Continuous journey regulation

During the first two decades of the 20th century, some provinces in Canada enacted laws limiting the civil rights of Indians, including the right to vote,{{Cite act|type=Act|index=|date=31 August 1900|legislature=City Council of Vancouver|title=An Act to Revise and Consolidate the Vancouver Incorporation Act|pages=283|url=https://open.library.ubc.ca/viewer/chungpub/1.0056114#p24z-4r0f:vote|quote="No Chinaman, Japanese or Indian shall be entitled to vote at any municipal election for the election of Mayor or Alderman."}} hold public office,{{Efn|As per Section 14 of Municipal Clauses Act, 1906 (S.B.C. 1906, c. 32), candidates applying for the position of Mayor or Aldermen should be a British subject, older than 21 years, and should be a registered land-owner. {{cite act |type=Act |index=32 |date=12 March 1906 |article= |article-type= |legislature=Legislative Assembly of the Province of British Columbia |title=Municipal Clauses Act, 1906 |page=150 |url=https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/hstats/hstats/1160163090 |access-date=14 March 2022}}}} serve on juries,{{Efn|As per Jurors' Act 1883, only legally registered voters are qualified to become jurors.{{Cite act|type=Act|index=|date=12 May 1883|legislature=Legislative Assembly of the Province of British Columbia|title=An Act respecting Jurors and Juries|pages=48-49|url=https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/hstats/hstats/848232670|quote="Unless exempted, every person who is registered as a voter under the provisions of the laws of the Province for the time being regulating the Qualification and Registration of Voters at elections for members of the Legislative Assembly, and who is in the possession of his natural faculties and not infirm or decrepit, shall be qualified and liable to serve as a Juror"}} At the time, Qualifications and Registrations of Voters Provisions Act, 1875 was in force, which barred Chinese and Indians from voting in Provincial Elections.{{Cite act|type=Act|index=|date=22 April 1875|legislature=Legislative Assembly of the Province of British Columbia|title=An Act relating to an Act to make better provision for the Qualification and Registration of Voters|pages=13|url=https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/hstats/hstats/2049141411|quote="No Chinaman or Indian shall have his name placed on the register of Voters for any Electoral District, or be entitled to vote at any election of a Member to serve in the Legislative Assembly of this Province."}}}} obtain a liquor licence,{{Cite act|type=Act|date=21 June 1902|legislature=Legislative Assembly of the Province of British Columbia|title=Liquor License Act (1900) amendment Act, 1902|pages=147|url=https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/hstats/hstats/1874702359|quote="No licence under this Act shall be issued or transferred to any person of the Indian race, or to any person who is not on the list of voters for the Legislature of the Province of British Columbia."}} or practise as pharmacists, lawyers, and accountants.{{Cite book |url=https://open.library.ubc.ca/viewer/bcbooks/1.0376413#p1z-5r0f: |title=An act to regulate immigration into British Columbia, 1908 : speech of Hon. W.J. Bowser, K.C. |year=1908 |location=Victoria |publication-place=University of British Columbia Library, Vancouver |doi=10.14288/1.0376413 |access-date=14 March 2022|last1=Bowser |first1=W. J. (William John) }}{{Cite book |last=Spina |first=Nanette R. |chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=YBs9DgAAQBAJ&dq=were%20indians%20not%20allowed%20to%20practice%20as%20pharmacist%20in%20canada%201908&pg=PA33 |title=Women's Authority and Leadership in a Hindu Goddess Tradition |publisher=Palgrave MacMillan US |year=2017 |location=New York |pages=33 |chapter=The Historical Canadian Setting |isbn=9781137589095 |access-date=14 March 2022}} However, because India, like Canada, was part of the British Empire, Canadian authorities did not pass exclusion laws explicitly targeting those of Indian origin. The Imperial authorities in London had noted Indian resentment when Australia enacted immigration restrictions implicitly designed to restrict non-European immigration in 1901, based on similar legislation in South Africa.{{Efn|A}} New Zealand had passed similar restrictive legislation in 1899.

When Canada started making provisions to block immigration from India, London warned it to be cautious in its approach and to be aware that its actions might inflame nationalist fervour in India. With this in mind, Canadian immigration authorities decided to indirectly halt Indian immigration to the country.

File:I-33324-001.jpg

The government's first attempt to restrict immigration from India was to issue an order-in-council on 8 January 1908 that prohibited the immigration of persons who "in the opinion of the Minister of the Interior" did not "come from the country of their birth or citizenship by a continuous journey and or through tickets purchased before leaving the country of their birth or nationality." In practice, this applied only to ships that began their voyage in India, as the great distance usually necessitated a stopover in Japan or Hawaii. This was discriminatory to Indians who could not travel directly to Canada.

The new regulation was soon challenged with the arrival of the S.S. Monteagle in British Columbia in late February 1908.{{Cite web |date=February 1908 |title=D'Arcy Scott - Ottawa - Arrival of Hindoos at Vancouver on C.P.R. stmr. [Canadian Pacific Railways steamer] MONTEAGLE |url=https://recherche-collection-search.bac-lac.gc.ca/eng/home/record?app=fonandcol&IdNumber=1382003&new=-8585519062063780726 |access-date=11 April 2022 |website=Library and Archives Canada |type=Textual material}} The ship carried more than 200 passengers, 105 of whom had boarded in Calcutta. A number of the passengers were ordered deported as they did not comply with the new regulation. The orders were challenged in court. Justice Clement of the Supreme Court of B.C. quashed the deportation orders on 24 March 1908, after he found the regulation to be invalid, as the Immigration Act did not authorize the delegation of decision making to the Minister of the Interior, as stated in the regulation.{{cite court|litigants=In Re. Behari et. al.|court=B.C.S.C.|reporter=B.C.R.|vol=13|opinion=415|date=1908|url=https://open.library.ubc.ca/viewer/bcreports/1.0357311#p438z-4r0f:}}{{cite book |last1=Johnston |first1=Hugh |title=The Voyage of the Komagata Maru: The Sikh's challenge to Canada's colour bar |date=1995 |publisher=UBC Press |location=Vancouver |page=138 |url=http://komagatamarujourney.ca/node/5102 |access-date=13 March 2022 |chapter=Exclusion |quote="The Canadian government tried to stop the Indian influx with a continuous passage order-in-council issued 8 Jan. 1908, but it was loosely drafted and successfully challenged in court"}}

The government responded by introducing an amendment to the Immigration Act, which expressly authorized a regulation "to prohibit the landing of any specified class of immigrants or any immigrants who have come to Canada otherwise than by continuous journey from the country of which they are natives or citizens and upon through tickets purchased in that country."

The amendment was enacted on 10 April 1908.{{Cite book |url=http://central.bac-lac.gc.ca/.redirect?app=cangaz&id=8594&lang=eng |title=Canada Gazette, 1867-1946 (Dominion of Canada) |publisher=Government of Canada |date=9 May 1908 |volume=41 |location=Library and Archives Canada, Ottawa |pages=1–8 |chapter=An Act to amend the Immigration Act |type=Supplement |access-date=13 March 2022}} The government issued an order-in-council under the amended act on 27 May 1908.{{Cite web |date=27 May 1908 |title=Prohibition of immigrants coming to Canada otherwise than by continuous journey - Min. Int. [Minister of the Interior], 1908/04/23 |url=https://www.bac-lac.gc.ca/eng/discover/politics-government/orders-council/Pages/image.aspx?Image=e008402067-v8&URLjpg=http%3a%2f%2fdata2.collectionscanada.ca%2fe%2fe337%2fe008402067-v8.jpg&Ecopy=e008402067-v8 |access-date=11 April 2022 |website=Library and Archives Canada |page=2}} Further regulation was issued by an order-in-council on 3 June 1908, which stated that

No immigrant of Asiatic origin shall be permitted to enter Canada unless in actual and personal possession in his or her own right of two hundred dollars unless such person is a native or subject of an Asiatic country in regard to which special statutory regulations are in force or with which the Government of Canada has made a special treaty, agreement or convention.{{Cite web |date=3 June 1908 |title=Asiatic immigrants from countries other than those with which special arrangement exists required to have at least $200 - Min. Int. [Minister of the Interior], 1908/05/07 |url=https://www.bac-lac.gc.ca/eng/discover/politics-government/orders-council/Pages/item.aspx?IdNumber=143768 |access-date=11 April 2022 |website=Library and Archives Canada |last1=Canada |first1=Library Archives }}

Canadian Pacific did run a very lucrative shipping line between Vancouver and Calcutta. However, the Canadian government forced the company to stop this service. It was now impossible to come via a continuous journey to Canada.{{Citation needed|date=September 2015}}

A new, revised Immigration Act was enacted on 4 May 1910.{{Cite book |url=http://central.bac-lac.gc.ca/.redirect?app=cangaz&id=4168&lang=eng |title=Canada Gazette, 1867-1946 (Dominion of Canada) |publisher=Government of Canada |date=11 June 1910 |volume=43 |location=Library and Archives Canada, Ottawa |pages=1–29 |chapter=An Act respecting Immigration |access-date=13 March 2022}} It included provisions similar, though not the same as provisions in the 1906 act, which authorized the continuous journey and $200 cash requirement regulations. The two 1908 regulations were reissued on 9 May 1910, by orders-in-council P.C. 920, P.C. 924, and P.C. 926.{{Cite journal |last=Wallace |first=Isabel |date=23 July 2013 |title=Komagata Maru Revisited: 'Hindus,' Hookworm & The Guise of Public Health Protection |url=https://ojs.library.ubc.ca/index.php/bcstudies/article/view/183602/184044 |journal=The British Columbian Quarterly |issue=178 |pages=34 |doi=10.14288/bcs.v0i178.183602 |access-date=13 March 2022 |quote="P.C. 920, 8 January 1908, which prohibited immigrants who did not arrive in Canada by continuous journey from the land of their birth or citizenship, and P.C. 926, 3 June 1908, which effectively added a two-hundred-dollar requirement to all Asians except Chinese and Japanese." |via=Open Journal Systems}}{{Cite book |last=Knowles |first=Valerie |chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=1HokCQAAQBAJ&pg=PT109 |title=Strangers at Our Gates: Canadian Immigration and Immigration Policy, 1540-2015 |publisher=Dundurn Press |year=2016 |isbn=9781459732872 |edition=4th |location=Toronto |pages=85 |chapter=Forging a New Immigration Policy |quote="Subsequent to the act, orders-in-council were passed regulating and amplifying its provisions. One of these (P.C. 924, May 9, 1910) levied a tax on all immigrants, the figure varying according to the season of the year." |access-date=13 March 2022}}

The continuous journey regulation came under judicial review in 1911, in a case before the Supreme Court of B.C. involving Hussain Rahim, a known revolutionary from Bengal, India. On 9 November 1911, Justice Morrison issued a writ of habeas corpus to quash a deportation order made against Rahim. In granting the order, the judge commented that the 1910 continuous journey regulation was invalid, as its wording (copied from the 1908 regulation) did not conform with the enacting provision of Paragraph 38(a) of the 1910 Immigration Act.{{Cite court|litigants=Re Rahim|court=B.C.S.C.|reporter=B.C.R.|vol=16|opinion=469|date=1911|url=https://open.library.ubc.ca/viewer/bcreports/1.0357281#p494z-5r0f:}}{{Cite court|litigants=Re. Rahim|court=B.C.S.C.|reporter=B.C.R.|vol=16|opinion=471|date=1911|url=https://open.library.ubc.ca/viewer/bcreports/1.0357281#p496z-5r0f:}}

The judgement did not result in any significant increase in attempts at immigration from India. Both regulations underwent judicial scrutiny again in November 1913, in the course of two cases before the Supreme Court of B.C. The first involved Bhagwan Singh Jakh, a known revolutionary from Punjab, India, who had entered Canada by falsely representing that he was a returning resident of Canada.{{Cite book |last=Singh |first=Kesar |url=http://komagatamarujourney.ca/node/1009 |title=Canadian Sikhs (Part One) and Komagata Maru Massacre |publisher=Kesar Singh |year=1989 |location=Surrey, British Columbia |pages=111–112 |access-date=13 March 2022}} The second case involved 39 passengers from India who arrived in Victoria, BC, on 17 October 1913, on the ship Panama Maru,{{Cite web |date=27 October 1913 |title=Copy of letter from Malcolm Reid to W. D. Scott re arrival of the 'Panama Maru' at Victoria, and necessity for appointment of an Assistant Hindu Interpreter |url=http://komagatamarujourney.ca/node/237 |access-date=11 April 2022 |publisher=Simon Fraser University}} and who were detained and ordered deported under the Immigration Act.Johnston, H., op. cit., pp. 17-19.

While court proceedings were still pending, Jakh was forcefully deported on 19 November 1913, in the face of a writ of habeas corpus issued by the Supreme Court of B.C.Johnston, H., op.cit., pp. 19 and 20 On 28 November 1913, Justice Hunter quashed the deportation orders made against 35 of the 39 passengers (applications concerning four passengers were withdrawn when the case was heard), by finding that: (a) the $200 cash requirement regulation was invalid as its reference to "Asiatic origin" did not conform with Section 37 of the 1910 Act, which authorized regulations in respect of persons of the "Asiatic race;" and (b) the continuous journey regulation was invalid for the reasons given by Justice Morrison in the Rahim case.{{Cite court|litigants=In Re. Narain Singh et. al.|court=B.C.S.C.|reporter=B.C.R.|vol=18|opinion=506|date=28 November 1913|url=https://www.library.ubc.ca/archives/pdfs/bcreports/018.pdf}}

Word of Justice Hunter's decision spread abroad, with Indian residents in Canada urging others to come to Canada before the rules were changed again.Johnston, H., op. cit., pp. 22 and 23.

The federal government's continuous-journey provision remained law until 1947, as did most BC anti-South Asian legislation. Because of community pressure and representations by the government of India, Canada allowed the wives and dependent children of South Asian Canadian residents to immigrate in 1919, and by the mid-1920s a small flow of wives and children had been established. This did not counter the effect of migration by South Asian Canadians to India and the US, which by the mid-1920s had reduced the South Asian population in Canada to about 1300.{{cite web|author=Norman Buchignani |url=https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/south-asians|title=South Asian Canadians |publisher=The Canadian Encyclopedia |date= |accessdate=2011-06-05}}

As an appeal from Justice Hunter's decision was limited by law, the government responded quickly, by issuing new continuous journey and $200 cash requirement regulations on 7 January 1914, by orders-in-council P.C. 23 and P.C. 24.{{Cite web |date=7 January 1914 |title=Prohibition Immigrants other than by continuous journey from native country - Min. Int. [Minister of the Interior] 1914/01/05 |url=https://www.bac-lac.gc.ca/eng/discover/politics-government/orders-council/Pages/item.aspx?IdNumber=310023 |access-date=18 March 2022 |website=Library and Archives Canada |publisher=Privy Council Office, Government of Canada |location=Ottawa |last1=Canada |first1=Library Archives }}{{Cite web |date=7 January 1914 |title=Immigrants of Asiatic races must have at lease $200 upon landing in Canada - Min. Int. [Minister of the Interior] 1914/01/05 |url=https://www.bac-lac.gc.ca/eng/discover/politics-government/orders-council/Pages/item.aspx?IdNumber=310024 |access-date=18 March 2022 |website=Library and Archives Canada |publisher=Privy Council Office, Government of Canada |location=Ottawa |last1=Canada |first1=Library Archives }} The new regulations conformed with the authorizing provisions in the 1910 act, in accordance with Justice Hunter's decision.Johnston, H., op. cit., pp. 25 and 26. The new regulations appeared to be immune from any further legal challenge. P.C. 24 was repealed on 25 July 1921, with the approval of order-in-council P.C. 2668, while P.C. 23 was revoked much later on 26 November 1947.{{Cite web |date=25 July 1921 |title=I. and C. [Immigration and Colonization] - Regulation re money qualifications for immigrants landing in Canada - Min. I. and C. [Minister of Immigration and Colonization] 1921-07-23 |url=https://www.bac-lac.gc.ca/eng/discover/politics-government/orders-council/Pages/item.aspx?IdNumber=397877 |access-date=18 March 2022 |website=Library and Archives Canada |publisher=Privy Council Office, Government of Canada |location=Ottawa |last1=Canada |first1=Library Archives }}

{{Main|Komagata Maru incident}}

Gurdit Singh Sandhu, from Amritsar, was a well-to-do government contractor in Singapore who was aware of the problems that Indians were facing in getting to Canada due to exclusion laws. Though Singh was apparently aware of the January 1914 regulations when he chartered the SS Komagata Maru,Johnston, H., op. cit., p. 26. he continued with his purported goal of challenging the continuous journey regulation and opening the door for immigration from India to Canada. The passengers consisted of 340 Sikhs, 24 Muslims, and 12 Hindus, all British subjects.

When the Komagata Maru arrived in Canadian waters, it was not allowed to dock. The government mobilized {{HMCS|Rainbow|1891|6}}, a former Royal Navy ship under the command of Commander Hose, with troops from the 11th Regiment Irish Fusiliers of Canada,{{Cite book |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=xzeAISr-PPgC |title=Report of the Komagata Maru Committee of Inquiry and Some Further Documents |publisher=Unistar Books Pvt. Ltd. |year=2007 |isbn=9788189899349 |location=Chandigarh |pages=62 |quote="After the failure on the part of the police to enforce the orders to depart, a Government vessel, the Rainbow, was requisitioned with an armed force to compel compliance with these orders" |access-date=11 April 2022}} 72nd Regiment "Seaforth Highlanders of Canada", and the 6th Regiment "The Duke of Connaught's Own Rifles". In the end, only 24 passengers were admitted to Canada, since the ship had violated the exclusion laws, the passengers did not have the required funds, and they had not sailed directly from India. The ship was turned around and forced to depart on July 23 for Asia.

The Komagata Maru incident was widely cited at the time by Indian groups to highlight discrepancies in Canadian immigration laws. Further, the inflamed passions in the wake of the incident were widely cultivated by the Indian revolutionary organization, the Ghadar Party, to rally support for its aims.

In response to calls for the government of Canada to address historic wrongs involving immigration and wartime measures, the Conservative government in 2006 created the community historical recognition program to provide grant and contribution funding for community projects linked to wartime measures and immigration restrictions and a national historical recognition program to fund federal initiatives, developed in partnership with various groups. The announcement was made on 23 June 2006, at the time Prime Minister Harper apologized in the House of Commons for the head tax against Chinese immigrants.{{cite web|url=http://pch.gc.ca/newsroom/index_e.cfm?fuseaction=displayDocument&DocIDCd=CS060471 |title=Newsroom - The Department |publisher=Pch.gc.ca |date=2009-10-02 |accessdate=2011-06-05 |url-status=dead |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20080502054401/http://pch.gc.ca/newsroom/index_e.cfm?fuseaction=displayDocument&DocIDCd=CS060471 |archivedate=2008-05-02 }}

On 23 May 2008, the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia unanimously passed a resolution that:

[The BC Legislature] apologizes for the events of May 23, 1914, when 376 passengers of the Komagata Maru, stationed off Vancouver harbour, were denied entry by Canada. The House deeply regrets that the passengers, who sought refuge in our country and our province, were turned away without the benefit of the fair and impartial treatment befitting a society where people of all cultures are welcomed and accepted.{{cite web|url=http://www.leg.bc.ca/38th4th/votes/v080523.htm |title=Votes and Proceedings of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia |publisher=Leg.bc.ca |date= |accessdate=2011-06-05}}

Some members of the Sikh community were unsatisfied with the apology as they expected it to be made in Parliament. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration Jason Kenney said, "The apology has been given and it won't be repeated", thus settling the matter for the federal government.{{cite web|url=https://www.ctvnews.ca/sikhs-unhappy-with-pm-s-komagata-maru-apology-1.313218 |title=Sikhs unhappy with PM's Komagata Maru apology - CTV News |publisher=Ctv.ca |date= 3 August 2008|accessdate=2011-06-05}}

The dissatisfaction with Harper's 2008 apology was communicated to the federal government through individual members and groups of the Indo-Canadian community, such as The Descendants of the Komagata Maru Society.{{cite news |title=Komagata Maru descendants speak ahead of Trudeau's apology |url=https://globalnews.ca/video/2707653/komagata-maru-descendants-speak-ahead-of-trudeaus-apology |access-date=26 October 2021 |publisher=Global News |date=May 17, 2016}} Finally, on May 18, 2016, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau gave a formal "full apology" for the incident in the House of Commons.{{cite web|url=http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/pm-to-offer-full-apology-for-komagata-maru-incident-1.2854117|title=PM to offer full apology for Komagata Maru incident|date=April 11, 2016|access-date=June 18, 2018}}{{cite web|title=Justin Trudeau apologizes in House for 1914 Komagata Maru incident|url=http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/komagata-maru-live-apology-1.3587827|website=CBC News|publisher=CBC/Radio-Canada|access-date=18 May 2016}}

Further lobbying by Raj Singh Toor (whose grandfather Baba Puran Singh Janetpura was a passenger on the Komagata Maru) led to the 18 May 2021 apology from Vancouver City Council "...for the role the City played in the incident, especially supporting laws that prevented passengers from disembarking".{{Cite web|last=Vancouver|first=City of|title=Vancouver City Council apologizes for Komagata Maru racism|url=https://vancouver.ca/news-calendar/vancouver-city-council-apologizes-for-komagata-maru-racism.aspx|access-date=2021-07-10|website=vancouver.ca|language=en|archive-date=2021-07-10|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210710054644/https://vancouver.ca/news-calendar/vancouver-city-council-apologizes-for-komagata-maru-racism.aspx|url-status=dead}} As well, Toor's lobbying brought about an apology from New Westminster City Council on 27 September 2021, with the council stating "The City of New Westminster formally apologizes to the South Asian community and the descendants of the survivors of the Komagata Maru for its past actions which resulted in discrimination and exclusion."{{cite news |title=New Westminster apologizes for role in Komagata Maru incident |url=https://www.newwestrecord.ca/bc-news/new-westminster-apologizes-for-role-in-komagata-maru-incident-4465023 |access-date=October 4, 2021 |work=New Westminster Record |date=September 28, 2021}}

• Head tax (Canada)
• Human rights in Canada
• Komagata Maru incident

{{notelist}}

{{reflist}}

• [http://komagatamarujourney.ca/ Komagata Maru: Continuing the Journey website by Simon Fraser University Library]
• [https://descendantskomagatamaru.ca/ Descendants of the Komagata Maru Society Website, a site dedicated to educating people about the Komagata Maru Incident ]

{{DEFAULTSORT:Continuous journey}}

Category:History of human rights in Canada

Category:History of British Columbia

Category:Post-Confederation Canada (1867–1914)

Category:1914 in Canada

Category:History of Vancouver

Category:Anti-Indian sentiment in Canada

Category:International maritime incidents

Category:Revolutionary movement for Indian independence

Category:World War I passenger ships of Japan

Category:Hindu–German Conspiracy

Category:1914 in international relations

Category:History of immigration to Canada

Category:Sikhism in British Columbia

Category:Asian-Canadian culture in British Columbia

Category:Canadian foreign policy

Category:Foreign relations of Canada

Category:Immigration to Western Canada