Appendix XII: Prime Minister W.L. Mackenzie King on the Question of Loyalty
Now may I speak of persons of Japanese origin in Canada. On several occasions the view has been expressed by residents of British Columbia that the rest of Canada does not appreciate the Japanese problem, and that it has been left as virtually the sole responsibility of their province. The fact that in 1941, 22,096 of the 23,149 persons of Japanese race in Canada lived in British Columbia undoubtedly made the people of that province particularly aware of the problem, and I can equally say it made the people of other parts of Canada less aware of how great the problem was. It cannot be said that during the war the Government of Canada has left the question on the doorstep of British Columbia. It has taken primary responsibility. I should like now to say, and to emphasize the statement, that the government recognizes that the problem is one to be faced and dealt with not merely by British Columbia but by the whole country. The provinces have their particular sphere of responsibility. I wish to make clear, however, that the government does recognize that the problem is one to be faced by the whole of Canada as a Canadian problem. It is on this basis that the matter has been approached.
The government has had certain basic principles before it in formulating the policy which I wish to present to-day. In the first place, it recognizes the concern felt by British Columbia at the possibility of once again having within its borders virtually the entire Japanese population of Canada. In the past that situation has led to acrimony and bitterness. That the feeling is general in British Columbia has been made evident not only by the remarks of hon. members from that province but also through representations received from many west coast organizations and individuals. In view of the concern, it is felt that it must be accepted as a basic factor that it would be unwise and undesirable, not only from the point of view of the people of British Columbia, but also from that of persons of Japanese origin themselves, to allow the Japanese population to be concentrated in that province after the war.
Secondly, account should be taken of the fact that for the most part the people of Japanese race in the country have remained loyal and have refrained from acts of sabotage and obstruction during the war. It is a fact that no person of Japanese race born in Canada has been charged with any act of sabotage or disloyalty during the years of war. For the future protection of those who have remained loyal, as well as to eliminate those who have shown that their true allegiance is not to Canada but to Japan, the government is of the view that persons of Japanese race, whether Japanese nationals or British subjects by nationalization or birth, who have shown disloyalty to Canada during the war, should not have the privilege of remaining in Canada after the struggle is terminated. That is a second principle that is considered to be fundamental.
Thirdly, the government is of the view that, having regard to the strong feeling that has been aroused against the Japanese during the war and to the extreme difficulty of assimilating Japanese persons in Canada, no immigration of Japanese into this country should be allowed after the war. It is realized, of course, that no declaration of this type can or should be attempted which would be binding indefinitely into the future. Nevertheless, as a guiding principle in the years after the war, it is felt that Japanese immigrants should not be admitted.
Finally, the government considers that, while there are disloyal persons to be removed, and while immigration in future is undesirable, and while problems of assimilation undoubtedly do present themselves with respect even to the loyal Japanese in Canada, nevertheless they are persons who have been admitted here to settle and become citizens, or who have been born into this free country of ours, and that we cannot do less than treat such persons fairly and justly. The interests of Canada must be paramount, and its interests will be protected as the first duty of the government. It has not, however, at any stage of the war, been shown that the presence of a few thousand persons of Japanese race who have been guilty of no act of sabotage and who have manifested no disloyalty even during periods of utmost trial, constitutes a menace to a nation of almost twelve million people. Those who are disloyal must be removed. That is clear. Surely, however, it is not to be expected that the government will do other than deal justly with those who are guilty of no crime, or even of any ill intention. For the government to act otherwise would be an acceptance of the standards of our enemies and the negation of the purposes for which we are fighting.
These are the principles that have seemed to the government worthy of acceptance as the basis for a reasonable and equitable policy in disposing of this vexatious problem. The exigencies of the future may dictate modifications or alterations.
I should add that in handling the Japanese problem we shall attempt, in so far as it seems desirable, to maintain a policy that in a sense can be considered as part of a continental policy. The situation in the United States in a great many essentials is the same as our own, and to the extent that it seems desirable we shall endeavour to ensure that our policy takes account of the policies which are being applied south of the border. There is no need for an identity of policy, but I believe there is merit in maintaining a substantial consistency of treatment in the two countries.
I might now mention the tentative measures which it is proposed to put into effect in order to carry out a policy based upon the principles I have indicated. The first and, in a sense, the fundamental task is to determine the loyal and the disloyal persons of Japanese race in Canada. The entire policy depends upon this being done. To some extent, of course, the task has been carried out through the examination and internment of suspicious or dangerous persons. It cannot be assumed, however, that all those who have been interned are disloyal. Some may have merely misunderstood their dispossession from their property in the protected zones, and, as peaceful and honest Canadian citizens, may have striven to protect and retain what they considered to be rightfully theirs. Undoubtedly some of these cases exist. Misunderstanding is not the same as traitorous intent, and a stubborn defence of one’s own property is not necessarily disloyalty. On the other hand, there may be persons who have committed no act to justify their internment but who are in fact disloyal. What is clearly needed is the establishment of a quasi-judicial commission to examine the background, loyalties and attitudes of all persons of Japanese race in Canada to ascertain those who are not fit persons to be allowed to remain here. The commission I have referred to should, I think, be established in the fairly near future in order that it may begin what will be a large and important task. The result of the work of the commission would be to establish a list of disloyal Japanese persons, some of whom will be Japanese nationals, some British subjects by naturalization, and some British subjects by birth. The government’s intention would be to have these disloyal persons deported to Japan as soon as that is physically possible. Prior to deportation, British subjects, falling within this class, would be deprived of their status as such. By the terms of the peace, Japan can be compelled, whether she wishes it or not, to accept these persons. There may also be some persons who will voluntarily indicate a desire to proceed to Japan. For these, no further examination would be necessary. Whatever their national status, they would be allowed and encouraged to go as soon as they can.
Once the examination has been carried out there will be established a list of Japanese persons who are loyal to Canada. Those persons, if they have been properly admitted to this country, and wish to remain here, should be allowed to do so. However, as I have said, they should not be allowed once more to concentrate in British Columbia. To prevent such concentration, measures of two types can be taken – a maximum can be set on the number of persons of Japanese race to be allowed to return to British Columbia, and persons of Japanese race can be given encouragement to move and remain elsewhere. It would be most undesirable, I believe, to establish a permanent barrier to the movement within Canada of persons who have been lawfully admitted to Canada or who are nationals of Canada. That would raise the possibility of discrimination and restrictions on movement to and from provinces which might have most unfortunate consequences in the future. Even the establishment of a temporary limitation would be undesirable in principle, but as a practical question of policy it may well be inescapable.
There is little doubt that, with co-operation on the part of the provinces, it can be made possible to settle the Japanese more or less evenly throughout Canada. They will have to settle in such a way that they must be able to pursue the settled lives to which they are entitled, and that they do not present themselves as an unassimilable bloc or colony which might again give rise to distrust, fear and dislike. It is the fact of concentration that has given rise to the problem.
The sound policy and the best policy for the Japanese Canadians themselves is to distribute their numbers as widely as possible throughout the country where they will not create feelings of racial hostility.
It is not my intention at this time to enlarge further on this matter. There are questions of detail still to be considered. There may also be modifications of policy which further investigation will show to be necessary. However, the lines of development to which the government will endeavour to adhere will be in general those which I have outlined. We must not permit in Canada the hateful doctrine of racialism, which is the basis of the Nazi system everywhere. Our aim is to resolve a difficult problem in a manner which will protect the people of British Columbia and the interests of the country as a whole, and at the same time preserve, in whatever we do, principles of fairness and justice.
Source: Canada, House of Commons Debates, August 4, 1944.