Canada 加拿大

Lee Association of Calgary
132-2nd Ave SW
Calgary, Alta T2P OB8
Tel: (403)262-2247

Lee Association of Edmonton
c/o 13204 62nd Ave
Edmonton, Alta T6H 1N9

Lee Association of Montreal
94 Lagauchetiere St W.
Montreal, Que H2Z 1C2
Tel: (514)861-3762

Lee Association of Toronto
175A Dundas St W. 2nd Fl
Toronto ON M5G 1C7
Tel: (416)979-3291

Lee Association of Vancouver
313 East Pender
Vancouver BC V6A 1V1

Lee Association of Victoria
614 1/2 Fisgard St
Victoria BC V8W 1R6

Lee Association of Winnipeg
236 King St
Winnipeg, Man R3B 1J4

Bookmark to:

The progress is slow, even seem to be at a stand still at times. But we now have locations of Lee Association in the following countries:

• Burma 緬甸
• Canada 加拿大
• India 印度
• Indonesia 印尼
• Japan 日本
• Malaysia 馬來西亞
• Mauritius
• Mexico 墨西哥
• Philippines 菲律賓
• Singapore 新加坡
• Taiwan 臺灣
• Thailand 泰國
• United States of America 美國

Yes, still a long way to go but a start at the right direction. We hope our visitors would help us in reaching our goal of a world-wide listing of Lee Associations by emailing the address and phone number of the association in their own city. Our thanks in advance.

Kudos to Jack Lee, Chune Lee, Lawrence Jeung and Bernard Li for the information on this page. Also our thanks to Erwin Li for providing the Teochew Lee Clan in Singapore’s url. Please note the Teochew Lee Clan page will open in a secondary window of its own. Our heartful thanks to Pi Lee for providing the address and contact information for the Lee Association in Penang, Malaysia.

Burma 緬甸

Long Set Jong, The Oversea Chinese Lee Clan Association
92 Crisp Pt.

Canada 加拿大

Lee Association of Calgary
132-2nd Ave SW
Calgary, Alta T2P OB8
Tel: (403)262-2247

Lee Association of Edmonton
c/o 13204 62nd Ave
Edmonton, Alta T6H 1N9

Lee Association of Montreal
94 Lagauchetiere St W.
Montreal, Que H2Z 1C2
Tel: (514)861-3762

Lee Association of Toronto
175A Dundas St W. 2nd Fl
Toronto ON M5G 1C7
Tel: (416)979-3291

Lee Association of Vancouver
313 East Pender
Vancouver BC V6A 1V1

Lee Association of Victoria
614 1/2 Fisgard St
Victoria BC V8W 1R6

Lee Association of Winnipeg
236 King St
Winnipeg, Man R3B 1J4

India 印度

Mr. Lee Yun Tin Lee’s Association
South Tangra Road
Calecuta-47

Indonesia 印尼

Lie Yen Hoo
Ji, Kapuk Muara No. 24
Jakarta, 14460

Lie Sie Jyoe Hwie Indonesia
V/H Lie Lung Sie
Jalan Pinangsia 11, 15
Jakarta

Japan 日本

日本東京李氏宗親會
日本東京都新宿區
下落合四一九三之四

日本名古屋李氏宗親會
名古屋千種區山門丁之一番轉

Click here for listing of Lee Association locations in Malaysia 馬來西亞

Mauritius

Lee Ka Kwon (Lee Clan Society)
Cnr Leoville L’Homme and Jummah Mosque Streets
Port Louis, Mauritius
Indian Ocean

Mexico 墨西哥

Lee Association
Calle Rep. Bel Peru No. 102
Mexico, D.F.

Lung Sai Tong
Av. Jvarez No. 150 Apdo No. 5
Mexicali, B.C.

Lee Lun Say Tong
Calle Aquilles Serdab
501 Norte Apdo, Pastal No. 787
Tampico, Tam

Click here for listing of Lee Association locations in the Philippines 菲律賓

Singapore 新加坡

Singapore Lee Clan General Association
363-A Jalan Besar
Singapore, 208994
Tel: 02-296-7388
Fax: 02-264-5057

Singapore Teochew Lee Clan Association
新加坡潮州隴西李氏公會
39 Tessensohn Road
Singapore, 217659
Tel: 02-297-2051
Please click here to email.

Taiwan 臺灣

Lee Association locations in Taiwan
嘉義縣李氏宗親會
中埔鄉和睦村一一鄰永樂
新村一七二號
Taiwan, ROC

Lee Association locations in Taiwan (Taipei)
台北市萬華區李氏親睦會
廣州街一五四號
Taiwam, ROC

Thailand 泰國

Lee Association of Thailand
No. 342/90-91-92
Behind Trok Phut Road
Wangmai, Pathumw. An
Bangkok
Tel: 662-214-0144
Fax: 662-216-8288

United States of America 美國

Lee On Dong Association Headquarters
915 Grant Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94108

Lee Family Association in Seattle
414 1/2 – 8th Ave. So
Seattle, WA

Bookmark to:

Not long after getting married and before my sister, Lin Feng (琳鳳) was born, Dad bought Mom a servant girl for company. Soontoi (順彩) was five years old at the time. Well, as Mom said “It was a full time job looking after her. Good thing I just wanted her for company.” In a way, Mom should be thankful for the practical hands-on experience in child care. It was normal then for people to be married in their mid-teens. An unmarried eighteen-year-old girl was considered an old maid and a real cause for concern. Soontoi stayed with us for about ten years before she was married so none of us children got to know her really well.

At regular intervals Dad, in Canada, would sent money home. This was the family’s only source of income. After the States declared war on Japan, the fighting on the Pacific closed the shipping lanes, and the family suffered terribly. However, there were many families in this similar situation. Many sold or pawned their valuables such as clothing and furnishing while others hired themselves out as helpers during harvest and coolies the rest of the time. Mom chose the latter route and with help from her younger brother, Sui Wen Zhao (趙遂文), the family managed to cope. With this suffering fresh in mind, it was not a surprise when upon Dad’s return after WWII that they went and bought some farm land.

Don’t have much recollection of the rice fields because they were surrounded by fields of others. But I still have memories of the plot by the hill because the crops grew there were different. It wasn’t (still is?) suitable for rice, lack of water. So Mom planted peanuts and yams. A treat was roasted freshly harvested yam wrapped in tin foil on a cold winter day.

After giving birth to two daughters, at the rather advanced age of 46, Mom gave birth to a baby boy, Kevin. It was a difficult birth. It was only through the heroic effort of Lai Siu Sang, a nurse, that this joyous occasion remained so. In appreciation, they got their son to treat her as an adopted mother.

The move to Guangzhou and later to Hong Kong must have been very difficult for Mom. First she would have to learn or at least understand a new dialect, which, though somewhat similar to the one she spoke had enough differences to make understanding a problem. And for the first time in her life she had to learn to recognize street names. However, this was child-play when compared to the adjustments she later would have to undergo in Canada.

Somehow Mom got the notion, or somebody had told her that there are no coconuts in Canada. So while in Hong Kong waiting for our visa to Canada, Mom would make coconut congee, a rather sweet concoction, a lot. At the time, it seemed like daily. In actual fact, I’m sure it was only every other day. She would have it ready as an after-school snack. Really a treat to look forward to.

On November 20, 1957, we set sail for San Francisco aboard the President Cleveland. Mom became sea-sick almost as soon as we set foot on the ship. She hardly ate during the whole trip. It was a wonder that she survived the 18-day trans-Pacific journey. From San Francisco we took the overnight train to Vancouver. The two days stop-over in Vancouver rejuvenated her.

We boarded the Trans-continental which departed from downtown Vancouver’s CP Station. For four days, our eastward journey to Montreal took us over the Rockies, crossed the snow-covered Prairies and hilly central Canada. Prior to departure, we purchased some Chinese barbecue goods for the trip. Again Mom suffered from motion sickness, but compared to the ocean crossing this was nothing.

In the spring of 1958, she went to work at Wong Wing Food to earn some money to send back to my sister, Lin Feng, who was still in China. Because of the Great Leap Forward, China at the time was in the midst of a famine. Mom got Dad to bring home chicken feet which the restaurant would discard anyway. She would dry them and shipped it back to China. For a time, inside the house there were chicken feet hanging from everything and everywhere.

Packaging and shipping the dried chicken feet was something to remember. Either Canada Post or China had a weight limit on parcels going to China. I remember we were trying to get as close to twenty pounds as possible but had to remained under the limit. It was quite a challenge using a hand scale. One of us would lift it up and another would get on all fours to read the weight. Wording the declaration was extremely important. A wrong word could result in the parcel being discarded or confiscated by the Chinese authorities.

Bookmark to:

We don’t have a lot of information on him but from data on hand and knowledge of Chinese customs we can make certain deductions. Firstly, it is safe to say that Xie Wingshui was born in 1883 or there about. His second daughter and fourth child, Der She Chow, was born in 1911. Males at that time were generally married between the age of 16 and 20. If we take the medium age and assume he was married at 18. There seems to be a pattern of a child every other year. Then in 1911 he would have been 28 which means he was born in 1883.

From here we can establish the approximate year of his arrival in Canada. If they were to go overseas and work another common practice for them to leave at the age of 14 or slightly older. This means Xie Wingshui arrived in Canada around 1897 and paid the prevailing $50 head tax.

From what we know, he stayed in the BC Lower Mainland area and worked in the vegetable farms. Since this was seasonal work thus he would returned to China during the off-seasons to save on the living expenses. He may not had made the trip every year but at least every other year.

During WWI he again returned to China. He stayed as long as permitted by his Canadian traveling paper. Made his way to Hong Kong to catch the steamship for the journey to Canada. However, the better ships were requested by the government for the war effort. After seeing the rust bucket masqueraded as passenger ship and recalled the soothsayer’s warning, he decided to postpone his return journey to Canada. Earlier a fortune teller had warned he would die away from home. In seeing the ship’s condition, he decided not to tempt fate.

Safety was a compelling reason for him to wait but there are cultural reasons also. To the Chinese, especially those of the older generations, the concept of “fallen leaves return to the root (落葉歸根)” is of utmost important. This is based upon the true home-grown Chinese religion, ancestor worship. In ancient time not worship one’s ancestors was cause enough for the a leader’s removal. Chinese history is littered with references of appointing a male heir to ensure the offerings were made at the appropriate times. It became the unspoken obligations to make offerings to one’s ancestors om all important occasions and to visit the grave sites at least twice a year, Spring and Autumn, for offerings and maintenance. Because of poor transportation and the associated high cost people die while traveling most likely wouldn’t be buried in the family or clan’s ancestral burial ground and have their graves tended to.

Unfortunately, during the War most ships were requisitioned by the government and commercial ships were few and far in between. Consequently Xie Wingshui missed the return deadline on his travelling Canadian paper. He started to sell seedings at Taishan City (台城) which is in another county but not far from his village. All was well until 1939 when the Japanese invasion finally reached the area. One of the Japanese tactics was to bomb local cities and towns. He was caught in one of these daytime raids and killed. Thus in a way he met fate on the road he took to avoid it.

Bookmark to:

Taken during a trip to Banff, Alberta during the war years

Bookmark to:

Thank you for inviting me to discuss the Head Tax issue with all of you today. Even though I have not, up until this point, taken part in any of these discussions, I have been reading, listening, watching, as well as participating in discussions at the federal level with M.P.s, and at meetings held by the Secretary of State for Multiculturalism. Please keep in mind that I most likely don’t have all the facts, and would be more than happy to be corrected and to listen to everyone’s opinion.

I will discuss the issue from a national perspective, based on historical and recent events.

Before I begin, I would like to thank Prof. David Lai for providing me with the proceedings of the National Conference held in March, 1991, in Winnipeg, as well as the results of the survey on this issue done by Victoria University and Simon Fraser University in 1996.

First, I would like to put the issue in its historical context. There has never been any doubt that Canada was a racist country, like all other Western countries at the time. Many of you are aware that our immigration policy remains discriminatory despite the fact that the racial and cultural qualifications were removed in 1967.

Everyone here today is aware of why the Head Tax was imposed. The main reason was that the B.C. politicians were concerned by the rapid growth of the Chinese population in comparison to the rest of the population in the province, and they were also afraid of losing the support of the working class who feared competition from Chinese labour. The Head Tax was meant to discourage Chinese migration to Canada after the completion of the Canadian Pacific Railway, when Chinese labour was no longer needed. The reason the amount was set at $50 in 1885 was based on information gathered by the Royal Commission of 1884. The amount was just above the maximum amount a Chinese labourer was able to save per year after his living expenses were paid, which were estimated to be $48.

However, we know that the Head Tax did not discourage Chinese immigration, and so the amount was increased to $100 in 1900, and to $500 in 1903. It is interesting to note that between 1885 and 1903, 39,925 Chinese paid the Head Tax to immigrate to Canada. From January 1904, after the tax was increased to $500, until the passage of the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1923, 42,444 Chinese paid the Head Tax to come to Canada (between 1886 to 1924, a total of 82,369 paid the Head Tax to enter Canada. The Chinese Exclusion Act in the U.S. was passed in 1882). What these figures tell us is that the Chinese clearly wanted to come to Canada, and that no amount of Head Tax would discourage them.

Most of you would know that the reasons for migration were economic. This was mainly due to a huge increase in the population in Guangdong province without enough land to feed the population. There were also wars and rebellions that caused a great deal of suffering. At the same time, because of the abolition of the slave trade (Britain 1833), labour was needed by Western countries in their colonies. Going overseas meant survival, and despite discrimination, it was still the preferred option for the poor peasants in China. That is why we have the term “Gold Mountain.” Going overseas became a tradition and chain migration started. And, because of the great impetus for the Chinese to immigrate to the New World, countries such as the U.S., Canada, Australia and New Zealand imposed a Head Tax to try to discourage their entry.

In reading the transcripts of the Winnipeg Conference of 1991, the point was made that there was a treaty signed in 1904 (Treaty Series #7) between the United Kingdom and China on the Employment of Chinese Labour in British Colonies and Protectorates, meaning that the Chinese should have had the right to immigrate to Canada which was a British Colony. Technically, yes. However, Canada became a country in 1867, and had its own immigration policy, and besides, most Chinese who immigrated after the completion of the CPR came as family members in the form of chain migration. So, in effect, this treaty did not apply. If I’m wrong, please correct me.

From everything I’ve read so far, no one has mentioned anything about Chinese tradition and culture, which are very important points. A lot has been said about the Canadian government separating families, but if you look at the pattern of Chinese immigration overseas until after the Second World War, the immigrants were mostly adult males. The women were left behind in China, not by their own choice, but because of Chinese tradition. Even after the Second World War, if it had not been for the civil war in China, many of the women and children would still have been left behind. Villages in many parts of south China consisted mainly of women and children because as soon as the boys were old enough they would be sent abroad, despite having to pay the Head Tax. These families were known as the “overseas families.” But that’s another story which I’m not going to expand on at this time.

There is absolutely no question that the Head Tax was unfair, and that the Chinese were discriminated against by the Canadian government, since we were the only group singled out by racial origin to have legislation passed against the entry of many of our ancestors. However, we must realize that other groups, such as the South Asians also had legislation passed against their entry by the “Continuous Journey” amendment in the Immigration Act (1910), which just about excluded them from coming to Canada, even though they were not mentioned specifically by name in the legislation.

Canadian politicians wanted Canada to remain a white country, and as British as possible. That was why Eastern and Southern Europeans were not welcome until after the Second World War, and only then, partly because of the war against Fascism, but mainly because of the booming Canadian economy and the need for labour. So, aside from race, anyone with a different religion or customs, such as the Hutterites and the Doukhobors, was considered unable to assimilate. You can say that Canada had a discriminatory history similar to other immigrant receiving countries such as the United States and Australia.

In order to prevent those of non-British origins from entering, Canadian politicians did all they could to bar their entry. One of the ways was through negotiations with foreign governments. The Canadian government did attempt to abolish the Head Tax in exchange for self-regulation by the Chinese government on the emigration of its citizens, similar to the Hayashi – Lamieux agreement with Japan. I know the following information has been presented by Prof. David Lai in the past, but because it is so important, I am going to repeat it for those who are not aware of it. In 1908, Mackenzie King went to Beijing to discuss the issue with Liang Tun-yen, the acting president of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. However, the officials at Foreign Affairs suggested that King return to Canada, and bring forward any matter for discussion with the Chinese Consul-General who was being appointed, and in turn, he would refer the Canadian position to the Chinese Foreign Ministry for instruction. So, the opportunity for an agreement was missed because of the evasive and indecisive attitude of the Manchu government. In June, 1914, the Chinese Consul General in Ottawa suggested that the Chinese government was willing to restrict the number of emigrants to 1,000 per year, but the Canadian government felt that the number was too large, and no agreement was reached. So, I do put the blame partially on the Chinese government at the time.

Now, I will go over the chronology of the Head Tax redress campaign. For those of you who are very familiar with it, I hope you will bear with me for the sake of others who may need this information.

In 1984, an elderly Chinese-Canadian went to the office of MP Margaret Mitchell (NDP) of Victoria and asked if he could expect to be compensated for the Head Tax he paid. That was, to my knowledge, the beginning of the Head Tax redress issue.

We all know about the success of the redress movement of the Japanese-Canadians in 1988. Like everything else in Canada, events seem to follow those in the U.S. In 1980, the U.S. Congress conducted hearings into the internment of Japanese Americans. A year before the Canadian agreement by the Mulroney government, the U.S. government offered an acknowledgement and individual compensation package to the Japanese American internees.

In 1988, Prime Minister Mulroney formally acknowledged the wrongs done to the Japanese Canadians, and authorized the provision of C$21,000.00 to each of the individual survivors of wartime detention. The language used in the official document was “acknowledge” the treatment of the Japanese Canadians, and the government “pledge” to ensure it won’t happen again, as well as to “recognize” the commitment and loyalty of the Japanese Canadians to Canada. Please note that nowhere was the word “apologize” ever used. This is important because the Chinese communities all want an apology, even if they cannot agree on anything else. Please remember that the federal government will be very reluctant to use the word “apology”, because legally speaking, it means liability, and the government can be sued for monetary compensation. And because there are so many groups out there asking for redress, the government feels that there would be no end to it.

The Japanese redress movement was successful and a comparison has often been drawn to that of the Chinese Head Tax redress. I want to point out that there are at least two major differences:

1. the Chinese who paid the Head Tax to come to Canada were Chinese nationals and not Canadians. The Head Tax was to prevent the Chinese from entering the country. The Japanese who were interned were Canadians or residents of Canada;
2. Unlike the Japanese Canadians, the Chinese were not interned, and to my knowledge, they never had their belongings and properties confiscated and sold.

So, comparing the two is like comparing apples and oranges.

In a speech given to the National Congress of Italian Canadians and the Canadian Italian Business Professional Association on November 4, 1990, Prime Minister Brian Mulroney mentioned that he would apologize to the Italian Canadian community for the internment of 700 Italian Canadians during the Second World War in a speech to the House of Commons during that session of Parliament. This event was seen as a boost to the Chinese redress campaign. However, by the end of the parliamentary session, he still had not apologized. And to my knowledge, no apology was ever made.

On May 22, 1992, the British Columbia government approved a motion calling on the federal government to provide reasonable redress for the injustice of the Chinese Head Tax. This is a complete reversal of the earlier B.C. policy of urging the Dominion government (as it was known at the time) to stop Chinese immigration. After the Head Tax was instituted, the B.C. government was given part of the proceeds, which became very profitable for the province. Between 1885 and 1903, a quarter of the Head Tax, certificate fees and penalties went to the B.C. government. From 1903, half was paid to the B.C. government. So, the question is, is the B.C. government willing to compensate the Head Tax payers? I am not aware of any decision on their part.

I should like to mention that, at this time, some of the other groups who are seeking redress are:

1. the Italian Canadians (internment, WWII)
2. the Ukrainian Canadians (WWI internment – almost 9,000; Bill C-331 Inky Mark – public commemoration and restitution to be devoted to education and promotion of tolerance),
3. the German Canadians (internment during both World Wars)
4. the Canadian Jewish Congress (turned away the St.Louis – 900 Jewish refugees from Nazi Germany),
5. the Doukohbors (for 6 years, the B.C. government kidnapped their children and confined them in the New Denver Institution),
6. the National Association of Canadians of Origins in India (Continuous Journey; Komagata Maru) and
7. the African Canadian communities (slavery legal until 1833; Africville and the Black Loyalists – the African Canadian Coalition Against Racism formed in 2001 is a coalition of a number of black Canadian organizations).

Redress petitions were sent to then Secretary of State for Multiculturalism, Sheila Finestone, (by the Chinese Canadian National Congress, the National Congress of Chinese Canadians, the German Canadian Congress, the Canadian Jewish Congress, the National Association of Canadians of Origins in India, the National Congress of Italian Canadians, the Ukrainian Canadian Congress, and the Canadian Ukrainian Civil Liberties Association), and on December 14, 1994, Minister Finestone made the following statement, “we wish we could rewrite history. We wish we could relive the past. We cannot…We believe our only choice lies in using limited government resources to create a more equitable society now and a better future for generations to come. Therefore, the government will not grant financial compensation for the requests made.”

I got to know Sheila Finestone when she was appointed to the Senate about three years ago. One day, I asked her why she made that announcement in 1994, and she said the Cabinet refused to pay compensation, and her hands were tied.

In 1995, the Canadian Race Relations Foundation was established with a grant of $24 million, as a fulfillment of the commitment under the Japanese redress in 1988, as well as the commitment of the government in 1994. Going through their website, I can see that many groups have had grants for initiatives and specific projects against racism, but up to this year, the Chinese Canadians have not received any significant funding from the Foundation for any educational projects on the Head Tax or the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1923. I thought the Foundation is exactly what many in the community have been asking for. It is available, and we should make use of it.

Interestingly enough, also in 1995, a head tax of $975.00 per person was imposed on all immigrants by Citizenship and Immigration Canada, on top of $500.00 per adult and $100.00 per child as a processing fee. These amounts have been raised to $550 and $150 respectively. There are other fees as well for different kinds of sponsorships. Many people have complained and charged that the government is being unfair to immigrants. Have you ever wondered what the descendants of these immigrants may do in the future?

In 2001, the Chinese Canadian National Council launched a class action suit against the federal government “Mack vs. Canada”, acting for the survivors and relatives of those who paid the Head Tax to enter. The claim was for financial compensation, with compound interest, of the tax paid, as well as for general damages for pain and suffering. This failed, and the CCNC appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada on November 15, 2002, which was rejected, and a complaint is now underway with the United Nations Human Rights Committee.

On February 12, 2002, Prime Minister Helen Clark of the New Zealand government issued a formal apology to the Chinese New Zealanders, and announced the beginning of a process of reconciliation with the ethnic Chinese who had to pay poll tax until 1944. Funds and resources will be provided for the purpose of restoring and maintaining the Chinese heritage, culture and language. I think it is important to learn from the Chinese New Zealanders.

On December 10, 2002, Inky Mark introduced Bill C-333, which basically asks for:

1. an apology;
2. restitution to be devoted to educational materials on Chinese Canadian history, and the promotion of racial harmony.

The latest that I know of is that this May, the CCNC launched a New Redress Website and Canadians for Redress Campaign. It has won the support of, among others, the NDP leader, Jack Layton, June Callwood, Mathew Coon Come of the Assembly of First Nations, the Canadian Race Relations Foundation, the Metro Toronto Chinese as well as the Southeast Asian Legal Clinics.

Before we discuss the way forward, we should look at what the Chinese Canadian communities really want. From the survey that I have, there are many different points of view from the Head Tax payers and their descendants, from wanting personal compensation, to an apology, to education, to nothing at all. As long as there is such extensive division in the Chinese communities, the federal government will not deal with us seriously.

I now propose the following questions for discussion:

1. Do Chinese nationals have the right to compensation when another government tried to prevent them from entering the country?
2. Did the Chinese culture and tradition of keeping the women and children in China, while the men went abroad to work, not play a role in separating families as well?
3. If conditions had been better in China, would we be here discussing the Head Tax?
4. Are we responsible for the sins of past generations? As tax payers, are we responsible for what the politicians did generations ago? Should we set a precedence that future generations should pay for our sins?
5. What happened to the Chinese in the past was against human rights, but the concept of human rights was not even part of our vocabulary until after the Second World War. The claim by the different groups for redress is based on the Charter of Rights and Freedoms passed in 1982. Is it possible to claim retroactive rights?
6. In order that past mistakes are not repeated, future generations must know the truth about Canadian history. Would education not be the key to solving the problem. Since education is a provincial responsibility, is it not up to all of us to make sure that accurate history is taught in our schools and in our homes?
7. Is the new Human Rights Museum (Winnipeg) an effective venue for educating Canadians about past wrongs?
8. Should there be a Chinese Canadian National Museum like the one the Japanese Canadians have in Burnaby, B.C., or the Abbotsford Sikh Museum, also in B.C.? And if so, where do you think it should be located?

For all of you who really want to learn about the insider story of the Japanese Canadian redress, you should read Bitter Sweet Passage by Maryka Omatsu, who is a judge in Ontario, and who was intimately involved with the negotiations. I agree with her that, if it had not been for the settlement in the U.S., and the economic clout of Japan, it would not have happened in Canada.

No matter what any government says, history can repeat itself, so we must always be vigilant. Ultimately, I think political power is the only way to ensure that past wrongs will not be repeated. So, to all the members of the younger generation here, please keep that in mind, and play an active role in Canada’s future government.

Views | 1 | 2 | 3 |

Bookmark to:

The research

This is the story of Peter Lee’s search for his roots. We are most grateful to Peter for giving us permission to reproduce it here:

The research of the Australian Descendants of Li Jiquan (Lee Soon) has been predominantly conducted by Peter Leeson, great, great grandson of Li Jiquan (李積銓). Peter’s interest in his family history began at the age of fifteen when it was revealed to him that the birth certificate of an elder relative had the name LeeSoon as their family name.

This had been kept quiet as people of Chinese origin were generally treated as second class citizens in Australia at the time, a way of thinking that had been encouraged by the White Australia Policy. When asking if it was correct, Peter was told that it couldn’t be and that family members would have known if it were. By this time the Chinese appearance had all but disappeared from family members through marriages with European spouses.

It wasn’t until two years later after the death of his grandfather, that it was revealed for the purpose of the death certificate, his grandfathers family name was not Leeson but in reality LeeSoon. This furthered the desire to find more information on the family history and during the period 1982 and 1983 Peter, with the assistance of his cousin Trevor Turner, spent many hours researching records, talking to remaining family members and chasing down any leads they could possible find.

Death, Marriage and Birth certificates were used to find vital dates, locations and next of kin. Cemetery records were used to fill in more detail and countless hours spent researching old newspapers, looking for articles or notices relating to family members, and hours spent in the repository searching records yielded information regarding the naturalisation of Li Jiquan and notice regarding the charge of perjury bought against him, for which he was found not guilty, along with details of the inquiry into the death of his son, James. Peter and Trevor travelled to Ballarat on many occaisions, speaking with the eldest remaining members of the family to obtain information and stories describing their great grandfather, Syd.

It must be remembered that all this was done in the days prior to the Internet and the access it has provided researchers of today. In 1984, Peter had reached a point where he had sufficient information pertaining to relatives since the arrival of Li Jiquan in Australia and was desperately trying to trace further back into China but with no success. After having been in contact with the Chinese Consulate and the Chinese Overseas Office based in China, he gave up trying and accepted that the information he had was all he would ever obtain.

Some seventeen years later, in 2001 however, using the Internet, Peter stumbled on a website that is used by people tracing their family origins in China. A few days after posting a notice on the bulletin board at this site, Peter received emails from two people located in Canada who offered assistance and guidance based on their own experience in doing similar research. With the assistance of Al Chinn and Kevin Lee, and their translation of the headstone of Li Jiquan’s grave in Ballarat, along with old maps in their possession, were able to pinpoint the tiny village in Guangdong Province from which Li Jiquan originated. It is now hoped that with this new information the link to distant relatives in China may one day become a reality.

By the creation of this website, Peter hopes to provide other descendants of Li Jiquan access to interesting and relevant information pertaining to their family history and other people who may be wanting to conduct similar research the inspiration and encouragement to make a start.

Points of Interest

Since the arrival of Li Jiquan in Australia, the eldest son of the eldest son has carried the name James. Ironically the only exception to this is Peter Leeson.

1. Li Jiquan (Lee Soon)
2. Sydney James LeeSoon 1
3. Sydney James LeeSoon 11
4. Geoffrey James Leeson
5. Peter Geoffrey Leeson
6. James Geoffrey Leeson.

There were three generations of Levina Maude’s. (not in direct lines)

| Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 |

Bookmark to:

In April 2003, the Supreme Court of Canada denied plaintiffs leave to appeal in Shack Jang Mack Quen Ying Lee and Yew Lee v. Attorney General of Canada. In doing so, the Court shed some light on a sensitive but important issue: the limitations of the courts in providing redress for a past injustice which was itself the result of government policy.

The history of that policy is certainly deplorable in retrospect – something that all parties agree on, including the Crown and the courts. In 1885, Parliament passed legislation imposing a duty or “head tax” exclusively on Chinese people immigrating to Canada. The legislation reflected contemporary prejudices, such as those of one member of Parliament who declared that “there is not much room for the Chinaman in Canada. He displaces a good Canadian, or a good British subject” (Nathaniel Clarke Wallace, speaking in 1900). In 1923, that tax was replaced by legislative restrictions on Chinese immigration, amid claims that “the wily oriental has found some means or subterfuge to circumvent any regulations that may have been imposed upon him” (as MP John Armstrong MacKelvie told the House of Commons). The legislation was finally repealed altogether in 1947.

In December 2000, head-tax payers and their families launched a class action in Ontario, seeking recovery of monies paid to the federal government, as well as damages for pain and suffering, injury to dignity, and lost opportunity inflicted by the legislation. Plaintiffs’ counsel estimated the claim to be worth more than $1 billion.

The Crown brought a preliminary motion to strike out the statement of claim on the basis that the legislation in question had been validly enacted more than 115 years ago and repealed more than 50 years ago. Mr. Justice Cumming of the Superior Court of Justice agreed, and struck out the claim in its entirety in July 2001.

The plaintiffs turned to the Ontario Court of Appeal, which, in unanimous reasons released September 13, 2002, dismissed the appeal. Finally, leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada was denied on April 24, 2003.

The plaintiffs’ argument had primarily two branches. First, they made a claim in international law, as received into Canada through human rights legislation, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and Canadian jurisprudence. Second, they argued that a discriminatory law, even when validly enacted, does not constitute a legal or sufficient reason for unjust enrichment.

The history of [the head tax] policy is certainly deplorable in retrospect – something that all parties agree on, including the Crown and the courts.

The Crown took the position that it was not enough for the plaintiffs to allege that they had been subject to discriminatory legislation in the past. Indeed, that fact was never at issue in the case. As Justice Cumming declared, “the legislation in its various forms was patently discriminatory against persons of Chinese origin. By contemporary Canadian morals and values, these pieces of legislation were both repugnant and reprehensible.” The Court of Appeal added that “Canada’s treatment of people of Chinese origin who sought to immigrate to this country between 1885 and 1947 represents one of the more notable stains on our minority rights tapestry.”

The Crown did not dispute these findings, arguing instead that Canada had made a clear policy decision not to provide redress for such historic wrongs. In 1994, the Honourable Sheila Finestone, then Secretary of State for Multiculturalism, announced that the Government of Canada would not compensate six groups seeking compensation over past discriminatory immigration practices or wartime measures. Ms. Finestone stated:

In the past Canada enforced some immigration practices that were at odds with our shared commitment to human justice. Canadians wish those episodes had never happened. We wish those practices had never occurred. We wish we could rewrite history. We wish we could relive the past. We cannot. … The government understands the strong feelings underlying these requests. We share the desire to heal those wounds. The issue is whether the best way to do this is to attempt to address the past or to invest in the future. We believe our only choice lies in using limited government resources to create a more equitable society now and a better future for generations to come.

In ruling against the plaintiffs, Justice Cumming stated that “the court’s function is not to usurp the power of Parliament. Rather, its role is to adjudicate claims based upon their legal merit within the framework of Canadian constitutional law.”

The message was clear: historic wrongs are best viewed as mistakes not to be repeated rather than as lingering grievances to be resolved by the courts.

What is significant about this case is that it was decided so quickly. A statement of defence had not been served; limitations defences had not been raised; the matter had not reached even the certification stage, let alone trial. Yet the courts found it plain and obvious that the claim failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action. The message was clear: historic wrongs are best viewed as mistakes not to be repeated rather than as lingering grievances to be resolved by the courts. As the Court of Appeal pointed out, after reiterating their condemnation of the actual policies in question:

The head tax laws ceased to operate 79 years ago, in 1923. During their life, they were constitutional in domestic law terms and they did not violate any principles of customary international law. The doctrine of unjust enrichment is an equitable doctrine. However, even the broad purview of equity does not provide courts with the jurisdiction to use current Canadian constitutional law and international law to reach back almost a century and remedy the consequences of laws enacted by a democratic government that were valid at the time.

| 1 | 2 | 3 |

Bookmark to:

]]>