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.

On the advent of the European to North America some four centuries ago, the Indian population of what is now Canada, according to the best estimates of anthropologists, was about 200,000. It dwindled following the first shock of contact with civilization with its outriders of vice and disease, and for a time the race seemed fated to die out. Then it began slowly to recover and in recent years it has shown a fairly steady increase; it is now 125,000 in round figures.

It is believed that the Indians came in successive migrations in prehistoric times from North Asia. They are divided into a number of distinct linguistic stocks, and many tribal subdivisions with widely differing physical and psychological characteristics.

Their affairs are administered exclusively by the Dominion government. Under the French régime, the Indians were treated kindly, even benevolently, but the French government never recognized them as having any special legal rights. The British, on the other hand, from their first contact with the Indians of North America recognized an Indian title or interest in the soil, to be parted with or extinguished, only by formal bilateral agreement. This was the beginning of the system of Indian treaties and surrenders which has been the fundamental basis of Indian policy, both in Canada and the United States. At the outset this policy doubtless was dictated in the main by protective motives designed to secure the very necessary goodwill of the warlike natives. As time passed, however, and the Indians ceased gradually to be a threat to the existence of the white settlements, it became an ethical and moral obligation, which on the whole and with some reservations, has been respected and fulfilled in both countries.

Indian and white relations in the United States have continuously been influenced by the profound conviction of the white man that he is of a superior creation. It is not an attitude reserved for the American Indian—it extends to the members of every non-white race; nor is the attitude peculiar to citizens of the United States—it is shared by our British cousins, and is basic in Latin American relations. In spite of all our democratic protestations, this colour response vitally affects every aspect of the lives of all the members of many of our minority groups.

While many of the missionary minded from early colonial days onward have striven to “educate,” “civilize,” and “Christianize” the Indians, the great mass of the white population continued for many years to look upon the Indians as members of a sub-human group. To be honest with ourselves, many of our citizens still hold to this point of view.

In the light of this fact, it is surprising that the government of the United States has maintained as unblemished a record of respect for Indian land titles as is the case. Throughout our relations with the tribes, even though our citizens have invaded Indian territory, sold Indians liquor, incited Indians to revolt, and then put down that revolt with bloody fury, we have preserved the legal position that the Indians held title to the land of the United States when the white man landed; and we have scrupulously treated with each group as we pushed them westward, to extinguish the Indian title by treaty and compensate the tribes in some fashion. In those early days, very little was said about assimilation. We continuously promised Indians that after we had pushed them far enough west to get them out of the way, we would let them settle down and live their lives as independent nations. It is still technically correct to refer to the Six Nations in New York State; or to the Cherokee, Choctaw, or Chickasaw Nations in Oklahoma. Until Oklahoma was admitted to statehood, the United States dealt with these Indians as members of independent nations.