Document Details

1993

Vic Satzewich

Journal of Comparative Family Studies

v24

Consider the following two statements about particular immigrant families by Thomas Sowell, the noted American economist and ethnic historian:

Southern Italians have long had extremely strong ties to the family, as the only social institution on which they could depend. By the norms of most of the rest of the Western world, the southern Italian's attachment to the family was extreme--transcending competing claims of country, religion, and morality (Sowell, 1981: 105);

....their turbulent and often brutal history has left a legacy of local clan loyalties and an enormous emphasis on the family as the individuals's only refuge. Implacable revenge against enemies of the family was a long-standing and deep tradition in China--again as in Italy (Sowell, 1981:135).

For the purpose of this paper, these statements are of interest primarily because of how the immigrant family is conceived. First, non-anglo immigrant groups are defined as having an almost pathological and irrational committment to the family. Depending upon the group in question, this committment to the family is defined as sometimes impeding or at other times facilitating the social and economic mobility of group members (Li, 1980:59-60). Second, these statements assume that particular types of familial relationships and ties are constituent components of ethnic cultures: particular family forms define what is unique about different ethnic groups. Third, familial relationships are conceived as fixed, unchanging and primordial characteristics of ethnic and 'racial' groups.

In addition to reinforcing commonsense stereotypes about ethnic groups, the difficulty with such conceptions is that they display a reified conception of the family. They assume that while particular familial relationships and forms have developed out of specific social conditions rooted in the historical experiences of groups of people, those relationships have now assumed a fixed and immutable character. That is, once established in a distant past, family forms and relationships exist transhistorically and independently of the context within which they were initially constituted. However, as feminist sociologists and historians have noted for several years now, family forms and kinship systems are not timeless entities but rather are flexible in the face of changing circumstances (Thorne and Yalorn, 1983). In addition, such conceptions reflect an underlying familialist ideology in which the nuclear family, with a clearcut gendered division of labour, is regarded as the natural form of familial relationships (Beechey, 1985).

In this paper, I suggest that the 'immigrant family' is not a fixed, unchanging and primordial attribute of ethnic culture. The forms that immigrant families have taken in Canada reflect a complex intersection of subjective intentions of migrant groups and structural constraints stemming from the labour market, immigration policy and racism. The state, through its role in regulating the manner in which the boundaries of the nation are to be breached, plays a fundamental role not only in selecting certain groups of immigrants but also in constituting certain forms of familial relationships.

There are four parts to this paper. First, I begin by exploring the analytical difference between migrant and immigrant families. The difference between the two forms of migration lies primarily in the way in which families are allowed to be reconstituted within a nation state. Second, I examine the process of family formation for three groups (Ukrainian, Italian and Chinese people) who migrated to Canada during the turn of this century in order to demonstrate the complex responses of families to structural constraints. Third, I consider migration to Canada after the end of the Second World War, particularly those who migrated under the auspices of the group movement arrangements. I suggest that the form family migration took under these arrangements was determined primarily by the position in the labour market to which individuals were allocated. Fourth, I suggest that present family reunification provisions within immigration policy is a class biased phenomenon to the extent that class origins structure the process of family reunification.

Migrant and Immigrant Families

Within capitalist societies, the ability to form families is regarded as a natural right of citizenship.(1) However, for those born outside of the state's boundaries, the ability to constitute or reconstitute a family is not a taken for granted right. Instead, it is a priviledge which is accorded by the state to individuals, and a matter of contingency which is structured by a variety of economic, political and ideological conditions embodied in state immigration and citizenship policies and regulations. Foreign-born populations are therefore subject to profound forms of state intervention with respect to family formation.

Very broadly, foreign-born persons can be incorporated into social relations within a receiving society on either a migrant, or immigrant basis (Bohning, 1984). The distinction between migrant and immigrant labour has been central to much sociological analysis of migration. It is often assumed, for example, that whereas Canada is a country of immigrants, western European nations are 'countries of in-migration': countries who accept only migrant workers (Boyd, Taylor and Delaney, 1986). The difference between the two forms of migration revolves partly around temporality and partly around the nature of nuclear family migration and formation.

Systems of migrant labour entail the notion of impermanence. Migrant workers are allowed entry to a country temporarily, they do not have the right of permanent residence, and are often formally tied to particular jobs (Miles, 1987; Cohen, 1987). Migrant labour streams also contain a familial dimension. Entailed in the notion of migrant labour is the physical and institutional separation of family functions and relationships. In Michael Burawoy's (1976) terms, under systems of migrant labour there is coercive separation of the labour force maintenance and renewal functions of the family. That is, the activities which sustain an individual's capacity to work on a daily basis are physically and institutionally separated from the activities which are involved in the reproduction of future generations of labour power. Thus, under systems of migrant labour, labour force reproduction and renewal occurs in the sending country, whereas labour force maintenance occurs in the receiving country.

Conversely, systems of immigrant labour entail permanence and the possibility of family formation. That is immigrants intend, and are allowed, entry to a country on a permanent basis. It is possible for them to become citizens of the receiving country, and to form, or migrate with a family. The implication is that family members migrate as a social and economic unit; a unit which is restablished within the receiving country. Under systems of immigrant labour recruitment there is no coercive separation of the maintenance and renewal functions of families.

Historically, migration to Canada has been important for two reasons: migration contributes to the replenishment of the labour supply, and to the process of state formation by creating future citizens. Since the creation of workers and citizens occurs within the context of the family, the family has been one of the main sites of intervention by the state in the realm of international migration control. The state influences the definition of what constitutes a family and the conditions under which those families so-constituted are allowed to migrate. Particular sets of conjunctural conditions have impacted on determining the nature of the state's interventions with respect to family migration to Canada. Class, country of origin, racialization, and gender have affected whether foreign-born persons enter the country as migrants or immigrants, or as individuals or family units.

The years between 1867 to 1914 was the period of Canadian state formation (Corrigan, Curtis, and Lanning, 1987). As part of the National Policy to create a quasi-independent capitalist state, one of the features of this period was the large scale migration to Canada from overseas. In the first thirty years after confederation, net migration to Canada was negative: more people left the country than arrived as immigrants. However, in 1896, the beginning of the first wave of migration to Canada, net migration became positive, and has remained so ever since. In 1901, Canada's population stood at 5,731,000 and by 1911 it stood at 7,207,000 (Beaujot, 1978: 6). Over 44% of this growth was due to net migration. During this same period, net migration contributed to 62.3% of the growth in the Canadian labour force (Satzewich, 1991:304).

These general statistics do not, however, tell us anything about the complex strategies used by individuals and families in the process of migration to Canada. In the following section I consider the migration of Ukrainian, Italian and Chinese people to Canada during the turn of the century to examine how the state helps orchestrate family formation and how families maintain flexibility in the face of economic, political and ideological constraints.

There are three reasons why these groups are chosen. First, in each case, those who made up these streams were primarily of peasant origins. Each group was forced into emigration by economic constraints and dislocations in rural areas: land was highly monopolized and opportunities for agricultural expansion were limited (Wolf, 1982). Second, these groups have been described, rather stereotypically, as having an unusually strong, and indeed nearly pathological committment to 'the family'. Third, despite similar peasant origins and supposed strong emphases on the family, the groups had dramatically different sex ratios in Canada during the first wave of migration. This is reflected in table 1 which provides information on the sex ratios of various groups in Canada between 1911 and 1986. It shows that in 1911, there were 2,790 Chinese men for every 100 Chinese women in Canada. This compares with a sex ratio of 112 males for every 100 females for the British, 332 males for every 100 females for Italians, 132 males for every 100 females for Ukrainians(2), and 113 males per 100 females for Canada as a whole. These different sex ratios point to different strategies that families used in migrating to Canada.

Table 1 SEX RATIO OF SELECTED ETHNIC GROUPS IN CANADA, 1911-1986

Males per 100 Females

Ethnic Group 1911 1921 1931 1941 1951 1961 1971 1986

Chinese 2790 1533 1241 785 374 163 112 98
Japanese 502 197 145 -- 115 107 103 97
British 112 104 107 104 100 100 98 98
French 103 101 101 101 100 100 99 96
Italian 332 147 128 121 126 115 111 109
Ukrainian 132 118 120 113 112 109 104 100
Polish 165 119 129 116 117 112 105 102
Canada 113 106 107 105 101 102 100 98

Source: Figures for 1911-1971 from Li, 'Immigration Laws and Family Patterns:
Some Demographic Changes Among Chinese Families in Canada, 1885-1971',
Canadian Ethnic Studies, 1980, 12:65; figures for 1986 from Census of Canada,
Population and Dwelling Characteristics--The Nation, Ethnicity, Immigration
and Citizenship, Table 1 (93-109), pp. 1-14.

The Immigrant Family: the Ukrainians

The initial wave of Ukrainian migration to Canada began in 1892 with the arrival in western Canada of several families from the village of Nebyliv in what is now the western Ukraine. The first wave ended in 1914, and during this period a total of 120,000 people of Ukrainian origin migrated to Canada (Lehr, 1991:31). Of the three groups considered, the pattern of Ukrainian migration came closest to the ideal-typical pattern of immigrant family entry to Canada (Burnet and Palmer, 1984:84).

Following the dissolution of serfdom in Austro-Hungary in 1848, the Ukrainian peasantry was accorded the formal freedoms which other European peasants had achieved at least seventy years earlier (Wolf, 1982:317). The formal freedom associated with the end of serfdom did not, though, lead to prosperity for most peasants. While the abolition of compulsory labour services to landlords provided the peasantry with economic freedom, 'freedom' in this context was relative inasmuch as it also meant the freedom to starve, the freedom to pay taxes, and the freedom to work for wages.

Three factors set the stage for Ukrainian emigration. First, landlords retained ownership of large tracts of land and were compensated for the remission of compulsory labour services by cash payments from the state. The state recouped the compensation by the imposition of heavy taxes on the newly 'freed' peasants. This had the effect of forcing the peasantry into wage employment on landlords' farms to pay the taxes; a situation not unlike 19th century colonial east Africa (Brett, 1973:188). Second, peasants were required to pay landlords for pasture and woodlands. Previously, these lands were held communally. Third, the system of inheritance which subdivided land to all male heirs resulted in the gradual reduction in the size of peasant holdings; it became increasingly difficult to continue subsistence production.

By the latter half of the 19th century, these conditions led to the large scale emigration out of the provinces of Galicia and Bukovyna in the western Ukraine. Some of this emigration was seasonal in that men migrated to work for short periods in coal mines or in oil fields in Poland and Germany, or as far away as the United States. In other cases, peasant families migrated as a unit. Initially destined to Brazil, the flow of families was later diverted to Canada and the United States (Himka, 1982).

The migration of Ukrainian peasant families to Canada reflected, in part, their subjective intentions. Most of the families did not intend to return to the Ukraine. However, these intentions also dovetailed with Canadian interests insofar as peasant family units were actively recruited by the Canadian state. There were disagreements amongst Canadian state officials about whether Ukrainian peasants could ever become good farmers, workers and citizens. As such, some officials wanted to keep Ukrainians out of the country. However, the exigencies of the process of state formation and capital accumulation tended to override these reservations (Kaye and Swyripa, 1982:44).

In 1899 the Canadian government entered into an agreement with the North Atlantic Trading Company (NATC) to facilitate the recruitment of continental European peasant families. The agreement gave the NATC a monopoly over the recruitment of immigrants in continental Europe. Its mandate was to recruit peasant families who possessed at least one hundred dollars. In return, it was paid an annual fee of $500 by the Canadian state for 'promotional material', and $5 for each man, woman and child over 12 who was destined to Canada for agricultural settlement (Petryshyn, 1991:23). In this context, a family was defined rather flexibly by state officials to include members of the nuclear family as well as members of the extended family.

The recruitment of peasant families was based on the belief that large families were necessary for the establishment of yeoman farming in western Canada. Indeed, the success of Dominion Lands Policy was premised on the availability of families large enough to expend the labour power needed to aquire full title to the land. The policy involved granting 160 acres of land to individuals who were 18 years of age or older for a $10 registration fee. In order to aquire full title to the land, the family had to live continuously on the property for three years, establish a permanent residence, and break at least 30 acres of land (Martin, 1938:396).

Given that the expenditure of family labour was crucial to fulfill these conditions, Dominion Lands Policy was not only a policy of land distribution, but also a policy about the appropriate constitution of farm families. Since Ukrainian peasant families tended to have few economic resources other than labour power, Potrebenko (1977:53) has summarized the familial implications of this system in the following terms:

In conditions of acute poverty, no one person can survive alone. Children who had only one parent were considered orphans for they suffered greatly. To be childless was also tragic. The more children a peasant family has, the more likely they all are to survive. Children became productive members at about the age of eight....

The recruitment of specifically Ukrainian families for the settlement of the west was also based on a racialization of their abilities (Kotash, 1977:37). Clifford Sifton, the Minister of the Interior from 1896 to 1905, and the person often credited with opening the doors to Ukrainian peasant migration to Canada, clearly recongnized that Ukrainians were of greater value as members of family units rather than as individuals. His nowfamous statement that 'I think a stalwart peasant in a sheepskin coat, born on the soil, whose forefathers have been farmers for 10 generations, with a stout wife and a half dozen children is a good quality immigrant' (Petryshyn, 1991:399), was not so much a statement about individual Ukrainians but rather a statement about Ukrainian families. It was based on a Social Darwinist belief that certain types of families, conditioned by many years of oppression and arduous labour, were 'racially' suited for the labour intensive tasks essential to homesteading (Kotash, 1977; Porter, 1965).

In Canada, Ukrainians initially established homesteads on land which was inferior to the flat, relatively clear prairies. They chose homesteads that had ample amounts of water, wood, and some potential for agricultural production. According to Lehr (1991) Ukrainian peasant family intentions were at odds with the interests of railroads and state officials. He suggests that Ukrainian peasants did not intitially intend to be commercial farmers. Rather, they appear to have been interested in reestablishing a peasant, subsistence form of agriculture in western Canada. Access to wood and water (for which they had to pay dearly in the Ukraine) was therefore seen as essential for economic self-sufficiency.

The contradiction inherent in the choice of inferior quality land, though, was that it undermined the ability of peasant families to be self-sufficient. The choice of land with less than ideal potential for commercial farming, coupled with the lack of capital and the necessity to clear thirty acres within three years meant that in order to aquire full title to the homestead and survive economically, families had to rely on the sale of their members' labour power for wages. Thus, the economic activities of Ukrainian immigrant families reflected a gendered division of labour. Male immigrants were forced to engage in seasonal wage labour in order to earn cash to sustain the family and to purchase equipment and livestock. Ukrainian immigrant men worked for wages for established farmers in the surrounding area, for logging companies, as section hands on railroads, or in other seasonal employment (Czumer, 1981).

In some cases, the spouses and older daughters of immigrant men also worked for wages as domestics in the homes of better-off farmers. More common, though, was for women and children to engage in non-waged reproductive and domestic activities on the homestead. These tasks were broadly defined to include not only cooking, cleaning and raising children, but also cultivating, seeding, harvesting and processing produce. In many cases, the separation of spouses became a permanent feature of life for early Ukrainian immigrant families.

The Migrant Family: the Chinese

Even though Ukrainian and Chinese emigration was rooted in broadly similar structural conditions in their respective regions of origin, the case of Ukrainian migration to Canada contrasts sharply with that of the Chinese. Between 1858 and 1923, it is estimated that 83,000 Chinese people migrated to Canada. The incursion of cheap western-produced cloth, population growth, the monopolization of productive land by landlords, and the progressive sub-division of peasant family landholdings forced Chinese peasant families to search for opportunities for wage labour throughout the emergent world capitalist economy during the latter part of the 19th century (Tan and Roy, 1985:3).

The majority of Chinese migrants to Canada were men (both married and single) of peasant origins from the province of Kwangtung in southern China. They initially migrated to Canada with the intention of only staying temporarily. They appeared to have entered the country with the intention of earning enough money to return to China to enhance the family economy (Tan and Roy, 1985:3). This system of labour migration presupposed that the spouses of male migrants engaged in reproductive activities in China.

Chinese workers were initially recruited by employers to Canada on a migrant labour basis. In the face of shortages of European workers, it is estimated that Andrew Onderdonk recruited over 5,000 Chinese men between 1881 and i 885 to work on the construction of the British Columbia sections of the Canadian Pacific Railroad. Only those willing to leave their spouses in China were recruited. One of the promises made by Onderdonk, but never lived up to, was that he would provide the workers with transportation home once they completed their contract (Satzewich, 1989). Those recruited under the credit ticket system, which was a form of debt bondage, also seemed to be initially interested in temporary migration. As such, initial Chinese migration was migrant in nature to the extent that the intention was to remain in Canada temporarily, and that reproductive and maintenance activities of the family would be physically separated in two different countries.

Soon after the railroad was completed, male Chinese workers were subject to a process of racialization, which, in part, defined them and their potential offspring as unsuitable as future workers and citizens. The racialization of Chinese males stemmed largely from their superior ability to compete in the Canadian labour market (Warburton, 1992). For the white working class and petite bourgeoisie of British Columbia, who were the sources of much of the anti-Chinese agitation in the province, the main 'problem' with Chinese workers and businessmen was that they were too competitive. Around the turn of the century Chinese workers could be hired for one-half the wages of white workers when doing the same work (Li, 1988:44).

The ability to successfully compete with white workers for jobs stemmed, in part, from the separation of Chinese men from their spouses, and the men's use of other male kin in Canada as economic resources. According the submission of the Knights of Labour at the 1885 Royal Commission on Chinese Immigration,

their standard of living is reduced to the lowest possible point, and, being without family ties, or any of those institutions which are essential to the existence and progress of our civilization, they are enabled to not only live but to grow on wages far below the lowest minimum at which we can possibly exist (Royal Commission, 1885:156).

Given that reproductive activities were undertaken by spouses and other family members in China rather than Canada, Chinese males lived on wages that were lower than wages required for 'white' workers with a spouse and small children (Creese, 1982). Wages were sufficient for the maintenance of their ability to work; little was left for remittances to support reproductive activities in China.

When the Canadian Pacific Railroad was completed in 1885, Chinese labour migration, as well as Chinese nuclear family formation, was actively obstructed by the Canadian state. The first federal legislation which restricted Chinese migration to Canada was the $50 head tax of 1885. In addition to being imposed on Chinese wage labourers, the tax also applied to the spouses and children of Chinese men already in Canada. Increased to $100 in 1899 and $500 in 1903, the head tax was followed in 1923 by the Chinese Immigration Act which outlawed both labour migration and nuclear family reunification (Li, 1988).

In addition to the problem of wage differentials, the concern over the migration of Chinese wage labourers and Chinese women was based on the perception that the reconstitution in Canada of Chinese families would threaten the stability of the nation-state. It was seen as particularly crucial to control the migration of Chinese women. This would prevent family formation and the procreation of the 'wrong' kinds of labour power; namely labour power that was too competitive, and which would displace 'white people'. During the debate in the senate about the 1923 Chinese Immigration Act, it was noted that '..if Chinese were allowed, without restriction, to bring their wives to Canada, they would reproduce at an alarming rate and ... eventually outnumber whites' (cited in Adilman, 1984:63-64).

While the control over nuclear family migration was defined primarily as a matter of 'race', the regulation by the state of Chinese migration and family formation was also mediated by class considerations. Chinese merchants (who were either small shopowners or market gardeners, or who were involved in more large-scale import/export activities), were not subject to the head taxes; nor were the spouses of merchants (Adilman, 1984:60). While their migration was restricted in the 1923 Chinese Immigration Act, before the act merchants could enter the country without paying the head tax; members of the nuclear family could enter freely with them or even at some later date. In many cases, it appears that the spouses of these merchants worked as unpaid workers in family owned businesses.

In addition to financial barriers to nuclear family migration before the 1923 Chinese Immigration Act, the climate of racist hostility in Canada also prevented the reconstitution of familial relationships in Canada. According to a merchant who was interviewed during the 1902 Royal Commission to Investigate Chinese and Japanese Immigration and who had been in Canada since 1890, 'My wife and children are in China. They are eleven and nine years old. I would like to bring my wife and children here. She don't want to come. The people in this country talk so much against the Chinese that I don't care to bring them here' (quoted in Chan, 1982:515).

The irony of the restrictions on nuclear family migration and formation amongst the Chinese in Canada, was of course, that such restrictions reinforced the conditions under which Chinese workers could offer their labour power for sale in the market at rates less than what white workers could offer. Thus, the racist hostility further facilitated the ability of Chinese workers and merchants to compete.

Migrant Families Become Immigrant Families: the Italians

Italian migration to Canada around the turn of the century displayed characteristics of both migrant and immigrant family movements. Like Chinese and Ukrainian migration, Italian emigration had its roots in the stagnation, poverty and oppression of the rural peasantry (Ramirez, 1991). The movement to Canada of people from southern Italy was part of a much wider emigration to other parts of the world around the turn of the century. People of Italian origin migrated to other European countries, the United States and South America in search of a wage. In the Molise district of southern Italy, it is estimated that between 188084 there was an average of 75.6 emigrants for every 10,000 persons; by 1905-1907, the rate of emigration had reached 433.8 per every 10,000 persons (Ramirez, 1991:58).

Like the case of Chinese migration to Canada, initial Italian migration to North America was made up primarily of single and married men who left their families in Italy. They initially conceived of themselves as migrant workers. They intended to work abroad only temporarily and earn enough money to return to Italy to invest their earnings in the expansion of landholdings, the construction of a home, or in the start of a small business (Ramirez, 1991). However, unlike the Chinese, nuclear family formation was not formally obstructed by the Canadian state. Eventually, like their Ukrainian counterparts, they formed and reconstituted both nuclear and extended families in this country.

In most cases, it appears that young Italian men entered into labour contracts with a padrone, a labour contractor, who organized their emigration to North America and who placed them into wage labour positions in Canadian industry (Harney, 1979). Young male workers were initially employed in the hinterland of eastern and western Canada on railroad construction gangs, mining or other unskilled manual labour employment. In some cases, men would make as many as six or seven trips to North America for seasonal work.

According to Harney, the migration of single and married males without their spouses or fiances was not an individual decision. The family played a crucial role in shaping the economic strategies of all members (Harney, 1978:80). The migration of married men occurred in a context within which the spouse remained in Italy to sustain the family's landholdings and reproduce labour power on a generational basis. Italian women who remained behind engaged in subsistence agriculture by tending the family's plot of land. This was usually done with the assistance of other kin. Kin also assisted with domestic duties and in childrearing (Sturino, 1986). In some cases, Italian women who remained behind also worked for wages on larger farms in the surrounding area. Thus, the initial migration was premised on a temporary separation of the functions of daily maintenance of the male's labour power from the daily maintenance of the female's labour power and the generational reproduction of the family's labour power.

Remittances by male workers to family members in Italy were an important resource for family maintenance and reproduction. In one Molise village in the early years of this century, it is estimated that migrant workers sent back a total of 700,000 to 1 million Lire to their families (Ramirez, 1991).

The initial intention was to remain in Canada only as long as necessary to achieve their target earnings. However, as with target earners in many other contexts (Castles, et. al., 1984), they found that it took much longer to achieve their aims than initially planned. In fact, in most cases their earnings never approached what was required to achieve the standard of living which was desired in Italy. As with other instances in which there is a non-coercive separation of family members, this system of migrant labour soon broke down. In the absence of state constraints on family formation, Italian migration became transformed into an immigration movement.

Thus, instead of returning to Italy, which could involve a considerable degree of dishonour if the male returned without some accumulated capital, married men sent for their spouses and children, and single men sent for their fiances, and attempted to reconstitute family relationships in Canada. The process of family reunification also occurred in the context of an urbanization of the Italian population. Whereas Italian labourers were often initially employed in work camps in the hinterland, they eventually found jobs and community support in cities like Montreal and Toronto. As with Ukrainian migration, the state adopted a rather loose, non-restrictive definition of family membership (Sturino, 1988:63).

The process of family reunification was not, however, simply a migration of 'dependents'. The term implies that the Italian women who migrated to Canada as spouses, or future spouses, of Italian men already in the country were unproductive and not destined to the labour force. According to Sturino (1978:298), home ownership was a main priority of Italian families. To own one's home was defined as the chief means by which parents would raise children with the social and economic capital which was necessary to establish a 'respectable' family. In order to achieve this goal, families relied on more than one wage.

As Sturino (1978) and Yans-McLaughlin (1973) show, Italian immigrant families in Canada were integrated economic units formed in the context of the particular niche in the economy they occupied. In addition to being responsible for many of the household-based maintenance and reproductive activities, Italian women worked for wages both inside and outside of the home to achieve familial objectives. In relation to home-work, Italian women worked on a piece-rate basis in the Montreal garment industry and for food processors. When they took up wage labour positions outside of the home, they usually worked in jobs where conflict with maintenance and reproductive activities was minimized. The garment industry was particularly important because other kin were employed in the same enterprises.

In sum to this point, on the basis of the examination of the incorporation of people of Ukrainian, Italian and Chinese origins into Canadian society during the period of Canadian state formation, it is clear that immigrant families assumed a variety of forms. These family forms reflected an articulation of subjective intentions, which were formed in particular material contexts in their countries of origin, and labour market conditions, migration policies and racism in Canada.

Post-war immigrant families

After the end of the Second World War foreign-born families continued to reflect flexibility in their response to material conditions. Notwithstanding the ease of the restrictions on Chinese nuclear family formation, what was different about the post-war period was that it witnessed the emergence of a greater degree of state control over the process of family migration. Legal conditions assumed greater importance and affected family migration in different ways.

Expected rates of high unemployment did not materialize after the end of the war. Instead, one of the main structural problems of the Canadian economy was a labour shortage, particularly in resource extraction, agriculture, construction and service sectors of the economy. In response to labour recruitment and retention problems in these industries, the Canadian government embarked on an ambitious program of foreign labour recruitment and importation. While the patterns of labour demand have changed over the past 45 years, over 3 million people have been admitted to Canada since 1946. Immigrants presently make up just over 16% of the population.

Since the end of the war foreign-born persons have been admitted as both migrant and immigrant workers. The majority of people admitted to Canada since the war have been admitted on an immigrant basis. They have been recruited as permanent settlers and have been allowed to form, or reconstitute families in Canada. Before 1962, the ability to migrate to Canada was structured by several variables; one of the most important of which was the 'racial' origin of potential immigrants. 'White' people from Britain, the United States, and northern and western Europe were preferred by immigration authorities. In the case of immigrants from these countries, there was no coercive separation of family units when they were admitted. In fact, Assisted Passage Loans were given to heads of households and family members from these regions to facilitate their movement as a unit to Canada (Corbett, 1957). Since 1962, there has been an official deracialization of immigration control. Formally, all people regardless of their origins can migrate to Canada with members of their immediate family if they earn enough points.

Between 1946 and 1962, groups from southern and eastern Europe, while not barred from entry, were perceived as less favourable and were therefore subject to greater controls over family migration. Richmond's (1967) study of post-war immigrants in Canada found that immigrants from the United Kingdom, when married before moving to Canada, were less likely than immigrants from Mediterranean countries to have left their spouses and children in their country of origin before bringing them to Canada. In his sample he found that whereas 37% of married immigrants from the United Kingdom left an adult dependent behind, and 25% had left children behind, more than half of the immigrants from Mediterranean countries left behind a spouse, and 45% had left children behind temporarily (Richmond, 1967:133). It appears that in the case of immigrants from the Mediterranean, they were more likely to be encouraged by immigration authorities to leave family members at home until such a time as they became 'established'.

However, the temporary separation from families was a condition of entry for other southern and eastern Europeans. This is particularly the case with the 'group movement' immigrants brought to Canada between 1946 and 1958. The brainchild of the Department of Labour, the 'Group Movement Plan' was the method used to bring to Canada eastern European displaced persons who were living in refugee camps in western Europe after the war, and manual labourers from southern Europe.

Table 2 provides information on the number and categories of workers brought to Canada under the group movement plan between 1946 and 1958. It shows that over 96,000 individuals were admitted under the group movement arrangements. Group movement immigrants made up approximately 10% of the total number of immigrants destined to the labour force during this time.

Under the group movement plan, workers were recruited for specific industries and jobs. The admittance of foreign-born workers under the group movement system involved a system of unfree labour to the extent that the prospective emigrant had to sign a labour contract in which they agreed to remain in the employment they were allocated to for one year after their arrival in Canada. During the contract period, employers were required to provide accommodation for the workers. After the initial year in Canada they could circulate freely in the labour market. Department of Labour officials issued certificates of merit to workers who had completed their contracts, and in some cases, presided over small ceremonies at which the workers were congratulated for completing their undertakings. if married, the workers could then begin to sponsor spouses and children as well as a range of other relatives if they possessed the financial resources to support them (Danys, 1986:20204). After four more years of residence they acquired Canadian domicile and could apply for Canadian citizenship.

Table 2 WORKERS BROUGHT TO CANADA IN GROUP MOVEMENTS BY FISCAL YEAR, 1946-58

Classification 1946-49 1949-52 1952-55 1955-58 TOTAL

Woodworkers 3473 3536 - - 7009
General Labourers 1106 5618 653 200 7577
Miners 2967 3212 - - 6179

Farm Workers

Single Male 7355 6393 5048 476 19272
Couples 356 1514 584 24 2478
Families(*) 5 400 230 28 663
Sugar Beet Workers -- 504 -- -- 504
Sugar Boot Families 772 3025 3045 482 7326
Spanish Farm Families -- -- -- 258 258
Special Church Groups -- 1841 1418 -- 3259

Construction

Hydro 2048 452 -- 2500
Truck Maintenance 2131 1439 2667 -- 6237
Other 248 13 -- -- 261

Manufacturing

Metal 366 10 -- -- 376
Textile & Apparel 2932 726 -- -- 3658
Boot and Shoe 98 35 -- -- 133
Other 67 74 -- -- 141

Services

Domestics 7794 3269 6934 3630 21627
Domestic Couples 500 2038 306 2 2846
Widows with Children 94 171 6 -- 271
Restaurant Workers -- 45 -- -- 45
Nurses 45 32 -- -- 77

Miscellaneous 789 3242 -- -- 4031

TOTAL 33146 37591 20891 5100 96728

* Figure represent family units. Figures shown in all other categories
represent total number of individuals.

Source: Department of Labour, Annual Report. Ottawa: Queen's Printer, 1958.

Generally, workers recruited under the group movement system filled unskilled manual labour positions which were short of Canadian-born workers. The positions for which they were recruited determined whether they would migrate as family units or as individuals separated from their families for at least one year. As table 2 shows, domestics, farmworkers, wood workers, general labourers, construction workers and miners were the six largest occupational categories of group movement immigrants.

Initially, domestic servants were refugee women from eastern Europe who were unmarried or whose husbands had died during the war. Women admitted to Canada as domestics had to be between 18 and 40. They were subject to strict selection and control. In addition to standard health tests that all immigrants were given, potential domestic servants were subject to humiliating pregnancy and venereal disease tests(3) (Danys, 1986). Such tests reflected a concern over foreign-born womens' health, and sexuality. In attempting to stem the spread of venereal disease and weed out those women who were defined as sexually promiscuous, state officials were hoping to protect the moral and physical health of the nation. After all, one of the responsibilities of these domestics was to help raise properly socialized middle class children. These tests also reflected, though, an attempt to ensure that domestics would not produce children and form families of their own during the contract period. Having a child of their own during their first year in Canada would obviously interfere with their ability to help raise the children of their employers.

If men were married and if they were destined to fill construction, logging or farmworker jobs, then they were required to leave their spouses, children and members of the extended family in Europe until they had completed their contract. For eastern and southern European men admitted under the group movement plan the temporary separation from families was due primarily to the jobs for which they were recruited. As noted in the Annual Report of the Department of Labour for 1951,

Because of the nature of the employment to which they will be assigned on arrival and owing to housing shortages, it is necessary for most men coming forward in group movements to proceed in advance of their dependents.

Since many of the jobs were in isolated areas of northern Canada the presence of 'dependent' family members would interfere with the male's provision of labour power. The presence of families entailed extra accommodation costs to employers. The separation of families during the contract period also meant that the wage paid by employers to their foreign-born work force did not have to be a family wage. Instead, wages only needed to be enough to support the maintenance costs of the worker in Canada. In the case of refugees, the costs of maintaining the worker's family were borne partially by the families themselves and partially by the Canadian state and the International Refugee Organization. According to the 1951 Annual Report of the Department of Labour

To facilitate the movement of dependents of Displaced Persons who come forward as workers, a special camp has been established at Aurich, near Bremen, Germany, for the sole purpose of accommodating dependents pending their movement to Canada. The procedure is that dependents are granted visas at the same time as the head of the family and are then placed in the camp at Aurich until the head of the family has located suitable housing in Canada. Once suitable housing has been located in this country, the head of the family so informs the International Refugee Organization and his dependents are sent forward on the next available boat.

Thus, along with the IRO, the Canadian government appears to have undertaken part of the labour force renewal and reproduction costs of displaced person families to save employers the costs of providing a family wage and accommodation.

In other cases, refugees were recruited as family units. Table 2 shows that 2,846 people were admitted as 'domestic couples'. These were usually middle aged childless refugee couples. They were recruited to work in bourgeois or petit bourgeois households in Canada. The man's duties ranged from butler, chauffeur and gardner, while the woman's duties were primarily in the domestic sphere cooking, cleaning and housekeeping (Danys, 1986).

The majority of those coming under the group movement plan who migrated as family units were allocated to agriculture, particularly the sugar beet industry in Alberta, Manitoba and Ontario. Until the mechanization of this industry in the early 1960s, sugar beet production was highly labour intensive. Large quantities of labour power were required for sowing, thinning, weeding, hoeing and harvesting. Given the arduous nature of the work and low wages, the sugar beet industry had historically faced consistent problems in recruiting Canadian born workers.

Foreign-born families were recruited under two different arrangements. In some cases, families would be assigned to particular farmers. At the beginning of the growing season, farmers entered into a contract with a processor whereby they would undertake to deliver a given number of acres of beets at a predetermined price to the processor in the autumn. Foreign-born families were then recruited by the government to enter into subcontracts with farmers. These families would be assigned an acreage for which they were responsible. As with other employers of group movement immigrants, farmers were required to provide accommodation for the family. They could deduct accommodation costs from their year-end payout. In other cases, immigrant families were recruited specifically for sugar beet companies. Some sugar beet companies also owned land. Department of Labour officials therefore assigned immigrant families directly to the company, and the company in turn would assign the family a given number of acres and provide accommodation (Satzewich, 1991).

In both cases, large families were a decided advantage: larger acreages could be assigned to larger families because more labour power was available. Given acute shortages of workers for this industry, what is particularly interesting about recruitment of immigrants for sugar beet work during the late 1940s and early 1950s was the flexible way in which 'the family' was defined by government officials. In 1949, the Deputy Minister of Labour cabled his recruiters in refugee camps in Germany that 'sugar beet families may include any relatives who are willing to live together and work as a family unit', and that unmarried brothers and sisters of individuals could be combined to form family units (Danys, 1986:167).

The permanent separation of labour force maintenance and renewal

Though the group movement plan was phased out in name in the late 1950s, it continues to operate, albeit in modified form, for two categories of workers. Farmworkers and domestic servants are admitted on a migrant and quasi-migrant labour basis respectively and are subject to strict and formal control over family migration and formation.

Farmworkers are mainly from the Caribbean and Mexico. During the mid-1980s an average of about 4,000 workers were admitted on a yearly basis. The number admitted has since increased to over 12,500 in 1990 (Employment and Immigration Canada, 1991:48). The most recent figures on domestics indicate that in 1988, 2,525 and in 1989, 3,596 workers were admitted to Canada. The top ten source countries of domestic servants in 1989 were: the Philippines, Britain, Jamaica, Ethiopia, Hong Kong, Haiti, Federal Republic of Germany, Portugal, Guyana and Ireland (Employment and Immigration Canada, 1989).

Farmworkers and domestic servants who are granted a temporary migrant status upon entry to Canada cannot bring family members with them. The inability to migrate as a family unit stems from their status as non-citizens within immigration regulations, the nature of their jobs, and 'racial' concerns.

Historically, the institutional separation of family members for these two categories of workers reflects a combination of racism and their position in the labour market. As demonstrated in an earlier paper, the federal government has restricted the ability of Caribbean-born farmworkers to form families in part, because of the fear that by having families and raising children they will eventually contribute to the deterioration in 'race relations' in the country (Satzewich, 1991). However, as already noted, both domestic service and farm labour occupations have historically faced structurally-based labour recruitment and retention problems. Thus, the federal government has been particularly concerned about preventing family migration because the presence of children and spouses interferes with the provision of labour power to farmers and middle class households.

In both cases, employers must provide accommodation to their workers, and employees must live in the accommodation provided by the employer. The absence of family members means that accommodation costs for employers are lowered. In many cases male farmworkers are housed in single sex accommodations, which may be convened barns or other outbuildings (Wall, 1992). With domestics, a room in the basement of the house is all that is required. The live-in requirement for both domestic and farm workers is also a method used to control social and sexual lives outside of working hours (Arat-Koc, 1992).

Wages earned while working in Canada are used for daily maintenance functions, but also for the reproduction and renewal of labour power in the Caribbean. Family members who remain in the Caribbean are dependent upon wages earned by the workers. In a 1984 study of male migrant farm workers in Canada it was found that 53% of the recipients of remittances from Barbados, 62% from Grenada and 46% from St. Vincent were destined to spouses and children of the workers. Average monthly remittances were $102 for workers from Grenada, $217 for Barbados, and $161 for St. Vincent. The monthly remittances were used for basic support of the family (Whyte, 1984:4.24).

Historically, the main difference between domestic and farm worker migration is that in the former case it is possible for domestic workers to form, or reconstitute families after a period of work in Canada. This is in contrast to farm worker migration, where the state has successfully prohibited family reunification and formation in Canada. The foreign domestic movement, like the western European 'guestworkers system' of the 1950s and 1960s, has tended to break down as a migrant labour system and has become transformed into an immigrant stream. The breakdown of the migrant labour system for domestics, but not for farm workers, stems primarily from the nature of the jobs. Since agricultural jobs are seasonal, the system of forced return to the Caribbean or Mexico for part of the year is used to keep labour and accommodation costs down.

This is in contrast to the case of domestic workers, a movement which has a much more complicated history of family migration and reunification in Canada. In 1973, the state attempted to curtail the right of domestics to remain permanently in Canada. In addition to the fear that women from the Caribbean were sponsoring too many relatives who were then defined as contributing to the creation of a 'race relations' problem in the country (Satzewich, 1991), the problem with granting citizenship status to foreign domestic workers was that after their contractual period expired, they left domestic work for better paying jobs in other industries. In 1973, in order to better control the circulation of immigrant women domestics in the labour market, immigration officials transformed domestic workers into a migrant labour force by only granting them temporary work visas. Work visas were given for an initial one year period, and after the visa expired the worker had to leave Canada. While it was possible for domestic workers to renew their visas, they had to reapply for a visa outside of Canada even if they were returning to work for the same employer (Arnopolous, 1978).

The contradiction inherent in this system, though, was that since domestic jobs were permanent, the forced return of workers on a yearly basis to their country of origin entailed increased costs to employers and was disruptive to a household's regime. Renewal of a visa could take as long as two or three weeks, and employers were required to pay a portion of the return transportation costs. In response to the pressures coming from the middle-class employers of nannies and housekeepers, domestic workers were eventually allowed to renew their visas from within Canada. However, by the early 1980s this created a situation where some migrant domestics were permanent parts of the Canadian labour force, but lacked basic citizenship rights and rights to family formation and reunification. Some groups became politicized around the issue and in 1982 regulations were changed which allowed domestic servants to remain in Canada as permanent immigrants after two years of work. After two years, they may apply for permanent immigrant status and sponsor relatives.

Family reunification: the family as a resource

According to the Canadian Immigration Act (1976) one of the objectives of Canadian immigration policy is to 'facilitate the reunion in Canada of Canadian citizens and permanent residents with their close relatives from abroad' (Statutes of Canada, 1977: 1197). At present, there are two categories of relatives within immigration regulations: family class and assisted relatives. Over the years the definition of family class has become more narrowly defined to basically include one's spouse, elderly parents and unmarried children under 21 years of age. Family class immigrants are not subject to the points system. Assisted relatives consist of a much wider category of kin including siblings, aunts and uncles, grandparents, and nieces and nephews. Assisted relatives must earn a minimum of between 20-35 points, depending upon the citizenship status of the sponsor.

While family reunification is regarded as a humanitarian aspect of immigration policy, family renification has been one of the most controversial aspects of post-war immigration policy. While difficult to tamper with because of its political popularity amongst immigrants, family reunification has been the bane of immigration officials. The ability of immigrants to sponsor relatives outside of the points system has been defined as being at odds with the other cornerstone of immigration policy; namely that immigration should be tied to economic conditions and that immigrants should be selected on the basis of the skills, training and talent they bring to the labour market.

For immigration officials, family reunification has been defined as a problem for two reasons. First, it is assumed that family class immigrants tend to be unproductive members of society. Classified as 'dependents', they are defined as people who do not possess the skills the labour market requires. But, and second, immigration officials have been concerned that people of the 'wrong' origins make excessive use of family reunification provisions. In the late 1950s for example, family class migration was problematized by immigration officials because too many Italian immigrants were sponsoring their relatives. Operating within a narrow familialist ideology of what constituted 'normal' family obligations, immigration officials calculated, with some alarm, that 'one Italian immigrant meant forty-nine Italian relatives' (Hawkins, 1988:51). The issue of family migration is at present racialized, in part, because immigration officials wish to 'prevent Canada's immigration movement from becoming concentrated in a small number of developing countries' (Star-Phoenix, Sept. 1, 1990:A12). The terms 'developing countries' or 'non-traditional source countries' are simply euphemisms used by immigration officials used to describe the migration to Canada of 'non-white races' who are seen as 'problem creating'.

The myth of dependent immigrants being a drain on the economy was questioned in a study of family class immigrants admitted to Canada between 1981 and 1984. Samuel (1988) found the labour force participation rate for men admitted under the family class was 81%, and for women 60.7%. This compared to labour force participation rates of 76.6% for all Canadian men in 1986 and 55.3% for all Canadian women. This is consistent with more general findings which suggest that immigrants, regardless of the category under which they are admitted, have higher labour force participation rates than the Canadian born (Beaujot, Basavarajappa, and Verma, 1989).

Other research has suggested that family reunification provisions are used as economic resource. Chimbos and Agocs (1983:52), in their 1981 study of Greek immigrants in London, Ontario found that 81% of their sample consisted of sponsored immigrants. They also found that sponsorship was linked to class position. Those immigrants who occupied petite bourgeois positions, usually in the restaurant industry, were more likely than other classes to sponsor kin. They found that two-thirds of the petite bourgeoisie in their sample sponsored immigrants since their arrival, but that only one-third of all other occupational categories had sponsored relatives. They suggest that Greek Canadians have sponsored relatives to come to Canada not simply because they wish to re-establish family relationships, but also because of the search for labour for family-owned enterprises. As Chimbos and Agocs (1983:52) note 'the Greek restauranteur may benefit from the sponsorship and employment he offers to immigrants who may work for him for less than the minimum wage.... small businessmen depend upon new immigrants as a source of labour'.

Access to family reunification is also structured by class considerations. Prospective sponsors are required to sign an undertaking which states that they will undertake to provide adequate lodging, care and maintenance, and financial assistance such that the sponsored relative will not be dependent upon any federal or provincial program for up to ten years. Statistics Canada figures on low income families are used to assess the ability of a sponsor to fulfill this undertaking. If the prospective sponsor's family income is below the Statistics Canada definition of a low income family, then their application to sponsor a relative is normally denied. Table 3 provides information on low income cut-offs by size of family and place of residence for 1991.

Table 3 LOW INCOME CUT-OFF OF FAMILY UNITS

Size of Area of Residence

A B C D E

Size of 500,000 100,000 30,000 Less than Rural
Family Unit & over 499,999 90,999 30,000 Areas

1 Person 12,148 11,537 10,823 10,006 8,983
2 Persons 16,027 14,212 14,193 13,168 11,741
3 Persons 21,440 20,317 18,988 17,663 15,722
4 Persons 24,706 23,481 21,950 20,418 18,175
5 Persons 28,790 27,760 25,421 23,685 21,135
6 Persons 31,444 29,709 27,770 25,829 23,073
7 Persons 34,610 32,772 30,628 28,483 25,421

For Each Additional 2,900 2,800 2,600 2,400 2,100
Person

** Includes non-metropolitan cities (with a population between 15,000 and
30,000) and small urban areas (under 15,000).

Source: Canada Employment and Immigration Commission, Immigration Manual,
Ottawa: Minister of Supply and Services, 1991, p.31.

Table 4 demonstrates that different immigrant groups possess different rates of low income status. It shows that in 1980, 13.1% of Canadian born families and 11.1% of foreign-born families had a low income status. It also shows, however, that for more recent immigrants, 31.5% of families from the Caribbean, 28.7% of families from Western Asia, 25.3% of families from Southeast Asia and 23.9% of families from South and Central America had low income status. Thus, table 4 shows that immigrant families from the traditional sources of the United States, Britain and Western Europe are less likely to have low income status than immigrant families from 'non-traditional' source countries. The former therefore have more resources at their disposal to qualify for sponsorship than the latter.

While clearly a humanitarian element in Canadian immigration policy, the conditions under which families are allowed to be reunited in Canada also promotes marginalization, isolation and dependency. The majority of family class and assisted relative immigrants are women (Estable, 1986:9). Since family class migrants are deemed as not destined to the labour force, they are denied access to job and language training programs by the Canada Employment and Immigration Commission (Boyd, 1990:289-90). In addition, the restricted access to social services and income maintenance programs means that, 'women who find themselves trapped in marriages where they are being mentally or physically abused have even fewer resources to go to for help than are available for Canadian-born women in the same situation' (Estable, 1986).

Table 4 PERCENTAGE OF IMMIGRANT AND CANADIAN BORN FAMILIES WITH LOW INCOME
STATUS BY PERIOD OF IMMIGRATION, 1989

Period of Immigration

Place of Birth Total Before 1960 1960-69 1970-74 1975-79

Canadian Born 13.1 N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A.
Foreign Born 11.1 9.4 11.6 15.5 19.0
United States 11.5 10.0 13.3 13.3 14.8
Caribbean 24.2 9.3 16.1 30.2 31.5
South & Central America 19.9 12.9 14.5 21.2 23.9
United Kingdom 7.5 7.5 7.1 8.0 7.9
Other Western Europe 9.4 8.8 10.3 11.5 14.8
Central Europe 10.2 9.9 10.5 12.1 16.2
Southern Europe 13.3 10.9 14.6 16.7 17.9
Eastern Europe 10.7 9.9 13.2 14.4 22.3
Northern Europe 10.3 10.1 11.4 10.2 8.9
Africa 12.2 7.9 9.3 12.6 17.1
South Asia 10.2 7.1 6.1 11.4 14.4
Southeast Asia 15.1 4.6 4.7 6.9 25.3
East Asia 14.5 13.4 9.4 13.2 22.3
Western Asia 21.2 11.6 15.9 25.4 28.7
Oceania & Other 11.7 6.2 9.5 16.8 14.7

* Includes 15,825 immigrants who were born in Canada.

Note: Low income status is calculated only for the immigrants who came to
Canada before 1980.

N.A. = not applicable.

Source: Statistics Canada, Demography Division, Special Tabulations, 1981
Census of Canada.

Conclusion

Recently, the notion of 'the family' has begun to be reconceptualized as flexible, non static unit which is primarily, but not exclusively, involved in the maintenance and reproduction of labour power. In seeking an answer to the question of how foreign-born families are formed in Canada, this paper has demonstrated that forms of familial relationships are not primordial and transhistorical features which have their origins simply in ethnic cultures. Rather families maintain flexibility and are responsive to changing economic, political and ideological circumstances. The distinction offered in this paper between migrant and immigrant family migration suggests that the forms that foreign-born families have taken in Canada have been affected in fundamental ways by state immigration policies, which are themselves formed on the basis of labour force requirements of Canadian capitalism and concerns over the reproduction of the nation state.

In questioning a primoridalist approach to the issue of family formation, this paper has demonstrated that the state not only plays a central role in selecting and defining who is an appropriate individual, whether on the basis of ascribed or achieved characteristics, but also that the state plays a central role in the engineering the formation of immigrant families.

1 Although what constitutes a legitimate family form is subject to debate and political-legal constraints. The right to form certain forms of conjugal bonds are currently contested (Hayford, 1987).

2 The sex ratio for Ukrainian people is a composite of the sex ratios for those classified as Bukovynians, Galicians and Ruthenians in the 1911 Census of Canada.

3 These examinations were also applied to women from the Caribbean who migrated to Canada after 1955 (Stasiulis, 1987).

REFERENCES

Adilman, T. 1984 "A Preliminary Sketch of Chinese Women in British Columbia 1858-1950", in B. Latham and R. Pazdro (eds.), Not Just Pin Money, Victoria: Camosum College.

Arat-Koc, S. 1992 "Immigration Policies, Migrant Domestic Workers and the Definition of Citizenship in Canada", in V. Satzewich (ed.) Deconstructing the Nation: Immigration, Multiculturalism and Racism in 90s Canada. Toronto: Garamond Press.

Arnopolous, S. 1978 Problems of Immigrant Women in the Canadian Labour Force. Ottawa: Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women.

Beaujot, R. 1978 "Canada's Population: Growth and Dualism", Population Bulletin, 33 (2).

Beaujot, R., K. Basavarajappa and R. Verma 1989 Current Demographic Analysis: Income of Immigrants in Canada. Ottawa: Statistics Canada.

Beechey, V. 1985 "Familial Ideology", in V. Beechey and J. Donald (eds.) Subjectivity and Social Relations. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.

Bohning, R. 1984 Studies in International Labour Migration. London: MacMillan.

Boyd, M. 1990 "Immigrant Women: Language and Socioeconomic Inequalities and Policy Issues", in S. Halli, et. al. (eds.) Ethnic Demography: Canadian Immigrant, Racial and Cultural Variations. Ottawa: Carelton University Press.

Boyd, M., C. Taylor and P. Delaney 1986 "Temporary Workers in Canada: A Multifaceted Program", International Migration Review, 20 (4):929-50.

Brett, E. 1973 Colonialism and Underdevelopment in East Africa. New York: NOK Publishers.

Burawoy, M. 1976 "The Functions and Reproduction of Migrant Labour: Comparative Material from Southern Africa and the United States", American Journal of Sociology 81 (5):1050-1087.

Burnet, J. and H. Palmer 1988 Coming Canadians: An Introduction to the History of Canada's Peoples. Toronto: McLelland and Stewart.

Castles, S. et. al. 1984 Here for Good: Western Europe's New Ethnic Minorities. London: Pluto Press.

Chan, A. 1982 "Chinese Bachelor Workers in Nineteenth Century Canada", Ethnic and Racial Studies 5, (4):513-34.

Chimbos, P and C. Agocs 1983 "Kin and Hometown Networks as Support Systems for the Immigration and Settlement of Greek Canadians", Canadian Ethnic Studies, 25 (2):42-56.

Cohen, R. 1987 The New Helots: Migrants in the International Division of Labour. Aldershot: Gower.

Corbett, D. 1957 Canada's Immigration Policy: A Critique. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Corrigan, P., B. Curtis and R. Lanning 1987 "The Political Space of Schooling", in T. Wotherspoon (ed.) The Political Economy of Canadian Schooling. Toronto: Methuen.

Creese, G. 1984 "Immigration Policies and the Creation of an Ethnically Segmented Labour Market", Alternate Routes, 7 (1):1-34.

Czumer, W. 1981 Recollections About the Life of the First Ukrainian Settlers in Canada. Edmonton: Canadian Institute of Ukrainian Studies.

Danys, M. 1986 DP: Lithuanian Immigration to Canada After the Second World War. Toronto: Multicultural History Society of Ontario.

Department of Labour 1951 Annual Report. Ottawa: King's Printer. Employment and Immigration Canada 1989 Immigration Statistics. Ottawa: Minister of Supply and Services.

Magazine/Journal

Gale PowerSearch

Gale

2008/03/12

COPYRIGHT 1993 University of Calgary

• http://find.galegroup.com/ips/infomark.do?&contentSet=IAC-Documents&type=retrieve&tabID=T002&prodId=IPS&docId=A16465601&source=gale&srcprod=CPI&userGroupName=mont88738&version=1.0