“The Least Possible Fuss and Publicity”: The Politics of Immigration in Postwar Canada, 1945 - 1963. by Paul Andrew Evans A thesis Presented to the University of Waterloo in fulfilment of the thesis requirement for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in History Waterloo, Ontario, Canada, 2018 © Paul Andrew Evans 2018 Examing Committee Membership The following served on the Examining Committee for this thesis. The decision of the Examining Committee is by majority vote. External Examiner Keith Fleming, Ph.D. Associate Professor of History Western University Supervisor Bruce Muirhead, Ph.D. Associate Vice President, External Research and Professor of History University of Waterloo Internal Member Marlene Epp, Ph.D. Dean, Professor of History and Peace and Conflict Studies Conrad Grebel University College University of Waterloo Internal Member Kevin Spooner, Ph.D. Associate Professor, North American Studies, History Wilfrid Laurier University Internal-external Member Daniel Henstra, Ph.D. Associate Professor, Political Science Associate Chair, Undergraduate Studies University of Waterloo ii Author’s Declaration I hereby declare that I am the sole author of this thesis. This is a true copy of the thesis, including any required final revisions, as accepted by my examiners. I understand that my thesis may be made electronically available to the public. iii Abstract This thesis examines immigration policy in postwar Canada. Its focus is on the changes to immigration policy implemented between 1945 and 1963 by the governments of Mackenzie King, Louis St. Laurent, and John Diefenbaker, and on the events, ideas, and influences that drove those changes. The story is told through extensive primary-source research from the archival records of the federal Immigration Branch, the departments of Citizenship and Immigration, Labour, Agriculture, External Affairs, and the Privy Council Office. The Parliamentary record (Hansard) is also carefully examined, together with contemporary media reporting on immigration issues, the correspondence of politicians and policy-makers, and the statutes and regulations that established immigration laws during the period. Among the topics discussed are: the development of a legislative, regulatory, and administrative framework for immigration policy; the impact of international events on policy decisions; the resistence to immigration reform from within immigration bureaucracy; and the impact of racism and racial ‘preferences’ on policy. Throughout the period, the political considerations presented by these issues remained uppermost in the minds of those responsible for Canada’s immigration policy. iv Acknowledgements Academic research is often a solitary endeavour, but it is seldom undertaken in complete isolation. I have many to thank for their help in the preparation of this thesis. I am very grateful to the History Department of the University of Waterloo for the opportunity to pursue a degree in their doctoral program. From my first conversations with the department’s graduate chair (at the time) Dr. Dan Gorman, and with Dr. Bruce Muirhead, who became my thesis supervisor, I felt welcomed and encouraged. Most importantly for me, both made it clear that neither my age nor the years that had passed since I last studied would pose any impediment. I have benefited from Bruce’s advice and support throughout the past four years. I am also grateful to Donna Hayes, the department’s Administrative Coordinator, Graduate Studies, for helping me navigate the various administrative requirements and milestones of a doctoral program. Archivists and librarians – wherever I encountered them – were invariably helpful. While I cannot recall every name, I do want to recognize their organizations: the Trinity College Archives at the University of Toronto, the Queen’s University Archives, the City of Toronto Archives, and the Guelph Public Library (whose pristine Canada Year Book collection was an invaluable resource throughout). I am especially grateful for the assistance of the archivists and staff of the Library and Archives Canada. Their support was exceptional despite the reduction to their resources in recent years. Among other services, they undertook to expedite their review of portions of the J.W. Pickersgill records in their collection which were closed until 2017. The materials that were opened for me as a result of that process – particularly those related to the 1956 Hungarian crisis – have been absolutely invaluable. At the University of Waterloo’s Dana Porter Library, Jane Forgay offered valuable help in her capacity as liaison librarian for history, particularly in accessing on-line resources which I found challenging. Her colleague Agnes Zientarska-Kayko was also a great help, ensuring that the library’s Hansard and statute collections remained available to me during library renovations. My good friends Bill Hamade and Michael Sedra – scholars both – read sections of the manuscript and offered suggestions that were both timely and helpful. As a young graduate student in the 1980s, I had the opportunity to meet two former ministers of the St. Laurent government, the Hon. Walter E. Harris and the Hon. J.W. (Jack) Pickersgill, as I researched a master’s thesis. Our conversations focused on government finance, budgets, and the end of the St. Laurent era. Both gentlemen were forthright and helpful, patiently answering my questions, and I was v greatly impressed by the experience. To my regret, I did not ask them about immigration policy but now, years later, I have enjoyed the opportunity to examine a different area of their political careers. While criticism of either has not come easily, I believe I have treated them both objectively. My greatest debt by far is to my wife Marion. She read every draft chapter of this thesis, identifying grammatical problems and helping to simplify passages that were convoluted, repetitive, or unclear. She traveled with me on several research trips, ensuring that the time away would be enjoyable and sharing in the excitement of discovering useful archival material. She listened patiently as I formulated arguments, brooded over the conduct of long-ago policy makers, and tried to offer a new perspective into Canada’s complicated immigration history. Without her support and constant encouragement this thesis would never have been completed, or even started. It is dedicated to her with love and gratitude. vi To Marion vii Table of Contents Examining Committee Membership ii Author’s Declaration iii Abstract iv Acknowledgments v Dedication vii Introduction 1 Chapter One Approaching Canada’s Immigration History 7 Chapter Two Managing the ‘Problem’ of Immigration: 25 The Evolution of a Policy Framework Chapter Three The Postwar Years, 1945-1949: 47 Planning Continuity, Encountering Change Chapter Four The St. Laurent Years, 1950-1953: 74 Old Wine in New Bottles Chapter Five The St. Laurent Years, 1953-1955: 100 A New Minister and a Program under Attack Chapter Six The St. Laurent Years, 1955-1957 121 Change, and Defeat Chapter Seven The Diefenbaker Years, 1957-1963 147 Inspiring Vision and Lost Opportunity Conclusions 172 Bibliography 182 viii Introduction i. Two Speeches On May 1, 1947 Prime Minister Mackenzie King presented to the House of Commons “in broad outline” the components of his government’s postwar immigration policy.1 The speech was important, and King had laboured over it. His diary records that on the evening of April 29 King had summoned “P. and G.”2 to Laurier House to re-work the draft. “It was much in need of revision,” King complained, and lacking in overall “definiteness.”3 There was irony in the prime minister’s complaint. Now approaching the end of his long tenure, Mackenzie King was never a man inclined toward ‘definite’ pronouncements, even in earlier times, and this speech held true to form. It was nevertheless an important statement, recalled and cited long afterward, and widely acknowledged as the basis for Canada’s immigration policy until the early 1960s.4 The prime minister’s speech announced the government’s intention “to foster the growth of the population of Canada by the encouragement of immigration.” Its details described proposed legislative and regulatory revisions, outlined initiatives toward European refugees, and provided carefully crafted assurances affirming Canada’s absolute right to regulate all aspects of immigration on a selective basis and in “such numbers…as can advantageously be absorbed in our national economy.” These components will be examined in the chapters which follow. Significantly, King’s opening words revealed the philosophical premise that characterized his, and his government’s, views on the subject. Immigration, the prime minister declared, was a “problem”, and “like other major problems of the day…must be viewed in the light of the world situation as a whole.”5 1 Canada, House of Commons, Debates, 1947: III, 2644-7. 2 “P.” was J.W. (Jack) Pickersgill, head of the Prime Minister’s Office since 1945. “G.” was almost certainly Mines and Resources Minister J. Allison Glen, whose department housed the government’s Immigration Branch, although there is little evidence of significant input by Glen into the speech. Pickersgill, however, contributed extensively to its wording; see Pickersgill, Seeing Canada Whole: A Memoir, 293-4. 3 Library and Archives Canada (LAC), Diary of William Lyon Mackenzie King, April 29, 1947. Implicit in this remark (and typical of King) was the notion that those tasked with drafting the statement had failed to capture the prime minister’s intended message. Elsewhere, Pickersgill recalled that King had continued to refine the speech on the day he delivered it: Pickersgill and Forster, The Mackenzie King Record: Volume 4, 1947-1948, 34. 4 Files from the St. Laurent PMO contain several earlier draft versions of the statement dated March and April, 1947, suggesting the importance of the issue to the government: LAC L.S. St. Laurent Papers, MG 26 L, Vol. 225, File I-17, Immigration 1937-1954. 5 Canada, House of Commons, Debates, 1947: III, 2644. 1 King’s message to Canadians was twofold. First, he and his government were fully prepared to meet the challenges of this national “problem”.