1. TRIPARTITE BLAME: IT CAN'T BE EQUALLY SHARED

Tripartite blame or responsibility (for British government, sending agency and receiving country's government) sounds logical enough at first, but given a bit of thought and historical perspective, there cannot be a strictly equal share for each party. The British government will play a Pontius Pilate role if it attempts to minimize its share of responsibility at a third. It was the heavy in Child Migration. Furthermore, it is ridiculous to assume that the colonies were the tail(s) that wagged the dog. Child Migration was a by-product of imperialism. The colonies were, in effect, manipulated.Rationale:1.  In the arguments advanced by Mr Luce, there was no mention of the social, moral, political, historical and especially the economic advantages to the British government of encouraging/permitting child migration in the beginning and as late as it did (1967). We may be cynical but it is our experience that governments—like industry—consider the pocketbook before all other matters. They are more "commercial" in their outlook than altruistic, especially if altruism is going to cost money. (Consider too that the present Health Select Committee is really only concerned with the "7,000 to 10,000" children sent to Australia, and not the 140,000 sent elsewhere. Why? Probably because the Australians have threatened to take legal action.)2.  Consider too the continuing influence of Home Office on the colonies, former colonies and dominions even in modern times. Examples:

    (a)  The Alaska Panhandle (properly a part of Canada) was sold to the United States in the 19th century over the objections of the lone Canadian allowed on the Board established to determine the matter. All other Board members felt that "The Mother Country"—Britain—knows best!

    (b)  Ref. the 1995 appeal made to the British High Commission by Home Children Canada on behalf of Home Boy Leonard Brooker (of Whetstone, England) whose wife was told by Sun Life that she could not inherit his insurance money because he, all his life, had used the wrong date of birth—the one given him by the sending agency. The British High Commissioner's answer of 5 August 1994 over B H Dinwiddy's signature states that "We needed to consult departments in London before replying" and... "on your claim on behalf of Mr Brooker against the President of Sun Life of Canada, we see this as a private matter on which we are not able to intercede." Orally I was told this was a Home Office decision that went against the rights of a Home Boy now residing in Whetstone, England. He had exhausted all appeals in the UK and tried Home Children Canada as a last resort. Eventually we achieved a positive outcome for Mr and Mrs Brooker.

    (c)  Britain exerted undue influence over Canadian troops in World War I—a reason Prime Minister Mackenzie King delayed before declaring war in 1939. (Books in the UK still refer to Canadian pilot Billy Bishop (the Allies' top war ace) as British.))

    (d)  "Home Office" exerted undue influence over decisions in Canada until the 1930s when, according to former Government Minister Sergio Marchi, Canada started to form a Foreign Affairs Department and policy of its own.

    (e)  The enclosed clipping from today's Ottawa Citizen newspaper (May 5, 1998) refers to new disclosures dating to the mid-1950s that prove that Britain's Foreign Office (and Lord Reading in particular) influenced former colonies' decisions vis-a-vis compensation for former prisoners of war in Japan. These POW's are still without proper compensation because of this decision.

    (f)  It is reasonable to assume that this influence (above para) is not an isolated case, and in the case of Child Migrants the British Government's share of responsibility is greater—much greater—than other members of the tripartite group.
2. THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT'S PAST AND PRESENT ROLE IN MAKING INFORMATION AVAILABLE TO OR CHAMPIONING CANADIAN CHILD MIGRANTS IS NOT EXEMPLARY

The attached letter from the British High Commissioner's Office in Canada, suggests that the British Government of the day (1994) considered the question of divulging information to Canadian requests a costly, time-consuming hot potato be tossed to the Child Migrant Trust.That this "solution" was entirely inadequate did not occur to the Government of the day who considered that because they had tossed some money to the CMT that was all they had to do.Consider:

  (1)  The CMT received only half the money it requested from the British Government to operate efficiently (presumably their budget took into account the fact that they also received funds from the Australian Government, the Nottingham authorities, and donations).

  (2)  The government must have known that Margaret Humphreys, founder of the Child Migrant Trust, is on record in her book EMPTY CRADLES as saying (after talking to about 40 Home Children in Canada) that "Child Migrants in Canada are too old" to help but she will continue to provide them "with dates of birth and burial (of parents and siblings)."

  (3)  It is untenable for the British government to have knowingly contributed only to an agency and virtually excluded helping the 100,000 Child Migrants to Canada, which represented two-thirds of all those out as well as the 43,000 sent elsewhere.

  (4)  It is equally untenable that the British government restricted its aid to the only agent it recognized, given that that agency admitted in writing (EMPTY CRADLES) that it could not help ALL CHILD MIGRANTS and that CANADIAN HOME CHILDREN WERE TOO OLD TO HELP IN ANY CASE.

  (5)  Margaret Humphreys also told me personally that this was her policy when I met with her in Toronto a few years ago.

  (6)  I had surmised as much several years earlier when I personally wrote to the CMT for information re my father who was sent to Canada. I still have no reply.

  (7)  Given Ms Humphreys' stance, the Child Migrant Trust should perhaps be called The Australian Child Migrant Trust and the Health Select Committee should be honest and admit it is really concerned only with Child Migration to Australia. A disproportionate amount of time and money has been spent studying the Australian/NZ situation. Canadians were given token recognition at best. The invitation to go to the UK to address the committee at our own expense could be construed as an affront and disinvitation. The children sent to Rhodesia get no mention at all in the Agenda.

CHILD MIGRATION

Thank you for your letter of 13 June to the High Commissioner, who is currently in the United Kingdom. I apologise for the delay in our response but we needed to consult departments in London before replying.The British Government's main concern in relation to child migration has been to ensure that former child migrants who wish to make contact with their families are able to do so. All the files on child migration are now held at the Public Record Office at Kew. Some of the files are subject to "privileged access". If you wanted to see these, you should enlist the support of the British non-governmental organisation Child Migrants Trust (tel no 0602 822811). All the other files are open to the public.On the question of your claim on behalf of Mr Brooker against the President of Sun Life of Canada, we see this as a private matter on which we are not able to intercede. I am sorry we cannot be more helpful.

3. THE ARGUMENT THAT BRITAIN SENT CHILDREN ABROAD BECAUSE SHE OWED AN OBLIGATION TO HER FORMER COLONIES AND ALLIES AFTER WORLD WARS I AND II TO HELP DEVELOP THEIR DEMOCRACIES IS UNTENABLE, PARTICULARLY AS FAR AS CANADA IS CONCERNEDThis flies in the face of several facts:

  1.  The Andrew Doyle Report of 1874 had pointed out the problems and his findings were NOT accepted by the government or other authorities. It is significant that Maria Rye who was severely criticized in the report and others in favour of child migration denigrated Doyle and his report's validity on the grounds that he was a Roman Catholic out to shake the state church. In short, while the Government did indeed study the scheme in its formative years, it refused to accept the findings of the report. Doyle was only vindicated 50 years later. (Cf Wagner, Rose, Bagnell and others)

  2.  Britain decided in 1924 to stop sending children under school age, ie 14, (thanks to British MP Mrs Boland). Canada passed similar legislation a year later and for less than altruistic reasons. In short—Doyle's reasons for not sending children abroad and for improving the method if it had to be done were finally accepted.

  3.  Canada meanwhile kept step with Britain's official policy (for 14 and under) and the child migrant movement petered out during the Depression. Canadian social workers, labour unions etc. did not agree that Child Migration was a good thing and there was no official demand for additional loyal citizens of the Crown and cheap labour. And while the Canadian government continued to honour its obligation to pay a per capita amount to sending agencies for each child accepted, that amount remained constant ($2) and its monetary value decreased considerably between 1869 and 1939.

  4.  It should also be noted that, until Canada got its own Foreign Policy in the 1930s (at which time there was a Depression and Child Migration ended in our country) immigration was the responsibility of the Canadian Department of Agriculture.

  5.  It is arrogant to suggest that Child Migrants were sent to Canada after 1939 or even after 1918 "to preserve our democratic system".

  6.  Furthermore the premise that the colonies needed help to establish democracies flies in the face of historical precedent. Children were sent before black slaves—and were the only replacement when slavery was abolished. Hardly "democratic".

4. HOME CHILDREN (CHILD MIGRANTS) VERSUS CHILD EVACUEES

Child evacuees are not Child Migrants or Home ChildrenCanada received during the World War II years child evacuees sent ostensibly to escape enemy bombing. Five of these children have been in touch with Home Children Canada re their records. None of the five were repatriated as they should after the war. One gentleman is happy that he—an—orphan—found a lovely wife and a good life in Canada. The other four are still bitter, want their records, and feel they have a grievance because they were sent over under false pretences. If this is so, then the British Government was remiss or someone took advantage of laxity on the part of government.I was asked by three of these child evacuees (... Johnston of Calgary, Alberta, and Mr... and his sister... ) to speak on their behalf to the Committee. The nature of the process prevented this, so I do so now.Mr... submitted to the committee what he thought was a "brief" (one page) acknowledged by a letter from the Committee clerk, Mr McShane. You will note that Mr... and his sister were sent to Canada in 1947 and 1948. The War was over; these children were not Child Evacuees. Someone, somewhere, was bending the Rules, or used The Government loophole that was only closed in the early 1980s. The British Government and the sending agency are clearly to blame.

5. ON THE FUTILITY OF ACCESSING CANADIAN HOME CHILDREN'S RECORDS AT KEW OR THROUGH THE CMT AS REQUIRED BY THE BRITISH HEALTH DEPARTMENT

The British High Commission to Canada in a letter to Home Children Canada dated 5 August 1994 over B H Dinwiddy's signature stated that (our emphasis):

  The British Government's main concern in relation to child migration has been to ensure that former child migrants who wish to make contact with their families are able to do so. All the files on child migration are now held at the Public Record Office at Kew. some of the files are subject to "privileged access". If you wanted to see these, you should enlist the support of the British non-governmental organization Child Migrant Trust (tel no 0602 822811). All the other files are open to the public.NOTE WHAT IS WRONG WITH THE ABOVE:

  1.  There is a condition that the person must be seeking to contact family. Legitimate inquiries about family background are not addressed.

2.  A Home Child might not be allowed access to his/her own records.

  3.  Someone acting on behalf of a Home Child as I was could be denied access.

  4.  Persons seeking family information but not desiring to contact family for whatever reason are excluded.

  5.  Persons seeking to ascertain information to assist in locating wills and promised legacies are excluded.

  6.  Persons seeking medical histories could be denied information.

  7.  ONLY THE CHILD MIGRANT TRUST IS MENTIONED AS AN INTERMEDIARY, YET:

    (a)  CMT was denied half the grant money it requested to do its job properly,

    (b)  CMT is on record as saying that Canadian Migrants are too old to help,

    (c)  CMT has stated it will provide limited info to Canada (eg birth certificates),

    (d)  CMT is years late in answering letters from Canada, if it answers them at all,

    (e)  Proof re above: M Humphreys' Empty Cradles and my own experience,

8.  The writer and many other Canadians have written to the Child Migrant Trust and received no reply. The government's direction to access records through CMT is virtually futile if one is a Canadian.

6. WHERE TO LOCATE AN OFFICE IN CANADA TO DEAL WITH REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION RE HOME CHILDREN SENT TO CANADA (ASSUMING BRITISH AND CANADIAN GOVERNMENTS BECOME PARTIES TO SUCH A PLAN)

Canadian demographics being what they are, a centrally-located is essential. Most of Canada's population is found in Central Canada, i.e. the provinces of Ontario and Quebec.Factors favouring Ottawa, Ontario as the location:Most Canadians would identify with Ottawa and the capital region as the logical place to seek information re a movement that affected all of Canada to some extent, but especially Central Canada, because:

  (a)  Ottawa is the capital of Canada and the seat of the federal government.

  (b)  It is the seat of the British High Commissioner's Office and pertinent embassies, and consulates eg Australia and New Zealand—countries to which siblings of Canadian Home Children were sometimes sent.

  (c)  It is the seat of the Library of Canada and the National Archives of Canada where documents and copies of Child Migration documents are now stored.

  (d)  The capital region embraces parts of Ontario and Quebec—the two provinces where most Home Children were placed (eg by Barnardo, the Anglican Church, the Catholic Church, Fegans, Quarriers, Macpherson, the Liverpool Sheltering Home and the National Children's Home. None of these major organizations had receiving/distribution homes in the maritime provinces.)

  (e)  Ontario and Quebec have had the most receiving homes and the longest lasting ones in Canada.

  (g)  Over the years it is Ottawa Valley organizations that have been involved most directly and significantly in Home Children research or in promoting it, eg

    (i)  The Child Migrant movement to Canada was stopped in 1925 for children under the age of 14 by Charlotte Whitton of Renfrew, later Mayor of Ottawa.

    (ii)    Phyllis Harrison, then of Ottawa, wrote Home Children tell their stories—the first popular book on the subject.

    (iii)  An Ottawa Valley team has been working with the National Archives of Canada on a database of ALL juvenile migrants (under 20) who entered Canada between 1869 and 1935.

    (iv)  This list will be put on the internet when it is finished but is now accessible through the in-house system at the national Archives.

    (v)    And while it will be available to anyone in the world when it is on the internet it will refer to documents that must be accessed in Ottawa.

    (vi)  Home Children Canada located the long lost list of all boys sent by the Anglican Church to Canada and arranged its microfilming for the National Archives by the Mormons.

    (vii)  Home Children Canada also arranged for the microfilming of the Fegan files.

      (viii)Home Children Canada also has made a database of the

        —  Fegan files

        —  The Anglican Church Waifs and Strays list of all boys sent to Canada

        —  the Westminster List of all children sent by that Diocese

        —  a list of some children sent by Southwark Diocese

        —  a list of the only children sent to Saskatchewan

        —  extant records from Coleshill (Father Hudson Archives)

        —  hitherto "missing" records (4,000) from Liverpool Archives

    (ix)  Home Children Canada has responded to the need it perceived and has answered over 7,000 requests for help from those seeking Home Child information.

    (x)    Home Children Canada has worked closely with the National Archives by donating copies of all its lists to the NAC.

    (xi)  Ottawa Valley-based Home Children Canada has held the only Annual Reunions for Home Children and their descendants. We have moved these about the country eg in Ontario to Toronto, Peterborough, Belleville, Renfrew, Ottawa, and in Quebec to Montreal, Richmond, Sherbrooke and Melbourne.

    (xii)  The only historical plaques in Canada to commemorate Home Children have been erected in the Ottawa Valley

    (xiii)Our whole committee—both of us—can operate in French as well as English.

7. HOME CHILDREN CANADA'S POLICY ON CENTRAL REGISTRIES

Our policy, which was misconstrued by the Times of London and perhaps also by the Committee Members is this:

  1.  It is a given that people seeking information re Home Children will continue to write to agencies concerned rather than government. In any case, the detailed files are with the sending agencies, and each agency best understands how its employees once functioned.

    (a)  Therefore ALL concerned groups should have a copy of the central index when it is done.

    (b)  These concerned groups will include sending agencies, but also others with a keen interest, eg the Child Migrant Trust and the Catholic Family History Society, etc.

    (c)  All sending agencies should be involved in input of information.

    (d)  The format of the index should be uniform (which is why government should intervene NOW and perhaps adopt the systems already in place in some agencies.)

  2.  In handling requests for information re Child Migrants we are talking of divulging two types of information:

    (a)  cut-and-dried data about name, birthdate, date of sailing etc. This should be the sole information of the central index. (Years from now one might wish to scan in more personal records.)

    (b)  more personal delicate information eg about circumstances of being placed in the Poor Law Union, Workhouse or Orphanage/Home in the UK, existence of other siblings, so-called "illegitimacy", and especially unfair and judgemental comments by social workers.

  3.  Home Children Canada believes that divulging such information can be an essential part of a therapeutic process.

  4.  It is also our experience from dealing with thousands of cases that it is best done by empathetic persons in the agencies concerned and not by a sterile outside agency.

5.  This has been the approach used by Home Children Canada, Barnardos, and some members of other agencies in the UK, eg Joyce Carroll of the Father Hudson Society in Birmingham and Pat McEvoy of the Nugent Society in Liverpool.

  6.  In eight years and after dealing with thousands of requests we know of only TWO descendants of Home Children who still "carry a chip on their shoulder" after finally getting the information they sought. In one case a Canadian in Calgary is chagrined that his father was denied information for 70 years (see last Addendum in our brief). In the other case an irate lady in England, wants monetary satisfaction for what happened to an uncle she never knew.8 June 1998

8. THE PROCESS OF ESTABLISHING A CENTRAL REGISTRY

Home Children Canada believes there should be one central registry at each sending agency before all else.It is imperative that government and the committee realize that:

  (a)  not all sending agencies kept records in one place, eg in the beginning Catholic parishes, Poor Law Unions, branches, dioceses, welfare organizations, and even wealthy individuals sent children and their records are scattered in perhaps hundreds of repositories about the UK;

  (b)  two types of records generally exist and these may not be together or even in the same country, eg. The Fegan records pertaining to a child's life in the UK are at Tunbridge Wells; the records for the child's life in Canada are with Doug Fry in Ontario;

  (c)  some agencies made use of other people's facilities at times. Until 1882 and 1883 Barnardo and Quarrier used Annie Macpherson's homes and her sister Louisa Birt's Liverpool Sheltering Home. Middlemore and Shaftesbury used Barnardo's Home in Winnipeg, etc. In such cases a child's Canadian records might be in one place and his/her UK records in another. In either case, the file should indicate where the other half is;

  (d)  many records are lost in Archives, Pat McEvoy of the Nugent Society has located 4,000 such records in the Liverpool Archives in the last several months (and has given us an index showing name DOB and DOS (Date of sailing);

  (e)  It is also a fact that records exist in Ireland (in Ulster and in the Republic eg Carr and Smyly (Protestant) Homes in Dublin as well as in RC homes).Home Children Canada believes the first critical step is to have each sending agency gather all its records together in one place and ONLY when these are established should a single central registry be considered at the government level, and when the government's central registry has been done, it can be copied and sent to each sending agency as well as other groups, eg the Child Migrant Trust and Catholic Family History Society, groups in Canada and elsewhere, and on the internet.When the master registry is set up, presumably at the government level, with the cooperation of all sending agencies;

  (a)  the index should be on a common database (which underlines the importance of government intervention NOW to ensure that agencies adopt a common format or program.

  (b)  Information on this central index should be minimal:

    Surname(s)

    First names—commonly used on underlined

    Date of Birth

    Age on arrival

    Date of Departure and Arrival

    Port of Arrival

    Name of Ship

    Name of Sending Agency

    Location of Receiving/Distribution Home (if any)

    First placement

  (c)  Copies of this database format should be sent by the government to each sending agency. (Reason: few people will think of writing directly to the government. It is our experience that they will select agencies at random (if their names are known) and probably write to the wrong one. If so, the agency can direct the person to the proper agency instead of just giving a nil response.)

  (d)  It is most important that the other personal information in records be divulged by the sending agency and not a sterile outside source that may have another agenda. (Reason: The most important aspect in the process of receiving information is that it be a cathartic process. After writing and talking to hundreds of Home Children and thousands of descendants it is our personal experience that virtually all responses can be handled in such a way that there is closure no matter how sad the Home Child's story.)

  The healing process is more complete when the agency once perceived as culprit is part of the therapeutic process.Given that there are many factors at work, it is nevertheless interesting to note that Canadians who have received or sought information and attended our reunions feel that "we are all family" and want no retribution or even an apology. All they want is access to information.One wonders why there are threats of court action in Australia. Perhaps it is because most who were sent to Australia went to institutions which are readily identifiable and more open to attack than are the individuals who received children in this country.