: Race and National Security in Canada After 9/11,” 5. 367

Multiculturalism in Contemporary Canada

A discussion of immigration and security polices reveals that racism continues to function on an institutional level; racial discourse cannot be relegated to personal ignorance; rather, racism and race-thinking is embedded in the policies and practices expressed by the

Canadian government. As in the past, unequal power relations and racism are obscured by the mythology of racelessness in Canada. Much of the discourse of racelessness is supported by the discourse of multiculturalism which purports that Canada is equitable and tolerant.

Multiculturalism, however, has been under attack and the future of “race relations” in Canada is unknown. Canada’s current position on multiculturalism suggests that the policy is tenuous.

Evidence suggests that the policy goals of multiculturalism are not being implemented; however, the federal government continues to espouse the rhetoric of multiculturalism. The questionable and often contradictory nature of multiculturalism is a key feature of Canada – a modern and raceless state.

An Assessment of Multiculturalism as Public Policy

Multiculturalism as public policy was codified in 1988 with the passage of the Canadian

Multiculturalism Act. The legislation continues to govern multiculturalism in contemporary society. The Act asserts that the federal government has to ensure that multiculturalism is preserved, enhanced and shared within society. It also acknowledges the many groups that have contributed to the development of Canada as a nation.80 The Act expresses several goals many of which are ambiguous much like multiculturalism when it was expressed in 1971. First, the legislation asserts that it is the government’s responsibility to assist cultural groups to be a part of and contribute to society. Secondly, the legislation pledges that the state will help cultural groups

80 Canadian Multiculturalism Act, Statutes of Canada 1988, c. 31. 368

overcome structural barriers which impede them from fully participating in society - the Act states that everyone is entitled to equality in the economic, social, cultural, and political spheres of Canada.81 Third, the Act proclaims that the ultimate goal of multiculturalism is to foster the sharing of different cultures and to aid immigrants in learning one of the official languages in order to be as productive as possible. Proponents of multiculturalism argue that the Canadian

Multiculturalism Act is important because it codifies the inherent diversity of Canada.82

According to the federal government, multiculturalism has been and continues to be an important part of Canada.83 Evidence, however, suggests that multiculturalism as public policy has been redefined since 9/11 as the current policy rejects diversity and proposes the integration and assimilation of newcomers. This regression is evident in the messages that the federal government sends to potential immigrants. On the one hand Canada is advertised as a multicultural haven; on the other hand, however, government publications assert that Canada is inherently a bicultural and Christian nation. Government publications send a clear message that

Canada prefers those who have the ability to assimilate into society and adopt ‘Canadian values.’

These competing messages about Canada’s cultural policy are reflected in current government publications. Welcome to Canada: What You Should Know, a guide which is given to landed immigrants and refugees, is a prime example. The 2010 edition does not portray

Canada as a diverse society; rather the publication proposes that Canada is a bicultural nation. It states: “Today, Canadian society stems largely from the English-speaking and French-speaking

81 Ibid. 82 Keith Banting and Will Kymlicka, “Canadian Multiculturalism: Global Anxieties and Local Debates,” British Journal of Canadian Studies 23, no. 1 (2010): 49-50. 83 Canada. Citizenship and Immigration Canada. “Multiculturalism.” http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/multiculturalism/index.asp (accessed October 29, 2011). 369

Christian civilizations that were brought here from Europe by settlers.”84 This statement defines

Canada as a White and Christian nation; assertions which are in direct opposition to the fact that

Canada has a diverse heritage as outlined in the Multiculturalism Act. This traditional bicultural view of Canada is now becoming the dominant one as opposed to the cultural pluralist view of a diverse society. Immigrants with different cultures must now integrate into society – meaning they must assimilate.85

These assertions about the need for an integrated (hence assimilated) society are also explicit in the government’s annual reports on the state of multiculturalism in Canada. The 2008-

2009 report states that the government is “committed to helping new and established Canadians succeed and build together a strong, socially integrated society within a framework of shared values, citizenship, civic pride and memory.”86 The 2009-2010 report makes similar assertions.

The government’s goal is to increase “emphasis on Canada’s values, history and symbols,

[which] will promote civic memory and pride among newcomers and citizens alike.”87 The goal, therefore, is to promote integration and social cohesion as to attain and promote “core Canadian values” including “freedom, democracy, human rights and the rule of law.”88 Such statements make it clear that the Canadian state envisions a society in which people identify themselves as

“Canadian” and exude similar social norms and values. The shift in language is evident; the federal government is not concerned about “managing diversity” as it had been during the 1970s and 1980s. Nor is the government concerned with “constructive engagement” and retaining

84 Canada. Citizenship and Immigration Canada. Welcome to Canada: What You Should Know (Ottawa: Minister of Public Works and Government Services Canada, 2010), 1. 85 “Do Immigrants Need Rules? The Debate Rages On,” Maclean’s, March 5, 2007, 20-22, 24, 26. 86 Canada. Citizenship and Immigration Canada, Annual Report of the Operation of the Canadian Multiculturalism Act 2008-2009 (Ottawa: Minister of Public Works and Government Services Canada, 2010), 1. 87 Canada. Citizenship and Immigration Canada, Annual Report on the Operation of the Canadian Multiculturalism Act 2009-2010 (Ottawa: Minister of Public Works and Government Services Canada, 2011), 1. 88 Ibid. 370

diversity as it had been during the 1990s.89 Canada’s current cultural multiculturalism policy emphasizes social cohesion, integration, assimilation, and exclusive citizenship.90

Public opinion polls support also support the assertion that multiculturalism is tenuous.

For example, a 2010 Angus Reid poll of 1006 Canadians revealed that nearly one third of those polled believed that multiculturalism was ‘bad’ or ‘very bad’ for Canada. Although 55% of those polled agreed with multiculturalism as public policy, only one third were “satisfied with the concept of the mosaic” and 54% expressed preference for the “melting pot.” These statistics reveal that Canadians are aware of the benefits of multiculturalism, yet the majority prefer that immigrants assimilate and “blend into society.”91 The Angus Reid poll can be substantiated with a non-scientific online poll conducted by the Globe and Mail in 2010. Poll results revealed that

62% of those who took part in the poll preferred a cultural policy reflecting the melting pot, compared to 38% who preferred the mosaic concept.92 These statistics show that there is hesitant support for multiculturalism as Canadians want immigrants to assimilate; most are wary of the practices of different cultures which they believe undermine the values and framework of

Canadian society. It is clear that the multicultural mosaic which dominated the discourse of diversity during the 1970s and 1980s is no longer celebrated across Canada. Comments such as,

“I think that part of the citizenship process should be a greater emphasis on basic assimilation,”

“We don't want a Mosaic of countries to be formed within Canada, but that is the unintended

89 Canada. Citizenship and Immigration Canada, Annual Report of the Operation of the Canadian Multiculturalism Act 2008-2009, 30. 90 This shift away from multiculturalism is a Western phenomenon. In Australia and European countries, such as the Netherlands, Austria, and Germany, there also has been a shift away from multiculturalism. See: Keith Banting and Will Kymlicka, “Canadian Multiculturalism: Global Anxieties and Local Debates,” 43-45. 91 Angus Reid Poll. “Multiculturalism.” 2010. http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/43492/canadians-endorse- multiculturalism-but-pick-melting-pot-over-mosaic/ (accessed October 19, 2011). 92 “Globe Poll: Mosaic or Melting Pot?,” Globe and Mail, October 10, 2010. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/time-to-lead/multiculturalism/globe-poll-mosaic-or-melting- pot/article1734322/ (accessed October 19, 2011). 371

consequence of Multiculturalism unless we reverse course” and “we should stop thinking that all people of the world are equal because it's not true” reflect the view that many people do not support non-White immigration or multiculturalism in Canada.93

A Return to Anglo-conformity

The perception that Canada is a multicultural and tolerant society is a myth. Immigration regulations and the delicate nature of multiculturalism in Canada suggests that Canadian identity and national belonging is being redefined along a Western civilization framework. Policies expressed (both implicitly and explicitly) by the federal government suggest that Canada (along with the West) conceptualizes itself as a modern, enlightened and secular. This is juxtaposed with the othering of Muslims from the Middle East who are viewed in pre-modern terms.

Muslims in Canada are therefore reduced to essentialized representations of fundamentalism and terrorism – they are a symbolic challenge to the nation. State agents espouse race-thinking on a weekly basis when they use phrases such as ‘Canadian values’ – those who exude normalized and idealized ‘White values’ are conceptualized as outsiders. Racially coded, this reconfiguration of Canadian identity has made national belonging and the citizenship of racialized groups more precarious than it was under the ambiguous and contradictory terms of liberal multiculturalism.

The racial hierarchy in Canada is alive and thriving. As in the past, everyone within Canada’s boundaries continues to be framed along racial lines. People of colour are being re-colonized.

93 “Poll: Is Multiculturalism a Failed Experiment in Canada?,” Globe and Mail, http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/time-to-lead/multiculturalism/poll-is-multiculturalism-a-failed- experiment-in-canada/article1732644/comments/ (accessed October 11, 2011). 372

Bibliography

Archival and Library Collections

Library and Archives Canada (LAC)

Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism (textual records), R5366-2-4-E, MG31 D58.

Department of the Secretary of State. Multiculturalism Directorate. Minister’s Office – Multiculturalism. RG 6, 89 90/319.

Correspondence – Heritage Ontario, R11585.

Archives of Ontario

Minister of Labour's general correspondence and subject files. Human Rights Code Review- Press Reports: Life Together 1977. RG 7-1, Acc 20569.

Alvin D. McCurdy Fonds. Records of the Amherstburg Community Club. F 2076-14-0-4.

Trent University Archives (Peterborough)

Thomas Symons Fonds.

Newspapers and Magazines (Various Dates)

Canada and the World Canadian Dimension Chatelaine Collingwood Enterprise-Bulletin Contrast Globe and Mail Maclean's Markham Economist Montréal Star Owen Sound Sun Times Saturday Night The Canadian Forum The Economist The Montréal Gazette The New York Times The Windsor Star Toronto Daily Star Toronto Star

373

Toronto Sun Toronto Telegram Washington Evening Star Weekend Magazine

Royal Commissions

Canada. Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism. Preliminary Hearings. Ottawa: Queen’s Printer, 1963.

Canada. Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism. Book IV: The Cultural Contribution of the Other Ethnic Groups. Ottawa: Queen’s Printer of Canada, 1970.

Ontario. Royal Commission into Metropolitan Toronto Police Practices. Report of the Ontario Royal Commission into Metropolitan Toronto Police Practices. Toronto: Ministry of the Attorney General, 1976.

Theses and Other Unpublished Works

Dodd, Dianne. “The Canadian Birth Control Movement, 1929-1939.” Master’s thesis, University of Toronto, 1982.

Ramcharan, S. “Adaptation of West Indians in Canada.” PhD diss., York University, 1974.

Government Documents

Canada. Citizenship and Immigration Canada. Annual Report of the Operation of the Canadian Multiculturalism Act 2008-2009. Ottawa: Minister of Public Works and Government Services Canada, 2010.

Canada. Citizenship and Immigration Canada. Annual Report on the Operation of the Canadian Multiculturalism Act 2009-2010. Ottawa: Minister of Public Works and Government Services Canada, 2011.

Canada. Citizenship and Immigration Canada. Welcome to Canada: What You Should Know. Ottawa: Minister of Public Works and Government Services Canada, 2010.

Canada. Department of External Affairs. International Year for Action To Combat Racism and Racial Discrimination. Pamphlet no. 22, 1971.

Canada. Department of Manpower and Immigration. Canadian Immigration and Population Study. Three Years in Canada: First Report of the Longitudinal Survey on the Economic and Social Adaptation of Immigrants. Ottawa: Manpower and Immigration, Information Canada, 1974.

374

Canada. Department of Manpower and Immigration. Highlights from the Green Paper on Immigration and Population. Ottawa: Canadian Immigration and Population Study, 1975.

Canada. Department of Manpower and Immigration. White Paper on Immigration. Ottawa: Queen’s Printer, 1966.

Canada. Department of the Secretary of State. Prejudice and Discrimination - A Study Guide, 1975.

Canada. Department of the Secretary of State. Fair Employment Practices Branch. Toward Understanding - Prejudice, Discrimination. 1974.

Canada. House of Commons Debates.

Canada. Ontario Human Rights Commission. Life Together: A Report on Human Rights in Ontario. Toronto: Ontario Human Rights Commission, 1977.

Canada. Parliament. House of Commons. Special Committee on Participation of Visible Minorities in Canadian Society. Equality Now!: Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence of the Special Committee on Participation of Visible Minorities in Canadian Society. Ottawa: Queen's Printer, 1984.

Canada. Parliament. House of Commons. Special Committee on Participation of Visible Minorities in Canadian Society. Response of the Government of Canada to Equality Now! : The report of the Special Parliamentary Committee on Visible Minorities in Canadian Society. Ottawa: Minister of Supply and Services Canada, 1984.

Canada. Parliament. House of Commons. Sub-Committee on Equality Rights. Equality for All : Report of the Parliamentary Committee on Equality Rights. Ottawa: Queen's Printer for Canada, 1985.

Canada. Parliament. Senate. Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. Proceedings. 1969.

Canada. Senate Debates.

Canada. Special Committee on Hate Propaganda in Canada. Report of the Special Committee on Hate Propaganda in Canada. Ottawa: Queen’s Printer, 1965.

Canada. Special Committee on the Criminal Code (Hate Propaganda). Proceedings of the Canada Parliament Senate Special Committee on the Criminal Code (Hate Propaganda). Ottawa: Queen’s Printer, 1968.

375

Government of Ontario. Forward Together: A Statement of the Position of the Government of Ontario on the Issues Raised in the Ubale Report on the Concerns of the South Asian Community. Toronto: 1978.

Ontario. Legislative Assembly. Debates of the Resource Development Committee, 1979.

Ontario. Legislative Assembly. Standing Committee on Administration of Justice. Bill 105, Police Services Amendment Act, 1997.

Ontario. Ministry of Education. Circular 14, 1972

Ontario. Ministry of Education. Circular 14, 1977.

Ontario. Ministry of Education. Circular 14, 1980.

Ontario. Ministry of Education. Report of the Minister of Education 1979-1980. Toronto: The Ministry, 1980.

Ontario. Ministry of Education. Report of the Minister of Education 1982-1983. Toronto: The Ministry, 1983.

Ontario. Ministry of Education. Report of the Minister of Education 1983-1984. Toronto: The Ministry, 1984.

Ontario. Ministry of Education. Report of the Minister of Education 1985-1986. Toronto: The Ministry, 1986.

Ontario. North York Board of Education. Race and Ethnic Relations Policy and Procedures Toronto, 1982.

Ontario. Ontario Legislative Assembly Debates.

Ontario. Report of the Commission on Systemic Racism in the Ontario Criminal Justice System. Toronto: Queen’s Printer for Ontario, 1995.

Ontario. Toronto Board of Education. Draft Report on the Sub-Committee on Race Relations. Toronto, 1978.

Ontario. Toronto Board of Education. Final Report of Sub-Committee on Race Relations. 1979.

Province of Ontario. Legislative Assembly. Debates of the Resource Development Committee. 1978.

Province of Ontario. Legislative Assembly. Debates of the Resource Development Committee. 1979.

376

Province of Ontario. Legislative Assembly. Standing Committee on Social Development. 1981

Legislation

An Act for the establishment and conduct of a Project in the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto to improve methods of processing Complaints by members of the Public against Police Officers on the Metropolitan Police Force, Statutes of the Province of Ontario 1981, Bill 68.

An Act to Amend the Criminal Code, Statutes of Canada 1970, Bill C-3.

An Act to establish the Ontario Code of Human Rights and to provide for its Administration, Statutes of the Province of Ontario 1962, c. 93.

An Act to revise and extend Protection of Human Rights in Ontario, Statutes of the Province of Ontario 1981, c.53.

Anti-terrorism Act, Statues of Canada 2001, c. 41.

Canadian Bill of Rights, Statutes of Canada 1960, c. 44.

Canadian Multiculturalism Act, Statutes of Canada 1988, c. 31.

Dominion Elections Act, Statures of Canada 1938, c. 46, s. 14.

Employment Equity Act, Statutes of Canada 1986, c. 31.

Employment Equity Act, Statutes of Canada 1995, c. 44.

Fair Accommodation Practices Act. Statutes of Ontario 1954, c. 28.

Fair Employment Practices Act, Statutes of Ontario 1951, c.24.

Immigration Act, Statutes of Canada 1910, c. 27, s.38.

Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, Statutes of Canada 2001, c. 27.

Ontario Human Rights Code, Statutes of Ontario 1961-62, c.93.

Police Services Act, Statutes of Ontario 1990, c.10.

Racial Discrimination Act, Statues of Ontario 1944, c. 51.

377

Enquiries into Racism

Adair, J., and D. Rosenstock. Multiculturalism in the Classroom: A Survey of Interracial Attitudes in the Schools. Ottawa: Secretary of State, 1976.

Begin, P. D. Forcese, and D. Gould. Policing in a Multicultural Society: Ottawa Police Department Relations with Immigrants and Public Housing Residents. Ottawa: Carleton University, 1978.

Canada. Multiculturalism Directorate. A Study of Race Relations in Montréal, 1982.

Canada. Multiculturalism Directorate. Perceptions of Discrimination and Race Relations in the Nation’s Capital: A Study Prepared for the Multiculturalism Directorate, 1982.

Canada. Multiculturalism Directorate. Perceptions of Racial Discrimination in Calgary: A Situation Report, 1982.

Canada. Multiculturalism Directorate. Race Relations in Metropolitan Toronto: A Situation Report, 1982.

Canada. Multiculturalism Directorate. Race Relations in Windsor: A Situation Report, 1982.

Canada. Multiculturalism Directorate. Race Relations Situation Report: A Synthesis Report on Race Relations and Race Discrimination in the City of Saint John, New Brunswick, 1982.

Canada. Multiculturalism Directorate. Situation Report on the Current State of Race Relations, Vancouver, British Columbia, 1982.

Canada. Multiculturalism Directorate. Situation Report on the Current State of Race Relations, Williams Lake, British Columbia, 1982.

Canada. Multiculturalism Directorate. Situation Report on the State of Race Relations in Halifax and Digby, 1982.

Canada. Multiculturalism Directorate. Survey on Race Relations in Regina, 1982.

Canada. Multiculturalism Directorate. Winnipeg Situation Report: Situation Report on Race Relations in Winnipeg, 1982.

Carter, (Cardinal) Gerard Emmett. Report to the Civil Authorities of Metropolitan Toronto and Its Citizens. Toronto, 1979.

Elkin, Frederick. The Employment of Visible Minority Groups in Mass Media Advertising: A Report Submitted to the Ontario Human Rights Commission. Toronto: Queen's Printer, 1971.

378

Glasbeek, Harry. Police Shootings of Black People in Ontario. Toronto: The Commission, 1994.

———. Supplementary to a Report on Attorney-General’s Files, Prosecutions and Coroners’ Inquests Arising out of Police Shooting in Ontario to The Commission on Systemic Racism in Ontario’s Criminal Justice System. Toronto, 1994.

Head, Wilson. Adaptation of Immigrants in Metro Toronto: Perceptions of Ethnic and Racial Discrimination: an Exploratory Study. Toronto: York University, 1980.

———. The Black Presence in the Canadian Mosaic: A Study of the Perception and the Practice of Discrimination against Blacks in Metropolitan Toronto. Toronto: Ontario Human Rights Commission, 1975.

Helling, Rudolph. The Position of Negroes, Chinese and Italians in the Social Structure of Windsor, Ontario. A Report Submitted to the Ontario Human Rights Commission. December 1965.

Henry, Frances. The Dynamics of Racism in Toronto: Research Report. Ottawa: Department of the Secretary of State of Canada, 1978.

Henry, Franklin. Perception of Discrimination Among Negroes and Japanese-Canadians in Hamilton. A Report Submitted to the Ontario Human Rights Commission, November 1965.

Hill, Daniel G. Human Rights in Canada: A Focus on Racism. Ottawa: Canadian Labour Congress, 1977.

McLeod, R.M. Q.C. A Report And Recommendations On Amendments To The Police Services Act Respecting Civilian Oversight Of Police. Toronto: Queen’s Printer for Ontario, 1996.

Ontario Human Rights Commission. Paying the Price, The Human Cost of Racial Profiling: An Inquiry Report. Toronto: the Commission, 2003.

Pitman, Walter. Now Is Not Too Late: A Report Submitted to the Council of Metropolitan Toronto. Toronto: Task Force on Human Relations, 1977.

Ubale, Bhausaheb. “Equal Opportunity and Public Policy: a Report on Concern of the South Asian Canadian Community Regarding their Place in the Canadian Mosaic.” (Draft Copy). Submitted to the Attorney General of Ontario by the South Asian Canadian Community, 1977.

Briefs/ Working Papers/ Conference Proceedings

Bird, Pat. Racism in Canada. World Council of Churches Program, 1981.

379

Canadian Consultative Council on Multiculturalism. First Annual Report of the Canadian Consultative Council on Multiculturalism. Ottawa: Canadian Consultative Council on Multiculturalism, 1975.

Canadian Jewish Congress. Brief of the Canadian Jewish Congress on Bill S-21 (hate propaganda) to the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs. Ottawa, 1969.

Hamalengwa, Munyonzwe. “A Contribution to the Debate on Civilian Control of Police Powers in Toronto, 1980-1989.” Paper Presented to Investigating Crime and Apprehending Suspects: Police Powers and Citizens Rights, Conference Organized by the Society For The Reform of the Criminal Law, Sydney, Australia, March 19th-24th, 1989.

Hameed, Syed M.A., and Gurbachan S. Paul. “Race Relations in Canada: Problems, Strategies and Solutions.” Conference, Edmonton: University of Alberta, Department of Industrial and Legal Relations, 1980.

Mosher, Clayton. Crime and Colour, Cops and Courts: Systemic Racism in the Ontario Criminal Justice System in Social and Historical Context - 1892-1961; Draft Working Paper. Toronto: Commission on Systemic Racism in the Ontario Criminal Justice System, 1993.

Social Planning Council of Metropolitan Toronto and the Urban Alliance on Race Relations. Law Enforcement and Race Relations. Toronto: Publications Department of the Social Planning Council, 1976.

Social Planning Council of Metropolitan Toronto, Community Review and Research Group. Who Comes Here? A Background Analysis of the Federal Green Paper on Immigration. Toronto: Social Planning Council of Metropolitan Toronto, 1975.

Urban Alliance on Race Relations. “A Statement of Concerns and Recommendations Regarding Human Rights in Ontario.” Brief Submitted to the Government of Ontario. November, 1980,

Film

Morel, Renée. Crisis at Sir George. videocassette, Moncton, NB: Connections Productions, 1998.

Online sources

Angus Reid Poll. “Multiculturalism.” 2010. http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/43492/canadians- endorse-multiculturalism-but-pick-melting-pot-over-mosaic/

Citizenship and Immigration Canada. “Multiculturalism.” http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/multiculturalism/index.asp

380

Concordia University History. http://www.concordia.ca/about/who-we-are/history/ and http://alumni.concordia.ca/about/associations/sgw/

Preamble. Universal Declaration of Human Rights. United Nations. http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

Statistics Canada. “Reference Guides and Technical Reports.” http://www12.statcan.ca/census- recensement/2006/ref/rp-guides/index-eng.cfm.

Toronto Police Service. “Professional Standards: Making a Complaint.” http://torontopolice.on.ca/professionalstandards/complaint.php

Books

Adachi, Ken. The Enemy that Never Was: The History of the Japanese Canadians. Toronto: McClelland and Stewart, 1976.

Adorno, Theodor W. Authoritarian Personality. New York: Harper, 1950.

Agamben, Giorgio. States of Exception. Translated by Kevin Attell. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2005.

Allport, Gordon. The Nature of Prejudice. Cambridge: Addison-Wesley Pub. Co, 1954.

Anderson, Kay. Vancouver’s Chinatown: Racial Discourse in Canada, 1875-1980. Montréal: McGill-Queen's University Press, 1991.

Arthur, Eric. Toronto: No Mean City. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1963.

Avery, Donald. Dangerous Foreigners: European Immigrant Workers and Labour Radicalism in Canada, 1896-1932. Toronto: McClelland and Stewart, 1979.

Backhouse, Constance. Colour-Coded: A Legal History of Racism in Canada, 1900-1950. Toronto: the Osgoode Society for Canadian Legal History and University of Toronto Press, 1999.

Bain, Colin M. et al. Making History – the Story of Canada in the Twentieth Century. Toronto: Prentice Hall, 2000.

Baker, David M. Forms of Exclusion: Racism and Community Policing in Canada. Oshawa: de Sitter Publications, 2006.

Batten, Jack. The Annex: The Story of a Toronto Neighbourhood. Erin: Boston Mills Press, 2004.

381

Bangarth, Stephanie. Voices Raised in Protest: Defending Citizens of Japanese Ancestry in North America, 1942-49. Vancouver: UBC Press, 2008.

Bannerji, Himani. Dark Side of the Nation: Essays on Multiculturalism, Nationalism and Racism. Toronto: Canadian Scholars' Press, 2000.

Banton, Michael. The Idea of Race. London: Tavistock, 1977.

Baraness, Marc, and Larry Richards, eds. Toronto Places: A Context for Urban Design. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1992.

Beaujot, Roderic. “Effect of Immigration on Demographic Structure.” In Canadian Immigration Policy for the 21st Century, edited by Charles M. Beach, Alan G. Green and Jeffery G. Reitz, 49- 91. Kingston: John Deutsch Institute for the Study of Economic Policy, 2003.

Bell, Colleen. The Freedom of Security: Governing Canada in the Age of Counter-Terrorism. Vancouver: UBC Press, 2011.

Benedict, Ruth. Race and Racism. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1983.

Berlin, Isaiah. Two Concepts of Liberty. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1958.

Blackwell, Judith C., Murray E.G. Smith, and John S. Sorernson, eds. Culture of Prejudice: Arguments in Critical Social Science. Peterborough: Broadview Press, 2003.

Bissoondath, Neil. “A Question of Belonging: Multiculturalism and Citizenship.” In Belonging: The Meaning and Future of Canadian Citizenship, edited by W. Kaplan, 368-387. Montréal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1993.

Boldon, Bertram. “Black Immigrants in a Foreign Land.” In Let the Niggers Burn: The Sir George Williams University Affair and its Caribbean Aftermath, edited by Dennis Forsythe, 22- 39. Montréal: Black Rose Books, 1971.

Borjas, George, J. “Immigration Policy, National Origins, and Immigrant Skills: A Comparison of Canada and the United States.” In Small Differences That Matter: Labour Markets and Income Maintenance in Canada and the United States, edited by David Card and Richard B. Freeman, 21-44. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1993.

Braun, Stefan. Democracy Off Balance: Freedom of Expression and Hate Propaganda Law in Canada. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2004.

Brathwaite, J. Ashton. Niggers, This is Canada. Toronto: 21st Century Book, 1971.

Broadfoot, Barry. The Immigrant Years: From Britain to Canada 1945-1967. Vancouver: Douglas and McIntyre, 1986.

382

Buchignani, Norman, Doreen M. Indra and Ram Srivastiva. Continuous Journey: A Social History of South Asians in Canada. Toronto: McClelland and Stewart Limited, 1985.

Burnley, Ian, and Warren E. Kalbach. Immigrants in Canada and Australia: Urban and Ecological Aspects. Edited by Anthony H. Richmond and Freda Richmond. Downsview: Institute for Behavioural Research, Social Science Research, York University, 1986.

Burnet, Jean. “Multiculturalism Ten Years Later.” In Two Nations, Many Cultures, edited by Jean Leonard Elliot, 235-242. Scarborough: Prentice Hall, 1983.

Butcher, LeRoi. “The Anderson Affair.” In Let the Niggers Burn: The Sir George Williams University Affair and its Caribbean Aftermath, edited by Dennis Forsythe, 76-109. Montréal: Black Rose Books, 1971.

———. “The Congress of Black Writers.” In Let the Niggers Burn: The Sir George Williams University Affair and its Caribbean Aftermath, edited by Dennis Forsythe, 69-74. Montréal: Black Rose Books, 1971.

Campey, Lucille. An Unstoppable Force: The Scottish Exodus to Canada. Toronto: National Heritage Books, 2008.

Carmichael, Stokely. Stokely Speaks: Black Power Back to Pan-Africanism. New York: Random House, 1971.

Carmichael, Stokely, and Charles V. Hamilton. Black Power: The Politics of Liberation in America. New York: Random House, 1967.

Carmichael, Stokely, and Ekwueme Michael Thelwell. Ready for Revolution: The Life and Struggles of Stokely Carmichael (Kwame Ture). New York: Scribner, 2003.

Carter, Bob. Realism and Racism: Concepts of Race in Sociological Research. London: Routedge, 2000.

Cancian, Sonia. Families, Lovers, and Their Letter: Italian Postwar Migration to Canada. Winnipeg: University of Manitoba Press, 2010.

Chilton, Lisa. Agents of Empire: British Female Migration to Canada and Australia, 1860s-1930. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2007.

Choudhry, Sujit. “Protecting Equality in the Face of Terror: Ethnic and Racial Profiling and s. 15 of the Charter.” In The Security of Freedom: Essays on Canada’s Anti-Terrorism Bill, edited by Ronald J. Daniels, Patrick Macklem and Kent Roach, 367-382. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2001.

383

Clark, C.S. Of Toronto the Good: A Social Study. The Queen City of Canada as it is. Montreal: Toronto Publishing Company, 1898.

Clément, Dominique. Canada’s Rights Revolution: Social Movements and Social Change, 1937- 1982. Vancouver: UBC Press, 2008.

Coleman, William D., and Grace Skogstad. Policy Communities and Public Policy in Canada: A Structural Approach. Toronto: Copp Clark Pitman, 1990.

Cooper, Afua. The Hanging of Angélique: The Untold Story of Slavery and the Burning of Montréal. Toronto: Harper Collins, 2006.

Coopersmith, Penina. Cabbagetown: The Story of a Victorian Neighbourhood. Toronto: J. Lorimer and Co, 1998.

Cottrell, Michael. “St. Patrick’s Day Parades in Nineteenth-Century Toronto: A Study of Immigrant Adjustment and Elite Control.” In A Nation of Immigrants: Women, Workers, and Communities in Canadian History, 1840-1960s, edited by Franca Iacovetta et al, 35-54. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1998.

Cotter, Charis. Toronto Between the Wars: Life in the City 1919-1939. Richmond Hill: Firefly Books, 2004.

Cruxton, J. Bradley, and W. Douglas Wilson. Spotlight Canada, 4th edition. Toronto: Oxford University Press, 2000.

Day, Richard J.F. Multiculturalism and the History of Canadian Diversity. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1999.

Dickie, Donalda. The Great Adventure: An Illustrated History of Canada for Young Canadians. Toronto: Dent, 1960.

Dollard, John. Caste and Class in a Southern Town. New York: Doubleday and Company, Inc., 1949.

Dorland, Arthur. Our Canada. Toronto: Copp Clark, 1949.

D'Oyley, Vincent. The Impact of Multi-ethnicity on Canadian Education. Toronto: Urban Alliance on Race Relations, 1977.

Dreisziger, N. F. The Wartime Origins of Ethnic Tolerance in Canada. Toronto: Robert F. Harney Professorship and Program in Ethnic, Immigration and Pluralism Studies, University of Toronto, 1999.

English, John. Just Watch Me: The Life of Pierre Elliot Trudeau: 1968-2000. Toronto: Alfred A.

384

Knopf Canada, 2009.

Eber, Dorothy. The Computer Centre Party. Montréal: Tundra Book, 1969.

Eber, Nancy A. A Practical Guide to the Ontario Human Rights Code. Aurora: Aurora Professional Press, 1995.

Epp, Marlene. Women Without Men: Mennonite Refugees of the Second World War. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2000.

Evans, Peter B., Dietrich Rueschemeyer, and Theda Skocpol. Bringing the State Back In. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985.

Feagin, Joe R. Systemic Racism: A Theory of Oppression. New York: Routedge, 2006.

Fielding, John, and Rosemary Evans. Canada: Our Century, Our Story. Scarborough: Nelson, 2001.

Feng, Hou, and Garnett Picot. “Visible Minority Neighbourhood Enclaves and Labour Market Outcome of Immigrants.” In Canadian Immigration Policy for the 21st Century, edited by

Forsythe, Dennis. “By Way of Introduction: The Sir George Williams Affair,” In Let the Niggers Burn: The Sir George Williams University Affair and its Caribbean Aftermath, edited by Dennis Forsythe, 7-21. Montréal: Black Rose Books, 1971.

———. “The Unfinished Revolution.” In Let the Niggers Burn: The Sir George Williams University Affair and its Caribbean Aftermath, edited by Dennis Forsythe, 193-208. Montréal: Black Rose Books, 1971.

———. “The Black Writers Conference: Days to Remember,” In Let the Niggers Burn: The Sir George Williams University Affair and its Caribbean Aftermath, edited by Dennis Forsythe, 57- 69. Montréal: Black Rose Books, 1971.

Francis, Daniel. National Dreams: Myth, Memory, and Canadian History. Vancouver: Arsenal Pulp Press, 1997.

Francis, Douglas. R., Richard Jones, and Donald B. Smith. Destines: Canadian History Since Confederation. Toronto: Harcourt Canada, 2000.

———. Journeys: A History of Canada. Toronto: Nelson College Indigenous, 2009.

Fredrickson, George M. Racism: A Short History. New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2002.

Fulford, Robert. Accidental City: The Transformation of Toronto. Toronto: MacFarlane Walter and Ross, 1995.

385

Ghadhi P.R., ed. International Human Rights Documents, 5th ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 2006.

Gibbon, John Murray. Canadian Mosaic: the Making of a Northern Nation. Toronto: McClelland & Stewart Ltd., 1938.

Goldberg, David Theo. The Racial State. Malden: Blackwell Publishing, 2002.

Goldberg, David Theo. “The Semantics of Race.” In Racism, edited by Martin Bulmer and John Solomos, 362-377. New York: Oxford University Press, 1999.

Goulbourne, Harry. Race Relations in Britain Since 1945. London: Macmillan Press Ltd, 1998.

Green, Duncan. “The New Socialization of Multi-ethnicity.” In The Impact of Multi-ethnicity on Canadian Education, edited by Vincent D’Oyley, 29-41. Toronto: Urban Alliance on Race Relations, 1977.

Griffin, John Howard. Black Like Me. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1961.

Hamilton, Sarah. “Terrorizing (Un)Citizens: A Genealogy of Security Certificates.” In Engaging Terror: A Critical and Interdisciplinary Approach, edited by Marianne Vardalos et al., 309-322. Boca Raton: Brown Walker Press, 2009.

Harris, Cole. Making Native Space: Colonialism, Resistance, and Reserves in British Columbia. Vancouver: UBC Press, 2002.

Harvey, Robert. Immigrants: A Portrait of the Urban Experience, 1890-1930. Toronto: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1975.

———. Gathering Place: Peoples and Neighbourhoods of Toronto, 1834-1945. Toronto: Multicultural History Society of Ontario, 1985.

Hawkins, Freda. Canada and Immigration: Public Policy and Public Concern. Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1988.

———. Critical Years in Immigration: Canada and Australia Compared. Montréal: McGill- Queen's University Press, 1991.

Head, Wilson. A Life on the Edge: Experiences in “Black and White” in North America. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1995.

Henry, Frances, and Carol Tator. The Colour of Democracy: Racism in Canadian Society. Toronto: Thomson Nelson, 2006.

386

———. Racial Profiling in Canada: Challenging the Myth of "A Few Bad Apples." Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2006.

Henry, Frances, Carol Tator, Winston Mattis, and Tim Rees. The Colour of Democracy: Racism in Canadian Society. Toronto: Harcourt Brace and Company, 1995.

Hier, Sean P., and B. Singh Bolaria eds. Race and Racism in 21st Century Canada: Continuity, Complexity, and Change. Peterborough: Broadview Press, 2007.

Hillmer, Norman, and J.L. Granatstein. The Land Newly Found: Eyewitness Accounts of the Canadian Immigrant Experience. Toronto: Thomas Allen Publishers, 2006.

Hurd, William Burton. Racial Origins and Nativity of the Canadian People. Ottawa: J.O. Patenaude, 1937.

Hutten, Anne van Arragon. Uprooted: The Story of Dutch Immigrant Children in Canada, 1947-1959. Kentville: North Mountain Press, 2001.

Iacovetta, Franca et al, A Nation of Immigrants: Women, Workers, and Communities in Canadian History, 1840-1960s. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1998.

Iacovetta, Franca. Gatekeepers: Reshaping Immigrant Lives in Cold War Canada. Toronto: Between the Lines, 2006.

———. Such Hardworking People: Italian Immigrants in Postwar Toronto. Kingston: McGill- Queen’s University Press, 1992.

Igartua, José E. The Other Quiet Revolution: National Identities in English Canada, 1945-1971. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press, 2006.

Ignatiev, Noel. How the Irish Became White. New York: Routledge, 1995.

James, C. E., and K. Brathwaite, “The Education of African Canadians: Issues, Contexts, and Expectations,” in Educating African Canadians, edited by K. Brathwaite and C.E. James, 13-31. Toronto: James Lorimer and Company, 1996.

Johnson, Cedric. Revolutionaries to Race Leaders: Black Power and the Making of African American Politics. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2007.

Johnson, Norah. The Irish in Toronto’s Old Ward 5. Toronto: Community History Project, 1992.

Kaplan, William. “Maxwell Cohen and the Report of the Special Committee on Hate Propaganda.” In Law, Policy, and International Justice, edited by William Kaplan and Donald McRae, 243-274. Montréal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1993.

Keene, Judith. Human Rights in Ontario. Toronto: Carswell, 1992. 387

Kelley, Ninette, and Michael Trebilcock, The Making of the Mosaic: A History of Canadian Immigration Policy. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1998.

Kerr, D.G.G. The Changing Face of Toronto: A Study in Urban Geography. Ottawa: Queen’s Printer, 1965.

Kite, Mary E., and Bernard E. Whitley Jr. The Psychology of Prejudice and Discrimination. Belmont: Thomson Wadsworth, 2005.

Knowles, Valarie. Strangers at Our Gates: Canadian Immigration and Immigration Policy, 1540-1995. Toronto: Dundurn Press, 1997.

Kruger, Erin, Marlene Mulder, and Bojan Korenic. Canada After 9/11: New Security Measures and ‘Preferred’ Immigrants. Edmonton: Prairie Centre of Excellence for Research on Immigration and Integration, 2004.

Kobayashi, Cassandra, and Roy Miki. Justice in Our Time: the Japanese Canadian Redress Settlement. Vancouver: Talonbooks, 1991.

Kymlicka, Will. Finding Our Way: Rethinking Ethnocultural Relations in Canada. Don Mills: Oxford University Press, 1998.

———. Multicultural Citizenship: a Liberal Theory of Minority Rights. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995.

Ladouceur, Barbara, and Phyllis Spence. Blackouts to Bright Lights: Canadian War Bride Stories. Vancouver: Ronsdale Press, 1995.

Lambertson, Ross. Repression and Resistance: Canadian Human Rights Activists, 1930-1960. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2005.

Law, Howard.“‘Self-Reliance Is the True Road to Independence’: Ideology and the Ex-Slaves in Buxton and Chatham.” In A Nation of Immigrants: Women, Workers, and Communities in Canadian History, 1840-1960s, edited by Franca Iacovetta et al,. 83-100. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1998.

Lee, Enid. Letters to Marcia: A Teacher’s Guide to Anti-Racist Education. Toronto: Cross Cultural Communication Centre, 1992.

Levitt, Cyril H., and William Shaffir. The Riot at Christie Pits. Toronto: Lester & Orpen Denys, 1987.

Li, Peter S. The Chinese in Canada. Toronto: Oxford University Press, 1998.

388

———. Race and Ethnic Relations in Canada. Don Mills, Oxford University Press, 1990.

Lillian Petroff, Sojourners and Settlers: The Macedonian Community in Toronto to 1940. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1995.

Lopez, Ian F. Harvey. “The Social Construction of Race.” In Critical Race Theory: the Cutting Edge, edited by Richard Delgado, 191-203. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1995.

Lower, Arthur. Canada: A Nation and How it Came to Be. Toronto: Longmans, 1968.

Lumumba, Carl. “The West Indies and the Sir George Williams Affair: An Assessment.” In Let the Niggers Burn: The Sir George Williams University Affair and its Caribbean Aftermath, edited by Dennis Forsythe, 144-192. Montréal: Black Rose Books, 1971.

Lupul, Manoly R. The Politics of Multiculturalism: A Ukrainian-Canadian Memoir. Edmonton: Canadian Institute of Ukrainian Studies Press, 2005.

Magel, Ralph. 200 Years Yonge. Toronto: Natural Heritage, 1998.

Magnet, Joseph. “Hate Propaganda in Canada.” In Free Expression: Essays in Law and Philosophy, edited by W. J. Waluchow, 223-250. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1992.

McDonald, James Ted. “Location Choice of New Immigrants to Canada: The Role of Ethnic Networks.” In Canadian Immigration Policy for the 21st Century, edited by Charles M. Beach, Alan G. Green, and Jeffery G. Reitz, 163-195. Kingston: John Deutsch Institute for the Study of Economic Policy, 2003.

McGowan, Mark George. Death of Canada: the Irish Famine Migration to Canada, 1847. Toronto: Novalis, 2009.

McLaren, Angus. Our Own Master Race: Eugenics in Canada, 1885-1945. Toronto: McClelland & Stewart Inc., 1990.

McKenna, Marian. Vikings Return: Icelandic Immigration to Canada, 1870-1920. Calgary: Detselig Enterprises, 2010.

McPhee, Robert W. “New Dimensions in Race Relations: Impact on Society and Schools.” In The Impact of Multi-ethnicity on Canadian Education, edited by Vincent D’Oyley, 3-10. Toronto: Urban Alliance on Race Relations, 1977.

Miki, Roy. Redress: Inside the Japanese Canadian Call for Justice. Vancouver: Raincoast Books, 2004.

Miles, Robert. Racism. London: Routedge, 1989.

389

Miller, Hugh Maclean. Our Glory and Our Grief: Torontonians and the Great War. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2002.

Miller, J.R. Skyscrapers Hide the Heavens: A History of Indian-White Relations in Canada. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1991.

Mills, Sean. The Empire Within: Postcolonial Thought and Political Activism in Sixties Montréal. Montréal: McGill Queen’s University Press, 2010.

Miron, Janet, ed. A History of Human Rights in Canada: Essential Issues. Toronto: Canadian Scholars’ Press, Inc., 2009.

Morton, Desmond. Mayor Howland: The Citizens’ Candidate. Toronto: Hakkert, 1973.

Myrviod, Barbara. Danforth in Pictures: A Brief History of the Danforth. Toronto: Toronto Public Library, 1979.

Myrdal, Gunnar. An American Dilemma: the Negro Problem and Modern Democracy. New York: Harper, 1957.

Nelson, Camille A., and Charmaine A. Nelson., eds. Racism, Eh?: A Critical Inter-Disciplinary Anthology of Race and Racism in Canada. Concord: Captus Press, 2004.

Norrie, Kenneth, Douglas Owram, and J.C. Herbert Emery. A History of the Canadian Economy. Scarborough: Nelson Thomson, 2002.

Ogbar, Jeffery O.G. Black Power: Radical Politics and African America Identity. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2004.

Omatsu, Maryka. Bittersweet Passage: Redress and the Japanese Canadian Experience. Toronto: Between the Lines, 1992.

Outlaw, Lucius. “Toward a Critical Theory of ‘Race.’” In Cultural and Literary Critiques of the Concept of ‘Race,’ edited by E. Nathaniel Gates, 384-408. New York: Garland Publishing Inc., 1997.

———. “Toward a Critical Theory of Race.” In Anatomy of Racism, edited by David Theo Goldberg, 58-82. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1990.

Pal, Leslie. Public Policy Analysis: An Introduction. Scarborough: Nelson Canada, 1992.

Palmer, Howard. Immigration and the Rise of Multiculturalism. Toronto: Copp Clark Limited, 1975.

———. Nativism and Ethnic Tolerance in Alberta, 1920-1972. Toronto: York University, 1973.

390

———. “Reluctant Hosts: Anglo-Canadian Views of Multiculturalism in the Twentieth Century.” In Immigration to Canada: Historical Perspectives, edited by Gerald Tulchinsky, 297- 333. Toronto: Copp Clark Longman Ltd, 1994.

Petryshyn, Jaroslav. Peasants in the Promised Land: Canada and the Ukrainians, 1891-1914. Toronto: Lorimer Press, 1985.

Porter, John. The Vertical Mosaic: An Analysis of Social Class and Power in Canada. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1965.

———. The Measure of Canadian Society: Education, Equality and Opportunity. Toronto: Gage, 1979.

Prasenjit, Duara. “Introduction: the Decolonization of Asia and Africa in the Twentieth Century.” In Decolonization: Perspectives from Now and Then, edited by Duara Prasenjit, 1-18. New York: Routledge, 2004.

Radley-Walters, Maureen. Canada: Land of Immigrants. Don Mills: Nelson, 1973.

Rao, Lakshmana G, Anthony H. Richmond, and Jerzy Zubrzycki. Immigrants in Canada and Australia. Edited by Anthony H. Richmond and Freda Richmond. Downsview: Institute for Behavioral Research, Social Science Research, York University, 1984-1986.

Ramirez, Bruno. Crossing the 49th parallel: Migration from Canada to the United States, 1900-1930. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2001.

Razack, Sherene H. Casting Out: The Eviction of Muslims from Western Law and Politics. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2008.

Reczyńska, Anna. For Bread and a Better Future: Emigration from Poland to Canada 1918- 1939. Toronto: Multicultural History Society of Ontario, 1996.

Roediger, David R. The Wages of Whiteness: Race and the Making of the American Working Class. New York: Verso, 2007.

Satzewich, Vic. Racism and the Incorporation of Foreign Labour: Farm Labour Migration to Canada since 1945. New York: Routledge, 1991.

———., ed. Racism and Social Inequality in Canada: Concepts, Controversies and Strategies of Resistance. Toronto: Thompson Educational Publishing, 1998.

———. The Ukrainian Diaspora. London: Routledge, 2002.

391

Scott, Robert L., and Wayne Brockriede. The Rhetoric of Black Power. New York: Harper and Row Publishers, 1969.

Shadd, Adrienne. The Underground Railroad: Next Stop. Toronto: Natural History Books, 2002.

Singh, Nikhil Pal. Black is a Country: Race and the Unfinished Struggle for Democracy. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2004.

Sitton, Claude. “Status of Integration: The Progress So Far is Characterized as Mainly Tokenism.” In Black Protest in the Sixties, edited by August Meier and Elliott Rudwick, 74-78. Chicago: Quadrangle Books, 1970.

Solomos, John. Race and Racism in Britain. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan, 2003.

Speisman, Stephen. The Jews of Toronto: A History to 1937. Toronto: McClelland and Stewart, 1979.

Springhall, John. Decolonization since 1945: The Collapse of European Overseas Empires. New York: Palgrave, 2001.

Strange, Carolyn. Toronto’s Girl Problem: The Perils and Pleasures of the City, 1880-1930. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1995.

Srigley, Katrina. Breadwinning Daughters: Young Working Women in the Depression-era City, 1929-1939. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2010.

Sunahara, Ann. The Politics of Racism: the Uprooting of Japanese Canadians During the Second World War. Toronto: Lorimer, 1981.

Tanovich, David M. The Colour of Justice: Policing Race in Canada. Toronto: Irwin Law, 2006.

Taylor, Charles. Multiculturalism: Examining the Politics of Recognition. Edited by Amy Gutmann. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994.

Taylor, Lynne. Polish Orphans of Tengeru: the Dramatic Story of their Long Journey to Canada, 1941-1949. Toronto: Dundurn Press, 2009.

Thompson, Austin. Spadina 1818-1936: A Story of Old Toronto. Toronto: Paqurian Press, 1988.

Trudel, Marcel. L’esclavage au Canada Français: Histoire et Conditions de L’esclavage. Québec City: Presses Universitaires Laval, 1960.

Tulchinsky, Gerald., ed. Immigration in Canada: Historical Perspectives. Toronto: Copp Clark Longman Ltd., 1994.

392

———. Branching Out: the Transformation of the Canadian Jewish Community. Toronto Stoddart, 1998.

Wagner, Jonathan F. A History of Migration from Germany to Canada, 1850-1939. Vancouver: UBC Press, 2006.

Walker, Barrington., ed. The History of Immigration and Racism in Canada: Essential Readings. Toronto: Canadian Scholars’ Press, 2008.

———. Race on Trial: Black Defendants in Ontario's Criminal Courts, 1858-1958. Toronto: The Osgoode Society for Canadian Legal History by University of Toronto Press, 2010.

Walker, James W. St.G. Human Rights, Racial Equality, Social Justice: Can We Get There From Here?. UBC: Centre for Policy Studies in Education, 1999.

———. The Black Loyalists: The Search for a Promised Land in Nova Scotia and Sierra Leone, 1793-1870. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1999.

———. 'Race,' Rights and the Law in the Supreme Court of Canada: Historical Case Studies. Toronto: The Osgoode Society for Canadian Legal History and Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 1997.

———. Racial Discrimination in Canada: The Black Experience. Ottawa: Canadian Historical Association, Historical Booklet no. 41, 1985.

Walters, Ronald W. Pan Africanism in the African Diaspora: An Analysis of Modern Afrocentric Political Movements. Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1993.

Ward, Peter. White Canada Forever: Popular and Public Attitudes Toward Orientals in British Columbia. Montréal: McGill-Queen's University Press, 1978.

Warkentin, John. Creating Memory: A Guide to Outdoor Public Sculpture in Toronto. Toronto: Becher Associate in Association with the City Institute at York University, 2010.

Weber, Max. Economy and Society. Edited by Guenther Roth and Claus Wittich. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1978.

Williams, Dorothy. Blacks in Montréal 1628-1986: An Urban Demography. Montréal: VLB éditeur, 1998.

———. The Road to Now: A History of Blacks in Montreal. Montreal: Véhicule Press, 1997.

393

Williams, Roosevelt. “Réactions: The Myth of White “Backlash.” In Let the Niggers Burn: The Sir George Williams University Affair and its Caribbean Aftermath, edited by Dennis Forsythe, 111-142. Montréal: Black Rose Books, 1971.

Williams, Vernon J. Rethinking Race: Franz Boas and His Contemporaries. Lexington: The University Press of Kentucky, 1996.

Wilson, Stuart. “Immigration and Capital Accumulation in Canada: A Long-Run Perspective.” In Canadian Immigration Policy for the 21st Century, edited by Charles Beach, Alan Green and Jeffrey Reitz, 125-158. Kingston: John Deutsch Institute for the Study of Economic Policy, McGill-Queen's University Press, 2003.

Winks, Robin. The Blacks in Canada: A History. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1997.

Wood, Dean, E. Multicultural Canada: A Teachers’ Guide to Ethnic Studies. Toronto: The Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, 1978.

Woodsworth, James, S. Strangers Within Our Gates or Coming Canadians. Toronto: F.C. Stephenson, 1909.

Worrell, DeLisle. “Canadian Economic Involvement in the West Indies.” In Let the Niggers Burn: The Sir George Williams University Affair and its Caribbean Aftermath, edited by Dennis Forsythe, 41-55. Montréal: Black Rose Books, 1971.

Zinn, Howard. A People’s History of the United States, 1492- Present. New York: Harper Perennial, 1995.

Zucchi, John. Italians in Toronto: Development of a National Identity, 1875-1935. Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1988.

Journal Articles

Abella, Irving. “Presidential Address: Jews, Human Rights and the Making of a New Canada.” Journal of the Canadian Historical Association 11 (2000): 3-15.

Austin, David. “All Roads Led to Montréal: Black Power, The Caribbean, and the Black Radical Tradition in Canada.” The Journal of African American History 92, no.4 (2007): 516-539.

Bahdi, Reem. “No Exit: Racial Profiling and Canada’s War Against Terrorism.” Osgoode Hall Law Journal 41, no. 2.3 (2003): 293-317.

Bangarth, Stephanie. “We are not asking you to open wide the gates for Chinese immigration: the Committee for the Repeal of the Chinese Immigration Act and early Human Rights Activism in Canada.” Canadian Historical Review 84, no.3 (2003): 395-422.

394

Banting, Keith, and Will Kymlicka. “Canadian Multiculturalism: Global Anxieties and Local Debates.” British Journal of Canadian Studies 23, no.1 (2010): 43-72.

Bannerji, Himani. “On that Dark Side of the Nation: Politics of Multiculturalism and the State of Canada.” Journal of Canadian Studies 31, no.3 (1996): 103-129.

Barrett, Stanley, R. “White Supremists and Neo-Fascists: Laboratories for the Analysis of Racism in Wider Society.” Canadian Ethnic Studies 16, no.1 (1984): 1-15.

Calliste, Agnes. “Women of ‘Exceptional Merit’: Immigration of Caribbean Nurses to Canada.” Canadian Journal of Women and the Law 6, no.1 (1993): 85-102.

Codjoe, Henry M. “Fighting a ‘Public Enemy’ of Black Academic Achievement – the persistence of racism and the schooling experiences of Black students in Canada.” Race Ethnicity and Education 4, no. 4 (2001): 343-75.

Corbett, David. “Canada’s Immigration Policy, 1957-1962.” International Journal 18, no.2 (1963): 166-180.

Davidovich, S. Ontario Human Rights Commission. Human Relations 2, no.5 (1962).

Eberlee, T. M., and D. G. Hill. “The Ontario Human Rights Code.” The University of Toronto Law Journal 15, no.2 (1964): 448-455.

Egerton, George. “Entering the Age of Human Rights: Religion, Politics, and Canadian Liberalism, 1945-1950.” The Canadian Historical Review 85, no.3 (2004): 451-479.

Frager, Ruth and Carmela Patrias. “‘This is Our Country, These Are Our Right:’ Minorities and the Origins of Ontario Human Rights Campaigns.” Canadian Historical Review 82, no.1 (2001): 1-35.

Green, Allan G, and David A. Green, “Canadian Immigration Policy: The Effectiveness of the Point System and Other Instruments.” Canadian Journal of Economics 28, no.4 (1995): 1006- 1041.

Hanniman, Wayne. “Canadian Muslims, Islamophobia and National Security.” International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice 36, no.4 (2008): 271-285.

Hobbins, A.J. “Eleanor Roosevelt, John Humphrey and Canadian Opposition to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: Looking Back on the 50th Anniversary of UNDHR. International Journal 53 no.2 (1998): 325-342.

Howe, Brian. “The Evolution of Human Rights Policy in Ontario.” Canadian Journal of Political Science 24, no.4 (1991): 783-801.

395

Hunter, Ian A. “The Development of the Ontario Human Rights Code: A Decade in Retrospect.” The University of Toronto Law Journal 22, no.4 (1972): 237-257.

Jain, Harish C., and Rich D. Hackett. “Measuring Effectiveness of Employment Equity Programs in Canada: Public Policy and a Survey.” Canadian Public Policy 15, no.2 (1989): 189-204.

Kage, Joseph. “Recent Changes in Canadian Immigration Regulations.” International Migration Review 2, no.1 (1967): 47-50.

Korenic, Bojen, Erin Kruger and Marlene Mulder. “Canada after 11 September: Security Measures and ‘Preferred’ Immigrants.” Mediterranean Quarterly 15, no. 4 (2004): 72-87.

Légaré, Evelyn. “Canadian Multiculturalism and Aboriginal People: Negotiating a Place in the Nation.” Identities 1, no.4 (1995): 347-366.

Lyman, Stanford M. “The Race Relations Cycle of Robert E. Park.” The Pacific Sociological Review 11, no.1 (1968): 16-22.

Montgomery, Ken. “Banal Race-Thinking: Ties of Blood, Canadian History Textbooks and Ethnic Nationalism.” Paedagogica Historica 41, no. 3 (2005): 313-336.

Moodley, Kogila. “Canadian Multiculturalism as Ideology.” Ethnic and Racial Studies 6, no.3 (1983): 320-331.

Murray, David. “Hands Across The Border: The Abortive Extradition Of Solomon Moseby.” Canadian Review of American Studies 30, no.2 (2000): 187-209.

Parai, Louis. “Canada’s Immigration Policy, 1962-74.” International Migration Review 9, no.4 (1975): 449-479.

Razak, Sherene H. “Your Client has a Profile: Race and National Security in Canada After 9/11.” Studies in Law, Politics and Society 40 (2007): 3-40.

Rhodes, Jane. “The Contestation Over National Identity: Nineteenth-Century Black Americans in Canada.” Canadian Review of American Studies 30, no.2 (2000): 175-186.

Satzewich, Vic. “Racism and Canadian Immigration Policy: The Government's View of Caribbean Migration, 1962-1966.” Canadian Ethnic Studies 21, no.1 (1989): 77-97.

Schabas, William A. “Canada and the Adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.” McGill Law Journal 43 (1998): 403- 442.

See, S.W. “‘An Unprecedented Influx’: Nativism and Irish Famine Immigration to Canada.” American Review of Canadian Studies 30, no.4 (2000): 429-453.

396

Stanley, Timothy J. “Why I Killed Canadian History: Towards and Anti-Racist History in Canada.” Social History 33, no.65 (2000): 79-103.

Stasiulis, Daiva K. “Minority Resistance in the Local State: Toronto in the 1970s and 1980s.” Ethnic and Racial Studies 12, no.1 (1989): 63-83.

Stone, John. “Race, Ethnicity, and the Weberian Legacy.” American Behavioral Scientist 38, no.3 (1995): 391-406.

Taylor, K. W. “Racism in Canadian Immigration Policy.” Canadian Ethnic Studies 23, no.1 (1991): 1-20.

Tanner, Julian, and Scot Wortley. “Data, Denial and Confusion: The Racial Profiling Debate in Toronto.” Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice 45, no.3 (2003): 367-389.

Walker, James W. St. G. “The ‘Jewish Phase’ in the Movement for Racial Equality in Canada.” Canadian Ethnic Studies 34, no. 1 (2002): 1-29.

397

Appendices

398

Appendix A Operative Sections of the Hate Propaganda Bill, 1970.

Section 267A. of Criminal Code

(1)Every one who advocates or promotes genocide is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for five years.

(2) In this section, “genocide” means any of the following acts committed with the intent to destroy in whole or in part any identifiable group, namely: (a) killing members of the group, or (b) deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction.

(3) No proceeding for an offence under this section shall be instituted without the consent of the Attorney General.

(4) In this section “identifiable group” means any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion or ethnic origin.

Section 267B

(1)Every one who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace, is guilty of (a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for two years; or (b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

(2)Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, willfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of (a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for two years; or (b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

(3) No person shall be convicted of an offence under section (2) (a) if he establishes that the statements communicated were true; (b) if, in good faith, he expressed or attempted to establish by argument an opinion upon which a religious subject; (c) if the statements were relevant to any subject or public interest, discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true; or (d) if, in good faith, he intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred towards an identifiable group in Canada.

399

(6) No Proceeding for an offence under subsection (2) shall be instituted without the consent of the Attorney General.

(7) in this section, (a) “public place” includes any place to which the public have access as of right or by invitation, expressed or implied; (b) “identifiable group” has the same meaning as it has in section 267A; and (c) “statements” includes words spoken or written or recorded electronically or electromagnetically or otherwise, and gestures signs, or other visible representations; and (d) “communicating” includes communicating by telephone, broadcasting or other audible or visible means.

Section 267C

(8)(c) “hate propaganda” means any writing, sign or visible representation that advocates or promotes genocide or the communication of which by any person would constitute an offence under section 267(b)…1396

1396 The House of Commons of Canada. Bill C-3: An Act To Amend the Criminal Code. 2nd session, 28th Parliament. Ottawa: Queen’s Printer, 1970, p.1-5. 400

Appendix B Multicultural Programme – Budget 1974-1975

Agency Projects Funding Total Agency Budget

Consultative Council $195,000 $195,000 Multicultural Grants a) Project a) $2,000,000 b) Multicultural Centres b) $ 654,000 c) Third Language c) $150,000 Teaching Aids $2,804,000 Canadian Identities Programme a) Folkloric Arts a) $165,000 b) Theatre b) $100,000 c) Literature c) $ 25,000 d) Crafts d) $110,00 e) Special Projects e) $85,000 f) Popular Ethnic Histories f) $49,000 $534,000 Multicultural Studies Programme a) Ethnic Studies Advisory Board a) $150,000 b) Scholarly Ethnic b) $104,000 Histories c) Cultural Development c) $150,000 Research $404,000 Multicultural Communication Programme a) Ethnic Media a) $500,000 b) Multicultural Promotion b) $105,000 c) Ethnic Press Analysis Service c) $30,000 $635,000 Public Archives a) Historical Branch a) $10,000 b) Administrative and b) $317,000 Technical Services $327,000 National Library a) Multilingual a) $100,000 Bibiloservice and Ethnic Canadiana Programmes b) Operations and Salaries b) $193,000 $293,000

National Museum of Man $1,359,000 $1,359,000 National Film Board a) Distribution Branch a) $94,000 b) Versioning b) $30,000 c) Production c) $266,000 $300,000 CRTC $20,000 $20,000

Source: LAC, RG 6, 89-90/319. Box 5 File: 3250-0 vol.1. Minister’s Office – Multiculturalism Policy. Jan 1973-sept 1974. Memorandum – Multicultural Programme. Sept 25, 1974.

401

Appendix C Multiculturalism Grants 1972-1973

Grant Recipient Funding Intent Amount

The Daughters of Mary Lebanese-Syrian To finance the teaching of Lebanese $1000 Society, Sydney, NS cooking, dancing and language. Cape Breton Industrial Area Multicultural To finance a seminar on $950 Organization, NS. multiculturalism.

Cape Breton’s Cultural Diversity Centre, To finance 15 ethnic youths to tour $7000 NS Cape Breton, organize concerts, dances, workshops and display handicraft of their ethnic group. Gaelic Society of Nova Scotia. Funds for a series of seminars on Folk $6000 Arts and Crafts. Black Historical and Dramatic Club of Funds for a visiting lecturer who $400 Moncton, NB. would speak on history of Blacks in Canada. Danish Canadian’s, New Denmark, N.B. Grant for centennial celebration of $5000 settlement. Imagititive Program – L’Accord, Grant to celebrate Canadians and $10,000 Montréal. Immigrants in Montréal. Podhale, Québec. Funding for instructors of Polish $4000 Canadian Singing and Dancing Group in Québec. Club Portugal de Montréal. Funding for Portuguese folklore. $1500 Tekeyan Armenian Cultural Association, Grant for a course in Armenian $1500 Montréal. History, Literature and Culture.

Montréal Estonian Society, Montréal. Grant for Estonian Cultural Program $600 including youth choir, folk dancing, gymnastics. Sephardic Jewish Organization – Funding for immigrant integration. $9000 Montréal. Roumanian Musical Spectacle, Québec. Grant for choral and folk dance. $3500 Society of Artists of Québec. Funding for Ukrainian Art Exhibit. $3000 Canada Korean Cultural Foundation, Salary for animator to strengthen $5000 Montréal. citizenship participation and culture sharing. La Fraternité Canadianne de Quebec Inc. Orientation course for new $3000 Québec City. immigrants. The Union Church of Montréal. To celebrate 65th anniversary of Black $7,500 culture. Funds for art exhibit, seminar on youth and workshops. Arc-en-Ciel Sherbrooke, Québec. Grant for immigrant integration. $10,000 Le Centre Social D’Aide aux Immigrants, Cultural and artistic activities. $15,000 Montréal. Centro-Italo-Canades Giovanni Caboto, Funds to assist in salaries of $8,000 Montréal. animators and programs (music, art, drama, handicrafts, signing, culinary art, needlecraft).

402

The Cretan’s Association of Montréal. Fund for history of Crete $4000 presentations for schools. The Hellenic Federation of Parents and Fund for Greek Folk Dance $3500 Guardians of Greater Montréal. instruction. Gruppo Folkloristico Friulano of Grant for dance, song, films and $2500 Montréal. lectures celebrating the Italian community. The Szechenyi Society of Montréal. Grant for Hungarian folk art teachers. $4000 Canadian Ukrainian Association and Les Funding for concerts. $20,000 Sortileges – a folk group from Montréal. (The UNIFY Canada Committee- Understanding National Identity among Franco-Ukrainian Youth.) Ukrainian Canadian Committee, Toronto. Grant to publish folk songs. $2000

Arabesca, Toronto Polish Student theatre. Funds to produce two short plays. $1400 The Ukrainian National Federation of Grant for Festival Can-UK –– a choir $10,000 Canada. and dance competition. The Maltese Canadian Society, ON. Grant for an arts and crafts exhibit. $3000 YWCA, Toronto. Program to assist immigrant women. $10,000 Ryerson Institute, Toronto. Funds for a Korean Cultural Festival. $2000 Arab Folklore Group of Downsview, Grant for the Greenfield International $3000 Toronto. folk Festival.

University of Ottawa Slavic Club. Funds for Slavic Art Exhibition, $3000 films. Jewish Immigrant Aid Services, ON. Funds to help Moroccan Jewish $5000 Immigrants in the Central Region. Greek Day Care Committee, ON. Grant for an orientation program for $3000 immigrant children. Internals of Hamilton. Fund for camping for immigrant $9000 families in Hamilton. Polish Canadian Research Institute, Grant to aid in compiling historical $6000 Toronto. documents and for future lectures and seminars. Canadian Estonian Historical Grant for translation of the history of $5000 Commission, Toronto. Estonians in Canada. The Santa Cecilian Chorus, Toronto. Funds to record folk songs in English, $5000 French, Italian and other languages. Indo-Trinidadian Cultural Society of Funds for social and cultural $1000 Canada, Toronto. activities. Inter-Agency Council for Services to Grant for interpreters for Chinese, $15,000 Immigrants and Migrants, Toronto. Portuguese, Greeks and Italian. The India-Canadian Association of Funds for the production of 10 $2000 Ottawa. programmes on the “Culture of India.” Croatian Peasant Society, Toronto. Grant for a dance and choir ensemble. $5000 Chinese Instrumental Music Group of the Grants for concerts to be performed $3000 University of Toronto. by 40 students. Canadian Polish Congress, Kitchener. Funds for the binding of books. $3500 Canadian Black Studies Resources Research grant. $5000 Centre, University of Western Ontario. Native Resource Centre Cross Cultural Grant for the completion of a history $5000

403

Centre, University of Western Ontario. of native people in the London Region. International Services of London Inc, Funds for immigrant assistance. $2500 London. The Latvian Relief Society of Canada, Grant to help fund the Canadian $2000 Toronto. American Youth Congress – celebration of folk dancing and music. The Polish Alliance of Canada, Branch Grant to reestablish the Polish Young $2000 20, Windsor. Peoples Singing and Dancing Ensemble and to contribute to teachers salaries. Women’s Branch of the Ukrainian Grant for the translation of fairy tales. $2,800 Canadian Committee of Winnipeg. The Jewish Historical Society of Western Funding for a multi-media exhibit on $10,000 Canada, Winnipeg. the history of Jews in Western Canada. The Portuguese Association of Manitoba, Fund for immigrant adaptation. $1000 Winnipeg. Saskatoon Folk Arts Council, Sask. Funding for an art workshop. $1750 Ukrainian Self-Reliance League of Funding for an educational program $8000 Canada, Sask. on multiculturalism. Hungarian Dance Bouquet, Edmonton. Funding for folk dance performances. $3000 Ukrainian Catholic Women’s League of Grant for folk arts and handicrafts $2600 Edmonton. course on Ukrainian embroidery, Easter egg decoration and ceramics. Filipino Canadian Society of Southern Fund to establish a Filipino Cultural $1000 Alberta. Group. Danish Canadian Club of Central Alberta, Salary for folk dance teacher. $1500 Red Deer. United Roumanian Fraternal Community Funding for folk dance, cooking, $5000 of Freedom, Edmonton. handicraft classes. Szechenyi Society Inc, Hungarian Grant for cultural activities and the $3700 Educational Committee, Alberta. publishing of Canadian Hungarian textbook. Japanese Canadian Citizens’ Association, Funding for a folk and classical music $1500 BC. group. Doukhobor Cultural Research Project, Funds for outreach and a settlement $2500 BC. history. Chinese Canadian Citizens Association of Immigrant orientation programs. $7500 Vancouver. Russian Community Centre, Vancouver. Grant for the Balalaika orchestra and $2500 Russian choir. Latvian Song Festival, British Columbia. Funding for a folk art exhibit. $5000 Khalsa Diwan Information Centre, BC. Funding for an East Indian cultural $5000 variety program. Okanagan Hungarian Society of Funding for a Hungarian folk dance $1000 Kelowna, BC. group.

Source: LAC, RG 6, 89-90/319. Box 5 File: 3250-0 vol.1. Minister’s Office – Multiculturalism Policy. Jan 1973-Sept 1974. Memorandum – Multicultural Programme. Sept 25, 1974.

404

Appendix D Multiculturalism Grants - June 1973

Grant Recipient Funding Intent Amount

Association Culturelle Hongriose St.Etienne, Festival celebrating the 1000th $6000 Montréal. anniversary of the birth of St. Etienne, the first Christian King of Hungary. Ukrainian Women’s Organization of Canada, Funding for a project to introduce the $1000 Montréal. Montréal community with Ukrainian history. Association AfroCanadienne d’Artistes, Funding for a workshop on Black art for $3500 Montréal. 60 children and 4 public seminars on Black culture in Canada. Canadian Union of Jewish Students, Funding for student conference. $2500 Montréal. Turkish Cultural Association of Canada, Funding for Turkish dance and music $3300 Montréal. dancers. Open Door Society Inc., Montréal. Funding to increase White awareness $4750 about Black and Native People’s “heritages in trans-racially adopted children.” Labavitch Youth Organization, Montréal. Funding for seminar of Chassidic $2500 philosophy. Orleta Folklore Dancing and Songs Group, Funding to “upgrade quality of songs $6740 Montréal. and dances.” Lebanese Canadian Association of Ottawa. Funding for a coordinator to assist new $4000 immigrants, radio program, Arabic courses at Algonquin College, building of library. Greater Riverdale Organization, Toronto. Funding for interpreters, translators, $7860 multilingual newspaper, annual convention. Afro Canadian Association of Ottawa. Funding for symposium on Black $3000 culture in Canada. Canadian Council of Christians and Jews. Funding for Brotherhood Camp in $2000 Western Region. August for Indian and non-Indian youth. Luso-Canadian Association of Edmonton. Funding to provide services for $10,000 Portuguese immigrants.

Kitsilano Sundown Committee, Vancouver. Funding for “social and relational $1500 meetings.”

Source: Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism (textual record) R5366-2-4-E, MG31 D58 Vol. 8, File 28 (7) – Multiculturalism Press clippings 1973.

405

Appendix E

Bilingualism Grants - 1973

Grant Recipient Funding Intent Amount The Canadian Public Health Association Funding for interpretation services for $2160 the 64th annual meeting. Canadian Wildlife Federation Funding to translate environmental $590 information. The Canadian Red Cross Society Funding to translate water safety $10,000 information. The Canadian Nurses Association Funding for Annual Meeting – $2190 simultaneous interpretation. The Canadian Building Officials Funding for Annual Meeting – $2215 Association. simultaneous interpretation. The Canadian Institute of Surveying Funding for Annual Meeting – to $1000 translate documents and for simultaneous translation.

Source: Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism (textual record) R5366-2-4-E, MG31 D58 Vol. 8, File 28 (7) – Multiculturalism Press clippings 1973. Minister of State Multiculturalism –News Release - June 8, 1973 – Language Administration Grants.

406

Appendix F

An Act to revise and extend Protection of Human Rights in Ontario 1981 – Substantive Parts Only- ______

WHEREAS recognition of the inherent dignity and the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world and is in accord with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as proclaimed by the United Nations.

AND WHERAS it is public policy in Ontario to recognize the dignity and worth of every person and to provide for equal rights and opportunities without discrimination that is contrary to law, and having its aim the creation of a climate of understanding and mutual respect for the dignity and worth of each person so that each person feels a part of the community and able to contribute fully to the development and well-being of the community and the Province;

AND WHEREAS these principles have been confirmed in Ontario by a number of enactments of the Legislature and it is desirable to revise and extend the protection of human rights in Ontario;

Therefore, Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Legislative Assembly of the Province of Ontario, enacts as follows:

PART I

FREEDOM FROM DISCRIMINATION

1. Every person has a right to equal treatment with respect to services, goods and facilities, without discrimination because of race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sex, age, marital status, family status or handicap.

2. (1) Every person has a right to equal treatment with respect to the occupancy of accommodation, without discrimination because of race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sex, age, marital status, family status, handicap or the receipt of public assistance. (2) Every person who occupies accommodation has a right to freedom from harassment by the landlord or agent of the landlord or by an occupant of the same building because of race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sex, age, marital status, family status, handicap or the receipt of public assistance.

3. Every person having the legal capacity has a right to contract on equal terms without discrimination because of race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sex, age, marital status, family status or handicap.

407

4. – (1) Every person has a right to equal treatment with respect to employment without discrimination because of race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sex, age, marital status, family status, handicap.

(2) Every person who is an employee has a right to freedom from harassment in the workplace by the employer or agent of the employer or by another employee because of race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sex, age, marital status, family status, handicap.

5. Every person has a right to equal treatment with respect to membership in any trade union, trade or occupational association or self-governing profession without discrimination because of race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sex, age, marital status, family status, handicap.

6. - (1) Every person who occupies accommodation has a right to freedom from harassment because of sex by the landlord or agent of the landlord or by an occupant of the same building.

(2) Every person who is an employee has a right to freedom from harassment in the workplace because of sex by his or her employer or agent of the employer or by another employee.

(3) Every person has a right to be free from,

(a) a sexual solicitation or advance made by a person in a position to confer, grant or deny a benefit or advancement to the person where the person making the solicitation or advance knows or ought reasonably to know that it is unwelcome; or (b) a reprisal or a threat of reprisal for the rejection of a sexual solicitation or advance where the reprisal made or threatened by a person in a position to confer, grant or deny a benefit or advancement to the person.

7.- Every person has a right to claim and enforce his or her rights under this Act, to institute and participate in proceedings under this Act and to refuse to infringe a right of another person under this Act, without reprisal or threat of reprisal for so doing.

8.- No person shall infringe or do, directly or indirectly, anything that infringes a right under this Part.

Source: Ontario. Statutes of the Province of Ontario. An Act to revise and extend Protection of Human Rights in Ontario. Toronto: Queen’s Printer for Ontario, 1981

408