After the end of the Second World War Richmond returned to a semblance of normal life. The Air Raid Precautions Brigades were disbanded, wartime activities were ended and the prospect of further wartime Civil Defence measures seemed unlikely. Then, in September 1949, a routine American Air Force Weather Service flight from Japan to Alaska picked up traces of radioactive debris in its filters, indicating that a nuclear explosion had taken place in the Soviet Union and that the Communist Bloc had tested an atomic weapon. The ensuing build-up of nuclear weapons and fear of a potential “atomic Pearl Harbor” led to the next outbreak of Civil Defense action in Richmond and in the rest of Canada.
Newspaper articles like this front page of the March 17, 1953 Vancouver Province did little to ease concerns about the threat of nuclear war.
By 1951 Ottawa had begun the process of planning for the possibility of a nuclear attack and had declared that Vancouver, New Westminster, North and West Vancouver, Burnaby and Richmond were a “Target Area” for the purpose of Civil Defense. Committees and sub-committees were organized, and a chain of command was set up. At the request of the authorities, maps were prepared by local officials showing details such as population density (day and night), transportation and communications, location of hospitals (including number of beds), schools (number of students and staff), police and fire stations, Government buildings and bridges.
The intent of the planning was to ensure the survival of as many people as possible after an atomic strike. The destruction and casualties resulting from a direct strike on Vancouver would have been massive, but it was felt that with sufficient warning and training of the civilian population, injuries, deaths and sickness from radiation could be halved.
This full-page article by reporter Bill Ryan published in the August 9, 1951 issue of the Vancouver Sun speculates on the effects of an Atom Bomb attack on Vancouver.
Newspaper articles about Civil Defense became common, giving instructions on ways to survive an “Atom Attack.” By early 1953, Civil Defense courses were offered, first a nine-week course for civilians who volunteered to become instructors and then basic general courses for the public. The federal Government sent out a convoy of tractor-trailers with an exposition on civil defense which travelled across the country, arriving at the Seaforth Armouries in late October, 1953. The displays, on loan from the USA, offered the latest information on national readiness and atomic warfare. It was expected that approximately 10% of the population would sign up for civil defense duties and many did.
This article appeared in the May 9, 1951 issue of the Richmond Review, repeating instructions from a U.S. Government publication.
In 1953, the four old A.R.P. sirens mounted at the four fire halls were the only warning devices in Richmond. At the request of the Coordinator of Civil Defense, the Richmond Superintendent of Public works produced a map showing the requirements for a system of sirens to alert all residents of Richmond. The network of sirens used 17 of the same type of units presently mounted at the fire halls, 5 horsepower electric sirens with an audible area of one mile radius. The four existing sirens could be used, but three of them would be moved for better coverage. Four air horns were to be provided for use by the fire departments. The total cost of the installed network was expected to be $12,446.72, divided equally by the Federal, Provincial and Municipal Governments, with the Federal Government supplying the sirens free of charge. New installations were to be mounted on wooden poles, supplied with three phase power, and telephone connections to allow their operation. either locally or from a control centre in Vancouver. Each siren had two signals, an undulating wail (indicating a Red Alert) and a continuous siren (indicating All Clear.) This “wish list” of siren placement never took place and it took until the 1960s for Richmond’s warning system to reach its final configuration.
Notice of the civil defense exercise in the June 17, 1953 Richmond Review. Testing of the warning system evolved into silent tests to check electrical and telephone connections, but occasional glitches caused sirens to sound and caused confusion and alarm around the community.
As more attack warning sirens were installed, they were located in a pattern to accomplish maximum coverage of the municipality. Relocation of sirens, usually because of a planned use of the siren’s original location or for upgrading, could take place provided the relocation was not much more than 100 yards away from the original location.
This siren located on Garden City Road just south of Lansdowne was a replacement for one that was on the roof of the Lansdowne Racetrack clubhouse. City of Richmond Archives photograph 1988 123 578.
By 1955, Richmond had seven air raid sirens installed. They were erected at the River Road pumphouse in Hamilton, on Tucker Avenue near No.1 Road in Terra Nova, at River Road near Duck Island and the cedar mill, the Steveston Firehall, the Municipal Hall, Mitchell School and near the airport at Lancaster Crescent. These sirens were all old style A.R.P. units, leftover from the Second World War and, over the years, most would be removed from civil defense service, replaced by more modern models in nearby locations, although some remained active for local use by the firehalls. In 1957 the siren at the Municipal Hall was moved to the top of the hose tower at the Brighouse Firehall only to be supplanted by a newer unit near the intersection of Moffatt Road and Granville on the Richmond High School grounds in 1962.
This pole-mounted siren at Richmond High School replaced one at the Municipal Hall area. Photographs of Richmond’s air raid sirens are surprisingly hard to find. Installations on or near school grounds seemed to be common with examples like this one, and others at Lord Byng School and Hugh Boyd School. City of Richmond Archives photograph.
A new siren north of Lord Byng School in Steveston took over for the one at the fire hall around 1960. A siren proposed for the intersection of Ferndale and Garden City in 1958 was installed on the roof of the Lansdowne Clubhouse and was later replaced by a modern unit on the Garden City lands. Another new siren proposed for the River Road-Shell Road intersection was installed on the roof of the Dr. Ballard’s dog food plant near River Road and No. 5 Road and was later replaced by a pole-mounted unit.
This siren at Lord Byng School, shown here in 1977, was mounted on a steel pole with a maintenance platform. It replaced the Steveston Fire Hall’s siren for Civil Defence alerts. City of Richmond Archives photograph 1978 26 34.
As sirens were added through the 1960s, coverage of the municipality improved, although there were none east of No. 5 Road until Hamilton. Richmond ended up with a total of 15 sirens in the civil defense system.
This annotated map shows the approximate locations of air raid warning sirens in Richmond. Installed from the 1950s through the 1960s, they gave warning to the most populated areas of the Municipality. City of Richmond Archives map 1987 32 10.
Information on surviving an attack continued to be provided by all levels of government throughout the 1960s. A series of free booklets, “Blueprint for Survival,” were published by the federal government and included titles such as “Fallout on the Farm,” “11 Steps to Survival,” “Survival in Likely Target Areas” and “Your Basement Fallout Shelter” were provided free from local Civil Defense authorities.
A page from the “Blueprint for Survival” booklet No. Four, sets out the eleven steps to survive a nuclear attack. City of Richmond Archives reference files.
At Richmond Municipal Hall plans were drawn up for the modification of a part of the outside of the west side of the hall to create a blast/fallout shelter using sheets of plywood and sandbags. Several building permits were issued to local residents who wanted to build similar types of shelters. Basement shelters were unrealistic in Richmond with its high water tables, so the standard of three feet of packed earth or two feet of concrete were considered sufficient for protection against radiation in an above ground shelter.
Illustrations in “11 Steps to Survival” show the difference between an air burst and a ground burst attack. City of Richmond Archives reference files.
The Cuban Missile Crisis of October 1962 saw the world teetering on the edge of nuclear war and raised tensions to their highest point during the Cold War, but as time passed and the threat of mutually assured destruction created a stalemate between the nuclear powers, attitudes began to change and by the mid 1970s local officials were questioning the need for warning sirens in the community.
This clipping from the October 19, 1961 Richmond Review gives details on the modifications made to provide a bomb shelter at the Municipal Hall.
In response, Major W.W. Baldwin of CFB Chilliwack stated, “The current federal government justification on this matter is that, at present, these sirens are the only available warning system that can alert the greatest number of citizens in time to take action that will allow maximum survival or limit the effects of a surprise attack, be it nuclear or conventional in nature.” “If we wish to close our eyes to the possibility of another war then the possibility of a nuclear accident or major industrial accident such as the accidental leakage of toxic substances into the atmosphere should be considered.”
With the end of the Cold war in the early 1990s, a warning system based on 1950s technology, with all of the associated glitches and false alarms, was deemed to be no longer necessary. Between 1994 and 1996 the Department of National Defence removed all the sirens in Canada and destroyed most of them.
This siren at Victoria Park in North Vancouver is one of the few remaining Cold War era sirens. It was preserved as a Municipal Heritage site. Google Maps image.
Today, nearly everyone carries a warning system in their pocket, allowing notifications to reach a much wider part of the population. Smart phones, even with their associated glitches and false alarms, have taken the place of yesterday’s pole-mounted warning sirens.
Today, with Federal and Provincial Ministries and Municipal departments in charge of response to emergencies and most people carrying devices which can alert them in real time, it’s hard to remember a world when this kind of coordination did not exist. In Richmond the most basic kind of emergency response, fire protection, was established around 1912 in Steveston with a full time Fire Chief in charge of about 24 men. The canneries also took part, providing equipment, like a hand pump, and support, but by 1920 the Steveston fire Brigade had disbanded.
The first Steveston Fire Hall, police station and courthouse, ca. 1915. City of Richmond Archives photograph 2006 39 64, Chilton Family fonds.
In 1922 a volunteer fire brigade was established in Brighouse under Fire Chief E.W. Ackroyd. The unit, consisting of about 10 men, raised money for equipment, used the police telephone to receive fire calls and responded quickly to calls as two of the members owned vehicles. Despite the department being well run and funded, in 1929 it too disbanded leaving Richmond with no fire department and dependent upon Vancouver Halls to respond to fires.
The Brighouse Volunteer Fire Brigade practices on an old shed near the intersection of Cambie and River Roads, ca. 1923. City of Richmond Archives photograph 1988 95 2.
This was the case until the onset of the Second World War when a Federally mandated Civil Defence program was organized. It was developed to protect civilian populations and minimize damage to materials and infrastructure from the effects of an attack from the air. This was accomplished with the formation of Air Raid Precautions Units of civilian volunteers who received training in preparedness, fire protection, rescue, first aid and evacuation. The Greater Vancouver region was divided up into 28 A.R.P. Districts, each led by a District Chief Warden and a Deputy Chief. Richmond was covered under District 21 and soon had a large cadre of volunteer wardens.
Air Raid Precautions Wardens wore distinctive uniforms with arm bands and steel helmets and received specialized training. In addition to fighting fires, they were tasked with warning the public of potential attack using sirens, whistles and noise makers. They enforced night time black-outs, making sure no light escaped from houses and industrial buildings and that vehicles were equipped with the proper headlight hoods. They distributed gas masks and stirrup pumps and trained civilians in their use. Public firefighting demonstrations were put on along with displays dealing with gas attacks and how to extinguish incendiary bombs.
The Steveston A.R.P. Volunteers demonstrate the effectiveness of the pump on their home built fire truck in April 1942. The gasoline powered pump could supply three hoses, drawing water from a hydrant or any other nearby water source. City of Richmond Archives photograph 1978 40 20.
Marpole-Richmond Review March 24, 1943.
Women’s A.R.P. groups were trained in all aspects of first aid through the St. John’s Ambulance Brigade and the Canadian Red Cross Society and took on the responsibility of setting up first aid stations, caring for casualties, raising funds and providing food and refreshments. They also took part in demonstrations and training in the use of gas masks.
The creation of the A.R.P. resulted in the first coordinated fire protection to cover all of Richmond. The Municipality was divided into six local districts, Steveston, Brighouse, Bridgeport, Sea Island, East Richmond and Mitchell Island and A.R.P. Brigades were assembled in each, receiving some equipment but responsible for funding and building their own fire trucks. These were assembled from purchased farm trucks or large passenger cars, stripped down to their chassis, rebuilt as needed, and fitted with gasoline powered pumps of either 150 or 500 gallons per minute mounted behind the driver’s seat. The bodies were rebuilt with mounted hose, ladder and tool carrying fittings. A rivalry ensued with the different brigades, each trying to complete their vehicle first.
The first mobile A.R.P. Unit in Canada. The Steveston Volunteers with the truck they built out of a 1925 Packard Sedan, Harry Hing at the wheel. City of Richmond Archives photograph 1978 40 13.
The first truck completed was by the Steveston group who were declared to be the first mobile A.R.P. unit in Canada. It was built with volunteer labour by Harry Hing, Jack Gollner and others at the Steveston Service Station at No.1 Road and Steveston Highway. There being no fire hall yet, the truck was kept at the service station, often with a volunteer sleeping there to be ready in case of a call. As reported in the April 15, 1942 Marpole-Richmond Review, “One watching the realistic looking fire engine streak down the road, siren shrieking, crew aboard hanging on for dear life, would never guess that this efficient looking unit had a short time ago been a 1925 Packard sedan purchased in North Vancouver for the big sum of $25.” Where no hydrant was available to supply the pump with water, the suction line could be dropped into a handy ditch or the river, providing a source for the three hoses.
The Brighouse Volunteers with their truck, a modified 1929 Buick Sedan. City of Richmond Archives photograph 1978 40 31.
The Steveston unit was followed closely by a truck built at McClelland’s Service Station and Brighouse Motors. The Brighouse machine was constructed from a 1929 Buick Sedan and was fitted out much the same as the Steveston unit. The third fire truck built was from the Bridgeport unit, a 1935 Ford truck, outfitted like the other two vehicles.
The Bridgeport A.R.P. Volunteers pose on their fire engine, a converted 1935 Ford Truck. City of Richmond Archives photograph 2016 16 1.Richmond’s Air Raid Precautions volunteers pose in front of the Town Hall with their three hand-built fire trucks. On the left is the Bridgeport unit, at centre is the Brighouse truck and on the right is the Steveston truck. These three custom built vehicles responded to calls all over Richmond. City of Richmond Archives photograph 1978 40 30.
By April 1942 there were four air raid warning sirens erected in Richmond at Steveston, Brighouse, Mitchell and at the Airport. They were all operated from a control room at 650 Burrard St. in Vancouver which sounded all fifty sirens in Vancouver and surrounding areas. Local sirens were also operable individually. A trial of the sirens on Saturday, April 25, 1942 was described in the Richmond Review under the heading “Sirens Heard In Quiet Richmond,” “The rising and falling tone did not sound unfamiliar at that, as anyone who has attended picture shows has heard the mournful wail in war pictures.” “The “imminent danger” signal came first, being five minutes of up and down intonations reaching most parts of the Island very clearly.” “The next message sent out was “raiders past,” being three minutes of steady tone.” “The sirens have one more call, the “alert,” which was not sounded Saturday but which will be five minutes of steady tone.”
The A.R.P. grew rapidly in Richmond and by the end of 1942 had around 850 members, serving in many capacities. The most active group, Steveston, had refurbished a small building next to the former Fisherman’s Hospital on No. 1 Road and set it up as a club room with donated pool tables and furniture. In Brighouse, the A.R.P. group had built a 16 by 30 foot fire hall, complete with a hose drying tower and space for a club room on the upper floor.
Harry Hing mans the pump on the Steveston A.R.P. unit’s home built fire truck. He designed and built both of Steveston’s fire trucks and its ambulance and, like most of the other volunteers, put in countless hours raising funds, fighting fires and building halls. City of Richmond Archives photograph 1984 7 5.
The District Seven (East Richmond – Mitchell) group met at the St. Thomas Hall (East Richmond Community Centre) and took specialized training in blood grouping and blood transfusion. A boy’s bicycle brigade was also formed, training schoolboys to act as dispatch riders in the event of the loss of telephone communications during an attack.
As the Second World War progressed, the A.R.P. in Richmond grew. By 1944 the Steveston group had built a modern fire hall with space for its new truck, built on a new 2-ton truck chassis by Harry Hing. He had also built an ambulance from a 1927 Lincoln car which found a home in the hall, along with the original truck which had been retired but was kept for sentimental reasons. Brighouse also had a new truck and gifted their old one to the Burkeville unit.
The newly built Steveston Firehall No.1 with the new truck, old truck and ambulance parked outside. Built by volunteer labour and lumber donated by the canneries, it and the vehicles parked outside, are an example of the capabilities of organized civilian volunteers. City of Richmond Archives photograph 1978 40 16.This Victory Bond ad from the April 26, 1944 Marpole-Richmond Review shows the four Richmond A.R.P. Auxiliary Fire Brigades with their vehicles.
When the Second World War ended in September 1945, the A.R.P. was disbanded and volunteers left the Brigades. The trucks were retained however and some limited volunteer fire response remained until the Steveston, Brighouse, Bridgeport and East Richmond Volunteer Fire Brigades were reorganized in 1947. The story of the A.R.P. is a testament to the effectiveness of groups of volunteers, organized in the service of their communities and the significant impact they can make. Many of the A.R.P. members went on to form the Richmond Volunteer Fire Department which formed the foundation of the present Richmond Fire-Rescue which exists today.
Notice from a September 1945 Marpole-Richmond Review announcing the disbanding of the Richmond A.R.P.
The demobilization of the A.R.P did not spell the end of Civil Defence in Richmond. With the end of the Second World War came the advent of the Atomic Age and Richmond’s response to the threat of nuclear aggression during the Cold War. Stay tuned for part two of Outside The Box – The Richmond Archives Blog’s civil defence posts.
In 2023, Jeanne Ryan (nee Harada) donated her family’s records to the City of Richmond Archives. The Harada family’s story is one that is shared by many Japanese Canadians who lived in Richmond, both before and after the forced internment of the Second World War. They have deep roots in Richmond, dating back to 1908 when Eikichi Harada emigrated from Japan.
Eikichi Harada with a sturgeon, 1930 Fraser River. City of Richmond Archives photograph 2023 13 1 26.
The family’s records consist of 2000 photographs which have been scanned from 13 photograph albums and date from around 1900 to 1977. They depict several generations of the Harada and Kamitakahara families and their relatives and friends as they moved between Japan and the British Columbia coast, internment in the B.C. interior, displacement to southern Alberta and their return to Richmond once restrictions were lifted in 1949. The albums feature themes of growing up, gatherings, weddings, celebrations and new family members.
George Kamitakahara reading, Between 1942 and 1946, Slocan City internment camp. City of Richmond Archives photograph 2023 13 1 113.
In 2024, Anouska Kirby was hired as an Archives intern. Anouska’s work involved genealogical research and consulting with Harada family members and friends to identify people, places and events and meticulously describing each of the 2000 images according to archival descriptive standards.
Harada family, between 1952 and 1957. From left to right, back row: Eikichi Harada and Eiichi Harada. Middle row: Junko (June) Ohiri, Tamae Harada and Akiko Harada. Front row: Linda Harada and Jeanne Harada. City of Richmond Archives photograph 2023 13 1 120.
The City of Richmond Archives is pleased to present an exhibit curated by Anouska and Jeanne Ryan featuring images from the Harada family photograph albums. The exhibit presents 14 carefully selected photographs grouped into four general categories: (1) Early 1900s Japanese Canadian Fishing Community; (2) Forced Displacement; (3) Rebuilding Community; and (4) New Beginnings. The exhibit can be viewed in person at the City of Richmond Archives entrance or online here.
Glen Harada, 1968 at the Harada family home on Monteith Road, Steveston. City of Richmond Archives photograph 2023 13 10 178.
The Harada family photographs are incredibly significant. Documenting multiple generations of the Harada extended family, as well as friends and workmates, these photographic records pay tribute to the strength and resilience of the Japanese Canadian community. The digitized records can be searched on the City of Richmond Archives “Search Photographs” page here.
Credits
Jeanne Ryan and Anouska Kirby. City of Richmond Archives photograph.
Physical and online exhibition curated by Anouska Kirby and Jeanne Harada.
Photograph digitization by Bev Boyd.
The work of processing and describing the Harada family photographs was made possible with gratitude to the late Geraldine (Dody) Wray and family. Dody was a long-time member and director on the board of the Friends of the Richmond Archives (FOTRA). Her generous bequest to FOTRA, along with a Young Canada Works Building Careers in Heritage grant made the project a reality.
In late 2017, after almost fifteen years of research, I completed a book that explored the history of my mother’s family in Canada. Driven by curiosity and passion in equal measure, the work enabled all in our extended family to better understand our roots in this land and strengthen the bonds that keep us closely connected. It was satisfying to finally get the project done.
My maternal grandfather, YEE Clun, left his home village in Hoi-Ping (Kaiping) county, Kwangtung (Guangdong) province, China, and arrived in Victoria in September 1902. He paid the head tax of $100 to enter the country. Working first as a labourer, he eventually earned status as a merchant, owning and operating a number of restaurants and cafes and an import-export business in small towns and cities across Saskatchewan. This enabled him to bring my grandmother, ARNG Woon Goke, to Regina in late 1919, exempt from the head tax. There they raised a family of six children until their return to China in 1932. They reunited in Regina in 1941 and finally settled in Vancouver in the fall of 1947.
My journey to uncover these details led me down a countless number of trails: some productive, others complete dead ends. I arranged many conversations with my mother, aunts and uncle; organized a small part of our collection of family photographs; visited libraries and archives in B.C. and Saskatchewan; read dozens of articles and newspaper stories on the internet; and requested and received documents from various provincial and federal government agencies. Of great value early on were the materials held by the Vancouver Public Library Chinese Canadian Genealogy section. The records held by Library Archives Canada were also very useful, particularly the Immigrants from China database, and they continue to be an important resource for family historians and professional genealogists alike.
The year 2023 was recognized as an important date by many members of the Chinese Canadian community, for it marked the one hundredth anniversary of the passing of the Chinese Immigration Act of 1923. This federal legislation, commonly known as the Chinese Exclusion Act, more or less ended immigration of the Chinese people to Canada. There were few exceptions to this legal form of discrimination. For a quarter century until its repeal in 1947, this unjust and cruel law kept thousands of men living and working in Canada apart from their wives and children who remained in China. Some of these so called “bachelors” never reunited with their families, and they died alone in a country that may have welcomed them at first but then denied them a chance to fully participate or contribute towards the growth of this society. The Paper Trail to the 1923 Chinese Exclusion Act, an exhibit curated by Catherine Clement, explored this dark period in our history and was featured at the Chinese Canadian Museum, located in Vancouver’s Chinatown, for eighteen months that began on 1 July 2023. A digital archive of the documents displayed at the exhibition is held at UBC Library, Rare Books and Special Collections.https://rbscarchives.library.ubc.ca/paper-trail-collection
These historical facts have led me to think more about Richmond. I worked within its local government for almost three decades and I’ve resided here since 1991. My aunt, uncle, and cousins lived near the corner of No. 1 Road and Francis Road in the 1960s, but recently I began to wonder about the Chinese people who settled here over a century ago. Who was present when the Exclusion Act came into force in Richmond? The stories of the Chinese fish cannery workers and farm labourers have been documented, mostly single men who worked these seasonal jobs, and then perhaps retreated to Vancouver’s Chinatown during the wintertime. But what of the families who may have lived here? How many men and women were fortunate enough to stay together, earn a living, and raise a family on Lulu and Sea Islands?
My research these days focuses on discovering the identities of these people, and I begin with LAM Ching Ling, proprietor of the Hong Wo Store in Steveston. His career as a general merchant, farmer, and labour contractor is well known, and has been highlighted in an informative and interesting post from May 2023, researched and written by John Campbell, Social Media Coordinator with the Friends of the Richmond Archives. https://richmondarchives.ca/2023/05/11/peace-together-ling-lam-and-the-hong-wo-store/
To start my search, I visited the City of Richmond Archives last fall. Knowledgeable staff there pointed me towards an impressive number of municipal and community records available for consultation. These included Council minutes, voters’ lists, and directories. Most important was A Thematic Guide to the Early Records of Chinese Canadians in Richmond, prepared for the Archives by Claudia Chan in August 2011. It is an excellent summary of all the records pertaining to early Chinese Canadians held by the Archives at that time. Reading this led me to the biography files of some of the early Chinese pioneers of Richmond, LAM Ching Ling among them.
His connection to the fishing and farming industries was well documented, but more personal details about his life with family and community were scant. Using the array of genealogical resources now available, my goal is to begin adding extra layers of details to his biography, so that we may better come to know this important figure in the story of our City. I see this as the first in a series of similar stories about the other Chinese Canadian pioneer families of Richmond.
LAM4 Zoeng1 Ling6 (in Jyutping Cantonese romanization); LIN Zhang Ling (in Pinyin Mandarin romanization); LAM Ching Ling.
LAM Ching Ling was born on 1 August 1873 in Sun Wui county, Kwangtung (Guangdong) province, China. Sun Wui is also known as SunWoy and as XinHui in Pinyin. The village where he is from has been written as Goo Chung, Goo Dung and Kwo Jung in various Canadian government documents.
Ling LAM (City of Richmond Archives Accession 2013 52.)
He arrived in Vancouver, B.C. in March 1890 aboard the vessel S.S. Abyssinia, and registered with the authorities on 7 March 1890. Prior to departure from Hong Kong, he had paid the $50 head tax to enter Canada.
His name was recorded in the General Register of Chinese Immigration as JUNG Ah Tuen and his entry is given the Ottawa serial number 6242, in row seventeen about two-thirds down the page.
The Register recorded various details about each individual; name, port, place and date of registration; number and date of issue of any certificates received; amount of head tax paid; sex; age; city or village, district, province of birth in China and last place of domicile; occupation; and the port and date of arrival and name of vessel on which the immigrant arrived.
LAM Ching Ling or JUNG Ah Tuen as he was then called, was listed as a “Canneryboy” and it’s notable that his height of five feet one inch was recorded and various facial markings such as moles and scars were listed under column nineteen, Physical Marks or Peculiarities. The Canadian government went to great lengths to identify and keep track of all these immigrant to the country.
During his lifetime in Canada, LAM Ching Ling was known by various names. These included JUNG Ah Tuan, JUNG Ah Leun, LAM Ling, LEM Ling, CHUNG Chong, LIM Chong Ling, Hong Woo LAM and Hong Wo LAM. He is listed as LAM Duck Hew on some documents issued to his children.
He was commonly referred to as LAM Ching Lam, which may be spelled in Jyutping as LAM4 Zoeing1 Ling6. (The numbers refer to the Cantonese language tones.) The Chinese characters for this name are shown on his Chinese Immigration C.I.9 travel certificate issued in 1927, and are read from left to right.
On his grave marker at Mountain View Cemetery in Vancouver, his name written in Chinese characters can be spelled in Jyutping as LAM4 Dak1 Diu6. This may be his name taken after marriage. LAM is the first character of the column, Dak Diu are the third and fourth. The second character, Gong, is an honorific used to respectfully refer to the deceased male.
CHEW Gore was born on 9 April 1875, in Sun Wui (Sun Woy, Xinhui) county, Kwangtung (Guangdong) province, China. Some documents list her birth village as Sue Kai; others list it as Kwo Jung, the same village where her husband was born.
She had travelled to Canada with her husband, LAM Ching Ling, recorded this time in the General Register as LEM Ling, and their seven months old daughter, LEM Kim Fon. LAM Ching Ling had returned to China sometime in the late 1890s.
He was now classified as a merchant and head tax payments for himself and daughter LEM Kim Gon were later refunded. It would be expected that JEW Gow, being a merchant’s wife, would have been exempted from the head tax payment as well, but she was classified as a housewife upon entry and pays the $50 fee.
After marriage JEW Gow would often be referred to as LAM Chew Shee, meaning “a woman born of the CHEW clan and married to a LAM”.
LAM Ching Ling and LAM Chew Shee had six children:
The eldest child and first daughter was Kim Fon, also known as Fanny. She was born in 1898, in China. She died in 1918.
The next five children were all born in Canada. Names are shown in English, Jyutping, and Pinyin romanization.
Mary (LAM4 Ping4 Ngoi3, LIN Pingxi) born, 31 October 1900, died 1990;
George (LAM4 Fuk1 Tin4, LIN Futian) born, 20 March 1904, died 1970;
John (LAM4 Fuk1 Coeng4, LIN Fuxiang) born in 1908, died 1922;
Jessie born on 24 October 1910, died in 1995; and
Dorathea (LAM4 Cai4 Mei5, LIN Qimei, ) born on 9 September 1916, died in 1947.
Mary LAM was born in Steveston. A doctor was present at her birth. LAM Duck Heu is named as her father and it is recorded that she is the second child born to CHEW Shee. Their address is given as 1452 East 11th Avenue in Vancouver.
An entry for the LAM Ching Ling family has been recorded in each Census of Canada for the years 1901, 1911, 1921, and 1931. (The microfilm records of these documents are often of poor quality, making the deciphering of the census taker’s handwriting difficult. Sometimes the handwriting itself is almost illegible. The names given are taken from the Ancestry.ca website, and often represent their researcher’s “best guess”.)
In the 1901 Census of Canada, LAM Ching Ling is listed as LING Lim, 28, living and working in Richmond, B.C. as a General Merchant. Named, as well, are his wife, Gem Ling, 26, and two daughters: Com Fung Lung, 2, and Ping Wye Ling, 1., lines 39-42. http://central.bac-lac.gc.ca/.redirect?app=census&id=33558608&lang=eng
In the 1911 Census of Canada, he is listed as HONGWO, Isac, 37, and residing at 9 Broadway E. in Vancouver. His family includes wife Laren, 35, and five children: daughters Mung, 12, Mary, 10, and Bessie, 8 months; and sons George, 7, and Charot, 2., lines 22-28. http://central.bac-lac.gc.ca/.redirect?app=census&id=6818361&lang=eng
Entry for the LAM Family in the 1911 Census of Canada.
In the 1921 Census of Canada, he is listed LING Lenn, 48, and residing at 605 Broadway E. in Vancouver. His spouse is Chee Ling, 46, and their five children are George, 17, John 13, Mary, 20, Jessie, 10, and Dora, 5., lines 44-50. http://central.baclac.gc.ca/.redirect?app=census&id=66466013&lang=eng
In the 1931 Census of Canada, he is listed as LAM Hongwo, 57, and living at 1452 East 11th Avenue in Vancouver. He is classified as a merchant working in a general store. Family members include wife Stell, 55, and four children: Mary, 28, Jessie, 20, George, 26, and Dora, 15., lines 42-47. http://central.bac-lac.gc.ca/.redirect?app=census&id=85837223&lang=eng
On 28 June 1924, in Vancouver, LAM Ching Ling, and his family, registered as per Section 18 of the Chinese Immigration (Exclusion) Act of 1923. Every person of Chinese descent or origin (i.e. immigrant or native-born) was required to register his or her presence with a government official. These were often local police officers or postmasters. LAM Ching Ling was issued C.I.44 certificate number 52656. Note that he is referred to as CHUNG Chong.
On this document, his family is listed as: wife LIM Chew Shee, 1 son LIM Fook Ten (George), 3 daughters LIM Ping Oy (Mary), LIM Chu Yen (Jessie), and LIM Tie Mee (Dora). Daughter Fanny (Kim Fon) had passed away in 1918, and second son John in 1922.
The Canadian government implemented an expansive system of paperwork to record, track, monitor and control the movements of the Chinese people travelling to, from and within Canada. Upon arrival and after registration, a new immigrant would receive their head tax certificate, known as the C.I.5 or C.I.30 if exempted from payment, which served as the primary means of identification. If lost or destroyed, a C.I.28 was issued as a replacement.
JEW Gow’s C.I.5 certificate is replaced by C.I.28 certificate no. 12219, on 1 December 1924, although it had been endorsed as early as 28 June 1924.
During this time, any Chinese person wishing to leave Canada temporarily had to apply for a special travel document known as a C.I.9 certificate. On 7 July 1927, the LAM family received theirs for an intended trip to Seattle, Washingtonby CPR Local rail. On LAM Ching Ling’s C.I.9 no. 59670, his proper name is given as JUNG Ah Luen. https://heritage.canadiana.ca/view/oocihm.lac_reel_t16601/382
In the 1931 Census of Canada, LAM Ching Ling and his family are listed at 1452 East 11th Avenue, District 235 Vancouver Burrard, sub-district no. 52, Vancouver City, p.9. He is named as LAM Hongwo. Occupations are listed for each family member: LAM Hong Wo – merchant; his wife Shee – homemaker; Mary – teacher; Jessie – stenographer; George – laborer; and Dora – student.
LAM Ching Lam died on 20 August 1939. His obituary appeared in the Vancouver Daily Province, 21 August 1939. page 13.
The funeral procession was noted in the Vancouver Sun, 24 August 1939, page 12.
Services for LAM Ching Ling were described in the Vancouver Daily Province, 24 August 1939, page 24. Note the mention of a brother living in Steveston.
LAM Chew Shee died on 20 February 1947. Place of burial is Mountain View Cemetery, Vancouver, B.C. Her obituary appeared in the Vancouver Daily Province, 22 February 1947.
Most members of the LAM family are interred or commemorated at Mountain View Cemetery, in Vancouver, B.C. Photographs were taken on 22 March 2025.
Translation of the Chinese characters is approximately as follows.
On the left side, four characters: Woman of the CHEW clan who entered the LAM household.
On the left side column: The grave of Mrs. LAM Dak Diu.
On the right side column: The grave of Mr. LAM Dak Diu
Frank Shong is the husband of Mary Mah.
Conclusion
The City of Richmond Archives has a significant number of records from the Hong Wo Store. These records, currently being cleaned by a conservator, will be accessible to researchers, possibly by the end of 2025. A preliminary review of some of these documents, as well as others, leads me to believe that LAM Ching Ling’s brother was involved in the store’s operation. That idea, the achievements of some of the children of LAM Ching Ling and CHEW Gore, and the stories of Richmond’s other pioneer Chinese Canadian families, will all be the subjects of posts in the future.
A city or municipality needs to define itself with a symbol of its identity, a connection to its history and a visual representation of its stature and image. Coats of Arms, official seals, flags, and logos all function to promote a positive public image to residents, visitors, and potential investors, as well as serve to authenticate documents and official correspondence. Here is a brief history and explanation of Richmond’s symbols.
The Official Seal
On November 10, 1897, Lulu and Sea Islands became the Corporation of Richmond by Letters Patent under the Public Seal of the Province of British Columbia. One of the orders of business during the first year of Richmond’s incorporation was the adoption of an official seal. Used to authenticate legal documents and be a credible indication of the validity of municipal documents, Richmond’s first official seal was adopted at the Council meeting of Saturday June 19, 1880. The entry in the minutes reads, “Moved by Councillor Smith seconded by Councillor Kilgour that the seal impressed on the margin be adopted as the seal of the Corporation of Richmond … Carried”. In the left margin of the page beside the entry, a blob of red sealing wax is impressed with an indistinct shape.
The first Seal of the Corporation of Richmond, adopted June 19, 1880 as shown in this photo from the Council minutes. City of Richmond Archives photograph.
The first seal was not in use for very long. It was quickly replaced by the more modern embossed seal using a design which has symbolized Richmond up to today, the Cornucopia (Horn of Plenty). The design was suggested by Richmond’s first Warden (Reeve, Mayor) Hugh Boyd and was adopted at the July 5, 1880 council meeting. It shows the cornucopia in the centre, encircled by the words “Municipality of Richmond B.C.” In the words of early Richmond historian Thomas Kidd, it was “considered a very appropriate symbol at that time and it is to be hoped that the prosperity of these islands will always justify it remaining so.”
The embossed Corporate Seal of the Municipality of Richmond is shown here in the minutes from the July 5, 1880 Council meeting. The entry says, “Moved by Councillor Kilgour seconded by Councillor Steves that the new seal impressed on the margin be adopted as the Corporate Seal of Richmond in lieu of the one adopted on the 19th of June… Carried.” City of Richmond Archives photograph.A colourful version of Richmond’s seal. City of Richmond Archives photograph.
The cornucopia has been a constant symbol of Richmond’s identity, the image changing slightly over the years and the text changing from “Municipality of Richmond B.C.” to “The Corporation of the Township of Richmond B.C.” to “Corporation of Richmond” with “Incorporated 1879” placed inside the circle. In 1979 in celebration of Richmond’s 100th Anniversary a new emblem of the Corporation was unveiled, still bearing the image of the cornucopia but incorporating registered symbols of heraldry.
The Coat of Arms
In August 1978 the Richmond’s Municipal Council adopted a resolution to petition the College of Arms in London, England to grant the Municipality a Coat of Arms and Badge as part of the celebrations around the Municipality’s centennial on November 10, 1979. After consultation with Mr. Robert D. Watt, Chief Curator of the Vancouver Centennial Museum and a Director of the Heraldry Society of Canada, a letter was sent to the York Herald of Arms, Dr. Conrad Swan, PhD., M.A., requesting that the Municipality be granted a Coat of Arms and badge. Some preliminary design ideas were provided which were considered, modified slightly to conform with the requirements of the Kings of Arms and approved. Once the design was approved the process of producing Letters Patent of Armorial Bearings was undertaken over several months. The Letters Patent were presented to the Corporation of the Township of Richmond by Lieutenant Governor Henry Bell-Irving, representing the Crown and assisted by Dr. Conrad Swan, York Herald of Arms at a ceremony on November 10, 1979, the centennial of the incorporation of Richmond.
The Letters Patent granting the Coat of Arms to Richmond and bearing the seals of the Kings of Arms. The text opens with the salutation, “TO ALL AND SINGULAR to whom these Presents shall come Alexander Colin Cole, Esquire Commander of the Royal Victorian Order upon whom has been conferred the Territorial Decoration, Garter Principal King of Arms, Sir Anthony Richard Wagner, Knight Commander of the Most Honourable Order of the Bath, Knight Commander of the Royal Victoria Order, Clarenceux King of Arms and Walter John George Verco, Esquire, Commander of the Royal Victoria Order, Norroy and Ulster King of Arms Send Greetings! ” City of Richmond Archives photograph.
Heraldry harks back to the 12th century when the markings were used to identify the warriors on the battlefield, much like the colours and logos on the uniforms of modern sports teams. A Coat of Arms is made up of several elements:
The Coat of Arms of Richmond. City of Richmond photograph.
Colours – The predominant colours in Richmond’s Coat of Arms are Blue and Gold.
The Shield –The shield is gold with a wavy blue bar, known as the pale, symbolizing the Fraser River and featuring three leaping salmon, representing the most common species in the waters around Richmond and its links to the fishing industry. From the Letters Patent: “Or on a Pale wavy Azure three leaping Salmon proper”.
The Helmet and Mantling –Above the shield sits a helmet mantled in blue and gold.
The Crest and Wreath – Atop the helmet is the wreath of gold and blue supporting a circlet of red maple leaves, representing Canada, and white dogwood flowers for British Columbia. The Crest is a dove rising with an olive twig in its beak, relating to the story of Noah and land rising from the waters as the islands of Richmond have. From the Letters Patent: “And for the rest Upon a Helm with a Wreath Or and Azure Rising from a Circlet of Maple Leaves Gules and Dogwood Flowers alternatively a Dove volant in its beak a sprig of Olive proper”.
The Supporters –On either side of the shield are two supporters, both representing the Goddess Fortuna, the bearer of prosperity. Each supporter holds a cornucopia, representing the fruitfulness of the land. The supporter to the right of the shield wears a red ribbon embroidered with white roses. The red and white represents Canada while the white roses represent the first Richmond in Yorkshire which has white roses in its coat of arms. From the Letters Patent: “Supporters following that is to say: – On the Lecter side a female figure proper crined or vested Argent supporting with the exterior hand a Cornucopia at the mouth its tail over her shoulder proper On the sinister side a like figure above her shoulders a Riband Gules thereon Roses Argent barbed and seeded proper and supporting with the exterior hand a Cornucopia by its tail also proper its mouth to the ground”.
The Compartment – The area upon which the shield and supporters stand is known as the compartment and shows green foliage and stems of blueberries, a common local crop, and once again representing the fertility of the land. From the Letters Patent: “the Compartment comprising a grassy mount with sprigs of Blueberry fructed growing therefrom all proper”.
The Motto – Below the compartment is a banner with the Motto, “Child of the Fraser.” The Motto comes from the first line of the poem “Lulu Island” by early Richmond settler and historian Thomas Kidd. The first verse of the poem reads, “Child of the Fraser River and the Sea, / Fair Lulu Island where I built my home, / Though I had seen fair lands ere I saw thee, / I came and saw and said, ‘No more I’ll Roam.'”
The Badge
Richmond’s Badge. City of Richmond photo.
Included with the granting of a Coat of Arms is a Badge. Richmond’s Badge shows an anchor, signifying the sea and a connection to the fishing industry, and a strawberry vine and blossoms, signifying the fruitfulness of the land. The strawberry blossom also connects to the Coat of Arms of the Frasers, which also carry the strawberry blossom and gives a link to the Fraser River. From the Letters Patent: “And We do further grant and assign the following Device or Badge that is to say: An Anchor Azure charged in base with a Strawberry Flower proper from the ring reflexed towards the sinister fluke and behind the Anchor’s stock a branch of Strawberry flowered and leaves proper”.
The Flag
On July 22, 1985, Municipal Council directed staff to prepare a report on the design of a civic flag. The civic flag was designed by Municipal employees Rod Lynde with assistance from Frank Sciberras and was officially introduced to the public at the opening of Brighouse Park on April 12, 1986 by Mayor Gil Blair.
The civic flag of Richmond. City of Richmond Archives photograph.
The flag is blue and gold, Richmond’s accepted colours. The shield in the centre of the flag is from the Coat of Arms, gold with a wavy pale bar in blue and three salmon. The gold background and blue borders of the flag represents Richmond’s fertile lands surrounded by the waters of the Fraser River.
The Heron Logo
Richmond’s most familiar symbol today is based on the bird commonly seen fishing in the shallows around our city. The stylized heron logo is simple, yet iconic and was first used by Tourism Richmond in the 1990s. This first logo featured the words “Richmond – Island City, by Nature” with the heron’s head rising from the “N” in Richmond.
This Tourism Richmond Visitor Guide cover image using the stylized heron logo was published in 1995. City of Richmond image.
The heron logo and slogan was adopted a in 1998 by Richmond’s Year 2000 Committee. In 2000 the City also adopted the heron logo, but in 2002 changed the slogan to “Better in Every Way” as part of a promotional campaign to attract investment to the city.
The “Better in Every Way” tagline on the Heron logo lasted only for a few years. City of Richmond image.
In 2008, with the 2010 Winter Olympics on the horizon, the City adopted a new consolidated visual identity and logo for itself and its partners, one which would reflect the past but fit in with the changes occurring with the Olympic era. The new logo was also a stylized heron, but facing to the right and in colours consistent with the Olympic palette, although the design’s colour is easily changed for other uses. The design of the heron demonstrates the elements of flow, flight, and fusion – concepts used in the design of Richmond’s Olympic Oval. The “Better in Every Way” logo was dropped and a new tagline, “Soar Beyond” was suggested. The design was accepted by the committee but the new tagline was rejected and the tried and true “Island City, by Nature” was preserved to be used when a slogan was found to be desirable.
The new heron logo was adopted in 2008 and appears in colours consistent with those of the 2010 Olympics. City of Richmond image.The heron logo in basic black identifies vehicles and equipment in the City’s fleet. City of Richmond photograph.
The City’s corporate symbols have changed over its history but it retains an image from its earliest past with the cornucopia in the Coat of Arms, still used in official documents, and an image from more recent times, the stylized heron seen widely around the city on signs, buildings, and City vehicles. The future may bring new designs to represent our city but the images shown in this post will always remain as a part of Richmond’s visual identity.
Outside the Box - The Richmond Archives Blog 
You must be logged in to post a comment.