There are chapters in Canadian history that bring us no pride today. The 19th and early 20th century efforts to restrict – and sometimes outright ban – immigrants from Asia by both Liberal and Tory governments is one of those chapters. On this date in 1903, for example, Prime Minister Sir Wilfrid Laurier, a man of his times, explained the actions his government had pursued in this area, particularly in how it impacted the Chinese.
You can read his remarks below.
Sir Wilfrid Laurier: The House is aware that in the province of British Columbia there exists a very strong feeling against Asiatic immigration. This feeling is confined exclusively in Canada to the province of British Columbia, and, as we are told, does not extend to other provinces of the Dominion, for the reason there is no Asiatic immigration which is settled outside the province of British Columbia.
As far back as 25 or 30 years ago this feeling which exists in British Columbia commenced to manifest itself. In this regard the Province of British Columbia is not at all isolated from other portions of the work in which Asiatic or Mongolian immigration has settled. In California, in Australia, in fact wherever the two races, Caucasian and Mongolian, have come into contact, the same feeling has manifested itself.
After giving it full consideration, everyone who has looked into the matter must come to the conclusion that this antagonism is based upon ethnical consideration, the difference between the two races. It seems impossible to reconcile them, and the conclusion of all who have considered the matter seems to be that the amalgamation of the two is neither possible nor desirable. There are so many differences of character that itis supposed to be impossible to overcome them.
At all events, in the Province of British Columbia is very strong. In 1885, the government of Sir John Macdonald introduced a measure to impose a capitation tax of $50 on Chinese immigration coming into the Dominion. It was supposed that this tax would be sufficient to prevent, for the time being, the increase of this immigration; and for some years, it has had that effect. But, of late years, the immigration has increased very rapidly, and a new agitation arose in the province, and representations were made to the government that there should be an increase in the capitation tax. In 1900 we doubled the capitation tax, making it $100. It was represented to us at that time by the members of British Columbia, whether they sat on this side of the House or the other, that the resolution then introduced would be inadequate to affect the purpose in view, which was to check the immigration of Asiatic labourers into the country.
We were aware that there was a good deal to be said in favour of the contention which was urged upon us. At all events we proceeded with our legislation and we then organized a commission to investigate the subject and report. The commission made its report. That report has been in the hands of Honourable Members of this House for eighteen months and I presume that by this time it has become familiar to all of us. The commissioners, who seem to have done their work very thoroughly, came to the conclusion that this kind of immigration ought to be prohibited and that, if it was not absolutely prohibited, the tax should be increased to such a figure as to restrict the immigration to very narrow limits […]
I must say that I entertain no hope in the present condition of China of having such a treaty [as with Japan that prohibits immigration to Canada of her citizens]; therefore, we have taken the course of asking Parliament to increase at once the capitation tax from $100 to $500 as here recommended.
Now, with regard to Japanese immigration, the same prejudice, I am sorry to say, exists in British Columbia concerning the Japanese as the Chinese. I say I am sorry for it, because for my part I make a distinction between Japan and China. Japan is one of the rising nations of the present day. It has shown itself to be very progressive. It does not seem to me at all doubtful that within a short period Japan will have placed itself in the forefront among the civilized nations of the earth. But whatever may be my feelings in this matter, it is a matter of record, for there can be no dispute that in British Columbia the feelings towards the Japanese are exactly the same as towards the Chinese.
The Japanese is not looked upon as a desirable immigrant. But as I said a moment ago, though I am prejudiced in favour of the Japanese, I must confess that there is little probability that it will be possible to assimilate the Japanese immigrant to the standard of Canadian civilization. The ethnical differences are also of such a character as to make it very doubtful whether assimilation of the two races could ever take place. But the problem has been solved so far as British Columbia is concerned by the Japanese government themselves, who have undertaken not only to restrict but absolutely to prohibit Japanese immigration to Canada. The report of the commissioners upon this point is also pertinent. Some two or three years ago the Japanese government issued an order […] to prohibit within certain limits, immigration from Japan into Canada […]
Of course, if the Japanese government had refused to take any action and had allowed the subjects of that empire to flood the British Columbia labour market, we would have been probably induced to reconsider our own views […]
We intend to have trade between Japan and Canada. We intend to bring about a development of the relations which exist between that progressive people and our own people. We have steamers plying today between this country and the Orient, steamers which are subsidized by this government. We have at present in Japan exhibition commissioners who are trying to promote trade between Canada and Japan.
Under such circumstances I ask my Honourable Friend [Robert Borden] whether it is not good policy to try and promote friendly relations between Canada and Japan. The conditions would have been very much different if the Japanese government had not undertaken to act in a friendly manner towards the government of Canada. The Japanese government went out of their way to prohibit their own people coming to Canada. They did this as a friendly act towards Canada. They wanted to preserve the good relations that existed between us.
Under these circumstances was it not good Canadian policy, from consideration of Canadian interest, to take such action as was calculated to promote the best interests of Canada and not to irritate people who wanted to have friendly relations with us. What was the cause of irritation between us and Japan? It was that there were Japanese subjects coming to Canada who were settling in British Columbia and working in competition with our own workingmen where their presence is not welcome. They have undertaken to remove that cause of irritation by preventing their own people from coming into competition with our workingmen, and under such circumstances, it seems to me that the action of the British Columbia Legislature [in trying to also prevent immigration from Japan in their own laws]was, to say the least, ill-advised, that it was not calculated to promote the best interests of Canada, or those friendly relations that ought to obtain between two neighbouring nations, such as Canada and Japan are, because, after all, we are neighbouring nations.
For this reason, we represented to the legislature of British Columbia that if they were to restrict their action to Chinese immigration, that if they were to except Japanese immigration form their legislation, we would not interfere, leaving them to exercise their own will in regard to Chinese immigration. It did seem to me that it was an ill-advised action to still persist in giving a slap in the face to the Imperial Government of Japan by including Japanese labourers in their legislation.
Arthur Milnes is an accomplished public historian and award-winning journalist. He was research assistant on The Rt. Hon. Brian Mulroney’s best-selling Memoirs and also served as a speechwriter to then-Prime Minister Stephen Harper and as a Fellow of the Queen’s Centre for the Study of Democracy under the leadership of Tom Axworthy. A resident of Kingston, Ontario, Milnes serves as the in-house historian at the 175 year-old Frontenac Club Hotel.