CO885-(20-21) — Page 137

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

Reference :-

TLC.O.

885

ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO

20 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

+

Emigrants Information Office, and I have no doubt that this would be the attitude of the Secretaries of Boards of Trade in the new towns which are growing up all over the Dominion.

IMMIGRATION REGULATIONS AND DEPORTATION LAW.

Foremost among the questions which I had in mind in visiting Canada were the working of the deportation law and the restrictions placed upon emigration by recent regulations as to the possession of money on landing and by the require- ment that emigrants sent out by charitable societies or at the expense of public funds shall be passed by the Canadian Assistant Superintendent of Emigration in London. On these questions I had lengthy and instructive talks with Mr. Cory, the Deputy Minister of the Interior; Mr. Scott, the Superintendent of Immigration; Mr. Blake Robertson, the Assistant Superintendent; and Mr. Fortier, the Chief Clerk of the Immigration Department. I also discussed these questions with every Dominion Immigration Agent with whom I came into contact and was able to verify in detail many of the statements which were made to me by the officials at Ottawa. The general upshot is as follows :—

The Dominion Government are completely satisfied that the imposition of the restrictions was necessary, and are convinced that the policy has been attended by marked success. I do not think I met anyone qualified to express an opinion on the subject, whether official or unofficial, who did not say that the average quality of the emigrants entering Canada from the United Kingdom has very markedly improved in the last two years.

A strict application of the deportation law is, as Mr. Oliver maintained in conversation with me in London, a logical accompaniment of the restrictions on immigration. In the actual process of deportation every reasonable precaution is taken. The procedure is as follows: The municipality or other local authority concerned notifies the Immigration Department in Ottawa that it is, in their opinion, desirable to deport a certain man. The notification must be made on a prescribed form, going into full details, and stating specifically the ground on which deporta- tion is held to be desirable. If the case is absolutely clear on the face of it, as, for instance, in the case of a criminal conviction, the Immigration Department issues an order of deportation forthwith. Otherwise, and in the vast majority of cases, an officer of the Immigration Department is sent to make a close personal enquiry on the spot, and the order is granted or refused on the strength of his investiga- tion. When an order of deportation is issued, it is executed by an officer of the Immigration Department in person. He goes to the place, takes possession of the man, and accompanies him to the seaport from which he is to be shipped home. In the absence of any buildings specially built for the purpose, the man is detained in the hospital or other buildings of the Dominion Immigration Department at the port until he can be put on board the vessel in which he is to sail.

The actual machinery of deportation is thus under the close supervision of the authorities at Ottawa at every stage. It is true that, a year or so ago, the Ontario Government sent a few men back to England on their own initiative, and without reference to Ottawa. Their action had no legal sanction. It had not the concurrence or sympathy of the Dominion authorities. I understand, however, that the Ontario Government paid the expenses of the returning men and depict the whole proceeding as an act of charity. No Provincial Government has any deportation law of its own, nor any powers under the existing Dominion Law. Deportation is entirely the affair of the Dominion Government. The enquiry by the Immigration Department's officer, and his supervision of the process of deporta- tion, are very real affairs, and the Department are satisfied that it is not possible, in a case of deportation, for any material fact to escape their notice.

The question of giving notice to the man marked out for deportation has been repeatedly considered, but it has always been held that the balance of advantage is against doing so. It would always be possible for the man with a family to abscond and leave his wife and children on the hands of the authorities, who would be put to no end of trouble in catching him again. For the unmarried man it would be even more easy to make off, though the result would not be so embarrassing to the Government. The objects of giving notice, viz., to allow time for full consideration of the case and for the disposal of such effects as the deported man may have, are, in the opinion of the Department, fully secured by the close attention which they give to every case and by the latitude which the officer detailed to effect deportation allows to the man when he once has him in custody. Nor is there any need for a

5

statutory right of appeal to the Department at Ottawa such as has been suggested. Such a right would certainly be abused by those of whose liability to be deported there could be no doubt, and it is in any case unnecessary, as the Immigration Department at Ottawa is bound to satisfy itself of all the facts before issuing the order. If any new material fact comes to light subsequently, it is communicated to the Department by the officer charged with the deportation, and the order may, for good cause shown, be suspended or set aside.

The specific ground of deportation is stated at every turn. The local authority must be quite definite on this point in applying for deportation, and the Immigra tion Department must be equally definite in issuing the order and notifying it to all concerned. In no case, I was repeatedly assured, is there a mere quotation of, or reference to, the Act under which deportation is effected. I referred to the one case of which we had heard at the Emigrants' Information Office, in which it was alleged that, owing to the quotation of the pertinent section of the Act, a man had been classed alternatively as a criminal. The officials at Ottawa_found it impossible to believe that this had happened in an official document. They were certain that it could only happen by mistake unless the ground of criminality actually existed.

It so happened that Mr. Blake Robertson was personally concerned in the Oshawa and Deseronto cases of which so much was heard last year. When the trouble arose in those towns in 1908, he went down, opened an office on the spot, and had all the unemployed men brought before him. He offered each one per- sonally his choice between work on a farm and work on railway construction, and undertook in either case to provide free railway transport to their destination. Some of the men refused either kind of work. Some took farm work, some railway construction. The latter Mr. Robertson conducted personally to the railway station nearest the construction work. After that a walk of ten miles was necessary. Most of the men deserted after two miles of the walk, the rest soon abandoned work. Similarly, many of those who went to farms shortly threw up their jobs and drifted back to the towns. Those who refused work or who threw it up immediately were

deported without more ado.

Deportations are now individual. There are no more instances of deportation in bulk like those of Oshawa, Deseronto, and Chatham. The circumstances in these cases were exceptional, and were, in the opinion of the Department, due to injudicious flooding of the district with workers. Such cases are not likely to occur again, and it is hoped that next year it will be possible to detect a large reduction in the number of deportations.

I referred to the case of Charlton, who was deported alone, his wife and family being allowed to remain in Canada. I was informed that the cases in which a husband had ever been deported without his family probably did not run into double figures. It was admitted that such a proceeding was opposed to the national sentiment about family life. But it was held that, in exceptional cases such as that of Charlton, it was justifiable on every ground. It was only fair to the woman, if she was able and anxious to support herself and her family without the husband; it was fair to Canada, who did not wish to lose a good worker merely because it was necessary to deport a bad one; and it was better for England, as the man would be less of a burden there alone than if he were returned with a wife and family attached to him.

It was quite clear to me that the Canadian Government are determined to maintain the policy embodied in the restrictive regulations and in the deportation law. Their operations in pursuit of that policy appear to be carried out with care and circumspection, and all reasonable precautions are taken to prevent any abuse of the powers which they have secured to themselves. My conversations with the individual Dominion Immigration Agents who are, as a rule, the officers charged with the conduct of deportation cases, showed me that the investigations which are a preliminary to the issue of an order for deportation are carried out thoroughly and carefully, and, I think I may add, sympathetically, and that there is little chance of a man or woman being deported who is likely, given a fair chance, to make a successful inhabitant of Canada. representation of the Immigration Agent, a further chance has been given to a even found cases in which, on the man against whom there was a criminal conviction. The Immigration Department at Ottawa seem to be very conscious of the pains taken to work the law honestly and properly, and to be proud of the measure of success attained in this direction. They admit that mistakes are possible and profess to be only too glad to have