Chinese head tax

TheChinese head taxwas a fixed fee charged to everyChineseperson enteringCanada.Thehead taxwas first levied after theCanadian parliamentpassed theChinese Immigration Actof 1885and it was meant to discourage Chinese people from entering Canada after the completion of theCanadian Pacific Railway(CPR). The tax was abolished by theChinese Immigration Actof 1923,which outright prevented all Chinese immigration except for that of business people, clergy, educators, students, and some others.

Head tax receipt. The head tax was introduced in 1885, as a means of controllingChinese immigration.

Tax

Through the mid- to late 19th century, some 17,000 labourers were brought from China to do construction work on theCanadian Pacific Railway(CPR), though they were paid a third or a half less than their co-workers (about CA$1/day). Once the Canadian Pacific Railway was completed, the demand for cheap labour was non-existent, so theprovincial legislature of British Columbiapassed a strict law to virtually preventChinese immigration in 1885. However, this was immediately struck down by the courts asultra vires( "beyond the powers" ) of the provincial legislative assembly, as it impinged upon federal jurisdiction over immigration into Canada. A similar attempt had been made a year before, and another one was made in 1878 to tax every Chinese over the age of 12 the sum of taxed $10 (equivalent to $385 in 2023) every three months.

Responding to the anti-immigration sentiment in British Columbia, the Canadian government ofJohn A. Macdonaldintroduced theChinese Immigration Act,which became law in 1885.Under its regulations, the law stipulated that all Chinese people entering Canada must first pay aCA$50(equivalent to $1,749 in 2023) fee,later referred to as ahead tax.This was amended in 1887,1892,and 1900,with the fee increasing toCA$100(equivalent to $3,847 in 2023) in 1900 and later to its maximum ofCA$500in 1903 (equivalent to $18,000 in 2023), representing a two-year salary of an immigrant worker at that time.

However, not all Chinese arrivals had to pay the head tax; those who were better off financially and presumed to return to China based on the apparent, transitory nature of their occupation or background were exempt from the penalty. These included arrivals identifying themselves as: students, teachers, missionaries, merchants, or members of the diplomatic corps.

TheGovernment of Canadacollected about CA$23 million ($393 million in 2023 dollars)in face value from about 81,000 head tax payers.The head tax did discourage Chinese women and children from joining their men,but it failed to meet its goal, articulated by contemporary politicians and labour leaders, of the complete exclusion of Chinese immigration.That was achieved through the same law that ended the head tax: theChinese Immigration Act of 1923,which stopped Chinese immigration, but with certain exemptions for business owners and others.It is sometimes referred to by opponents as theChinese Exclusion Act,a term also used for itsAmerican counterpart.

Redress

After theChinese Immigration Actwas repealed in 1948, various community leaders includingWong Foon Siencampaigned for the federal government to open immigration policies for the Chinese community.

However, the concept of a redress movement did not begin until 1984, when VancouverMember of Parliament(MP)Margaret Mitchellraised the issue of repaying the Chinese Head Tax for two of her constituents in theHouse of Commons of Canadaafter theCanadian Charter of Rights and Freedomshad been proclaimed and entrenched in theConstitution Act, 1982.

Over 4,000 other head tax payers and their family members were eventually registered by theChinese Canadian National Council(CCNC) and its member organizations across Canada, after the issue gathered broad public attention on the CJVB radio program,Chinese Voice,hosted by Richmond, British Columbia, personality Hanson Lau in February 1984.

The redress campaign included holding community meetings, gathering support from other groups and prominent people, increasing the media profile, conducting research and published materials, making presentations at schools, etc.

In 1989, Chinese Canadian National Council, the longtime advocate for the head Tax redress, suffered a split after theTiananmen Square Massacre,which saw the formation of a competing group, the National Congress of Chinese Canadians (NCCC).

1990s: preliminary negotiations

In 1993, Conservative prime ministerBrian Mulroneymade an offer of individual medallions, a museum wing, and other collective measures that would also include several other redress-seeking communities. These were rejected outright by the Chinese Canadian national groups.

However, in the same year, afterJean Chrétienbecame prime minister, the newly elected Liberal government openly refused to provide an apology or redress at allwith the Multiculturalism MinisterSheila Finestoneannouncing in a letter, the following year, that the government "cannot rewrite history" and would not grant financial compensation or redress to groups for past injustices. Instead, the letter reaffirmed $24 million in financing for a Canadian Race Relations Foundation, an idea raised by the previous Conservative government.

The CCNC and a number of regional groups across Canada continued to raise the issue whenever they could, including a submission to theUnited Nations Human Rights Commissionand undertaking court action against the Crown-in-Council, arguing that the federal Crown should not be profiting from racism, and that it had a responsibility under theCanadian Charter of Rights and Freedomsand international human rights law.

CA$1.2 billion legal challenge

In aCA$1.2 billionlegal challenge led by the CCNC, it was argued that the apology and compensation for the internment of Japanese Canadians during theSecond World War,offered by the government in 1988, established a precedent for redressing other racially motivated policies. However, the Ontario court declared in its 2001 decision that the Government of Canada had no obligation to redress the head tax levied on Chinese immigrants because theCanadian Charter of Rights and Freedomshad no retroactive application and the case of the internment of Japanese Canadians was not a legal precedent. Two subsequent appeals in 2002 and 2003 were also unsuccessful.

Following the legal setbacks, community activism resumed once again across the country. Several regional and national events had been organized to revitalize the redress campaign, including opening discussions with opposition parties, led by groups in Edmonton and Montreal, which later formed the Chinese Canadian Redress Alliance alongside the CCNC.

WhenPaul Martinwon the leadership of the federal Liberal Party and became prime minister in 2003, there was a sense of urgency in the Chinese Canadian community as it became clear that there were perhaps only a few dozen surviving Chinese Head Tax payers left, along with potentially a few hundred spouses or widows.

2004: recommendations and report of the United Nations rapporteur

In 2004, Doudou Diène, theUnited Nations special rapporteuron Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance, concluded that Canada should redress the head tax to Chinese Canadians in response to a submission by May Chiu, legal counsel to the Chinese Canadian Redress Alliance.The Report's recommendations once again drew national and international attention to the Chinese Canadian redress campaign.In 2005, Gim Wong, an 82-year-old son of two head tax payers and a World War II veteran, conducted a cross-country Ride for Redress on hisHonda Gold Wingmotorcycle, whereupon his arrival in Ottawa Prime Minister Paul Martin refused to meet him.

2005: failed Bill C-333

Chinese Canadian Recognition and Redress Act
Legislative history
Billtitle	Bill C-333
Status:Not passed

On November 17, 2005, the National Congress of Chinese Canadians (NCCC) announced in a turn of events that an agreement had been reached between 11 of its member Chinese-Canadian groups and the federal Cabinet, wherein theQueen-in-Councilwould pay CA$12.5 million for the creation of a new non-profit foundation to educate Canadians about anti-Chinese discrimination, but with a specific pre-condition that no apology would be expected from the government.

The NCCC was formed on a platform of "no apology and no individual compensation," and was seen by many as the reason the Liberal government selected them as the representative group to negotiate the deal without any prior consultation with the Chinese Canadian community at large.

TheDepartment of Canadian Heritageannounced on November 24, 2005 that the agreed upon funding would be reduced to $2.5 million. It was later revealed that the Minister for Asia and Pacific Affairs,Raymond Chan,who claimed to have negotiated the deal, purposely misled both theministers of the Crownand the public. Some of the groups named in the agreement later stated publicly that their names had been used without permission and in other cases, several other groups listed did not even exist.

The surprise Liberal agreement caused a great outcry in the Chinese Canadian community, as the purported deal with the NCCC had been conducted without their input, resulting in an escalation in the redress movement, nationwide.

Bill C-333, theChinese Canadian Recognition and Redress Act,aprivate member's bill,was tabled in the federal parliament in order to implement the deal in November 2005. While C-333 purported to acknowledge, commemorate and educate about past government wrongdoings, it fell far short of the apology demanded by generations of Chinese Canadians. The Ontario Coalition of Head Tax Payers and Families lobbied the Conservative Party to stop the passage of Bill C-333. The Conservatives exercised a procedural prerogative and switched the order of Bill C-333 with Bill C-331, a bill to recognize past wrongs against Ukrainian Canadians during wartime, causing Bill C-333 to die when Prime Minister Martin's Liberals lost a motion of non-confidence and parliament was dissolved on November 28, 2005.

2006: federal campaign and election

As they had done while campaigning for thefederal election in 2004,theNew Democratic PartyandBloc Québécoisstated, during the leadup to theJanuary 2006 election,their support for an apology and redress for the head tax.Similarly, on December 8, 2005,Conservative PartyleaderStephen Harperreleased apress statementexpressing his support for an apology for the head tax. As a part of his ownparty platform,Harper promised to work with the Chinese community on redress, should the Conservatives be called to form the next government.Before his party ultimately lost the election, Martin issued a personal apology on a Chinese language radio program. However, he was quickly criticized by the Chinese Canadian community for not issuing the apology in the House of Commons and for then trying to dismiss it completely in the English-speaking media on the very same day.Several Liberal candidates with significant Chinese-Canadian populations in theirridings,includingVancouver-KingswayMPDavid Emersonand the Minister of State for Multiculturalism andRichmondMP Raymond Chan, also made futile attempts to change their positions in the midst of the campaign. Notably,Deputy Prime MinisterandEdmonton CentreMPAnne McLellanlost her riding to Conservative MPLaurie Hawn.

Apology

The 2006 federal election was won by the Conservative Party, forming aminority government.Three days after the ballots had been counted on January 23, but before he had been appointed prime minister, Harper reiterated his position on the head tax issue in a news conference, that "the Chinese Canadian community deserves an apology for the head tax and appropriate acknowledgement and redress."

Early discussions on the form of apology and redress began on March 24, 2006, with a preliminary meeting between Chinese Canadians representing various groups (including some head tax payers),Parliamentary Secretaryto the Prime MinisterJason Kenney,andHeritage MinisterBev Oda,resulting in the "distinct possibility" of an apology being issued before July 1, to commemorate the anniversary of the enacting of theChinese Exclusion Actof 1923.The government's acknowledgement followed in theSpeech from the Thronedelivered byGovernor GeneralMichaëlle Jeanon April 4.

That year, from April 21 to 30, the Crown-in-Council hosted the first, formal public consultations across Canada in cities most actively involved and responsible for the campaign: Halifax, Vancouver, Toronto, Edmonton, Montreal, and Winnipeg.They included the personal testimony of elders and representatives from a number of groups, among them the Halifax Redress Committee; the British Columbia Coalition of Head Tax Payers, Spouses and Descendants; ACCESS; the Ontario Coalition of Head Tax Payers and Families; the CCNC; the Edmonton HTEA Redress Committee of the Chinese Canadian Redress Alliance; and, the Montreal chapter of the Chinese Canadian Redress Alliance.

A number of the leading groups demanded meaningful redress, not only for the handful of surviving "head tax" payers and their widows or spouses, but first-generation sons and daughters who were direct victims, as recounted in the documentaryLost Years: A People's Struggle for Justice,proposing that the redress be represented (and limited) by each, actual "head tax" certificate brought forward by its surviving family members, or estate. Early demands from community groups for individual redress, ranged from $10,000 to $30,000 for the estimated 4,000 registrants.

On June 22, 2006, twenty-two years after the Chinese Canadian redress campaign began, Prime Minister Stephen Harper delivered an official apology to Chinese Canadians in the House of Commons for the first session of the 39th Parliament. During his address Harper spoke a few words inCantonese,"Ga na daai doe heep"(Chinese:Gia nã đại đạo khiểm,'Canada Apologizes'), breaking the parliamentary tradition of speaking either English and French in the House of Commons.

To the disappointment of many in the Chinese Canadian community, it was announced that only original head tax payers, or their surviving spouses, then in their nineties, or a total 785 claimants, would receive CAD$20,000 in individual redress, representing less than a fraction of one-percent of the 81,000 original head tax payers.Only an estimated 20 Chinese Canadians who paid the tax were still alive in 2006.

As no mention of further redress was made, the Chinese Canadian community continued to fight for redress from the Canadian government. A national day of protest was held to coincide with Canada Day 2006 in major cities across Canada, and several hundred Chinese Canadians joined in local marches.

Documentaries

• Gee & Radford, Kenda & Tom (2011)."Lost Years: A People's Struggle for Justice".Lost Years Productions, Inc. Archived fromthe original(Interviews head tax redress leaders)on February 11, 2019.RetrievedAugust 20,2011.
• Cho, Karen (2004)."In the Shadow of Gold Mountain"(Interviews head tax survivors).Documentary film.National Film Board of Canada.RetrievedApril 7,2012.
• Dere & Guy, William Ging Wee & Malcolm (1993)."Moving the Mountain: An Untold Chinese Journey".Archived fromthe original(Interviews head tax redress leaders)on November 17, 2011.RetrievedAugust 26,2014.

See also

• Chinese Canadian National Council
• Lost Years: A People's Struggle for Justice
• New Zealand head tax
• White Australia Policy
• Chinese Exclusion Act
• Anti-Chinese legislation in the United States
• Internment of Japanese Canadians

External links

• Search for names in Canadian government head tax records
• LOST YEARS: A People's Struggle for Justice
• Transcript of Prime Minister Harper's apology in Parliament
• National Post-Chinese Cdns Speak of Anger, Anguish - April 23, 2006
• Redress.ca
• HeadTaxRedress.org
• ChineseHeadTax.ca