[GB] Why Chinese Canadian history matters
Guest blogger: Gabriel Yiu, former BC NDP candidate for Vancouver Fraserview
To clearly stand out a guest blogger entry, all such headlines will begin with [GB]
I have known Bill Chu for more than a dozen years. He is a sincere and dedicated activist in the Chinese community, someone I truly respect. Bill has been contributing to our society. He does it not for power, money or fame.
I know Bill because of his activist work for the aboriginals. Throughout the years, he has worked hard to make Chinese Canadians understand and care about the aboriginal community.
Bill was also very active in opposing gambling expansion in the 90s. My stand on this issue was influenced by him.
I first worked with Bill in late 2005, early 2006 on the head tax redress movement. Before Paul Martin called the federal election, minister of state Raymond Chan announced that Canada had reached a head tax redress agreement with the Chinese community associations across Canada. A week before the announcement, I learned that the so-called historic agreement contained neither apology nor compensation. It only provided some money for Chinese community associations to hold activities and projects.
Redressing the head tax with no apology — that is something I could not take. I contacted Bill and BC ALPHA’s Thekla Lit to discuss how to oppose the agreement. During the federal election month and the following few months, we put all our other community work aside and concentrated our energy on pressuring political parties and candidates. We declared firmly that a redress without an apology is unjust. With the help of the media and our effective strategies, we reversed the position of the Conservative and Liberal parties. One after the other, they pledged to apologize for the head tax and the Chinese Exclusion Act in Parliament after the election (The head tax redress movement was started by NDP and Hanson Lau in the 80s. The NDP’s position was to have both apology and compensation). In addition, we were able to convince the Conservatives to accept the demand of symbolic compensation.
After Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s historic apology in Parliament, Bill walked another path by himself concentrating on the preservation of the history of the Chinese in Canada.
He quit his job as an engineer. He dedicated himself to searching for Chinese Canadian history and Chinese heritage sites. With the help of aboriginal friends, Bill was able to find relics of the history of the Chinese in faraway and often derelict places, and he spent time to persuade the government to preserve such
relics and sites.
Bill’s efforts have successfully made the City of New Westminster publicly admit the city’s discrimination against the Chinese and seek reconciliation with the Chinese community.
Last July, the New Westminster city council passed a motion to instruct staff to research into the city’s discrimination against the Chinese. This February, the city posted over 30 pages of historical documents about the city’s past disgraceful treatment of the Chinese on its website and scheduled a public hearing on March 31.
New Westminster council’s courage to face the city’s disgraceful past is to be applauded. This is indeed a crucial step, but only the first step. What should follow is apology and reconciliation. I would suggest the installation of a commemorative monument with some carving about the history of the discrimination against the Chinese and the contribution of the Chinese. It should not be a metal plate but a monument which students and tourists can visit. In addition, the city of New Westminster should introduce the early history of the Chinese into their school curriculum, so that past mistakes could be learned and not repeated.
Why should we target New Westminster?
It is a fact that the entire British Columbia was discriminating against the Chinese in the past. However, New Westminster is a prime source of the discriminatory wave. When Bill was searching for Chinese historical materials, he discovered that in New Westminster, school was built on Chinese cemetery, the city dismantled the Chinatown there and forced it to move to Vancouver. The premises of the Chinese Benevolent Association’s club house was used as a dog toilet. There was a “No Chinese” clause on all the city’s contracts. The Chinese Exclusion Act in 1923 was also tabled in parliament by a New Westminster MP.
One might ask, what do these happenings in the past have anything to do with today’s Chinese and our offspring?
Although everyone is equal in front of Canada’s constitution and law, in real life, there’s hidden discrimination in many aspects of society, like employment, promotion opportunities and political representation. People, including some Chinese Canadians, often feel that the Chinese are merely guests or outsiders. They are somehow not fully Canadian. When my wife and I were on Georgia Street during the Olympics, some young fellows referred to us as visitors from China.
In the Olympic opening ceremony, the projected image of Canada is a society consisting of aboriginal and white people.
Bill advocates that the Chinese should be seen as among the builders of British Columbia and Canada. The railway which united Canada was built with the life and blood of Chinese laborers. In the census of 1881, the Chinese made up 20% of the non-aboriginal population but the contribution of the Chinese has been unsung, neglected and forgotten. When British Columbia celebrated its 150th anniversary, there was no mention of the Chinese contribution on the BC 150th Anniversary website. By recognizing this history, Canadians, including Chinese Canadians, would understand that the Chinese are not foreigners who came just to get a share of the wealth. The respect for Chinese Canadians shouldn’t be based on the votes we have and our power as consumers. It should be recognized that the Chinese have helped build Canada. Chinese Canadians should be proud of their heritage.
Bill’s work need to be recognized and supported by the Chinese community. I wish him well on his continuous efforts to reveal Chinese Canadian history and to seek and protect Chinese heritage sites.
—————————————
Disclaimer: Views expressed by guest bloggers are theirs and may not represent those of CIV.
By inviting guest bloggers to write here, I’d like to see us grow together with more diverse ideas and perspectives. If anyone believe the idea is cool, please don’t hesitate to submit your stuff to me. We use real names and identities here. Thank you.
Related read:
Tags: Chinese Canadian, Guest Bloggers, history, New WestminsterRelated posts
Short URL: http://www.chineseinvancouver.ca/?p=10514
i agree with the protection of relics part and am a strong supporter of this cause… but the sudden detour to new west is puzzling. anyway, in doing the so-called “reconciliation” work, one should not alienate others do reach one’s own definition of “reconciliation”
What do you mean “sudden detour to new westminster” and “alienate others to reach one’s own definition of reconciliation”?
“When my wife and I were on Georgia Street during the Olympics, some young fellows referred to us as visitors from China.”
Finally, some white people showed him. Let find some white guys to take his ass back to China … hahaha.
This is a response from a local born Japanese Canadian who work at UBC:-
“I just wanted to mention that I enjoy many of your commentaries but thoroughly enjoyed this one also. It has reminded me of my Japanese Canandian heritage and what I have learned from my past roots in this country too and that we are not foreigners in our own land. I am always reminding many co-workers and friends alike of the fact that their past roots came from other countries just as my family did as well and that we together make up what is now known as Canadians regardless of race, religion or for what many say to me as “having an accent”. I also let them know that stereotyping needs to stop as we are all people in a relatively new land comparative to other countries, the aboriginals were here first and this was their land.
Thanks for sending your articles, I enjoy reading them.”
I applaud you and your article, Mr Yu.
I believe that Mr Chu should be recognized for his past achievements and be supported for his endeavors. I believe his actions are sincere.
Chinese-Canadians should be stakeholders and not stake holders.
Thanks for this article with chutzpah.
A reconciliation is a reconciliation is a reconciliation.
There’s good reason to face the mistakes of our past and own up to wrongs, but there are big problems with the way the blame has been laid on New West here. The facts have been misrepresented, and I think it does a disservice to our ancestors and to modern residents of the city.
First of all, in Yiu’s piece, a number of incidents spanning New West’s 150-year history are lumped together without context or timeline. Racism is accused of being the motivating force behind these things, but the fact is that in real life there were a number of issues at play. Reading the city council minutes on the subject, one reads both discrimination (Chinese labour) and fair treatment, even cultural accommodation.
“in New Westminster, school was built on Chinese cemetery”
The school was built over a graveyard by mistake. It was not exclusively a Chinese cemetery. It was a place where criminals, aboriginals, paupers, and some Chinese were buried. It is unknown if the remains of any Chinese still exist, as it was the practice to remove them for return to Asia. The cemetery was closed for new internments in 1915 (ish), turned into an army barracks in WW2 and was only rediscovered when bones turned up as we prepared to build the new high school.
Believe me, all of New Westminster is appalled and we all wish our forefathers had not chosen this site for the school. It has resulted in a building crisis that has delayed the construction of a sorely needed new school.
“the city dismantled the Chinatown there and forced it to move to Vancouver.”
The first Chinatown was moved after it burned down in the great fire of 1898.The second was build outside the fire restriction zone of the city and when the city grew, buildings (White and Chinese owned) that did not comply with fire standards were removed or rebuilt. Reading council minuites, it seems the city was torn over the issue and reluctant, offering many extensions an waivers as ownes prepared and made arrangements. While I’m sure there were some (even on city council) who were glad to see Chinatown move because of racist fears, it was by no means the only factor at play.
“The premises of the Chinese Benevolent Association’s club house was used as a dog toilet.”
I think this may be referring to the dog park that was recently built on Carnarvon St. by the SkyTrain station. The Chinese Benevolent Association has not stood there for decades. What was there prior to the dog park was an light industrial area where a derelict building succeeded by an empty lot for many years. There was nothing to preserve of the CBA club house. The dog park was a much-needed boon to the neighbourhood. Without it, the area would have been left to the drug dealers and prostitutes. Is that a better legacy? To say a dog toilet was built on the CBA calls your judgement into question.
“There was a “No Chinese” clause on all the city’s contracts. The Chinese Exclusion Act in 1923 was also tabled in parliament by a New Westminster MP.”
This is getting closer to something New Westminster should actually apologize for, however even these things need to be placed in context. From my high school history classes, which (contrary to Yiu and Chu’s assertions, did contain quite a bit of B.C. Chinese-Canadian history – and that was 10-15 years ago), I remember that there were similar programs of discrimination throughout B.C. and Canada. That’s doesn’t mean New Westminster’s government of the time was right, but it does throw into question the reason for zeroing in on one municipality’s actions when the problem was systemic across Canada and the U.S. New Westminster was also a place where Chinese came to rebuild after pogroms in Vancouver, Seattle etc. Throughout all of this time it was an attractive place of settlement for those arriving from Asia.
While the actions of the people who lived in New Westminster 100 years ago cannot be condoned by our modern multicultural society, we have to look at the context of what was appropriate at the time. As a society we have come a long way,but we cannot expect that our ancestors would behave as we do today. I am by no means suggesting we forget the wrongs done in the past, but I do think we should be careful about how we lay blame for what has occurred.
GY,
We all worked together on the head tax redress effort, and the effort still finds people claiming credit to its “success”. Whether they actually did something or not. There were hundreds of people who helped move this issue along.
What you eloquently write about maintaining the history of the Chinese contribution to Canada is important, but why take the low road approach and use perceived historic wrongs as a wedge?
It really takes away credibility when one applies unsubstantiated claims and part truths to spin a persona of championing a cause of “injustice”.
I’d wish our Chinese Canadian community would stop using the victim mentality approach to leadership.
Remember my email to you… check the facts.
to Bree,
Thanks for your perspective on New West. My dad lived and worked in New West as a boy. I still have some memorabilia of New West stuff in our family’s possession – including a former restaurant menu from a building that no longer exist.
Everytime I sit down with some of our city’s (and nation’s) respected historians (including the late Dr Ed Wickberg), we often wonder when some of the tales being presented by some people will be challenged.
I’m guessing this ‘moment’ is coming soon, as we’re now finding holes in some of the material that had been presented.
I guess when that happens, all credibility goes down the proverbial toilet.
Bree,
I have a few questions for you.
You said all of New Westminster is appalled about what? School was built on a common mass grave? I don’t see much mainstream media coverage though. Why is that? (I just missed them?)
You said many factors contributed to the relocation of Chinatown? That can be said about anything regarding cause-and-effect. But some factor always weights more than the others. Absolutely no vacancy at that time in New Westminster for Chinatown to re-build?
So either dog park or left to the drug dealers and prostitutes? That sounds like a horrible place. A lose-lose situation. I am glad Chinatown moved outta New West.
Your high school history class? Was it a mandatory subject? Or an elective course? That was 10-15 years ago? Oh you are so young.
Yes, there has always been systemic discrimination across Canada and USA. I guess “in New Westminster, school was built on Chinese cemetery” was the catalyst in this case. Just an excuse.
You talk about the context of what was appropriate at the time. I wish you were born soon. Say, if you were going to high school in the 70′s or 80′s, you would definitely be singing a different tune (when you are one of the Only Five chinese students in the whole high school?)
Gabriel’s article with reference to the the roles played by Thekla, Bill and
himsel are very self-serving. For the record, they joined an ongoing struggle
of over two decades, primarily led by the Chinese Canadian National
Council in Toronto and the ad hoc BC Coalition of Head Tax Payers,
Spouses and Descendants in Vancouver.
The B. C. Coalition recognized the lack of Chinese-language media skills
and they took this on for the BC Coalition in beginning late November 2005.
Bill became Chinese-language spokesperson until March 2006 when he
was removed. For most of the time, he was off message and essentially
rogue. After he attended the consultations in in March 2006 Toronto with
Minister Bev Oda and Secretary Jason Kenney, we have not heard from
him but understand he and his friends have credited themselves as leader
of the Chinese head tax and exclusion redress movement.
These are the facts. I was there with the BC Coalition since mid-80′s,
helped formed Head Tax Families Society of Canadians in fall of 2006
and have been longtime CCNC director.
Okay, here is my email reply to Sid & Victor Wong:-
Again, my article is not about giving credit to the head tax redress but I would revise my article like this, “With the help of many supporters across Canada, media and the effective strategies, we reversed the position of the Conservative and the Liberal parties.”
As for how Bill, Thekla and I got involved, we stood up without anyone’s invitation because we realized that there was a strong need for Chinese-speaking activists to lead the campaign in the Chinese community. If you take a look at all the Vancouver media (Chinese & English, including Chinese radio open-line shows) coverage during the election period, most of the media events, stories and commentaries were driven by 3 of us with the assistance of others. On the head tax redress, it was the Chinese media who drove the English media. Also, since the number of Chinese-speaking immigrant is much much bigger than local born Chinese and the Chinese media is operated by Chinese-speaking immigrants, it mattered in a tight race election. We pretty much stepped down when the Conservatives started to negotiate the compensation. Since I’m not a head tax descendent, I believe that it should be handled by the descendent. However, I did warned internally that for our BC folks to raise the amount unrealistically high and failed to come up with a united offer among the head tax groups, we would get less than the Japanese Canadian redress (they also compensated the 1st generation).
It’s a fact that the CCNC has been involved from the early days, but I was told that the Ontario Coalition was established because of the dissatisfaction on CCNC’s failure to block Raymond Chan’s no apology redress package and the Ontario Coalition were pretty much run by CCNC folks. Likewise, the BC Coalition was formed because the group that has been working on the head tax redress throughout the years was inadequate to lead the Vancouver campaign.
I also remember in early December, our 3 cities strategy telephone conferencing ended up spending most of the time debating why the head tax registration papers in your basement belong to you.
Again, I’ve no intention to revisit who and who is behind the head tax redress campaign. I think there is a documentary about this releasing this week. Even when someone told me that Sid has never given any credit to me and other Chinese immigrants, I only responded with a laugh. The main purpose of my article was to give Bill a lift for the March 31 hearing in the Chinese community, more important, to tell new immigrants why Chinese Canadian history and redress matter to them.
Regards,
Gabriel
Re: “The premises of the Chinese Benevolent Association’s club house was used as a dog toilet.”
To quote Jon Stewart (originally referencing Republican party):
“Words have meaning, you can’t just make stuff up”.
good read! sometimes we all need to be reminded of our history as time goes by and memories fade
Wow…didn’t know it mattered to you so much what I said Gabriel.
Correction – it was Thekla, Gabriel and you taking on the Chinese language component for a few months and always off message or going rogue. I would agree your work helped reverse the position of the Liberals and Conservatives. However, it mattered much less than the work by the CCNC, Ontario Coalition, BC Coalition and seniors, which did the heavy lifting of organizing meetings, rallies and registrations. Grassroots and community participation were key to the reversals which generated the media availability.
You, Thekla and Bill jumped on a fast-moving bandwagon. I’m surprised you would omit the work of the seniors, particularly their rally at SUCCESS in late November 2005… Why do you think the Chinese language media kept peppering Prime Minister Paul Martin with redress questions well before your participation?
You cite and omit what bolsters your skewed view of things. Since you brought it up, what was so important about the files at the time? The phone call was taken up with Thekla and others screaming at Victor and me for an hour? It achieved a purpose however, showing the other on the call how disruptive you three could be.
The BC Coalition recognized the need for Chinese language media outreach and liaison at the time. That’s why we organised your first media briefing on redress at the Philippine Women’s Centre in late November 2005. It’s true your trio help drive Chinese language media in Vancouver but others did as well across Canada and here. It is not true you drove the English language media. You helped and it is true the Chinese language media drove the English language media. However, this occurred long before you three arrived to assist the BC Coalition. Your legitimacy was assured by wrapping yourself in the BC Coalition banner.
I hope Victor chooses to make public his email to you and me correcting your other errors and omissions of facts in your interpretation of this inspiring story of Chinese Canadian activism. I don’t feel at liberty to post it here. However, your statement on Japanese Canadian redress about compensation to first generation is incorrect. As well, your comment on the formation of the Ontario Coalition and the “inadequate” BC Coalition are incorrect. Victor gives other examples.
For the record, thank you, Thekla Lit and Bill Chu for helping with the redress for a few months. However, you did suck up much Chinese language media by going rogue and off message. I did not like it. You, of all people, should understand why your use of redress in your commentary merited my response. I should add a smile crosses my face when hearing of your over-exaggerated participation in the redress movement.
This matters because your liberties with facts and interpretation in this matter call into question the credibility and veracity of rest of you commentary. Such “loose” writing is best not cultivated by journalists. Well, journalists with integrity at least.
S.
Sid,
I can’t recall in our numerous head tax meeting, anyone had mentioned that our messages were rogue. It appeared that our messages were effective.
I would think that we all know there are great many people contributed to the head tax redress, even including Raymond Chan… Again, my article was not about head tax redress but to explain my work relation with Bill and how he moved on from head tax to NW and Chinese relic preservation.
As for the early Dec conference call, we spent most of our time debating on the head tax registration papers because we’re totally shocked that you and Victor gave all sorts of excuses refusing to allow a designated local academic person to document how many had been registered and whether they’re still alive because we need those info to fight the battle and to prepare for the next step. We couldn’t believe our ears when Victor said in the end that those papers belong to him. From what I know, those papers were signed up by Hanson Lau for CCNC to seek redress and yet, the CCNC executive director claimed that those papers did not belong to CCNC.
Why these files were so important? I guess you’re not on the front line and I’m surprised that you still don’t get it. When the Liberals announced their so-called historical agreement with the Chinese community, they’d all the major Chinese community organizations like CBA, SUCCESS, CCC, the veterans… on their side except CCNC, they claimed their redress agreement had the support of the Chinese community. So how were you going to deal with it and how were you going to tackle it on the media? The strategy was to concentrate on the principle and representation: 1) redress without apology is unjust; 2) what the Chinese associations stand were irrelevant, what mattered is the views of the head tax payers and their families; 3) great many head tax families want redress with apology and compensation. That’s why we need those papers to backup our case that thousands of head tax families (not just the few dozens showed up in protest) were on our side.
We needed those files because when we later negotiate for compensation, the info was important.
You may think that it’s rogue messages but it worked.
Cheers.
What Sid Tan had just wrote, accurately reflects the history of events as it unfolded during the years leading up to the official apology from our Canadian government.
I have all the email correspondence archived away, as do our colleagues. These are the facts, and it can never be changed.
I still vividly remember the day we were invited to speak on Fairchild radio (AM1470) with Thekla Lit, Councillor Don Lee and myself.
We reached out to the Chinese speaking audience and informed them of the whole head tax effort.
Mr. Lee and Ms Lit’s position were not on the same page, but despite our differences, we all worked together on this.
Gabriel Yiu and Bill Chu joined our cause shortly afterwards, and for that, we were most grateful.
But credit should go to where it belongs.
For the record, I have over 12 head tax ancestors, and we as a family, chose not to receive compensation afterwards, although we were entitled to it.
Yo Gabriel.
So this is your response to my agreeing not to do public exchanges with you on redress topics.
You posted Victor and me last night: “If you and Sid would agree, I would stop with this email and move on, provided I don’t need to exchange further with you or Sid publicly.”
I responded: “I’m fine with discontinuing the public exchange. Didn’t start it and would be happy it’s finished in the public. However, even if you do not mention CCNC or BC Coalition, mention our seniors inspiring role.”
Your post this morning attests to your integrity, honesty and trustworthiness. From one position to another overnight.
You wrote: “I can’t recall in our numerous head tax meeting, anyone had mentioned that our messages were rogue. It appeared that our messages were effective.” Effective at garnering media yes but it also angered many of our seniors. You three continued on the reconciliation message when there was a redress still completed at the time. How do you reconcile in such a circumstance?
You wrote: “Again, my article was not about head tax redress but to explain my work relation with Bill and how he moved on from head tax to NW and Chinese relic preservation.” I just responded to your inaccuracies and self-serving comments and corrected the record on redress.
You wrote: “I would think that we all know there are great many people contributed to the head tax redress, even including Raymond Chan…” I agree. Raymond Chan’s bungling of the file helped. I tend to get my inspiration from the hundreds of seniors who have asked CCNC and now Head Tax Families Society of Canada to continue the redress. They are the true leaders of the movement.
You wrote: “I guess you’re not on the front line and I’m surprised that you still don’t get it.” I’m have been invovled with redress for over two decades, organised for over a decade and a half and am still working with the seniors towards an inclusive just and honourable redress. You are really shameless to suggest this I am not on the front line. Movements work on trust and both Victor and I told you the files were real. There was ample evidence to indicate this. You just wanted them for props and who knows what then ramped it up into an internal divisive issue. Good to know you feel you spent a few months in the “front line.”
You wrote: “That’s why we need those papers to backup our case that thousands of head tax families (not just the few dozens showed up in protest) were on our side.” Whose case? You know as well as I do the effort was internal politics in the movement. About “…just a few dozen” – there were over a hundred and fifty people at the CCC protest and more than 50 at SUCCESS on November 25, 2005 – a seminal moment in Chinese Canadian history. It’s all on tape and you can check at http://www.facebook.com/TheActivistNetwork. We had over 400 people, at least half were seniors, at the CCC organising event the year after at a CCC. Come to think of it, I didn’t see you, Thekla or Bill there. Couldn’t take two hours due to other community activities or perhaps too timid to face the comments from our seniors. I feel the later. Interestingly, Jack Layton, Ujjal Dosanjh and several MP’s and Vancouver councillors attended.
You wrote: “You may think that it’s rogue messages but it worked.” Again, the movement is not about effectively garnering media but building grassroots and community capacity. Quite honestly, the Harperites saw an opportunity for votes and your message about reconciliation made it easier for them to sell their eventual unilaterally imposed settlement. We are seeking an inclusive redress and your message of recociliation, in my opinion, was not very effective in organising the movement.
My view is you, Thekla and Bill did help for a short time and it’s appreciated. What’s not appreciated is the over-exaggerated role accorded yourselves. I stand by my comment that you sucked up the Chinese language media with reconciliation agenda when the seniors were seeking direct inclusive redress. It’s your inaccuracies and omissions in the interpretation of events from three or four months of involvement which is questionable.
With grassroots and community support, much is possible. You become effective when the media work feeds off this. More importantly, it’s not how much power you have, it’s how much power the opposition thinks you have. I am prepared to move on and look with interest to the grassroots and community support you and Bill garnered for the March 31 public meeting in New West.
Should you continue to publicly post on redress, I will continue to respond should inaccuracies and omissions occur. You started this with the self-serving post and I am fine with concluding with this post. However, you wrote we should end public exchanges last night and I agreed. So what’s with your recent post dated this morning?
S.
Yes, you’re right, apparently we’ve an agreement. But when I woke up this morning and saw your posting, I thought it was posted after the agreement so I responded. I just checked and realized that your posting was on 11:56 pm last night, that was before the agreement. It’s my mistake and I apologize for breaking the agreement and I intend to keep it because, as stated in my email:
“My conclusion is, although I could get proof on what I’d said, I don’t expect we could convince each other on this and I’ve no intention to make it a public issue because what’s passed is passed and it’s a waste of our time to argue on this matter. If you and Sid would agree, I would stop with this email and move on, provided I don’t need to exchange further with you or Sid publicly.”
Agreed Gabriel . To use some of your words: My conclusion, knowing the support for what was said in our public exchange, is the expectation we could not convince each other on this. I am still trying to make inclusive redress a public issue. However, because what’s passed is passed and it’s a waste of our time to argue on this matter. If you agree, I would stop to exchanges further with you publicly. However, I may continue to respond should your inaccuracies and omissions and loose interpretations become known to me regarding redress and other issues of personal and public interest… S.
Sid Tan wrote:”I may continue to respond should your inaccuracies and omissions and loose interpretations become known to me regarding redress and other issues of personal and public interest… S.”
——————
Mr Yu is a poltician. If he is willing to shoulder such a thankless job, we applaud him, but if he is going to represent us, he must come clean and open on all issues private and public. If Mr Yu is willing to jump into the fire pit for us, we must give him our full support.
I like what David Wong said: “Mr. Lee and Ms Lit’s position were not on the same page, but despite our differences, we all worked together on this. “
About redress, along with CCNC and Ontario Coalition in Toronto and BC Coalition here, Edmonton, Ottawa and Montreal’s redress groups and activists were instrumental in the movement. But it is a Saltwater City story…heh heh heh. Dak Leon Mark, a head tax payer brought the issue to his member of Parliament in East Vancouver. Margaret Mitchell MP raised it in the Commons in 1983 or 1984 and Hanson Lau and his Overseas Chinese Voice “gave wings to a tiger.” Here in Vancouver at the time, Tommy Tao and Charles Mow was there and along with Victor Wong and others kept it going until the BC Coalition was formed around late ’80′s or early ’90′s. Now we are just talking about English language speakers. I started doing community tv stories on redress around 1986. Lily Lee and Ron Mah, two current Head Tax Families Society of Canada, got their start around then.