No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 07 November 2014
It may seem strange that I should write on immigration at a time when Canadians economically displaced during the course of the war have not yet been absorbed into gainful occupations. Comprising men and women released from the services, workers no longer required in war-time industries, and persons of Japanese race removed from the defence zone in British Columbia, these Canadians may themselves be considered as economically equivalent to waves of immigration. These waves are beyond our control but, in making our plans, it is important to know whether or not they will be followed by other waves. The answer to this question depends on Canadian policy, which can not only decide if there are to be other waves, but can determine both their size and their composition. If we postpone consideration of our immigration policy until our reconstruction policy has taken shape there is a serious danger of overlooking the importance of laying a sound foundation for the future development of Canada.
If plans are to be made for the long run we must know if Canadian immigration policy is to be positive, negative, or neutral.
It is possible for an immigration policy to take the form of exclusion and control the form of prohibition, but there are several reasons for thinking such an extreme policy unlikely except as a temporary expedient in an emergency. The first of these reasons is national prestige. Through the exertions of her people and through the fantastic fortunes of the recent war, Canada has won a position of great importance in the world. Without a very substantial increase in her own population it will be impossible for Canada to retain her relative importance when other nations of equal or greater population rebuild their shattered lives.
This paper was read before Section II of the Royal Society of Canada in May, 1946. It is printed here by permission of the officers of Section II.
1 The United Nations Charter, chap. I, arts. 2, 3.
2 Ibid., arts. 2, 4.
3 Ibid., chap. IX, arts. 55, a and 56.
4 Ibid., chap. IX, arts. 55, c and 56.
5 Ibid., chap, XII, art. 76, d.
6 R.S.C. c. 93.
7 R.S.C. c. 95.
8 Ibid.
9 Ibid.
10 “Merchant”, as used in this Act, shall not include any person who does not devote his undivided attention to mercantile pursuits and who has less than $2,500 invested in a business dealing exclusively in goods grown, produced, or manufactured in China or in exporting to China goods grown, produced, or manufactured in Canada, and who has not conducted such business for a period of at least three years; any merchant's clerk or other employee, tailor, mechanic, huckster, pedlar, or person engaged in taking, drying, or otherwise conserving fish for home consumption or exportation, or having any connexion whatever with a restaurant, laundry, or rooming house. P.C. 1276 of July 10, 1923. Sec. 5 (c), (2).
11 See Angus, H. F., “Canadian Immigration: The Law and its Administration” (American Journal of International Law, vol. XXVIII, no. 1, Jan., 1934).Google Scholar
12 8 Geo. VI c. 40.