This post is a first excerpt from a doctoral dissertation entitled, The Removal of Racial Criteria from the Immigration Policies of Canada and New Zealand:  An Application of the Policy Regime Model to the Politics of Immigration Policy Change – written and successfully defended by Dennis D. Paglinawan (2010) at the University of Auckland, New Zealand.

Canada’s immigration policy underwent shifts in its immigration policy over time, and by 1976 all references to race as a criterion for admissibility to Canada were removed – liberalising immigration in legislation, policy and in practice. What follows below is an explanation that a shift in Canada’s Organisation of Government – that is, the arrangement of government institutions within the policy development process – and the eventual policy shift, suggests that that an immigration policy regime was in place and that it underwent regime change. The implications are theoretical with the assessment of the Policy Regime Model (Model) by Carter A. Wilson, and whether it is a useful guide to help explain how public policies change over time.

The Model by Wilson posits that a policy regime is made up of a policy, power arrangement, policy paradigm and an organisation of government. In this case, the Model was assessed by applying it to the area of Canadian immigration policy, revealing that an immigration policy regime was in place, that the policy regime underwent change as evidenced by shifts in government organisation and immigration policy, and that the Model is a useful theoretical guide when analysing policy change and how politics drives policy to change.

Canadian Organisation of Government and Policy Shift: Apparent Immigration Policy Regime Change

Even though organisation of government and policy shift is the final stage of policy regime change, I discuss it first in order to demonstrate that over time there was change in immigration policy regimes in Canada. In subsequent chapters of the dissertation from which this writing originates, I discuss in more detail how and why this regime change unfolded in the period 1945-1976 in Canada. That an old immigration policy regime dissolved over time and a new one emerged is reasonable to suggest because, since the early years of the post- WWII era to 1976, Canadian immigration policies, legislation, and the organisation of government involved in the policy process had changed.

Policy Regime Change

The 1952 Immigration Act was the basis for Canada’s immigration policy during the following post-WWII years until 1976. The Act allowed wide discretion by immigration officials and the minister to refuse entry to immigrant applicants based on racial criteria. In addition, general regulations of the Act afforded wide discretion to the Governor in Council to amend legislation and regulations, including the section listing prohibited classes of people:

The Governor in Council may make regulations for carrying into effect the purposes and provisions of this Act and, without restricting the generality of the foregoing, may make regulations respecting, the prohibiting or limiting of admission of persons because of

• nationality, citizenship, ethnic group, occupation, class or geographical area of origin,
• peculiar customs, habits, modes of life or methods of holding property,
• unsuitability having regard to the climatic, economic, social, industrial, educational, labour, health or other conditions or requirements existing, temporarily or otherwise, in Canada or in the area or country from or through which such persons come to Canada, or,
• probable inability to become readily assimilated or to assume the duties and responsibilities of Canadian citizenship within a reasonable time after their admission (Canada, Immigration Act 1952).

The eventual passage of the 1976 Act reflected the formation of a new immigration policy regime. However, the formation was an incremental process that began after WWII, and then unfolded more dramatically after John Diefenbaker’s Progressive Conservative Party assumed power in 1957. On January 19, 1962, this Government passed new immigration regulations through order-in-council that removed most discriminatory preferences in admission criteria. Immigration policy included selecting applicants based on merit such as skills, education and qualifications regardless of race or nationality. Only Section 31(d) remained in the regulations, which limited Asians and Africans from sponsoring a wider range of distant relatives, but the subsequent Liberal Government removed this restriction in 1967 (Hawkins 1988, pp.125-126) and introduced the Points System to assess applicant merit.

Regarding refugees (refugees includes displaced persons and people seeking political asylum, even though these groups of people are not yet granted refugee status), their issues in had influence in the evolution and liberalisation of immigration policy over time in Canada.

Even though there was no specific Canadian refugee policy until 1976, there were some ad hoc relaxations of immigration regulations and legislation throughout this period. In 1962, the immigration department told the UN High Commissioner for Refugees that ‘[u]nsponsored refugees could seek entry into Canada regardless of age, occupational skills, or minor physical handicaps provided their health permitted them to earn an adequate livelihood for their dependents and themselves’ (Dirks 1977, p. 225). In addition, refugees could apply for admission as regular immigrant applicants under the new regulations, and Canadians could sponsor relatives who were refugees, but the Government did not encourage this until after 1967 because of Section 31(d). However, the Government permitted organisations to sponsor refugees who did not have relatives in Canada. Whether sponsoring regular immigrants or refugees, sponsors had to assume the financial costs of settlement and integration in order to prevent new arrivals from becoming public charges. For this reason, the Government did not allow individual Canadians to sponsor unrelated immigrant aspirants or refugees. Nonetheless, the removal of Section 31(d) and the introduction of the Points System eliminated racial preferences in place of assessment according to a combination of criteria to determine admissibility, including skills, education, experience, special training, arranged employment, and family connections in Canada.

Notwithstanding the significance of these policy changes, the complete formation of Canada’s race-free immigration policy regime emerged later in 1976 with the passage of new legislation. Race-free admission criteria became formalised and enshrined in law as a set of broad objectives and principles in the 1976 Immigration Act, ending racial selection and introducing the use of the Points System in immigration policy. The Act’s principles and objectives stated that immigration rules and regulations would promote the domestic and international interests of Canada. In relation to rights, equality and discrimination, immigration policy had to ‘ensure that any person who [sought] admission to Canada on either a permanent or temporary basis [was] subject to standards of admission that [did] not discriminate on grounds of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion or sex’ (Canada, Immigration Act 1976). In addition, the Act specified that immigration procedures would recognise the need to ‘fulfil Canada’s international legal obligations with respect to refugees and to uphold its humanitarian tradition with respect to the displaced and the persecuted’, and to do so with recognition of the 1951 Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol (Canada, Immigration Act 1976). The contrast between these provisions and those of the 1952 Act indicates there was a shift in the Government’s immigration policy paradigm – the way in which governments viewed immigration – in relation to rights, equality and racial discrimination.

As explained in subsequent chapters of the dissertation from which this writing originates, the complete formation of the new race-free immigration policy regime by 1976 was also a result of changes to other elements of the immigration policy regime. Consistent with the Model, the regime’s elements of policy, power arrangement, policy paradigm, and the organisation of government underwent changes over time. Specifically, when various aspects of the policy paradigm – the way policy was viewed – changed in response to several stressors – socio-economic-political events, this necessitated policy changes that required new immigration legislation in Canada. As discussed next, the passage of legislation signified, not only the formation of the new immigration policy regime but also included, a shift in the organisation of government.

Organisation of Government and Shift

According to the Model, the organisation of government, or the policy implementation structure, includes ‘…[legislative] committees, agencies, institutions, professional associations and [organised] interests involved in developing and maintaining the policy’ (Wilson 2000, p. 258). For example, policy outputs from Cabinet to the minister of immigration flowed to the Department of Manpower and Immigration, and then to its immigration division. The division implemented policy that had impacts on societal interests. Organised interests had several avenues for feedback and input to Cabinet where final evaluation of policy, problem identification, alternative solutions, decision-making and policy formulation took place (See Diagram 1). However, Diagram 1 provided below does not depict a comprehensive policy cycle. The Model does not dictate that the institutional arrangement necessarily reflect a complete policy cycle.

Consistent with the Model, Canada’s immigration policy regime in 1976 included an organisation of government, which reflected the institutions involved in the policy process that saw the eventual removal of racial discrimination in Canadian immigration policy by way of order-in-council in 1962, and then the official liberalisation of immigration by way of legislation in 1976. As Diagram 1 depicts, some institutions and organisations also occupied places within the power arrangement over time, facilitating the flow of information ultimately to Cabinet where final policy decisions emerged.

From Diagram 1, it is possible to identify a basic policy cycle, or at least the phases or stages of one. The Model posits that changes to the institutions involved in the policy process indicate a change to the policy regime.

Diagram 1: Institutions in Organisation of Government, reflecting changes that transpired in Canada over the period 1945-1976.

Diagram 1 shows the various phases of a basic policy cycle wherein information flowed from several sources in the institutional arrangement, and outlines changes that unfolded in this arrangement incrementally during the period in question.

As illustrated in Diagram 1, blue-coloured objects indicate permanent state structures, some of which underwent internal change or reorganisation. Green-coloured objects represent some non-state and quasi-state structures that changed and expanded the institutional arrangement, which represented policy regime change.

Since the process was incremental, the illustration depicts information flow between institutions that gained inclusion in, and became involved with, the policy area over time. This institutional arrangement includes permanent state institutions, quasi-state institutions, as well as non-state organisations within a pluralist society. For these reasons, these other organisations deserve separate discussion later. However, to begin, a brief discussion of the Houses of Parliament, Cabinet, Department of Citizenship and Immigration, and other permanent state structures is necessary.

Houses of Parliament, Cabinet, Department of Manpower and Immigration

Canada’s House of Commons and Senate are lawmaking bodies from which the Government received feedback on immigration through debates, after which the Government could adjust immigration policy. As legislative bodies, the House and Senate passed the Immigration Acts of 1952 and 1976. In between the passage of these Acts, the House changed more significantly by way of composition, with the Liberal Party dominating Parliament in the post-WWII era until 1979. The Conservatives managed to govern with a minority government in 1957-1958, a majority in 1958-1962, and a minority in 1962-1963. However, in addition to holding a Senate majority from 1953-1979, the Liberals governed with a majority in the House in 1953-1957, 1968-1972, and 1974-1979, and still managed to win minority governments in 1963-1965, 1965-1968, and 1972-1974. The Houses of Parliament changed during the period in question to this extent. The passage of the 1976 Immigration Act, as well as the previous Act of 1952, occurred when the Liberals held a parliamentary majority. However, despite holding a majority in 1958-62, the Conservatives chose to liberalise immigration policy by an order-in-council in Cabinet rather than through legislation; and although Parliament may pressure Cabinet’s decisions regarding policy changes, only Cabinet may pass public policies. Therefore, the party that formed governments in the years under discussion made ultimate policy decisions, and I will point out in following writings that important policy changes emerged from different Cabinets. Some Cabinets constituted majority governments and some minority governments but most were Liberal Governments. In the period, 1949-79, four ministries controlled Cabinet. Liberal-Party prime ministers led three of the four as Diagram 1 notes. Notwithstanding changes to Cabinet, its immigration policy decisions flowed to the Department of Manpower and Immigration. Discussion of this department’s formation follows below.

Although the Canadian Government had transferred the responsibility of immigration on several occasions between various national departments since 1867, in 1950, it consolidated the areas of immigration and citizenship within the newly created Department of Citizenship and Immigration responsible for immigration policy implementation, and it introduced the 1962 regulations. The minister relayed final policy outputs to the Department. In addition to relaying policy and regulations to front-line immigration officials, the Department provided feedback by way of annual reports to the minister for Cabinet review. The Department changed in 1966 when the Government merged immigration with employment services of the labour department to form the Department of Manpower and Immigration, which introduced the 1967 regulations and Points System through order-in-council. Then the Government transferred citizenship functions to the Department of Secretary of State as its Citizenship Branch. This new branch also oversaw the new Multiculturalism Directorate, which the Government formed after announcing multiculturalism as a policy in 1971. The Directorate’s function was to ensure that federal institutions, including immigration, were operating to reflect the goals of multiculturalism.

Other Permanent Government Institutions outside Immigration Policy Area

In addition to this change in the institutional arrangement directly related to immigration, other government departments contributed to information flow in the policy cycle over time. The Department of Labour provided labour market information to Cabinet in order for immigration to meet labour needs. As well, within the backdrop of Canada’s foreign interests, the Department of External Affairs had traditionally coordinated efforts with overseas immigration posts to assist in refugee relief. Meanwhile, the Department of Trade and Commerce advised on the effects prevailing immigration policy had on Canada’s economic growth, including trade relations with other nations.

However there was much disagreement between these departments, thus the Government authorised external affairs officials to form the Departmental Advisory Committee on Immigration. It was comprised of representatives from these departments that consulted with the provinces, examined immigration issues and recommended to Cabinet immigration policies that could also assist refugees. Essentially, defining problems, evaluating policy options, providing alternative solutions to problems, and suggesting admission quotas were the core functions of the Committee. However, there was conflict, competition and poor communication at committee meetings, resulting in the Committee accomplishing little. The Government disbanded it in 1958 and operated immigration through the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, with input from the labour department. Nonetheless, the Department of Manpower and Immigration, was under development. It was in place by 1967 and responsible for immigration through the late 1970s when new legislation came to fruition.

Organised Societal Interests, Appeal Board, Courts, Committees

Organised societal interests had always existed within the institutional arrangement involved in immigration policy. Specifically, considerations of business interests, and to a lesser degree organised labour groups, dominated the Canadian Government’s immigration agenda in the post-WWII period to 1976, because of their relevance to the labour market. In addition, ethnic-humanitarian groups had grown to become better organised, and more dedicated and vocal in immigration policy. However, because of the multitude of fragmented ethnic-humanitarian groups to consider individually, in addition to business and organised labour organisations, it is difficult to identify how each and all had changed with reference to the Model’s element of government organisation. Notwithstanding this, it is reasonable to identify examples wherein these groups’ political activity and mobilisation changed the organisation of government to expand the policymaking arena, and ultimately facilitated changes to the Government’s policy paradigm in relation to security, humanitarianism, and economic growth that included considerations related to rights and equality. For example, by the 1960s, Canada’s Chinese and Japanese communities lobbied the Diefenbaker Government regarding restricted immigration against Asians. Ethnic-humanitarian groups, such as the Canadian Jewish Congress, the Jewish Immigrant Aid Services, and the Canadian Council of Churches were instrumental over time to pressure the Government for changes in immigration policy for the sake of refugee assistance.  Eventually, as the institutional arrangement expanded with continuing pressure from organised interests to challenge prevailing immigration policy, the Government’s immigration policy paradigm shifted in several respects. This was evident with the establishment of, and subsequent changes to, the 1954 Immigration Appeals Board (IAB), because of the increasing relevance of equal rights and appeals in immigration. The 1952 Immigration Act had provisions permitting the establishment of an appeals board. Prior to the Act, immigrant aspirants could only make appeals directly to the immigration minister who had final determination and could overturn any appeal decision. In addition, only Canadians or people with residency could appeal to the courts on points of law. Refer to Canada – LAC (2004). The purpose of an appeal board was to reduce the number of appeals to the minister, and by 1956, formalised regulations came into place in terms of which applicants could file appeals to the board. The removal of racial criteria in immigration policy after 1962 led to further challenges against deportations. Still, up to this point, the board only heard cases involving violations against the Immigration Act and cases involving deportations, but did not hear appeals based on negative decisions on applications for immigration, sponsorship of relatives or refugees, and the minister’s power to overturn decisions remained. By 1964, there had been reports that aliens were unlawfully detained, deported or deprived of access to counsel. Based on the recommendations of a commissioned legal report, the Government passed an Immigration Appeal Board Act in 1967 that guaranteed greater due process for appellants. The Act made the board completely independent of the immigration service and the final arbiter on appeals cases. In addition, the board could review all cases related to all deportations, including compassionate and humanitarian appeals, as well as sponsorship appeals by Canadian citizens. When the numbers of appeals backlogged to staggering numbers by 1973, the Government amended the Act to allow only valid visa holders, permanent residents, and refugee claimants to file appeals.  However, this did not preclude the role of the courts. Whilst there are too many cases to cite, the 1956 A.G. of Canada v. Brent decision demonstrated that immigration officials acted outside the scope of prevailing legislation, which contributed to reveal the shortcomings of policy and legislation, and the need to pass new immigration legislation in 1976. The IAB stayed in place as part of the new immigration policy regime in 1976, and appeals to the Supreme Court were available to appellants on questions of law or jurisdiction. This evolution of the appeals system was tumultuous, and it finally came to fruition in part due to the role of government-established committees.

From 1945-1979, there were four committees the Canadian Government established that are worth discussing. More discussion on these committees follows later in this thesis. Suffice it to say here that the emergence of these committees over time expanded the immigration policy arena, hence their inclusion in Diagram 1. For the period in question, there was the Departmental Advisory Committee on Immigration mentioned already, several Senate committees, and two joint-house committees that addressed immigration policy issues.

The Departmental Advisory Committee only met three times and it did not achieve much before disbanding in 1958 (Hawkins 1988, p. 187). Despite the Committee’s termination, mentioning the Committee is important because it was the Government’s early attempt to consult formally with the provinces on immigration policy. Furthermore, retrospectively, Immigration Minister Ellen Fairclough wrote to Dr. Forsey of the Canadian Labour Congress, and stated that the Government was of the opinion there was ‘…some doubt…as to the value of [the] …conference[s]…’, and this revealed that federal-provincial collaboration in immigration was very limited (Hawkins 1988, pp. 190-191).

Another committee that shifted the institutional arrangement was the Senate Standing Committee on Immigration. Established in 1946 and disbanded in 1953, this Committee examined prevailing legislation and policy in relation to the desirability of immigration to Canada, the type and availability of immigrants to accept, and the resources and capacity for their admission. Since the Committee also examined the attitudes of Canadians regarding immigration, its recommendations, which included increasing immigration in substantial numbers without discrimination ‘based on race’ (Hawkins 1988, pp. 82-84) for example, are relevant to this discussion. Following this Committee’s dissolution, the Government convened another special committee.

In 1960, the Government established the Special Senate Committee on Manpower and Employment. Although the Committee’s mandate was to examine trends in manpower needs and in utilisation of the labour market, its final report had implications on immigration policy. It confirmed for the Government the high incidence of unemployment among unskilled people and suggested that immigration emphasise skills, which then ‘led to the creation of the Department of Manpower and Immigration in 1966’ (Hawkins 1988, p. 139). Following the formation of the Department, and after the release of an immigration White Paper, the Government convened a special joint-house committee on immigration.

In 1967, the Government convened the Special Joint Senate-House Committee on Immigration, in order to examine proposed immigration policy as cited in the 1966 White Paper. The Committee’s presence in the institutional arrangement expanded the policy arena, because it was critical of the White Paper’s proposal to restrict sponsorship rights to those who held Canadian citizenship. This criticism led the Government to devise the Points System, a system that was part of the Government’s pursuit of better management of the discrimination-free immigration policy, and later criticism eventually facilitated the passage of the 1976 Act. However, until the passage of that Act, other aspects of the immigration program, such as illegal entry and the right for visitors to apply for residency, required modification to achieve better control over immigration levels and appeal backlogs – this is further elaborated on in subsequent writings on the Model applied to Canadian political history and immigration policy change. In order to gain better control over immigration, the Government appointed another special joint committee in 1975. This time, the 1975 Special Joint Committee examined the Government’s immigration review, published as the 1974 Green Paper on Immigration. The 1975 Special Joint Senate-House Committee on Immigration convened to hold public hearings across Canada on the Green Paper. The Committee’s report and the Green Paper were the bases for new immigration legislation in 1976. These Committees expanded the policy arena, providing additional avenues, in addition to those already discussed, through which information flow was possible, including information from organised societal groups.

Concluding Comments

In the post-WWII era, the prevailing immigration legislation was the 1952 Immigration Act, from which the Government formulated immigration policy. In 1962, there was a significant policy shift away from racial discrimination in immigration, and later the Government removed remaining racial criteria in 1967. For reasons that I will discuss in subsequent chapters, between the years 1967 and 1976, the Government realised that, not only did these liberal changes need enshrinement in legislation but also, a new immigration Act was necessary to meet the changing challenges facing the Government in immigration.

The Government had made several policy adjustments in the years between the 1952 and 1976 Act, some more significant than others. The emergence of institutions and organisations throughout this time reflect these policy and legislation changes. In other words, the shifts in the organisation of government or institutional arrangement illustrates, not just the expansion of the policy arena and avenues of information flow to Cabinet but also, that immigration policy and legislation had shifted. In addition, the shifts involved institutions that remained in place to 1976, as well as those that existed for a finite period. Nonetheless, as Diagram 1 illustrates, over time by 1976 several institutions incrementally provided information to Cabinet, which contributed to the eventual shift in policy and legislation that reflected a new immigration policy regime that was devoid of racial discrimination.