回复: 海归回流知多少，移民加国到底值不值？ZT
zt 也不能少了历史的这一页。。。
加拿大“人头税”问题由来
2006年6月21日下午，当承载一百多位“人头税”苦主及后人代表的“平反列车”抵达加拿大首都渥太华火车站时，现年已106岁的当年铁路华工李龙基坐在轮椅上，双手紧紧抱着一颗锈迹斑斑的道钉。正是这颗钉子，承载着一百二十几年前加拿大华人那沉重而辛酸的历史。
十九世纪后期，先后有超过15000名华工参与修筑连贯加拿大东西海岸的太平洋铁路，其中4000多人客死异乡。虽然中国劳工为建设铁路做出了重要贡献，但在1885年铁路竣工后，在敲入最后一颗道钉的庆功仪式上，却找不到一个华人的身影。不仅如此，加政府还通过《华人入境条例》，从那时起至1923年，华人移民每人入境必须缴纳“人头税”，数目从50加元一直涨到500加元，这相当于当时一名华工两年的薪水。
据统计，在1885年到1923年的近40年间，加政府共向八万一千多名中国移民征收了总计2300多万加元的人头税。在1923年至1947年期间，当时的加政府又通过实施排华法案禁止华人入境。
进入上世纪八十年代，广大华人社团开始为“人头税”的平反奔走呼号，呼吁加政府承认错误，承认华人对国家所做出的贡献。平反行动得到了很多主流社会正义人士的同情和支持。为表示支持，一位名叫皮埃尔·伯顿的作家在去世前特地把这“最后一颗道钉”捐赠给了华人社区。
经过二十多年抗争，随着华人社会地位和经济实力的提高，加历届政府对平反“人头税” 的态度经历了从不与理睬，到虚与委蛇，再到积极处理的转变。在今年1月联邦大选中，“人头税”问题成为争取百万华人选票的重要议题。保守党政府总理哈珀上台后，一直表示将兑现大选承诺，平反“人头税”，并最终定于本月22日在议会举行“人头税”平反仪式，正式就歧视华人的“人头税”政策向全加华人作出正式道歉，并公布平反方案。
“最后一颗道钉”记录了华人被羞辱的过去，如今它又成为华人洗刷百年耻辱的见证。而时至今日，八万多名“人头税”受害者中，在世的已不到20人。李龙基17岁时来到加拿大作铁路劳工，是仍健在的最年长的“人头税”受害者。
加总理今天一声“迟来的”道歉具有极大的象征意义，旅加华人的历史因之而翻过了崭新的一页。
The Chinese head tax was a fixed fee charged for each Chinese person entering Canada. The head tax was first levied after the Canadian Government passed the Chinese Immigration Act of 1885. The act was replaced by the Chinese Immigration Act of 1923, where it excluded Chinese immigration altogether. It was meant to discourage Chinese from entering Canada after the completion of the Canadian Pacific Railway.
Contents
* 1 History
* 2 Raising the Tax
* 3 Impact of the head tax
* 4 Movement for redress
o 4.1 Liberal Government's proposed foundation
o 4.2 Conservative Government Apology
* 5 Today
History
Canada's federal Chinese Immigration Act of 1885 stipulated that all Chinese entering Canada pay a $50 fee, later referred to as a head tax. (Prior attempts by the Colony, then, Province, of British Columbia, to introduce similar, usurious taxes had been struck down by successive court decisions as 'ultra vires' [beyond the powers of] the provincial legislature because they impinged upon federal jurisdiction over immigration.).
As a dominion of the British Empire, Canada tried to discourage, but could not, by its international obligations, completely eliminate, Chinese immigration at its borders. Following the Opium Wars, which saw China a defeated nation, the British Empire forced a series of Treaties upon China, which demanded the "free flow" of immigration to facilitate its opium trade.
Therefore, Canada's enacting legislation was named the Chinese "Immigration Act," although, clearly, it was intended to discourage, or exclude all Chinese newcomers to Canada, but for its obvious, political and legal obstacles. Scholars and historians have referred to it, and, later the Chinese Immigration Act of 1923, which barred Chinese immigration, as the Chinese "Exclusion" Act, instead.
Some arrivals were presumed to return to China after "sojourning" to Canada because of their transitory occupation, or background (students, teachers, missionaries, merchants, members of the diplomatic corps) and were, therefore, exempt from paying these extortionate penalties. As a result, these measures caused great pain and suffering to the most vulnerable, or impoverished, class of Chinese arrivals--those who were at the bottom of the economic ladder.
Raising the Tax
The Government of Canada, under subsequent Liberal administrations, increased the tax to $100 and, then, $500, under the Chinese Immigration Act of 1900 and the Chinese Immigration Act of 1903, respectively, on the pretext that the penalties did not sufficiently deter Chinese immigration amidst the racist hysteria on Canada's west coast. (Although the idea of a poll tax was borrowed from the white supremacy policies of Australia, it had already been quickly abolished there as "unbecoming an intelligent and civilized people," while successive administrations in Ottawa continued to see the revenue as a major windfall.)
In the early 1900s, the value of $500 was enough to purchase two homes in Montreal, or a 1/4 section of land in many provinces. These penalties, or taxes, never actually benefitted the original payers as the funds went into a Consolidated Revenue Fund and were spent on public facilities from which Chinese were generally barred--and, who, later, also had their right to vote taken away, as "dis-enfranchised" subjects (i.e., taxation, without representation). Some, therefore, point out that the use of "head tax," is a great euphemism, or misnomer, in both the literal and legal sense of the terms.
At the same time, Liberal immigration policy under Minister Clifford Sifton saw the federal government offer free land and financial incentives to white, European settlers, in an effort to purge the country of its "Yellow Peril" and populate the west with a 'superior' race of people, spurred by social Darwinism and the false ideas introduced by such authors as Magistrate Emily Murphy.
Families, sometimes, entire villages, in China were required to raise and advance funds to the payer who spent several years in indentured servitude in Canada to pay off the debt. These acts were regarded as examples of anti-Chinese legislation in Canada that were part of general institutional racism against the Chinese in Canada.
In 1909, William Lyon Mackenzie King, who was a Member of Parliament for the Canadian House of Commons before becoming Liberal Prime Minister, represented the British Empire at an anti-opium conference in Beijing. According to popular, Eurocentric scholarship, King told the Qing Dynasty that he would try to persuade the government in reducing the sum of the head tax if his Chinese counterparts could restrict Chinese migration to Canada. The relevance of this exchange remains a major source of contention, as further research (including sources in the Chinese language and dialogue in the House of Common Debates) affirms the Chinese Consul having made several, unsuccessful attempts to improve the treatment of Chinese in Canada and their status as loyal subjects, despite Canada's total disregard of its international obligations for the Chinese people.
The Chinese were the only ethnic group that had to pay a Head Tax to enter Canada. Other Asians, such as the East Indians and the Japanese, were not subject to a Head Tax.
Before the Statute of Westminster 1931, the Government of the United Kingdom controlled Canada's international affairs. Canada could not deter citizens from India, which was still a British crown colony, or Japan, which agreed to the Anglo-Japanese Alliance in 1902. Yet, the Government of Canada made efforts to require citizens of Japan and other British Far Eastern colonies to have to travel by direct voyage, only.
Impact of the head tax
The Government of Canada collected well over $24 million in face value from about 81,000 head tax payers, some of the money being used to support Canada's war effort in World War I. The total head tax collected by 1923 has been estimated as equivalent to over $1.2 billion in 1988 dollars.
In terms of social impact, due to the tax, Chinese Canadian communities in Canada became a "bachelor society," since many families in China could not afford to pay the tax to send for their families to Canada. Significantly, families were separated for several decades, and the growth of Canada's Chinese community remained stunted for several generations, despite having a history in the country that spans almost two centuries.
Movement for redress
In the 1980s, many Chinese and groups lobbied for a refund of the head tax, and an apology, or formal acknowledgement, from the Government of Canada.
Of these groups, the Chinese Canadian National Council (CCNC) began the movement for the government to act, even taking legal action against the federal government. It argued that the federal government has a moral responsibility for its racist past and should not be profiting from racism, that the apology and compensation for the internment of Japanese Canadians during World War II set a precedent for redressing racially motivated policies. For many years, the Canadian government refused to apologize, citing the possibility of legal liabilities.
An Ontario provincial court declared in 2003, however, that the Government of Canada had no obligation to redress the head tax levied on Chinese immigrants under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, as it has no retroactive application, and that the case of internment of Japanese Canadians was not a legal precedent for compensating past racist policies.
Conversely, in response to a submission by the Chinese Canadian Redress Alliance in Montreal, a timely Report in 2004 by Doudou Diène, United Nations Special Rapporteur on Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance, concluded that Canada should redress the head tax to Chinese Canadians, but Heritage Canada refused for several years to address the issue financially.
Liberal Government's proposed foundation
To the surprise of many, on November 17, 2005, a group calling itself the National Congress of Chinese Canadians announced an "agreement" with the out-going Liberal administration to pay $12.5 million for the creation of a new non-profit foundation to educate Canadians about anti-Chinese discrimination. The payments (of the, now, failed, agreement) would have gone to a foundation, not to individuals who had paid the tax, with a specific, pre-condition of "no apology" by the government.
This proposal was instantly met by controversy.
Among other things, the deal had been negotiated without the participation of a number of the most active groups across Canada, including the CCNC.
Accordingly, when the Department of Heritage announced its preliminary agreement on November 24, 2005, funding was suddenly reduced to $2.5 million--most likely the result of fierce and obvious opposition in the broader community. It was also later, revealed that Raymond Chan, the government official claiming to have negotiated with community groups who held no family ties to the issue, purposely misled the government and public that the Chinese Chinese community was willing to accept "no apology, [and] no [individual or collective] compensation."
The authors of the unpopular proposal also claimed support of 11 Chinese-Canadian groups. Yet, upon further examination, some of the named groups stated publicly that their names had been used without permission; several other groups listed, did not even exist. The out-going Liberal Government tabled bill C-333 (as a private member's bill) to implement the deal in November 2004, but this bill died when the Government fell on November 28, 2005.
Opposition grew louder in the Chinese Canadian community and, in response, major redress-seeking alliances and coalitions were formed. This marked a major turning point for the Head Tax Campaign across Canada. The public lobby took prominence during and after, the 2006 federal election. In addition, significant, individual efforts in private, would lead to future negotiations with the Conservative Party.
In prior election campaigns in 2004 and 2006, opposition parties, including the New Democratic Party and Bloc Quebecois had already stated their support for an apology and redress for the head tax.
On December 8, 2005, Conservative Party leader Stephen Harper released a press statement expressing his support for an apology for the head tax. As a part of his 2006 election platform, Mr. Harper promised to work with the Chinese community on redress should the Conservatives form the next government.[1]
Before ultimately losing the federal election, the out-going Prime Minister and Liberal Party leader Paul Martin issued a half-hearted personal apology on a Chinese language radio program. However, he was quickly criticized by the Chinese Canadian community for not issuing the apology in Parliament and, 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 their ridings, including Vancouver-Kingsway MP David Emerson, and the Minister of State (Multiculturalism) and Richmond MP Raymond Chan, also made futile attempts to change their positions in the midst of the 2006 election campaign.
Conservative Government Apology
The Conservative Party won the election with a minority government, with (newly elected) Prime Minister Stephen Harper reiterating his position on the Head Tax issue in a news conference on January 26, 2006:
"Chinese Canadians are making an extraordinary impact on the building of our country. They've also made a significant historical contribution despite many obstacles. That's why, as I said during the election campaign, the Chinese Canadian community deserves an apology for the head tax and appropriate acknowledgement and redress."[2]
Formal discussions on the form of apology and redress began on March 24, 2006 with a preliminary meeting with Chinese Canadians representing various groups (including some head tax payers), Heritage Minister Bev Oda, and Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister Jason Kenney, resulting in the "distinct possibility" of a formal government apology before July 1, 2006 to commemorate the anniversary of the enacting of the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1923.[3]
The meeting was followed by the Conservative government's acknowledgement on April 4, 2006 in its Speech from the Throne that an apology would be given along with proper redress.[4]
From April 21-30, 2006, the Conservative government hosted public, national consultations across Canada in cities most actively involved in the campaign, since it first began: 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 BC Coalition of Head Tax Payers, Spouses & Descendants; ACCESS; the Ontario Coalition of Head Payers & Families; the CCNC; the Edmonton Redress Committee of the Chinese Canadian Historical Association of Alberta; and, the National Redress Alliance headquartered in Montreal.
Today
Currently, the major issues revolve around the content of any future settlement, with the leading groups demanding meaningful redress, not only for the handful of surviving "head tax" payers and widows/spouses, but first-generation sons/daughters who were direct victims.
Some have proposed that the redress be based on the number of "Head Tax" Certificates (or estates) brought forward by surviving sons/daughters who are still able to register their claims, with proposals for individual redress, ranging from $10,000 to 30,000 for an estimated 4,000 registrants.
On June 22, 2006, Prime Minister Stephen Harper offered an apology and compensation only for the head tax once paid by Chinese immigrants[1]. Survivors or their spouses will be paid approximately $20,000 CAD in compensation. There are only an estimated 20 Chinese Canadians who paid the tax still alive in 2006. [5]
As no mention of redress for the 4,000 immediated families who were directly affected was made, the Chinese Canadian community continues to fight for redress from the Canadian government. A national day of protest was held on July 1, 2006 in major cities across Canada, with several hundred Chinese Canadians joining in local marches.
A few weeks after its apology to the Chinese Canadian community, the Conservative government announced that it would begin to offer proper redress to the approximately 5,000 victims of the tainted blood (Red Cross) campaign who were excluded by the earlier settlement of the previous Liberal government.
我也是 同感