Marjorie Her War Years

by Patricia Skidmore

  Mr. Speaker, I ask for the consent of the House to adopt the following motion, with the support of the MP from Humber River–Black Creek [Judy Sgro], the MP from Chilliwack–Hope [Mark Strahl], the MP for Vancouver East [Jenny Kwan] and the MP from Saanich–Gulf Islands [Elizabeth May]:

  That the House recognize the injustice, abuse and suffering endured by the British Home Children as well as the efforts, participation and contribution of these children and their descendants within our communities; and offer its sincere apology to the former British Home Children who are still living and to the descendants of these 100,000 individuals who were shipped from Great Britain to Canada between 1869 and 1948, and torn from their families to serve mainly as cheap labour once they arrived in Canada.[9]

  The following February, a private members’ business motion, M-133, was sponsored by MP Guy Lauzon to recognize the British home children’s contributions to Canadian society. Having this in place would enable a platform for educating the Canadian public about the British child migration program to Canada. I contacted my local MP, Elizabeth May, to ask her to support Lauzon’s M-133. May responded, “Too few Canadians are aware of the BHC program’s existence, let alone the horrific treatment so many of them endured. I will proudly vote in favour of M-133 in the House of Commons.”

  Lauzon encouraged all members to vote in favour, stating:

  Until recent years, very few Canadians knew about the British home children. Their stories of hardship, courage, determination, and perseverance are not part of Canadian history books. This needs to change. We owe a great deal to these children for their contributions to our country. So far, we have been failing them. I encourage all members to make an effort to learn more about the story of the British home children, to share that knowledge with their constituents, and to do all they can to ensure that this chapter of their collective story is never forgotten.

  On February 7, 2018, an important milestone in the fight for recognition of the contributions made by the British home children in Canada was realized:

  Pursuant to Standing Order 93(1), the House proceeded to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion of Mr. Lauzon (Stormont–Dundas–South Glengarry), seconded by Mr. Strahl (Chilliwack–Hope), — That, in the opinion of the House, the government should recognize the contributions made by the over 100,000 British Home Children to Canadian society, their service to our armed forces throughout the twentieth century, the hardships and stigmas that many of them endured, and the importance of educating and reflecting upon the story of the British Home Children for future generations by declaring September 28 of every year, British Home Child Day in Canada. (Private Members’ Business M-133)

  The motion was unanimously passed. September 28 of each year will be known as British Home Child Day across Canada.

  On March 1, 2018, the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse: Child Migration Programmes published its report. The inquiry heard evidence that the Fairbridge Society in England knew of the alleged sexual abuse of child migrants in both Canada and Australia from as early as the 1930s. With regard to the Prince of Wales Fairbridge Farm School on Vancouver Island, B.C., the report states:

  In March 1938, Duties Master CM-F219 left the school after he had admitted, “serious and gross misconduct with … boys” there. After the incident, Harry Logan (Fairbridge B.C. Principal) was clearly concerned to “avoid talk of scandal as much as possible” and to protect the “good name of Fairbridge from being besmirched by the failure of one of her servants.” The Bishop of Victoria wrote to Gordon Green (Fairbridge U.K.’s Secretary) suggesting that CM-F219 should have been sent to prison, and that Mr. Logan should be replaced, but neither of these events occurred.

  In July 1943, Duties Master Rogers was convicted of “immoral relations” with Fairbridge boys and imprisoned. He was also suspected of “alarming behaviour towards older girls.” During a previous period of employment, he had been dismissed because of concerns of other staff members about sexual misconduct, and Mr. Logan’s decision to re-appoint him had been controversial among the staff and the Canadian Welfare Council. Mr. Logan again hoped to avoid a scandal and that the affair would “be viewed in its true light as something which may occur in work of the kind which we are doing at Fairbridge.” The evidence shows that: Mr. Logan later explained his decision to re-appoint Mr. Rogers by referring to the difficulties in obtaining trained staff (which we see to be a recurring theme in the child migration programmes); and he had obtained several references for Mr. Rogers on his re-appointment.[10]

  The Canadian government needs to acknowledge that the voices of the British child migrants sent to Canada for the purpose of their labour are, for the most part, missing. Today most of these fractured stories need to be told through the descendants of the British home children. The history of British child migration and the part these children played in building this country needs to be taught in our schools. I want to hear the Canadian government say that it was wrong to receive young children in this manner and to acknowledge that more could have been done to ensure the safety of the children once they landed in Canada.

  Life in the colonies was not rosy for all the children. Those who were more adaptable to their new environment fared better. The older children had a better understanding of what was happening and why, and those with siblings of the same gender had each other, giving a little comfort, but the younger the child, the more battles he or she faced. There was no one to turn to as they navigated through this new, sometimes terrifying and unfriendly environment that they found themselves placed in. The overworked and often untrained and unsuitable cottage mothers and duty masters rarely discouraged the bully system, and in fact they often encouraged it. The children were on their own and needed to quickly learn how to take care of themselves.

  It is impossible to know the full extent of the abuse faced by the inmates of the Prince of Wales Fairbridge Farm School. Some former Fairbridgians remain vehement that no abuse ever happened anywhere on the farm school at any time and do not want to hear the stories of abuse and cruelty. This silencing from their peers has worked to stop some former Fairbridgians from speaking out about the abuses they faced during their Fairbridge days. The refusal by some to acknowledge that others experienced abuse at this farm school might be the outcome of years of control and brainwashing inflicted on them while they were inmates at the farm school. The children were told what to think, what to say, and how to feel … all handed out with a healthy dose of verbal abuse. Only glowing reports of happy, healthy, stable children were allowed to reach the public. It is little wonder, then, that the truth remained hidden all these years. In June 1934, Prince Edward, the Prince of Wales and future king, stated that “it is no exaggeration to say that the Fairbridge Farm School scheme is the only completely successful form of migration at the present time.”[11] Public statements such as this would allow the belief to spread that British child migration to the colonies was a success. Likely, few bothered to look into it further; thus, perhaps the idea of it being the best thing for each and every child migrant was allowed to permeate society’s consciousness.

  The 329 children who went through the Fairbridge Farm School system near Cowichan Station have 329 different stories to tell. This book is based on what for me was the most important story to come out of that institution — my mother, Marjorie’s. She raised me, and I knew her for sixty-six and one half years. I know first-hand the damage that was done by her deportation to Canada as a ten-year-old child. I lived with her fears, her anxiety, and her cringing in the face of authority. I still recall her nightmares as she ran through the house, tears streaming, screaming at an invisible assailant and begging for them not to take her children as she was taken all those years ago. And I, too, lived without my family, my English grandparents, my aunts, uncles, and cousins. We knew so little about each other because none of us fully understood the long-standing program of British child migration. My famil
y did not know what to say, so they said nothing.

  Home is where your stories begin. Without this base, your stories are severed, your identity shattered, your roots broken. We all need to hear the beat of our own drum, but when my mother lost her family, she lost everything, including the ability to make strong new sounds that she could relate to. Her voice and most forms of communication were silenced at the farm school. My mother was forced to reinvent herself in a critical and unsympathetic environment. She felt unsafe. She was placed in an institution where the only familial bonds she had left — to her younger brother and sister — were severed as much as possible. She had to look for a new identity, but unfortunately the parameters given to her at the farm school were a bad fit. She was reminded on a daily basis that she was of little importance. For many, a determination to survive grew within, and they fiercely fought for a life that they could relate to, not because of the Fairbridge Farm School but in spite of it.

  Marjorie was at war with her “new life” throughout her five years at the farm school. Settling in and accepting this life meant giving up her dream of finding her family again. That dream faded over the years, and it became buried among her childhood memories and eventually lost to her as she looked toward her future and the day that she would finally be rid of the shackles of the farm school. She had no idea what she might find beyond its “walls,” but anything would be better, and she was anxious to experience her freedom.

  How can anyone believe that child migration was the best thing that ever happened to these young children?

  It was certainly not the best thing for my mother, Marjorie, or for our family.

  Who is more vulnerable than a child?

  Chapter 1

  Winifred’s Children

  We insist that parish officers have no right to send children of the poor abroad; we protest in the name of the working classes against this scandalous abuse of their authority … indict the officers for child-stealing; this would probably bring the affair to an issue, disclose the names of some parties who are yet behind the curtain, and prevent this kidnapping of her majesty’s subjects, which we believe is carried to a greater extent than the public are at present aware of.

  — “Transportation of Children by Parish Officers,” The Operative (London), February 3, 1839

  The children on the Tyneside must be shewn the way to Fairbridge.

  — Fairbridge Farm School, Annual Report, 1935

  It was January 1937 when the lives of the eleven members of the Arnison family of Whitley Bay in the Tyneside area of northeastern England changed forever. It all began when the father, Thomas Arnison, received a letter asking him to give up four of his children. His wife, Winifred, and their children were living in Whitley Bay while he was in the London area working, saving for the day when he could bring his family down to be with him. Thomas replied to the letter, saying, “Providing my wife and the children are willing, I am quite agreeable to what you propose if my wife thinks that they will be better off away any how you have my full permission.”[1] The emigration official that received the letter, unconcerned about the willingness or approval of his wife and children, scrawled across the top “This is a consent.” The father’s permission was all that was required.

  Marjorie was in her eighties before she read a letter from her niece stating that it was to her mother, Winifred’s, “eternal distress” that she had lost her children to Canada. Until that moment, she had not known that her mother’s distress matched her own. It took my family many years to understand all the reasons and circumstances that underlay the deportation of Winifred’s children to Canada. Winifred went to her grave with the loss permanently etched on her heart. It has been impossible to heal all the scars, although today we have come to a form of acceptance, easier now with the passing years and a greater understanding of the circumstances. Fortunately, the family no longer blame themselves for failing the children, as they now see, as Prime Minister Gordon Brown publicly admitted on February 24, 2010, that it was “the British government’s fault for failing in the first duty of a nation, which is to protect its children.”[2]

  In February 1937, four of the Arnison children — Joyce, Marjorie, Kenny, and Audrey — were removed from their mother’s care and sent to the Middlemore Emigration Home in Birmingham, where they were prepared for emigration to the colonies.

  Canadian officials based in London, who had the final say on those who would be admitted into Canada, examined all the children that the Fairbridge Society selected for the Prince of Wales Fairbridge Farm School. Only children who passed the thorough investigation into their background and the testing of their mental and physical abilities were accepted. The children were vaccinated just prior to leaving England.

  The use of immigration screening to enact a form of eugenics was not stated, per se, but the belief in it was alive and well in the offices of the Canadian government. Frederick Charles Blair, assistant deputy minister, Department of Immigration and Colonization, Ottawa, Ontario, worked to tighten Canada’s immigration doors throughout his time in office. He not only made it his business to reject “substandard” British children, but he also attempted to keep out all who did not fit his image of the ideal Canadian citizen. Blair’s policies had the support of the Canadian prime minister, Mackenzie King, who, while at the Évian Conference in 1938,[3] instructed his representatives not to support measures to assist refugees. The anti-refugee sentiment was strong in the Canadian government, and in 1938 Blair said, “Ever since the war, efforts have been made by groups and individuals to get refugees into Canada, but we have fought all along to protect ourselves against the admission of such stateless persons without passports for the reasons that coming out of the maelstrom of war, some of them are liable to go on the rocks and when they become public charges, we have to keep them for the balance of their lives.” Allowing only the right stock into Canada was a priority for this government.

  Given that, it is interesting to note that most, if not all, of the Fairbridge Farm School children were sent to Canada without birth certificates or passports.

  Of the first 176 children presented by the Fairbridge Society for consideration for their Canadian farm school in 1935, the Canadian immigration officials rejected close to 75 percent. Reasons for rejection were varied; following are some examples:

  Younger brother mentally defective: rejected. Dislocation of hip — disability will tend to get worse: rejected. Father a soldier, but mother a neurotic hysterical woman: rejected. Underdeveloped: rejected. Nearly dumb, doubtful mentally: rejected. Tuberculosis in family: rejected. Bright but delicate: rejected. Good sharp boy but small. Wears glasses: rejected. Incontinence: rejected. Not good type, parents in trouble with the law: rejected. Child has half-caste appearance. Underdeveloped: rejected. Parents bad type: rejected. A backward child: rejected. Only a fair type of boy and does not impress as being at all bright: rejected. Poor physique: rejected. Physically defective: rejected. Poor musculature: rejected for the time being. Well-built, wears glasses, boy pilfers: rejected. Appears rather a stupid lad: rejected. Fish skin (ichthyosis vulgaris), did not appear very bright: rejected. Mother has epilepsy: rejected. Boy backward and lacking in intelligence: rejected. A dull boy, underdeveloped: rejected. The boy is not up to standard: rejected. Deafness: rejected. Varicocele, flat feet: rejected. Defective heart: rejected. Only fair intelligence: rejected. Poor vision: rejected. Unsatisfactory condition of nose. Not impressed with this boy: rejected. Otitis media: rejected. Backward for age: rejected. Lordosis: rejected. Tic on right side of face: rejected. Below standard: rejected. Too small: rejected. Sulky and a fighter: rejected. Weak type: rejected.[4]

  The Canadian government was after the brightest and the strongest of the poorer classes to do Canada’s farm labour and domestic work. Siblings were separated, as the Canadian officials accepted one from a family but not the other. Some younger siblings were left behind at the Middlemore Emigration Ho
me for years while their older siblings were sent to the colonies. Some were sent to Canada while their siblings were sent to Australia. The society claimed they made an attempt to send siblings to the same farm school in the same country, but in many cases this did not happen. Likely it simply came down to when a child was passed for emigration and where the next boat was headed. There are also a number of accounts where siblings were separated and put in different cottages once they arrived at the farm schools in Australia, effectively breaking their family bond.[5]

  I have not heard of this happening at the Prince of Wales Fairbridge Farm School, but in Marjorie’s case, she was separated from her brother, and her cottage mother made negative comments about her sister, Audrey, being too reliant on her. This was noted in Audrey’s Fairbridge Farm School progress report dated March 31, 1939. One would think that siblings looking out for each other and relying on one another would ease the work of the adults in charge; however, from the start, this was not allowed.

  When the three Arnison sisters were put in the Middlemore Emigration Home in February 1937, they were given cots in the girls’ dormitory that were placed as far away from each other as possible. Siblings were forbidden to comfort one another. Marjorie’s older sister Joyce was punished a number of times when she was caught comforting her young sister, seven-year-old Audrey, once the dorm lights were out. They further punished Joyce when her three siblings were sent to Canada, leaving her behind because they thought she was thirteen and thus too old for the program.