Hon. Ratna Omidvar: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to Inquiry No. 11, which calls our attention to the one hundredth anniversary of the Chinese Exclusion Act. I would like to thank Senator Woo for bringing forward this timely inquiry. I believe that one of Canada’s great strengths is our capacity to self-reflect on the mistakes that we have made in the past. Senator Woo’s inquiry gives us an opportunity to ensure, upon reflection, that we never go down this path again.

Many of my colleagues have weighed in and continue to weigh in, but I’d like to focus my comments on the gendered impact of discriminatory immigration policies on the Chinese community.

During the 24 years that the Chinese Exclusion Act was in place, Canada admitted fewer than 50 Chinese people. This was indeed a very cruel way to repay the contributions of the 17,000 Chinese labourers who played an essential role in building the Canadian Pacific Railway, which was the first great infrastructure nation-building project of Canada.

When the railway was completed in 1885, instead of rewarding the Chinese labourers, Parliament enacted the Chinese Immigration Act, which placed a head tax of $50 on Chinese people coming to Canada. In 1903, $50 was increased to $500, equal to about two years’ salary of an ordinary person. This exorbitant amount meant many Chinese labourers could not afford to bring their wives. In 1921, it is no surprise that the ratio of Chinese men to women in Canada was 15 to 1.

The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1923 ensured that this ratio remained disparate. Over 90% of the wives of Chinese men were left behind in China. During their husbands’ prolonged absences, wives had the responsibility of raising children and looking after parents. Visits by husbands were short and infrequent because their right to return to Canada would be revoked if they were away for more than two years. Remember, colleagues, there were no airplanes, there were no jets; there was only the long way with the ship. Many children grew up barely knowing their fathers.

Canada did not repeal the Chinese Exclusion Act until 1947. When it did, it was replaced by a restrictive race-based immigration policy under which only those Chinese who already had a Canadian citizenship were allowed to sponsor their families. In other words, it was a restrictive measure of a different kind. The same rules, of course, did not apply to European immigrants. Twenty years later, after the points system was adopted, Chinese people finally began to be admitted under the same criteria as other ethnic groups.

Wives who succeeded in entering Canada in the 1950s and 1960s found their lives fundamentally transformed. Having lived without a spouse for years, they had to deal with readjusting to husbands they barely knew. Many put in long working hours labouring in their husband’s small businesses or took on multiple manual jobs.

In the early years of their arrival in Canada, Chinese women found themselves socially isolated and excluded. But it was their daughters and their granddaughters who took up their cause for justice. Chinese Canadian women like Avvy Go, Chow Quen Lee and Susan Eng were instrumental in campaigning for an apology and a redress.

As the President of the Toronto Chapter of the Chinese Canadian National Council, Avvy Go became involved in the campaign in 1989. She was co-counsel in the class-action lawsuit seeking redress for the head taxpayers and their families. One of the three litigants who led the lawsuit was Chow Quen Lee. Separated from her husband for 14 years because of the act, she was an outspoken activist. Although the lawsuit was ultimately dismissed, it set into motion talks with the government that ended with an official parliamentary apology in 2006.

As co-chair of the Ontario Coalition of Head Tax Payers and Families, Susan Eng convinced VIA Rail to sponsor the Redress Express, during which about 100 people boarded a train from Vancouver to travel to Ottawa to hear the apology.

I want to also note the contributions of Dora Nipp, Chief Executive Officer of the Multicultural History Society of Ontario. She comes from a family who helped build the railway and paid the head tax. As a historian, Dora Nipp has conducted extensive oral history interviews documenting the experiences of immigrants to Canada. She has also produced various works, including directing Under the Willow Tree, a documentary on pioneer Chinese women in Canada.

These women fought for justice and they were ultimately successful, with the government handing out symbolic payments to roughly 400 survivors and widows in 2006.

The Chinese Exclusion Act and other discriminatory measures had profound and lasting impacts on Chinese women and families. It took until 1981 for the sex ratio in the Chinese Canadian community to equalize. On the one hundredth anniversary of the Chinese Exclusion Act, it’s important to recognize not just the prejudice that the community faced but also the tremendous perseverance it took to have these injustices reversed. Canadian Chinese women played a significant role in seeking and achieving this redress. In their honour, I thank you, colleagues.

[Translation]

Hon. Ratna Omidvar: Senator Gold, I have a question for you, and it is about immigration. A study by the Desjardins group has determined that planned large-scale immigration — planned by the government; I support it; you know that — will lead to higher real GDP growth at the national level and in all Canadian provinces. At the same time, the impact on per capita real GDP growth is more mixed, depending on where immigrants settle and possibly how quickly they are able to use their education and qualifications in the employment market. However, there is a real knock-on effect on housing. The current supply of housing is insufficient. This will lead to increased pressure in housing prices, and the impact will be felt across the country.

Senator Gold, my question to you is this: What is the government planning to do to increase the housing supply in Canada for Canadians and immigrants?

Senator Omidvar: Thank you for that answer, Senator Gold. The report by Desjardins also points to a solution, and that is the dispersion of immigrants to all parts of our country, not just the hot spots of B.C. and Ontario, in particular, to the Prairie provinces. They note that this would decrease the pressure on housing prices and housing affordability in certain parts of Canada and provide a substantive offset to the impact of higher immigration on home prices.

Can you help us understand the government’s current plan with the current immigration numbers for better distribution of immigrants across the country? Thank you, Senator Gold.

Hon. Ratna Omidvar: My question is for the Leader of the Government. Senator Gold, this is Pride Month. I want to take a minute to congratulate Senator Cormier on his leadership in creating and launching the Canadian Pride Caucus.

I want to shift your attention to what is happening to the LGBTQ2 community in Uganda where they passed a draconian law, calling into question the safety and security of members of this community. The law includes the death penalty for crimes of aggravated homosexuality, and significant penalties for anyone who is seemingly promoting homosexuality.

I’m, of course, encouraged by the statements put out by our government, the Prime Minister, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Canadian Pride Caucus and other parliamentarians. But, beyond the statements, I would like to know what the government is doing proactively to work with our regional partners, possibly the U.S., in trying to build a campaign to protect the LGBTQ2 people in Uganda.

Senator Omidvar: The time is late, I understand. I have a brief question. Canada is not the only country where three orders of government fight for power, resources and stability. I can think of Germany, for instance, and I can think of the United States. Does any country do it worse than us?

Hon. Ratna Omidvar: Honourable senators, this item is adjourned in the name of Senator Housakos, and I ask for leave of the Senate that, following my intervention, it be re-adjourned in Senator Housakos’s name for the balance of his time.

Hon. Ratna Omidvar: I am curious about Senator Plett’s proposition. I don’t have as many years in the Senate as you do, but I know enough about the Senate, as it is constructed today, to understand that the government leader and his team have certain responsibilities. However, they do not have what the other groups have, which is the authority to make statements. They can always rise up and make statements, of course, but they don’t have the capacity, let’s say every day, like three members of your caucus or two members of our caucus.

More significantly, while the members of the Government Representative Office, or GRO, have ex officio status on committees — where the real work gets done, I think we can all agree — they don’t have a committee seat. I think that is what Senator McCallum is asking for. I have certainly heard both Senator McCallum and Senator McPhedran, whilst they were members of the ISG and whilst they were unaffiliated, rise up on many occasions —

Hon. Ratna Omidvar: Would Senator Housakos take a question?

Senator Omidvar: Senator Housakos, I was reflecting on your exchange with Senator Carignan about the Queen. I’m not quite sure what relevance the Queen has to this debate. But it did remind me of someone who was a queen in our midst, and that was Senator Forest-Niesing. As we all know, she passed away suddenly and tragically from COVID, and that was a particular circumstance.

We don’t know who else here may have an underlying medical condition because medical information is private. We’re mostly a senior citizen group. And it is also more likely — and the science bears me out — that older people will have greater affinity for catching a virus, even after they have been vaccinated.

So I ask you, Senator Housakos, in light of the fact that there are many of us in the Senate — and this is not reflecting on the age of the Senate staff, all the pages and the security services, it’s reflecting just on us — would you not think that it is wiser and safer to meet in hybrid mode so that the tragic incident that we experienced in the Senate at the passing of Senator Forest-Niesing does not occur again?