City of Burnaby, B.C., to apologize to Chinese Canadians for past discrimination
A formal apology is being planned by the City of Burnaby, B.C., for its role in discrimination toward people of Chinese descent who lived and worked in the city between 1892 and 1947.
It has scheduled the event for Nov. 15, and will join the provincial and federal governments and two other B.C. cities — Vancouver and New Westminster — that have already apologized for discriminatory practices against the community.
A report by the Community Heritage Commission, which advises council on the city's heritage program, said discriminatory bylaws, trades licenses, and labour regulations were enacted against the Chinese population during that time.
Burnaby City Councillor Alison Gu, who is of Chinese descent and was elected in 2021, said she feels it is important for the city to take direct responsibility for its role in such historical discrimination. She noted that although she was raised in the city, she grew up unaware of that history.
"Those historic impacts have been carried on the shoulders of families across generations," she said.
"I think a formal apology brings to light their stories, the fact that we recognize what (the city) did was wrong, and make a meaningful commitment towards doing better and taking tangible actions to be able to redress those harms."
The city said in a news release Wednesday that the decision to issue a formal apology was made after a community consultation process that included surveys, dialogue sessions, focus groups and individual interviews.
The heritage commission's report says more than one-third of Burnaby's residents are of Chinese descent, ranging from new immigrants to fourth- or fifth-generation residents with deep roots in the community. The 2021 census puts the figure at 30 per cent.
Gu said the process leading up to the apology began more than five years ago, before she was elected.
The city said the findings "underscored the importance of the city acknowledging the hardships faced by early Chinese settlers and the lasting impact of historical discrimination."
Gu said it is important for local governments to take responsibility for actions, including bylaws that "directly targetted Chinese people in Burnaby."
That, she said, included unanimously endorsing a 1921 resolution calling on the provincial government to allow municipalities the right to prohibit Asian immigrants from buying or leasing land.
"That was direct advocacy (and) unanimously passed," she said.
"The city has a responsibility, not just as a level of government, but also that there were direct actions that the city of Burnaby took to further the harm of discrimination against Chinese citizens in Burnaby."
Then prime minister Stephen Harper formally apologized in the House of Commons in 2006 for policies including charging a head tax for Chinese to immigrate.
The B.C. government apologized in 2015 for 160 historically racist laws, regulations, and policies that were imposed by past provincial governments that discriminated against people of Chinese descent.
The City of New Westminster issued its formal apology in 2010 and the City of Vancouver said it was sorry in April 2018.
Burnaby's news release said that in addition to making its own formal apology, it is also committed to increasing the visibility of Chinese-Canadian history, facilitating cultural activities and reducing barriers for inclusion.
'While we cannot right the historic wrongs that were committed in Burnaby, this process has outlined a path toward ensuring Burnaby is a place that is inclusive and welcoming to everyone," Burnaby Mayor Mike Hurley said in the release issued Wednesday.
This report by The Canadian Press was first published June 11, 2025.
Brieanna Charlebois, The Canadian Press
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
4 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Exclusive: Trump's tariff deal ‘quietly' added 10% raise which nobody is complaining about anymore, says his former commerce secretary
Wilbur Ross, former Commerce Secretary and a key architect of Trump's first-term trade policy, describes Trump's current tariff strategy as a deliberate evolution: moving faster, hitting harder, and using broader executive powers to impose tariffs for both economic and diplomatic leverage. The Trump administration's use of tariffs has sparked debate over the ultimate goals of its economic strategy. However, a former Cabinet member and key trade advisor to the President has suggested there is an underlying logic to the approach. Since winning the Oval Office, President Trump has announced an evolving range of policies. with economic sanctions spinning higher on some trade partners while others have been granted pauses. Many of the announcements have not come through official White House channels; for example, Trump threatened a 50% tariff on the EU in April in a bid to get European negotiators to the table—by posting on his social media site, Truth Social. Indeed, Trump has come under scrutiny from Beijing, arguably the most critical region for the U.S. to make a deal, who claim America's tariff tactics have been 'coercion and blackmail' when instead it should 'convey information to the Chinese side…through relevant parties.' But Wilbur Ross, Trump's Commerce Secretary in his first administration, says there's a clear tactic at play beneath Trump's bluster. The 87-year-old banker turned D.C. power player said there is an 'art' to Trump's dealmaking, as White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt has suggested; Ross told Fortune in an exclusive interview: 'Well, everybody's reaction to [tariffs] was first shock and amazement, but the actual retaliatory measures that they put in were fairly modest—even China didn't match in dollar for dollar. 'There's a real reason for that, I think the other countries, as they've thought about it, have recognized that while they have to talk very bravely for their domestic political constituencies… They also recognize that at the end of the day, they can't afford a tit-for-tat escalating trade war with us.' And this was a fact Trump was relying on, continued Ross: 'One of the earliest things he put in was that 10% tariff on everything from everywhere. 'Nobody is even complaining about that anymore. When you think about it, in the normal course, getting quietly to do a 10% tariff on everything from everywhere was a huge achievement, even if he didn't get anything else. But because he followed it with these much more extreme things, it makes the 10% look like it's not such a big bother. 'But it's a huge number, and he's been collecting it every day.' Indeed, imported goods alone into the U.S. in 2024 stood at $3.36 trillion—even before tax, duties, and levies were collected (worth $82 billion) and before imported services are added to those figures. Even 10% of near-$3.4 trillion is an eye-watering sum to add to federal budgets, though some items like autos and steel are even higher. Indeed nations like China, Canada, and Mexico are all already subject to more than the baseline 10% universal tariff. When Ross spoke to Fortune in a previous exclusive interview earlier this year, he said President Trump would be all the more confident in his second term because he now better understands the inner workings of Washington, D.C., and has a stronger mandate courtesy of a solid election sweep. And President Trump's tactics, which have included everything from threatening a 25% hike on Apple's iPhones specifically to raising sanctions to more than 150% on China at some points, reflect the path Ross expected. After all, as Secretary, Ross was one of the key allies in Trump's team when renegotiating America's position on the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). At the time, Trump was a fierce critic of the deal with Mexico and Canada and wanted to withdraw from the agreement and begin negotiating from there. Ross felt the better tactic was to threaten such action and keep an exit as a last resort, an opinion that Trump eventually came around to agreeing with. Likewise, having been appointed in 2017 Ross oversaw the tariff action in the first Trump administration which included sanctions on Chinese goods as well as aluminum and steel more widely. 'He has started out on a much more adventurous path than last time,' Ross told Fortune this week. 'Broader in scope and more extreme in terms of the numbers themselves.' Trump has three objectives, he adds: shrinking trade deficits, producing revenue to offset his 'One Big, Beautiful Bill' and achieving other diplomatic purposes such as the flow of fentanyl into the U.S. and global defense spending. 'He has a much more fulsome, much more complicated agenda than before,' Ross explains. 'It's also different in…that last time I was very careful to set the groundwork to do public hearings, stakeholder meetings, to do written reports, to set a whole record so that under the Administrative Procedures Act we would be relatively safe from people trying to knock it out in court. 'This time, they did a very different thing. They went in mostly just by his say so using the IFA, the Emergency Powers Act, and they ran into a snag at the Court for International Trade.' This snag may alter the course of tariff reaction on the account of businesses, he added, because their investment timelines may shift based on when the tariffs are legally approved. But Ross added: 'Most people are operating under the assumption that sooner or later, he'll get something like what he was looking for…and therefore, while it's slowed down a bit, [I] don't think it will derail [trade talks] because [foreign governments] also know there are other ways he could punish them rather than just the tariffs. 'So it's a bump in the road, but I don't think it's a huge pothole that would wreck the car.' This story was originally featured on
Yahoo
7 minutes ago
- Yahoo
China to remove tariffs on African imports to boost trade
China says it will sign a new economic pact with Africa that will get rid of all tariffs on the 53 African states it has diplomatic ties with – a move that could benefit middle-income nations as they prepare for tariff hikes on products entering the United States. The move, announced at a China-Africa co-operation meeting (FOCAC) in Changsha, central China, comes as the continent faces the possibility of increased tariffs on its products entering the US. The Asian economic giant already offers duty- and quota-free market access to least developed countries (LDCs), including 53 countries in Africa, but the new initiative will level the playing field by also offering middle-income countries similar market access. Eswatini (formerly Swaziland) is the only African country excluded from the zero-tariff deal. It maintains diplomatic ties with Taiwan, whereas China regards it as a breakaway province. The timing of Beijing's decision is significant. In April, President Donald Trump announced high tariffs on its imports from many countries, including a 50 percent rate for Lesotho, 30 percent for South Africa and 14 percent for Nigeria. Read more on RFI EnglishRead also:China courts African allies as tensions with Europe, US deepenFrance pushing for 'China-EU leadership' on climate to counter US withdrawalKenyan president visits China as country pivots away from the US
Yahoo
22 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Opinion - Why are administrative judges trying to help China steal American technology?
A panel of judges is openly defying Trump administration policy — and effectively allowing a Chinese firm to keep stealing an American semiconductor technology used in everything from self-driving cars to satellites. These judges are not members of the judicial branch. They are executive branch employees, and the Trump administration has the authority to overrule their dangerous decision. It should do so immediately to protect American workers and uphold the rule of law. But the administration will also need to implement broader reforms — and work with Congress to codify them — to prevent rogue administrative judges from helping Chinese companies pilfer U.S. intellectual property in the future. The administrative patent judges in question work for the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, a powerful part of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. They just sided with Innoscience, a Chinese firm locked in a years-long legal battle with Efficient Power Conversion, a California-based semiconductor innovator. Efficient Power Conversion accused the Chinese firm of stealing its patented technology and selling knockoff chips. It took its case to the U.S. International Trade Commission, which investigates trade violations and protects American industries from unfair competition. After a 16-month investigation — including a trial, depositions, and expert testimony — the commission found that Innoscience had indeed stolen the technology and that Efficient Power Conversion's patent was valid. As a result, the commission barred the Chinese firm from selling the infringing chips in the U.S. And after its mandatory review period, the White House allowed the ruling to stand. That should have settled the matter. But separately, Innoscience challenged Efficient Power Conversion's patent at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, which ultimately invalidated key claims in the patent. This ruling handed Innoscience fresh ammunition to challenge the import ban and try to resume flooding the U.S. market with stolen technology. This is a direct assault on American innovation and the Trump administration's efforts to crack down on Chinese intellectual property theft. Worse still, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board should never have taken the case. The first Trump administration issued guidance barring the Patent Trial and Appeal Board from reviewing patents already being litigated in parallel forums. This policy was designed to protect smaller American companies from being overwhelmed by duplicative litigation across multiple venues. Put simply, patent disputes should be handled in court, or at the International Trade Commission, or at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board — but not all three. That changed in 2022 when the Biden administration reversed the policy. This gave Innoscience an opening to request a Patent Trial and Appeal Board review in 2023. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board accepted — and in 2024, proceeded with a review of Efficient Power Conversion's patent, even though the International Trade Commission had already completed its exhaustive trial and was days away from issuing its final decision. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board, applying lower evidentiary standards than a court, invalidated the patent. It issued its ruling on March 18, 2025 — weeks after the second Trump administration had reversed Biden's policy and reinstated the original rules, which on its own should have blocked the Patent Trial and Appeal Board from acting. The director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office can reverse this decision. That should happen immediately. Overturning the Patent Trial and Appeal Board 's ruling would align with the commission and block the theft of a vital American technology. But righting this one wrong isn't enough. The system that allowed this must be reformed to prevent future abuses. That means putting the new Patent Trial and Appeal Board guidance through the formal rulemaking process, thus making it harder for a future administration to reverse it arbitrarily. Even more important: Congress must act. Bipartisan legislation like the PREVAIL Act would bar duplicative Patent Trial and Appeal Board challenges and hold it to the same evidentiary standards as federal courts. As a member of the Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party, I know how important it is to protect our innovation from theft by our most determined adversary. Passing this law would reaffirm America's commitment to its inventors, send a clear message to China, and stop unelected bureaucrats from hijacking trade enforcement. America's economic security depends on innovation. We can't afford to let the Chinese Communist Party and other foreign adversaries sabotage our innovators. Nathaniel Moran represents the 1st District of Texas and is a member of the House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
