Candidate Replies – Richmond Council

Updated October 7, 2026 at the candidate’s request.

Campaign website: voteawan.ca

1. When did you last visit a Richmond museum or heritage site, and what stayed with you?

I really enjoyed visiting Britannia Shipyards. What I found most interesting was learning about what life was actually like during that era and how people lived, worked, and built their communities.

I have always had an appreciation for history, especially Richmond’s history. I love old heritage homes and the stories behind them. They give us a connection to the past and help us understand how Richmond developed into the community it is today. I think it is important that we preserve these places and the history they represent for future generations.

2. Do you see heritage as part of Richmond’s economic strategy, or mainly as a cost? Why?

I see heritage as part of Richmond’s economic strategy, not simply as a cost. Our heritage tells the story of who we are and gives Richmond something unique that cannot be recreated.

Places like Britannia Shipyards, Steveston Village and our heritage homes attract visitors, support local businesses and create opportunities for tourism and cultural activities. When people come to experience Richmond’s history, they also contribute to our local economy.

I believe heritage preservation should be practical and sustainable. We should look for ways to preserve and restore heritage buildings while finding appropriate uses that benefit the community. With thoughtful planning and partnerships, heritage can be an asset that creates economic activity rather than simply an expense.

Richmond has a rich history, and I believe we can protect that history while making it part of our future economic growth.

3. Richmond relies on volunteer-founded societies to run several heritage sites on the City’s behalf. What do you see as the City’s obligations to those organizations, and how should it judge whether that partnership is working?

The City has an important responsibility to support the volunteer organizations that help preserve and operate Richmond’s heritage sites. These groups bring passion, knowledge and many hours of volunteer work to our community, and their contribution should be recognized and valued.

The City should provide appropriate funding, resources and guidance so these organizations can operate effectively, maintain the sites properly and continue offering programs to the public. At the same time, there needs to be clear communication between the City and the organizations so expectations, responsibilities and long-term goals are understood by everyone.

I would judge the success of these partnerships by looking at several factors: how well heritage sites are maintained, public attendance and community participation, volunteer engagement, financial accountability, educational programming and whether the sites are accessible and welcoming to residents and visitors.

Most importantly, the partnership should be about more than simply keeping buildings open. It should preserve Richmond’s history, educate future generations and create places where the community can connect with our past.

Volunteers are a valuable part of Richmond’s heritage system, and the City should treat them as partners and work with them to ensure these important sites remain sustainable for future generations.

4. Steveston’s history includes Musqueam presence long before settlement, Japanese Canadian fishing families and their 1942 dispossession, and Chinese Canadian cannery labour. How should the City support telling those histories, including the difficult parts?

I believe Steveston’s history should be preserved and explained honestly, including the difficult parts. The history of Musqueam, Japanese Canadian families, and Chinese Canadian cannery workers is an important part of Richmond’s story and should not be forgotten.

The City should support museums, historical sites, signs, public education and community programs to keep these stories alive. Most importantly, we need to make sure our younger generation understands our history—both the good and the difficult parts—so we can learn from the past and build a better future.

5. Do you support keeping heritage review, including Heritage Alteration Permits, as a meaningful step rather than a formality?

Yes, I support keeping heritage review, including Heritage Alteration Permits, as a meaningful step rather than simply a formality.

Heritage buildings and sites are part of Richmond’s history, and once important features are lost, they can be very difficult or impossible to replace. Heritage review should ensure that proposed changes respect the character and history of the property while also recognizing the practical needs of property owners.

I believe the process should be clear, reasonable and consistent. It should not create unnecessary delays or costs for homeowners or businesses, but it should provide a proper opportunity to consider the heritage value of a property before significant changes are made.

Good heritage planning is about finding a balance between preservation and responsible development. A meaningful review process can help protect Richmond’s history while allowing properties to remain useful and viable for future generations.

Campaign website: richmondstrong.ca

1. When did you last visit a Richmond museum or heritage site, and what stayed with you?

I lasted visited the Brittania Shipyards site on August 22-23 this past summer during the Richmond Maritime Festival. I have been there many times in the past as I reside in Steveston. Every time I’m there, I am taken aback by the heritage buildings themselves and the care that has gone into all of the artifacts on display and the effort to preserve the wood structures and floors.

2. Do you see heritage as part of Richmond’s economic strategy, or mainly as a cost? Why?

I see heritage as an important part of our economic strategy and an integral partner. Preserving this important history is not only a gift for the community, it showcases Steveston’s deep history to the fishing/canning industries. It’s a tourist destination and brings visitors into our community which leads to a direct economic benefit.

3. Richmond relies on volunteer-founded societies to run several heritage sites on the City’s behalf. What do you see as the City’s obligations to those organizations, and how should it judge whether that partnership is working?

Volunteers help offset costs that would arise from having city staff and resources to keep these sites operational, especially during the summer months. I would want to get feedback from staff and volunteers on how the liaison from city council is working. What could be improved? I would want feedback on what more could be done to recruit volunteers. Conducting a review of comments left on Google reviews, Trip Advisor etc. would be another avenue to assess on how the current partnership is working.

4. Steveston’s history includes Musqueam presence long before settlement, Japanese Canadian fishing families and their 1942 dispossession, and Chinese Canadian cannery labour. How should the City support telling those histories, including the difficult parts?

During my RCMP career, I worked on many investigations in the remote areas of the province. Some of those cases contained elements of abuse/mistrust between marginalized communities and the police/Government. I learned that difficult or troublesome history must be highlighted and acknowledged. It is very crucial to recognize how these events effected the communities/people involved. In my experience, recognizing the events does not take away from trauma. But it is an important step toward healing. Showcasing difficult history, as noted above, is a very necessary exercise so the current generations can understand the lived experiences of Japanese-Canadians, Chinese-Canadian workers, and Indigenous communities who were the guardians of this territory long before Colonial settlement.

5. Do you support keeping heritage review, including Heritage Alteration Permits, as a meaningful step rather than a formality?

I completely support these initiatives and processes. So much hard work and dedication has gone into keeping history alive in our city and community. If elected, I would want to know more about what has been done, and what could be done better. I believe in listening first and deciding after. Preserving our history, good and bad, should never be deemed to be a formality. As the world at large moves toward digital tools to learn and gain knowledge, I believe having environments, buildings, displays, artifacts etc. to make a physical/tactile connection with history, is something that’s going to become even more vital.

Campaign website: www.robhowardformayor.ca

1. When did you last visit a Richmond museum or heritage site, and what stayed with you?

Most recently, I attended the London Farm Country Fest. Before that, I was pleased to take part in the Steveston Historical Society’s 50th anniversary celebration in July. I particularly enjoyed joining the drummers and seeing neighbours, pioneers, volunteers and community partners come together to celebrate 50 years of preserving Steveston’s history.

My wife and I live in Steveston, so these heritage sites are part of our community. We greatly appreciate places like Britannia Shipyards, the Steveston Tram, the Museum and Post Office, and London Farm.

As a lifelong Richmond resident, I have watched our city change enormously. What stays with me when I visit these places is the connection between Richmond’s past and the community we enjoy today. They preserve the stories of the people, industries, and cultures that helped build Richmond and give future generations a tangible way to understand where we came from. That is worth protecting.

2. Do you see heritage as part of Richmond’s economic strategy, or mainly as a cost? Why?

I see heritage as an asset to Richmond, not simply a cost.

Well-managed heritage sites contribute to tourism, support local businesses, and help create places people want to visit and spend time in. Steveston is a good example. Its history and character are a significant part of what makes the area distinctive and attracts both residents and visitors.

That does not mean heritage spending should be exempt from the accountability we expect elsewhere at City Hall. We need to protect important assets, maintain them properly, and make thoughtful decisions about where public dollars provide the greatest long-term value.

My municipal and construction experience has taught me that planned maintenance is almost always more responsible than allowing an asset to deteriorate until the repair bill becomes much larger. I believe heritage deserves the same practical approach: preserve what matters, plan for its long-term care, and recognize the cultural, community and economic value these assets provide.

3. Richmond relies on volunteer-founded societies to run several heritage sites on the City’s behalf. What do you see as the City’s obligations to those organizations, and how should it judge whether that partnership is working?

When the City relies on community organizations to help operate public heritage assets, it has an obligation to be a genuine and reliable partner.

That means clear responsibilities, reasonable resources, open communication and recognition that volunteers should not be expected to carry responsibilities that properly belong to the City. These organizations bring tremendous value through their knowledge, commitment and connection to the community.

At the same time, partnerships involving public facilities and taxpayer funding need accountability. We should look at whether the heritage asset is being properly cared for, whether programming is accessible and relevant, whether the organization is sustainable, and whether residents and visitors are benefiting.

Success should not be measured by attendance numbers alone. Preserving heritage, educating the public and maintaining community knowledge also have value. The best partnerships have clear expectations on both sides, regular communication and accountability without creating unnecessary bureaucracy for the volunteers doing important work.

4. Steveston’s history includes Musqueam presence long before settlement, Japanese Canadian fishing families and their 1942 dispossession, and Chinese Canadian cannery labour. How should the City support telling those histories, including the difficult parts?

Richmond’s history should be told accurately and completely, including the difficult parts.

Steveston was shaped by many people and communities over generations. Musqueam history, Japanese Canadian fishing families and their wartime dispossession, Chinese Canadian cannery workers, European settlers and others are all part of that history. Leaving out difficult chapters does not give future generations an accurate understanding of the community they inherited.

The City should support museums, heritage organizations and historians in presenting well-researched, evidence-based history. Communities with direct historical and cultural connections should also have a meaningful opportunity to contribute their knowledge and perspectives.

I believe there is an important distinction between documenting and understanding our history and debating current legal or public-policy questions. Heritage interpretation should focus on telling the historical record honestly, providing context and allowing people to learn from it.

We do not need to avoid difficult history. We need to present it accurately, respectfully and in a way that helps people better understand Richmond and one another.

5. Do you support keeping heritage review, including Heritage Alteration Permits, as a meaningful step rather than a formality?

Yes. If Richmond designates a property or area as having heritage value, the review process has to mean something.

A Heritage Alteration Permit should provide a genuine assessment of whether proposed changes respect the character and heritage value we have chosen to protect. Otherwise, heritage designation risks becoming little more than a label.

At the same time, meaningful review should not mean unnecessary delay or bureaucracy. Having worked both inside municipal government and in the construction industry, I understand the importance of clear requirements, predictable timelines and practical decision-making. Property owners and applicants should know what is expected and receive timely decisions.

There will also be situations where buildings need to be adapted for safety, accessibility, structural integrity or continued use. Heritage preservation should allow reasonable adaptation while protecting the elements that make a site significant.

My approach is straightforward: clear standards, qualified review, timely decisions and a genuine commitment to preserving Richmond’s important heritage assets.

Campaign website: www.richmondcitizens.ca

1. When did you last visit a Richmond museum or heritage site, and what stayed with you?

I visited the Steveston Tram Museum last winter and multiple times after that. The map there shows me that we have a wealth of history and that this history is still relevant to our modern day lives. It gives me the inspiration that we should reintroduce a light right transit to Richmond and it can alleviate the traffic and the parking situation in Steveston. It will also help to bring the much needed foot traffic to our businesses.

2. Do you see heritage as part of Richmond’s economic strategy, or mainly as a cost? Why?

Heritage is important to our economy, as it brings characters to our society, so there is added value to visitors to see something different. It is not a cost but a necessary investment. Japan, Europe, China et al, all invest heavily into their heritage sites, because it is simply good for business. Heritage sites in the those places become a focal point for community. We need to learn from that.

3. Richmond relies on volunteer-founded societies to run several heritage sites on the City’s behalf. What do you see as the City’s obligations to those organizations, and how should it judge whether that partnership is working?

Volunteering is a necessary part to make the heritage sites alive. That said, the city can invest in programs to train volunteers, or even employ history students to be the guides or performers at the sites. The purpose is to cultivate expertise, and maybe opening up future career paths for history and arts students.

To see whether it is working is not a cost vs revenue question for an individual site, as it has to be seen as a part of the larger cultural strategy and tourism strategy.

4. Steveston’s history includes Musqueam presence long before settlement, Japanese Canadian fishing families and their 1942 dispossession, and Chinese Canadian cannery labour. How should the City support telling those histories, including the difficult parts?

Steveston’s more modern developments can incorporate the cultural-historical elements of the above communities in the right locations. A touch of those cultural elements can be added to store fronts. Shrines or Musqueam buildings can be added at strategic locations and be built in their historical fashion to commemorate the history. They can act as a focal point for displays and guided tours, which will also create new landmarks and attractions for Stevenston.

5. Do you support keeping heritage review, including Heritage Alteration Permits, as a meaningful step rather than a formality?

Yes. Not as a rigid bureaucratic rule that stops necessary business activities in the modern days, but as a meaningful mechanism with community inputs as to how we proceed with modern day activities while preserving our history. We need to use history as an attraction and find ways to show that this can work for the businesses, so they can understand why it is good for business, so that they are less inclined to see it as a source of conflicts.

Campaign website: riterichmond.com

1. When did you last visit a Richmond museum or heritage site, and what stayed with you?

Last week I visited London Farm for the farm days. My Grandson LOVED the tractor and the chickens. London farm transports you back in time and I really miss the afternoon tea’s.

2. Do you see heritage as part of Richmond’s economic strategy, or mainly as a cost? Why?

Historic places in Richmond are so limited we need to save every piece of history before it is all bulldozed down . If you want to just look at the economic benefits then check out the tourism website our artifacts and special places are very important for tourism and filming.
I feel the history is more important then the revenue it generates but as a city councillor I do way the economic and social benefits.

3. Richmond relies on volunteer-founded societies to run several heritage sites on the City’s behalf. What do you see as the City’s obligations to those organizations, and how should it judge whether that partnership is working?

If we are not attracting volunteers then that is a bad sign. We need to be sure that they feel valued and have a good time doing something that speaks to them. I see smiling faces when I visit various sites and to me that is the best indication that the program is working. Feel free to contact me anytime to address any concerns or shortfalls and I happy to work on solutions.

4. Steveston’s history includes Musqueam presence long before settlement, Japanese Canadian fishing families and their 1942 dispossession, and Chinese Canadian cannery labour. How should the City support telling those histories, including the difficult parts?

We are rebuilding the indigenous building and that will host many parts of our history. We are acquiring wooden boats for Brittania. The Gulf of Georgia is a vey successful Federal site so working with the feds is very important. Maintaining great relationships with all the sites and the various levels of government helps us win grants and support for the sites.

5. Do you support keeping heritage review, including Heritage Alteration Permits, as a meaningful step rather than a formality?

Oh YES if have to stick to the policy and take every step to maintain the historic value while allowing preservation through re-development. It can be tricky but it must be done.

Campaign website: Jessyforrichmondbc.ca

1. When did you last visit a Richmond museum or heritage site, and what stayed with you?

The last time I visited a Richmond museum and heritage site was with a group of students I support in my role as a Youth Support Worker. We explored the exhibits together, and what stayed with me most was seeing how local history came alive through the stories, artifacts, and personal experiences shared throughout the site. It was especially meaningful to watch the students connect with the past and ask thoughtful questions about the community they live in today. The visit highlighted the importance of preserving local heritage and showed how history can inspire curiosity, understanding, and a stronger sense of belonging among young people.

2. Do you see heritage as part of Richmond’s economic strategy, or mainly as a cost? Why?

I see heritage as much more than a cost. To me, it’s part of what gives Richmond its character and makes it a unique place to live. As a Youth Support Worker, I’ve brought students to local heritage sites, and it’s always interesting to see them learn about the people, cultures, and events that helped shape our community. Those experiences often spark conversations and connections that you don’t get from a textbook.
I also think heritage benefits Richmond in practical ways by attracting visitors and encouraging people to explore local museums, historic sites, and community events. While preserving these places requires investment, I believe the value they bring through education, tourism, and community pride makes it worthwhile. Heritage helps us stay connected to our roots while giving future generations a better understanding of where they come from.

3. Richmond relies on volunteer-founded societies to run several heritage sites on the City’s behalf. What do you see as the City’s obligations to those organizations, and how should it judge whether that partnership is working?

As a Youth Support Worker and the Coordinator of the Richmond Youth Basketball League, I’ve seen firsthand how important community organizations and volunteers are in creating meaningful experiences for young people. Whether it’s through sports, mentoring, or cultural programs, these connections help youth develop a stronger sense of belonging. That’s why I believe the City has a responsibility to support these volunteer-founded heritage societies and recognize the tremendous value they bring to the community.
When I’ve taken students to local heritage sites, I’ve seen how learning about Richmond’s history can spark curiosity and help them feel more connected to where they live. For me, a successful partnership isn’t just about visitor numbers or budgets. It’s about whether these organizations have the support they need to keep their sites accessible, engaging, and relevant for future generations. If volunteers feel valued, community members are participating, and young people are leaving with a greater appreciation of Richmond’s history and culture, then I think the partnership is working. Those kinds of connections create a stronger community, and that’s something worth investing in.

4. Steveston’s history includes Musqueam presence long before settlement, Japanese Canadian fishing families and their 1942 dispossession, and Chinese Canadian cannery labour. How should the City support telling those histories, including the difficult parts?

As someone who works with youth every day, I think it’s important that we tell the full story of Richmond’s past, not just the easy or celebratory parts. Some of the most meaningful conversations I’ve had with students happen when they’re learning about real people, real struggles, and the resilience of different communities. When young people learn about the Musqueam’s deep connection to this land, the contributions of Japanese Canadian fishing families and the injustice of their dispossession, or the hard work and sacrifices of Chinese Canadian cannery workers, it helps them better understand the community they live in today.
As a Youth Support Worker and Coordinator of the Richmond Youth Basketball League, I work with youth from many different backgrounds. I’ve seen how powerful it is when young people can see their own stories, cultures, and experiences reflected in local history. It creates a stronger sense of belonging and respect for others.
I believe the City should continue to work closely with Musqueam and the communities connected to these histories, ensuring their voices lead the storytelling. To me, telling the difficult parts of history isn’t about dwelling on the past; it’s about learning from it, honouring those who came before us, and helping future generations build a more understanding and inclusive community.

5. Do you support keeping heritage review, including Heritage Alteration Permits, as a meaningful step rather than a formality?

Yes, I do. I think heritage review should remain a meaningful step, not just a box to check. Once a heritage building, site, or story is lost, it’s very difficult, and often impossible, to replace. A thoughtful review process helps ensure that decisions are made carefully and that the long-term value of preserving history is considered alongside development and other community needs.

Campaign website: riterichmond.com/jerome-dickey

1. When did you last visit a Richmond museum or heritage site, and what stayed with you?

My most recent heritage-focused experience was the Richmond Maritime Festival in August at Britannia Shipyards. What stayed with me was how effectively history, culture and community can come together in one place.

The waterfront setting, historic buildings, local performers and community participation made Richmond’s history feel alive rather than something simply preserved behind glass.

Heritage is strongest when people can experience it, understand it and see themselves in it. Steveston and the broader Richmond waterfront have a remarkable story to tell, and places like Britannia help connect today’s residents with the people, industries and communities that shaped our city.

2. Do you see heritage as part of Richmond’s economic strategy, or mainly as a cost? Why?

I see heritage as an asset, not simply a cost. Steveston’s historic character is part of what attracts residents, visitors, businesses, restaurants, filmmakers and tourism activity. Richmond’s own heritage resources—from the working waterfront and canneries to museums and cultural sites—help distinguish us from other communities.

That does not mean every heritage expenditure is automatically justified. Investments should still have clear priorities, realistic budgets and measurable public value.

Protecting heritage can support tourism, local business, community identity and economic activity at the same time. The strongest approach is to treat heritage conservation, economic development and placemaking as connected rather than competing priorities.

3. Richmond relies on volunteer-founded societies to run several heritage sites on the City’s behalf. What do you see as the City’s obligations to those organizations, and how should it judge whether that partnership is working?

If the City relies on community organizations to deliver public heritage services, it has an obligation to be a reliable partner. and that means clear expectations, appropriate resources, timely communication and multi-year planning where possible. Volunteer-founded organizations should not be expected to carry increasing municipal responsibilities without the capacity to do the work well.

At the same time, partnerships should have accountability. I would look at visitor engagement, programming, preservation outcomes, community participation, financial stewardship and whether the organization is helping tell Richmond’s history effectively.

The Steveston Historical Society’s current City-funded multi-year pilot, which enabled it to hire an Executive Director, is the kind of initiative we should evaluate carefully: what additional capacity did it create, what results followed, and what should we learn from it?

4. Steveston’s history includes Musqueam presence long before settlement, Japanese Canadian fishing families and their 1942 dispossession, and Chinese Canadian cannery labour. How should the City support telling those histories, including the difficult parts?

We should tell Richmond’s history honestly and completely, including the parts that are uncomfortable. Steveston’s history includes Indigenous presence, immigration, fishing and cannery industries, entrepreneurship, discrimination, dispossession and extraordinary community resilience. The City’s own heritage records recognize the longstanding presence of First Nations, Japanese and Chinese workers and families along the waterfront.

I believe these stories should be developed with the communities whose histories are being told, supported by credible research, oral histories, archives and lived experience.

We should neither sanitize the past nor use history to divide people today. Understanding what happened—both positive and painful—helps us appreciate how Richmond became the diverse community it is and helps ensure important lessons are not lost.

5. Do you support keeping heritage review, including Heritage Alteration Permits, as a meaningful step rather than a formality?

Yes. If Richmond designates an area for heritage protection, the review process has to mean something. Steveston Village is a designated Heritage Conservation Area, and Heritage Alteration Permits are one of the tools used to protect its character.

At the same time, meaningful review should not mean unnecessary delay or bureaucracy. The process should be clear, timely and proportionate to the change being proposed.

My approach would be to protect the features and character that make Steveston distinctive while allowing thoughtful evolution, investment and adaptation. Heritage conservation works best when property owners, businesses, residents and the City understand the rules and can work through them predictably.

Campaign website: facebook.com/profile.php?id=61590172988913

1. When did you last visit a Richmond museum or heritage site, and what stayed with you?

The Shipyard and Tram in the summer. The shipyard was a static display because the City installed the wrong voltage to the building (instead of 220VAC, they installed 208VAC). The Tram should be put on tracks in Steveston and made to run.

2. Do you see heritage as part of Richmond’s economic strategy, or mainly as a cost? Why?

When I first toured Shed 9, it should have been made into a public market with coffee shops, etc. Hence, a cost can become an economic strategy.

3. Richmond relies on volunteer-founded societies to run several heritage sites on the City’s behalf. What do you see as the City’s obligations to those organizations, and how should it judge whether that partnership is working?

The volunteer societies should produce enough funds to be self-supporting. After that it is the taxpayers willingness to fund any additional funding request.

4. Steveston’s history includes Musqueam presence long before settlement, Japanese Canadian fishing families and their 1942 dispossession, and Chinese Canadian cannery labour. How should the City support telling those histories, including the difficult parts?

The history should be presented from all perspectives.

5. Do you support keeping heritage review, including Heritage Alteration Permits, as a meaningful step rather than a formality?

The heritage review, including Heritage Alteration Permits, should be conducted annually.

Campaign website: RITERichmond.com

1. When did you last visit a Richmond museum or heritage site, and what stayed with you?

I visited Richmond Museum and Archives last week and I walk through Britannia Shipyards every week on my evening walks. I attended the Maritime Festival and walked through all the sites and buildings at Britannia. I walked through Terra Nova this week and last week, walked through the heritage sites there reflecting on presentations we recently had from relatives of families who used to live there. I walk through Steveston regularly. Everything in Richmond stays with me from designated sites to parks and trails, from Scotch Pond to Hamilton and everything in between.

2. Do you see heritage as part of Richmond’s economic strategy, or mainly as a cost? Why?

I do see heritage as part of Richmond’s economic strategy. I see tourism increasing in Richmond every year. We are so fortunate to have preserved the history that we have and we must continue to do so. It is a shame Richmond did not have a better strategy for preserving heritage houses a long time ago as we have lost too many to development and too many have been left to become run down and not protected by any registry. Having those older homes as well as designated heritage sites can improve the patchwork of history recognized throughout the city instead of only in concentrated areas. Nevertheless, we do have spectacular sites and rich, diverse history. We also have the most inspirational and devoted community of volunteers who protect and ensure that the city council stays on track with prioritizing heritage projects and working with the societies to ensure we get it right. We have a national jewel when it comes to heritage sites as well as our stunning natural setting and the airport, Canada Line, ferries, and US border also in proximity. Richmond is primed to be a destination for tourists and for Canadians planning local "staycations".

3. Richmond relies on volunteer-founded societies to run several heritage sites on the City’s behalf. What do you see as the City’s obligations to those organizations, and how should it judge whether that partnership is working?

Richmond is extremely fortunate to have such a dedicated volunteer base. There is financial value in these partnerships as well as knowledge, dedication and community strength. The City owns the sites and needs to ensure they are properly maintained and accessible to the public. The city should be responsible to provide resources and professional support as needed. We can judge if the partnership is working by if the society is financially and organizationally stable, the communication between the partners is good and regular, and that the feedback from the public is enjoyable experiences. Heritage is about preserving for future generations and these partnerships are great for making the best use of the expertise of the societies and the City having the resources to support them.

4. Steveston’s history includes Musqueam presence long before settlement, Japanese Canadian fishing families and their 1942 dispossession, and Chinese Canadian cannery labour. How should the City support telling those histories, including the difficult parts?

Richmond is long overdue in telling those histories. Richmond has finally hired an indigenous relations manager and over these next four years I would motion to ensure that the indigenous relations manager with Musqueam are looking for opportunities to identify and recognize sites throughout Richmond and tell their history with art and informational installments. We have an opportunity right now with the First Nations longhouse building at Britannia to continue working with the First Nations Building Committee including members of Musqueam to ensure this restored building will be both a sacred building and a place for people to learn the truth of colonial impacts. There is a vision that this will be a place for programming for school programs so students can learn. As they say for truth and reconciliation we have to spend time in the truth before we can get to reconciliation. I am committed to telling the history in whatever ways we can. Some other things local government can do is ensure the library allocates enough resources to tell the histories and that public servants get the education offered through cultural safety training,

5. Do you support keeping heritage review, including Heritage Alteration Permits, as a meaningful step rather than a formality?

Yes I do. I believe the review panel is a meaningful one and not just a formality. It is a formality, but it has value by ensuring that a panel looking strictly with the lens of heritage oversea any alteration applications. Without this review, applications could run the risk of being overlooked or treated as another because of precedent or a different interpretation by staff. Important feedback could be missed and once something is altered it is very difficult to get it back. The heritage review helps keep the trust of the public with the city, knowing there is a formal commitment to preserving heritage in these sites.

Campaign website: happymayor.ca

1. When did you last visit a Richmond museum or heritage site, and what stayed with you?

I visited the Britannia Shipyards last summer where I had been there multiple times over years. As a resident of Richmond, I am very impressed the museum’s preservation effort to keep the site to its original state. It offers me a bragging right to showcase Richmond’s past, and where it came to be today to my guests. For a person born and raised in big urban center, the museum serves as a bridge to connect the past to the present.

2. Do you see heritage as part of Richmond’s economic strategy, or mainly as a cost? Why?

The heritage of Richmond builds the city’s identity. Preservation and strengthen the heritage identity of the city should be part of economic development plan. It’s an asset rather than liability. Without this unique identity, Richmond will be reduced to just another faceless resident land.

3. Richmond relies on volunteer-founded societies to run several heritage sites on the City’s behalf. What do you see as the City’s obligations to those organizations, and how should it judge whether that partnership is working?

The City has an obligation to continuously support those societies by provide sufficient funding, police oversight, as well as integrated promotion channels.

4. Steveston’s history includes Musqueam presence long before settlement, Japanese Canadian fishing families and their 1942 dispossession, and Chinese Canadian cannery labour. How should the City support telling those histories, including the difficult parts?

We should not sugar-coating unpleasant history events. The progress is based and learned from the past for better or worse. By reflecting the journey the humanity trekked, we can better avoid pitfalls along the way and move forward to a better future.

5. Do you support keeping heritage review, including Heritage Alteration Permits, as a meaningful step rather than a formality?

Without a doubt, the review should be active and dynamic rather than a formality.

Campaign website: richmondunited.ca

1. When did you last visit a Richmond museum or heritage site, and what stayed with you?

I’m at Richmond museums and heritages sites almost every day. Conservatively, let’s say three times per week.

2. Do you see heritage as part of Richmond’s economic strategy, or mainly as a cost? Why?

I served on the Tourism Richmond Board, was chair of the Britannia Heritage Shipyard Society board and have served on Council for five years. There is no doubt that heritage is part of our economic strategy. It’s in our economic strategy. I have supported millions of investment in heritage. Heritage is important and it attracts visitors and local residents.

3. Richmond relies on volunteer-founded societies to run several heritage sites on the City’s behalf. What do you see as the City’s obligations to those organizations, and how should it judge whether that partnership is working?

I’ve served on such City boards. The City’s role can vary from site to site but generally the City’s role can include financial contributions supporting events, projects or operations, City staff time and staff expertise/support, consultant selection and funding for things like strat planning, infrastructure maintenance/repair/renovation. Success can be measured in metrics/outputs (events, visitors), financial viability but perhaps most importantly, relationships with key community partners like the school board, Tourism Richmond and of course the City. Is the particular society meeting the strategic objectives of its strat plan?

4. Steveston’s history includes Musqueam presence long before settlement, Japanese Canadian fishing families and their 1942 dispossession, and Chinese Canadian cannery labour. How should the City support telling those histories, including the difficult parts?

History is fascinating but some of the chapters are dark and not always a positive part of our collective history. It’s crucial to tell our history in a complete, balanced way, in order for all of us to move forward together. Part of telling the stories you’ve mentioned (and others), is to include affected communities in the telling of those stories. I’m the chair of the First Nations Building Committee and the Musqueam is a member of that committee because their voice is important and informative. For Japanese Canadian families, their participation in the establishment of the Nikkei Stories in Steveston and the Tomekichi Homma National Historic Plaque at the Steveston Japanese Canadian Museum are two examples of how to tell difficult stories well. The City supports telling these chapters through funding, sometimes in the millions for building infrastructure (e.g., Chinese Bunkhouse), staff support and leadership in emphasizing heritage and a complete history.

5. Do you support keeping heritage review, including Heritage Alteration Permits, as a meaningful step rather than a formality?

Yes. Absolutely. Heritage Alteration Permits are fundamental and meaningful requirement. It is not an onerous process. Also, the Richmond Heritage Commission is another crucial step for other developments in Steveston.

Campaign website: robhowardformayor.ca/howard-jampolsky

1. When did you last visit a Richmond museum or heritage site, and what stayed with you?

I recently enjoyed a visit to the Steveston Museum and Post Office; a wonderful reminder of the village’s rich history and the importance of preserving it for future generations. The post office was once a hub of community life, where neighbours gathered to send and collect letters, exchange news and catch up with one another. It offers a glimpse of a simpler time, when everyday errands helped bring people together.

2. Do you see heritage as part of Richmond’s economic strategy, or mainly as a cost? Why?

I see heritage as an important part of Richmond’s economic strategy. Steveston’s historic character attracts visitors, supports local businesses and makes Richmond a distinctive place to live and work. Once that character is lost, we cannot simply rebuild it.

As Chair of Richmond’s Economic Advisory Committee, I believe economic development should build on our community’s strengths. Our fishing history, heritage buildings and waterfront are assets that support tourism, employment and opportunities for local businesses.

Preservation does have costs, and we must manage those costs responsibly. That means maintaining buildings before expensive repairs become necessary, supporting appropriate reuse and making heritage sites accessible and engaging.

I support preserving Steveston Village’s historic character and would oppose major development that undermines it. Thoughtful improvements can help the village thrive while protecting what makes it special. Heritage should be an investment in Richmond’s future as well as a commitment to its past.

3. Richmond relies on volunteer-founded societies to run several heritage sites on the City’s behalf. What do you see as the City’s obligations to those organizations, and how should it judge whether that partnership is working?

When a society operates a heritage site on the City’s behalf, the City has an obligation to be a dependable partner. Volunteers bring knowledge, commitment and community connections, but their dedication should not be used to excuse inadequate funding or unclear responsibilities.

Partnership agreements should clearly establish who is responsible for maintenance, staffing, insurance, accessibility and programming. Organizations also need predictable funding, timely decisions and access to City expertise. Council should set expectations and provide oversight while respecting the society’s operational role.

4. Steveston’s history includes Musqueam presence long before settlement, Japanese Canadian fishing families and their 1942 dispossession, and Chinese Canadian cannery labour. How should the City support telling those histories, including the difficult parts?

The City should support an honest and complete account of Steveston’s history, including the parts that are painful. That means recognizing Musqueam presence long before settlement, the contributions of Japanese Canadian fishing families and Chinese Canadian cannery workers, and the injustice of the forced removal and dispossession of Japanese Canadians in 1942.

These histories should be developed with the communities whose experiences they describe. Musqueam representatives, Japanese Canadian and Chinese Canadian organizations, descendants and historians should have meaningful roles in shaping exhibits, interpretation and educational programs.

The City can help through funding, preservation of records and historic places, oral-history projects, school partnerships and accessible public programming. This work should be part of the ongoing heritage program, with clear responsibilities and sustained support.

I believe we can celebrate Richmond’s achievements while acknowledging discrimination and failures of government. Telling difficult truths respectfully helps residents understand their community and reinforces our responsibility to challenge prejudice today.

5. Do you support keeping heritage review, including Heritage Alteration Permits, as a meaningful step rather than a formality?

Yes. I support keeping the heritage review, including Heritage Alteration Permits, as a meaningful step. If we claim to protect heritage but routinely approve changes that undermine it, those protections have little value.

Review should consider how a proposal affects a building’s historic features, the surrounding streetscape and the character of the heritage area. Decisions should follow clear standards, draw on qualified advice and explain how heritage concerns have been addressed.

My approach is to protect what makes Steveston special while allowing it to remain a living, working community. Heritage review should help achieve that balance, and Council must be prepared to require changes or refuse proposals when the harm would be unacceptable.

1. When did you last visit a Richmond museum or heritage site, and what stayed with you?

During the spring, I participated in the Tourism Challenge and visited a number of Richmond’s museums and heritage sites, including the Richmond Museum, Richmond Art Gallery, Britannia Shipyards, Gulf of Georgia Cannery, and the Steveston Museum and Post Office.
What stayed with me was how much history Richmond has managed to preserve and how different each site is in telling part of the city’s story. Visiting several of them over a relatively short period gave me a much better appreciation for Richmond’s fishing and maritime history, the development of Steveston, and the many communities that helped shape the city.
I was also impressed by the amount of work that goes into maintaining these sites and keeping their stories accessible to residents and visitors.
For me, heritage is not only about preserving buildings. It is also about preserving the stories, experiences and identity of the people who built the community, and making sure future generations have the opportunity to understand where Richmond came from.

2. Do you see heritage as part of Richmond’s economic strategy, or mainly as a cost? Why?

I see heritage as part of Richmond’s economic strategy, not simply as a cost.
Places such as Steveston show how heritage can help create a strong sense of identity while also supporting tourism, local businesses, restaurants, shops and community events. Richmond’s own heritage planning recognizes that preserved heritage sites contribute to a socially and economically healthy community, and Steveston has increasingly developed tourism alongside its traditional fishing and agricultural roots.
At the same time, preserving heritage does require public investment, so funding should be responsible and focused on projects that protect important sites, keep them accessible, and provide lasting community value.
I think the best approach is to view heritage as an asset. When preservation is done thoughtfully, it can strengthen Richmond’s identity, attract visitors, support local businesses and ensure that important stories and places are not lost as the city continues to grow.

3. Richmond relies on volunteer-founded societies to run several heritage sites on the City’s behalf. What do you see as the City’s obligations to those organizations, and how should it judge whether that partnership is working?

I think the City has an obligation to treat these organizations as genuine partners, not simply as low-cost operators. If volunteer-founded societies are helping deliver public heritage services on the City’s behalf, they need clear agreements, reasonable operating support, access to City staff, and the resources necessary to care for sites properly and provide quality programming.
The City should also recognize the value of volunteer time and community knowledge. Those contributions can be difficult to replace and are an important part of keeping heritage connected to the people and neighbourhoods it represents.
At the same time, public funding should come with accountability. I would look at factors such as visitor participation, programming, educational value, community engagement, financial sustainability, preservation of the site, and whether agreed objectives are being met.
The partnership should be reviewed regularly, with clear reporting and open communication so both the City and the organization understand what is working, what needs improvement, and what support may be required.
The City already uses partnership agreements with organizations such as the Steveston Historical Society, and recent Council discussions have included operating support and annual reporting as part of that relationship

4. Steveston’s history includes Musqueam presence long before settlement, Japanese Canadian fishing families and their 1942 dispossession, and Chinese Canadian cannery labour. How should the City support telling those histories, including the difficult parts?

The City should support telling Richmond’s history honestly and completely, including the parts that are difficult or painful.
That means working directly with the communities whose histories are being told, including Musqueam, Japanese Canadian and Chinese Canadian communities, so that interpretation is accurate, respectful and informed by lived experience as well as archival research.
I do not think heritage should present only the comfortable parts of the past. Events such as dispossession, exclusion and discrimination are part of Richmond’s history, and understanding them helps residents better understand how the community developed.
The City can support this through museums, heritage sites, archives, educational programming, exhibitions and partnerships with community organizations, schools and cultural groups.
The goal should be to preserve the historical record, acknowledge what happened, and ensure future generations have access to a fuller and more accurate understanding of Richmond’s past.

5. Do you support keeping heritage review, including Heritage Alteration Permits, as a meaningful step rather than a formality?

Yes. I support keeping heritage review, including Heritage Alteration Permits, as a meaningful part of the process rather than simply a formality.
Richmond has designated Steveston Village as a Heritage Conservation Area, and Heritage Alteration Permits are one of the tools used to ensure changes to protected heritage properties respect their character and heritage value.
At the same time, a meaningful review process should also be clear, timely and proportionate to the proposal. Minor alterations should not face unnecessary delays, while significant changes to important heritage buildings or sites deserve careful consideration.
I support clear guidelines, early communication with property owners and applicants, and appropriate staff authority for straightforward applications. The purpose should be to protect Richmond’s heritage while giving owners and businesses a predictable and workable process.
Heritage review has value when it genuinely informs decisions. It should neither be a rubber stamp nor an unnecessary obstacle to reasonable improvements.

Campaign website: one-richmond.ca

1. When did you last visit a Richmond museum or heritage site, and what stayed with you?

Last month, visited the Steveston Museum and Post Office with clients from Japan. Clients were impressed with the history, and the work done by the City to preserve the history for future generations.

2. Do you see heritage as part of Richmond’s economic strategy, or mainly as a cost? Why?

Preserving our heritage is vital, and while there is a cost attached it can also serve as an economic driver by promoting tourism in the City.

3. Richmond relies on volunteer-founded societies to run several heritage sites on the City’s behalf. What do you see as the City’s obligations to those organizations, and how should it judge whether that partnership is working?

Volunteers are the lifeblood of heritage sites and indeed, many of the groups and services in our community. The City is obliged to promote these organizations, support where necessary and possible, but also to audit the operations periodically to ensure taxes are being utilized appropriately.

4. Steveston’s history includes Musqueam presence long before settlement, Japanese Canadian fishing families and their 1942 dispossession, and Chinese Canadian cannery labour. How should the City support telling those histories, including the difficult parts?

The City should support the honest, truthful telling our our history. This includes ensuring the historical accuracy, fairness and clarity of reporting and providing resources for the investigation, procuring and housing of relevant displays.

5. Do you support keeping heritage review, including Heritage Alteration Permits, as a meaningful step rather than a formality?

If the City is providing support, then there is an obligation on both sides to observe formal heritage reviews.

Campaign website: garylaw.ca

1. When did you last visit a Richmond museum or heritage site, and what stayed with you?

I have visited the Britannia Shipyards National Site this summer with my friends from the New Zealand. What stayed with me most was learning about the multicultural community that helped build Steveston’s fishing industry. Seeing the historic shipyard buildings and hearing the stories of the people who worked there made the history feel real and personal.

2. Do you see heritage as part of Richmond’s economic strategy, or mainly as a cost? Why?

Heritage is best seen as part of Richmond’s economic strategy rather than simply a cost. Historic sites, cultural districts, and community traditions attract tourists, support local businesses, and help differentiate Richmond from other cities. Heritage assets can also enhance community identity and make the city more appealing to residents, investors, and visitors.
While preserving heritage requires funding for maintenance, restoration, and planning, these costs can generate long term economic benefits through tourism revenue, cultural events, and increased civic pride. Heritage also contributes to sustainability by reusing existing buildings rather than replacing them.
Overall, heritage is an investment that supports both economic development and community well being, making it more than just a financial expense.

3. Richmond relies on volunteer-founded societies to run several heritage sites on the City’s behalf. What do you see as the City’s obligations to those organizations, and how should it judge whether that partnership is working?

Richmond has an obligation to provide stable funding, clear communication, fair agreements, and practical support so volunteer run heritage societies can sustainably protect and share the city’s history. The partnership should be judged by outcomes: preservation of heritage assets, public access and engagement, financial accountability, volunteer sustainability, and whether both the city and societies feel respected and heard. Success means the community benefits, heritage sites thrive, and the partnership remains collaborative and resilient over time.

4. Steveston’s history includes Musqueam presence long before settlement, Japanese Canadian fishing families and their 1942 dispossession, and Chinese Canadian cannery labour. How should the City support telling those histories, including the difficult parts?

The city should support indigenous led storytelling about Musqueam history, preserve and promote sites linked to Chinese Canadian and Japanese Canadian communities, and fund exhibits, education programs, and public art. It should also openly acknowledge difficult histories, including discrimination, labour exploitation, and the 1942 dispossession of Japanese Canadians. By partnering with affected communities and sharing multiple perspectives, Richmond can ensure these histories are remembered accurately, respectfully, and meaningfully.

5. Do you support keeping heritage review, including Heritage Alteration Permits, as a meaningful step rather than a formality?

Yes, Heritage review, including heritage alteration permits, should remail a meaningful step that carefully evaluates potential impacts on heritage value, character, and community significance. It helps ensure changes are appropriate, transparent, an balanced, rather the serving as a simple administrative formality, A robust review process supports conservation goals while still allowing thoughtful adaptation and development.

1. When did you last visit a Richmond museum or heritage site, and what stayed with you?

I visited the Richmond Museum last month. What stayed with me most was learning how people from different cultures lived and worked in Richmond in the past.
I was particularly interested in the stories and everyday lives of Chinese, Japanese and Indigenous communities, and how people from different backgrounds contributed to Richmond’s development.
I also learned more about Richmond’s early fishing and cannery industries and how different life was compared with the Richmond we know today.
The visit reminded me that a museum is not simply a place to display old objects. It is a place where we can understand how people lived, the challenges they faced and how our community became what it is today. There are many interesting Richmond stories that deserve to be preserved and shared with future generations.

2. Do you see heritage as part of Richmond’s economic strategy, or mainly as a cost? Why?

I see heritage not simply as a cost, but as an important part of Richmond’s identity and a potential contributor to our local economy.
Richmond has valuable museums and heritage sites, particularly in Steveston. However, having heritage sites alone is not enough. We should give residents and visitors compelling reasons to stay longer, explore more of the community and return in the future.
I would like the City to look at our heritage attractions as a connected visitor experience. We should explore how museums, historic sites, waterfront areas, walking tours, cultural events, restaurants and local businesses can work together to make Steveston a stronger destination.
We should also examine whether existing museums have enough exhibition space, interactive displays and changing programs to encourage longer visits. If there is a demonstrated need, I would be open to studying a larger exhibition or museum facility that could serve as a central attraction and connect visitors to other Richmond heritage sites.
Success should not simply be measured by how many people enter a museum. We should also look at how long visitors stay in the area, whether they visit multiple attractions, how much economic activity is generated for surrounding businesses, and whether people have reasons to return.
My goal would be to preserve Richmond’s history while turning our heritage assets into a stronger cultural and tourism destination—one that residents are proud of and visitors consider a must-see part of Richmond.

3. Richmond relies on volunteer-founded societies to run several heritage sites on the City’s behalf. What do you see as the City’s obligations to those organizations, and how should it judge whether that partnership is working?

The City has an obligation to ensure that City-owned heritage sites are properly maintained and preserved, while providing reasonable support to the volunteer-founded societies that contribute their time, knowledge and commitment to operating and programming these important community assets.
However, I believe we should also work toward a more sustainable operating model rather than relying primarily on City funding. The City can help these organizations develop partnerships, pursue grants and sponsorships, create attractive programs and events, and explore appropriate opportunities to generate revenue.
To determine whether the partnership is working, I would look at more than financial results. We should measure visitor numbers, community participation, volunteer involvement, programming, preservation of heritage assets, financial sustainability and visitor satisfaction.
A successful partnership should protect Richmond’s heritage, provide value to residents and visitors, and use taxpayers’ resources responsibly.

4. Steveston’s history includes Musqueam presence long before settlement, Japanese Canadian fishing families and their 1942 dispossession, and Chinese Canadian cannery labour. How should the City support telling those histories, including the difficult parts?

I believe we should tell the full and truthful story of Steveston’s history, including both the achievements we celebrate and the difficult chapters we must not forget.
That story includes the long history and continuing presence of Indigenous peoples, the contributions of Japanese Canadian fishing families, their forced removal and dispossession during the Second World War, and the important role of Chinese Canadian workers in the fishing and cannery industries.
We cannot change the past, but we can learn from it. Understanding both the positive and painful parts of our history can help us build a more respectful and inclusive community today and in the future.
I would also encourage partnerships with local schools so more students can visit Richmond’s heritage sites. Seeing historic places, hearing personal stories and learning where events actually happened can make history much more meaningful than simply reading about it in a classroom.

5. Do you support keeping heritage review, including Heritage Alteration Permits, as a meaningful step rather than a formality?

Yes. I support keeping heritage review, including Heritage Alteration Permits, as a meaningful process rather than simply a formality.
I believe heritage protection and city development can work together. Heritage Alteration Permits should meaningfully protect historically important buildings, sites and features, but the process should also be clear, timely and practical.
Not every heritage property must remain unchanged forever. Where appropriate, I support adaptive reuse and creative development that preserves important heritage character while allowing buildings and sites to serve modern community and economic needs.
The City should identify heritage requirements early in the development process so applicants understand what must be protected and can incorporate those elements into their plans.
Our goal should be to preserve what makes Richmond’s history meaningful without unnecessarily preventing responsible development. Good planning can protect our heritage while allowing Richmond to continue growing and evolving.

Campaign website: Richmondforward.ca

1. When did you last visit a Richmond museum or heritage site, and what stayed with you?

The Steveston Post Office – 2 weeks ago – & probably just the feeling when you entered the building – it felt special somehow. Also, about 2 months ago, I visited the Britannia Shipyards – so very interesting to see all of the ships as well as inside the building & the tools, etc. that were used.

2. Do you see heritage as part of Richmond’s economic strategy, or mainly as a cost? Why?

Heritage is important to Richmond and I feel that is part of our ongoing economic strategy for attracting Tourism dollars to our community. And for the Richmondites, it is important to understand the history of Richmond and how we came to be.

3. Richmond relies on volunteer-founded societies to run several heritage sites on the City’s behalf. What do you see as the City’s obligations to those organizations, and how should it judge whether that partnership is working?

The city needs to ensure that the societies have what they need to keep the heritage site running smoothly and if it isn’t, perhaps the city needs to become more active in either the financial support or staff assistance. I think the City will know if it is working by how many visitors visit the site and if it is being operated professionally.

4. Steveston’s history includes Musqueam presence long before settlement, Japanese Canadian fishing families and their 1942 dispossession, and Chinese Canadian cannery labour. How should the City support telling those histories, including the difficult parts?

I believe that through photos, and written materials as well as perhaps guided tours will ensure that the history & stories get told – even the difficult parts. It was a different time and we need to be proud of how far we have come today without forgetting about those people who made it possible.

5. Do you support keeping heritage review, including Heritage Alteration Permits, as a meaningful step rather than a formality?

I think heritage reviews and the Heritage Alteration Permits are a necessary process to ensure there are no unwanted changes made to structures that are designated to be of heritage conservation.

Campaign website: www.richmondcitizens.ca/vincent-li

1. When did you last visit a Richmond museum or heritage site, and what stayed with you?

Over the summer, I had the pleasure of visiting the shipyards and the tram. With immigrant parents, I found the Chinese Bunkhouse to be a particularly appealing reminder of our history. As well, given Richmond Citizens’ Association’s plan to build rail-based transportation connecting Steveston, it was inspiring to see historical infrastructure.

2. Do you see heritage as part of Richmond’s economic strategy, or mainly as a cost? Why?

Historical sites contribute hundreds of millions to the Canadian economy annually, elevating the employment opportunities in that sector and those adjacent to it. As a proponent of boosting Richmond’s economy, it is critical that we consider Richmond’s heritage as a key contributor to our city’s visitor income.

3. Richmond relies on volunteer-founded societies to run several heritage sites on the City’s behalf. What do you see as the City’s obligations to those organizations, and how should it judge whether that partnership is working?

Richmond should fundamentally be a supporter, both by providing funds for its operations and by committing resources to promoting the societies’ activities. The partnership should be assessed on impact factors, such as attendance, number of events, and public feedback.

4. Steveston’s history includes Musqueam presence long before settlement, Japanese Canadian fishing families and their 1942 dispossession, and Chinese Canadian cannery labour. How should the City support telling those histories, including the difficult parts?

The City should commit to full transparency and accuracy, regardless of their perceived controversy. To be respectful of the history, lived experiences should be shared to offer a candid look at how the land and its people were impacted. All of this should be conducted with reconciliation in mind.

5. Do you support keeping heritage review, including Heritage Alteration Permits, as a meaningful step rather than a formality?

Yes, I support it. However, examination may be necessary to determine whether the review process should be reformed. While preservation of heritage culture is imperative, it should be balanced accordingly with a healthy support for Steveston’s local businesses.

Campaign website: richmondstrong.ca

1. When did you last visit a Richmond museum or heritage site, and what stayed with you?

I have visited numerous sites and have been impressed by the diversity of exhibitions. Richmond is amazing at designing and implementing exhibits.

2. Do you see heritage as part of Richmond’s economic strategy, or mainly as a cost? Why?

Heritage is absolutely a part of Richmond’s economic strategy. A vibrant community needs investment in preserving the past and documenting Richmond’s history to ensure the future of the city.

3. Richmond relies on volunteer-founded societies to run several heritage sites on the City’s behalf. What do you see as the City’s obligations to those organizations, and how should it judge whether that partnership is working?

Richmond has programs for volunteers to sign up for events. I would propose a review of the program to assist in volunteers to drive them toward events that they have more interest. Richmond has a strong volunteer community and being able to capitalize on people wanting to help should be a priority.

4. Steveston’s history includes Musqueam presence long before settlement, Japanese Canadian fishing families and their 1942 dispossession, and Chinese Canadian cannery labour. How should the City support telling those histories, including the difficult parts?

I would suggest interviews with survivors or their relatives. History can sometimes be uncomfortable. What is necessary, is the ability to present to truth

5. Do you support keeping heritage review, including Heritage Alteration Permits, as a meaningful step rather than a formality?

Heritage review is important to preserve and maintain Richmond’s history. However, individual review might be needed on certain sites to make sure we are making meaningful decisions on a case by case basis, not just a formality.

Campaign website: wearerichmond.ca/our-candidates

1. When did you last visit a Richmond museum or heritage site, and what stayed with you?

No answer provided.

2. Do you see heritage as part of Richmond’s economic strategy, or mainly as a cost? Why?

No answer provided.

3. Richmond relies on volunteer-founded societies to run several heritage sites on the City’s behalf. What do you see as the City’s obligations to those organizations, and how should it judge whether that partnership is working?

No answer provided.

4. Steveston’s history includes Musqueam presence long before settlement, Japanese Canadian fishing families and their 1942 dispossession, and Chinese Canadian cannery labour. How should the City support telling those histories, including the difficult parts?

Supporting your activities, plans and program

5. Do you support keeping heritage review, including Heritage Alteration Permits, as a meaningful step rather than a formality?

Yes

1. When did you last visit a Richmond museum or heritage site, and what stayed with you?

I walk once a week or more starting from Garry Point Park, doing a lap there, and then walking through downtown Steveston, along the boardwalk at Imperial Landing, down to the Britannia Shipyards and back again.

I like that walk because it shows off some of the best Richmond has to offer a person.

What sticks with me every time is the happy feeling of community spirit.

2. Do you see heritage as part of Richmond’s economic strategy, or mainly as a cost? Why?

You should always be able to generate economic benefits from celebrating local history.

What makes a place unique is not just what is happening today, but also the journey you took along the way.

Historical buildings, and old facades help share that experience.

3. Richmond relies on volunteer-founded societies to run several heritage sites on the City’s behalf. What do you see as the City’s obligations to those organizations, and how should it judge whether that partnership is working?

I would want to start with that status quo. And from there find out from stakeholders where they think improvements could be made. Then, try to work out a fair criteria based on what goals have been set for each.

4. Steveston’s history includes Musqueam presence long before settlement, Japanese Canadian fishing families and their 1942 dispossession, and Chinese Canadian cannery labour. How should the City support telling those histories, including the difficult parts?

History is history. There is no point sugar-coating, dismissing, or hiding any part of history – so that those that have come after can learn from decisions, actions, and political realities of the eras that preceded them.

5. Do you support keeping heritage review, including Heritage Alteration Permits, as a meaningful step rather than a formality?

No answer provided.

Campaign website: melodypan.ca

1. When did you last visit a Richmond museum or heritage site, and what stayed with you?

My most recent visit was on September 19, 2026, while volunteering at Richmond Culture Days. Museums and heritage sites have long been personal interests of mine. I have volunteered with Richmond’s Chinese Bunkhouses and the Steveston Tram Museum, and I regularly visit UBC Special Collections and the Chinese Canadian Museum.

Through different exhibitions, presentations, and curatorial narratives, I gain a deeper understanding of whose stories have been preserved and whose experiences have been overlooked throughout history. Viewing heritage through social justice and intersectionality lenses helps me recognize how race, gender, disability, immigration, and socioeconomic circumstances shape historical experiences and whose contributions receive recognition.

I continue to support the Chinese Canadian Military Museum and the Chinese Canadian Museum through volunteering and donations. I have also contributed to efforts to preserve Vancouver’s Chinatown Memorial Monument and provided recommendations to the City of Vancouver regarding the maintenance of its historic Chinese gate.

What stays with me most is that heritage preservation is not simply about protecting buildings and artifacts. It is also about recovering missing narratives, recognizing the contributions of underrepresented communities, and ensuring future generations inherit a more inclusive understanding of our shared history.

2. Do you see heritage as part of Richmond’s economic strategy, or mainly as a cost? Why?

I see heritage as both a community responsibility and an economic opportunity for Richmond. Heritage sites can attract visitors, support tourism, create opportunities for local businesses, and help distinguish Richmond as a destination with a unique history and identity.

At the same time, I recognize that preserving heritage buildings and structures requires significant and ongoing resources. Maintenance, repairs, restoration, accessibility, and programming can be costly, and relying on municipal funding alone may not be sustainable.

Over the years, I have donated funds to support heritage preservation, because I believe preserving these places is a shared responsibility. Recent donations have supported the Vancouver Naval Museum’s shipbuilding memorial statue and fundraising efforts at the Chinese Canadian Museum.

I believe Richmond can take a balanced approach: preserve historically significant places while finding sustainable ways to connect them with tourism, education, cultural programming, and local economic development. Partnerships among the City, community organizations, businesses, donors, and different levels of government can help share the cost.

Heritage should not be viewed simply as an expense. When thoughtfully preserved and connected to the community, it can be an investment in Richmond’s cultural identity, tourism economy, and long-term livability.

3. Richmond relies on volunteer-founded societies to run several heritage sites on the City’s behalf. What do you see as the City’s obligations to those organizations, and how should it judge whether that partnership is working?

Based on my more than 40 years of volunteering experience locally and globally , I believe the City’s partnerships with volunteer-founded heritage societies should be built on mutual respect, clear responsibilities, transparency, and shared accountability.

These organizations contribute significant volunteer time, local knowledge, fundraising efforts, and community connections that the City could not easily replace. However, volunteering is not cost-free. Volunteers may personally absorb expenses such as gas, parking, public transportation, meals, and time away from work or family. These costs can become a barrier to participation, particularly for people with limited financial resources.

The City has an obligation to provide clear agreements, appropriate support, timely communication, and reasonable access to resources and expertise. It should also recognize that volunteers have limits and should not be expected to carry responsibilities that require professional resources, technical expertise, or long-term municipal planning.

In judging whether the partnership is working, I would look at transparency and good governance, responsible use of public and donated funds, heritage preservation outcomes, community engagement, volunteer capacity, and long-term sustainability.

4. Steveston’s history includes Musqueam presence long before settlement, Japanese Canadian fishing families and their 1942 dispossession, and Chinese Canadian cannery labour. How should the City support telling those histories, including the difficult parts?

Steveston’s history should recognize the many communities whose lives, labor, and experiences shaped the area. I believe the City has a responsibility to support accurate, inclusive, and accessible storytelling. The City can support local artists and historians from these communities through public art, museum exhibitions, historical research, oral-history projects, and educational programming. Collaboration with Indigenous communities, museums, archives, and cultural organizations can help ensure these histories are researched and presented authentically and respectfully.

From an intersectional perspective, I would ask whose voices are represented, whose stories are still missing, and how culture, gender, immigration, and economic circumstances shaped people’s experiences. This includes recognizing Musqueam presence long before settlement, the contributions of Japanese Canadian fishing families and the dispossession and forced displacement they experienced during the Second World War, and the contributions of Chinese Canadian cannery workers.

We should also acknowledge difficult chapters such as the Chinese Exclusion Act and other discriminatory policies that restricted Chinese immigration and affected Chinese Canadian families and communities. These histories should not be hidden or softened. They help us understand the impacts of racism, exclusion, displacement, and unequal treatment, while also recognizing the resilience and contributions of these communities.

5. Do you support keeping heritage review, including Heritage Alteration Permits, as a meaningful step rather than a formality?

I support keeping heritage review, including Heritage Alteration Permits, as a meaningful step in protecting Richmond’s heritage rather than treating it as a formality.

I do not support tokenism or consultation that exists only to create the appearance of public participation. My approach is that actions should speak louder than words. If the City has identified a heritage value worth protecting, the review process should have enough substance to influence decisions and ensure those values are genuinely considered.

Campaign website: www.richmondcitizens.ca/keefer-pelech

1. When did you last visit a Richmond museum or heritage site, and what stayed with you?

I visited the Britannia Shipyards with my family for Maritime Fest. It was great to sea Richmond and Steveston’s maritime heritage alive and well. I really appreciated how it represented the diversity of our history and how the event made the history come to life in a way that engaged all ages.

2. Do you see heritage as part of Richmond’s economic strategy, or mainly as a cost? Why?

Richmond’s heritage odd an integral part of our economic strategy as it helps to foster our local culture and arts. It is a major source of tourism into our city – whether that is through community events such as Maritime Festival or Doors Open, or in daily visits to heritage sites like London Farms or the Richmond Museum. Not only does it preserve our history, but it helps to inspire future generations of artists and writers, while drawing visitors to our city.

3. Richmond relies on volunteer-founded societies to run several heritage sites on the City’s behalf. What do you see as the City’s obligations to those organizations, and how should it judge whether that partnership is working?

Not every site will attract the same crowds so it is important to use various metrics above and beyond visitor counts. They can also look to see if different parts of our history are being celebrated or honoured. The city can also keep good relations with the Societies to ensure that they are supported and that these groups are fulfilling their mission of preserving these sites and telling their unique stories in meaningful and innovative ways. In physical heritage sites, this also means working with the Societies to long-term plan around preservation and address any emerging maintenance issues.

4. Steveston’s history includes Musqueam presence long before settlement, Japanese Canadian fishing families and their 1942 dispossession, and Chinese Canadian cannery labour. How should the City support telling those histories, including the difficult parts?

Richmond should honour and tell all parts of our history. As part of our commitment to Reconciliation, this means teaching the public about First Nations history on the land before AND after colonial settlement. Richmond is also unique in that we have had many different waves of immigrants from Sottish Farmers to Japanese and Chinese fishers and cannery workers. It is important to tell their histories including their contributions and the hardship and discrimination that they faced. I appreciate how this is done both through museums and archives, as well as physically on the land by preserving buildings like at Britannia Shipyards. These are important lessons for residents and youth to keep alive and carry forward as they teach us about our history and the human spirit. The city can support this work through grants, preservation of spaces, and dedicated staff time.

5. Do you support keeping heritage review, including Heritage Alteration Permits, as a meaningful step rather than a formality?

Yes as it’s important to have safeguards on Richmond’s precious heritage – making sure that our history is not erased without a second thought.

Campaign website: www.richmondcitizens.ca

1. When did you last visit a Richmond museum or heritage site, and what stayed with you?

Does Harold Steves’ house count? In my opinion, it should. Not only does he have a number of buildings of historical significance to Steveston on his property, he has innumerable treasures, dating back over a hundred years, arranged inside his house which he’ll happily show to most people who ask. What strikes me and stays with me is my deep admiration for Harold and his amazing stories of his long and storied life. He is a living legend and a veritable national treasure!

2. Do you see heritage as part of Richmond’s economic strategy, or mainly as a cost? Why?

Yes, heritage is an important part of a number of key Richmond Strategies, including the City’s Economic Strategy. Admittedly, the economic element relies heavily on tourism, but with some vision it could also serve to be a source of sustained and vital inspiration for future generations, not to mention something that guides future development in all areas. In my humble opinion, there are still many heritage based opportunities awaiting exploration.

3. Richmond relies on volunteer-founded societies to run several heritage sites on the City’s behalf. What do you see as the City’s obligations to those organizations, and how should it judge whether that partnership is working?

While the City plays an important part, it’s important to ensure, like the Gulf of Georgia Cannery site, that non-profit volunteer-based heritage societies are supported not only by the City, but also by ALL other levels of government!

4. Steveston’s history includes Musqueam presence long before settlement, Japanese Canadian fishing families and their 1942 dispossession, and Chinese Canadian cannery labour. How should the City support telling those histories, including the difficult parts?

It is important that the City not shy away from telling all true stories, without bias and judgement, whether difficult or not. Acknowledging, uncovering and presenting truthful stories is a powerful positive step toward reconciliation, not only with First Nations peoples, but also with others who have been mistreated under misguided and outdated policies, ideas and regimes. Honesty and openness to change and correction, as more truths are discovered and unearthed, is crucial for a flexible but robust foundation and only serves to strengthen the integrity of our heritage understanding and generational legacy.

5. Do you support keeping heritage review, including Heritage Alteration Permits, as a meaningful step rather than a formality?

Absolutely! In fact, as President of the Sea Island Community Association, we are working closely with both the Sea Island Heritage Society as well as the Richmond Heritage Commission to identify and retain important historical elements of Sea Island. This includes the development of a neighbourhood plan for our one remaining neighbourhood (designed by famed Canadian Architects McCarter and Nairne who also designed the Marine Building in Vancouver) which would give Sea Island neighbourhoods a heritage designation and some level of heritage protection which would, in turn, guide renovations and new developments on Sea Island.

Campaign websites: sheldonstarrett.ca · advancerichmond.ca

1. When did you last visit a Richmond museum or heritage site, and what stayed with you?

This past summer I was at the Gulf of Georgia Cannery, and I enjoyed seeing tourists and visitors learning about the history of the town and city, and its context in the early history of British Columbia and Canada.

2. Do you see heritage as part of Richmond’s economic strategy, or mainly as a cost? Why?

Heritage is absolutely important to Richmond’s economy, particularly in terms of the tourism side generated in Steveston. Costs to maintain our heritage should be seen as investments that bring more guests and dollars into our local economy – whether that be from film crews, or tourists visiting the area. I also want to expand how we can leverage the history and heritage so that people will visit Richmond and Steveston in the winter months.

3. Richmond relies on volunteer-founded societies to run several heritage sites on the City’s behalf. What do you see as the City’s obligations to those organizations, and how should it judge whether that partnership is working?

City amenities, and adequate resources should be made available to operate these societies and helping them accomplish the events and festivals they may put on throughout the year. I think we should look at metrics, but we should listen to the communities and folks involved in these groups to see how we can do better.

4. Steveston’s history includes Musqueam presence long before settlement, Japanese Canadian fishing families and their 1942 dispossession, and Chinese Canadian cannery labour. How should the City support telling those histories, including the difficult parts?

We should work with historians, survivors, and descendants of those who were in the community at the time, and find meaningful pathways to include their participation and stories in the history and dialogue at our local museums and heritage sites.

5. Do you support keeping heritage review, including Heritage Alteration Permits, as a meaningful step rather than a formality?

Preserving the historical character of Steveston, and historical buildings throughout Richmond, should be a fundamental priority. Some historical buildings were altered and may no long hold any historical value – and I think it is important to allow some leeway. If a new building in the Steveston town area needs to be built, the city should require owners and developers to maintain a historical facade on the outside and make sure the building is designed how a historical building of the time would have been designed. This has been done elsewhere and can be done here. That way we preserve the historical aesthetic of Steveston. I vehemently disagree that the Save on Foods in Steveston blends in with the historical character of the neighbourhood.

Campaign website: danielforrichmond.ca

1. When did you last visit a Richmond museum or heritage site, and what stayed with you?

My most recent visit was to the Steveston Japanese Canadian Cultural Centre, and it left a lasting impression. Seeing the firsthand stories of Japanese Canadian families, how they built lives in Steveston, contributed to the fishing industry, and then lost their homes, boats, and livelihoods in 1942, made the history feel personal in a way a textbook never could.

As a Chinese Canadian, I grew up aware of the suffering Chinese people endured during the war at the hands of the Japanese military. Visiting the Centre reminded me that Japanese Canadian families in Steveston bore no responsibility for the actions of a foreign government, yet they were judged and punished because of their ancestry. It reinforced something I believe deeply: we must never hold individuals or communities accountable for the actions of a country. That lesson matters in a city as diverse as Richmond, and it is exactly why places like these heritage sites are so important.

2. Do you see heritage as part of Richmond’s economic strategy, or mainly as a cost? Why?

Heritage is an economic asset, not just a cost. Steveston is one of Richmond’s most recognizable destinations, and much of its draw comes from its history: the cannery, the boatworks, the waterfront, and the stories behind them. Visitors who come for heritage stay to eat, shop, and spend money at local small businesses. Steveston’s heritage character also supports film production, which brings additional revenue and local jobs.

That said, I believe every dollar the City spends should be accountable. I am proposing a three-year tax freeze so we can review the budget and find waste before asking residents for more. As savings are found, heritage investment will be one of my priorities. Our shared history brings Richmond’s diverse communities together, and it draws visitors whose spending supports local businesses and jobs. When heritage is managed well, it pays back many times over, both in economic activity and in the pride residents feel in their community. These heritage sites should be a huge proponent of Richmond’s economic strategy.

3. Richmond relies on volunteer-founded societies to run several heritage sites on the City’s behalf. What do you see as the City’s obligations to those organizations, and how should it judge whether that partnership is working?

These societies deliver enormous value to Richmond, often on volunteer time. The City has a responsibility to be a reliable partner, not just a funder.

At a minimum, the City should provide stable, multi-year funding agreements so societies can plan ahead rather than worrying year to year. It should maintain City-owned buildings properly, since volunteers should not be left managing aging infrastructure on their own. The City should also reduce administrative burden by keeping reporting requirements simple and proportionate, and help with volunteer recruitment and succession planning so these organizations remain sustainable as founding members step back.

Recruitment is where I can contribute directly. My background is in technology, modernizing systems in BC’s justice sector, and I would like to explore new ways to reach volunteers of all ages, using social media to connect with residents who may not know these opportunities exist, and increase partnership with local schools so students can earn volunteer hours while learning Richmond’s history.

To judge whether the partnership is working, the City and each society should agree on clear, shared measures: visitor and program attendance, school and community engagement, the condition of the sites, and the health of the volunteer base. Results should be reported annually and publicly. Accountability should go both ways. If the City is falling short on maintenance or timely funding, that should be visible too. A good partnership is one where both sides know what is expected and can see whether it is being delivered.

4. Steveston’s history includes Musqueam presence long before settlement, Japanese Canadian fishing families and their 1942 dispossession, and Chinese Canadian cannery labour. How should the City support telling those histories, including the difficult parts?

Steveston’s full history is richer than any single story, and the City should support telling it honestly, including the parts that are uncomfortable.

The most important principle is that communities should tell their own histories. Musqueam presence on this land long predates settlement, and that history should be shared in partnership with the Musqueam Indian Band, in their own voice. The same applies to Japanese Canadian and Chinese Canadian communities, whose families and organizations hold the memories, artifacts, and perspectives that make these stories authentic.

The City can support this through stable funding for interpretation and exhibits, signage and public art throughout Steveston, and partnerships with local schools so young people learn this history where it happened. We should not shy away from difficult chapters, whether the 1942 dispossession of Japanese Canadian families or the harsh conditions and discrimination Chinese cannery workers faced.

Honesty and integrity are how we move forward from difficult histories. Acknowledging past injustices does not divide us; it brings us together. It helps us understand how Richmond became the diverse community it is today, and why fairness and respect for every community must guide our decisions going forward.

5. Do you support keeping heritage review, including Heritage Alteration Permits, as a meaningful step rather than a formality?

Yes. Heritage review exists to protect buildings and places that cannot be replaced once they are lost, and it should remain a meaningful step.

One of my priorities is a Fast Track Business Permit so residents and business owners are not left waiting months to open, expand, or renovate. However, speed should never come at the expense of heritage. Heritage sites are different: some reviews may require coordination with provincial and federal governments, and those steps take the time they need. Where a project affects a heritage site, getting it right must come before getting it done quickly. We cannot undo the loss of a historic building for the sake of saving a few weeks.

What the City can do is make the process clear and predictable. Published guidelines, realistic timelines, and early consultation help property owners understand what is expected from the start, so they can design projects that fit rather than going back and forth with staff. That respects people’s time and money without cutting corners.

Good heritage review should guide change thoughtfully, not stop it. Steveston and our other heritage areas can continue to evolve and thrive while keeping the character that makes them special.

Campaign website: www.advancerichmond.ca

1. When did you last visit a Richmond museum or heritage site, and what stayed with you?

1. On July 1, 2026, I participated in the Salmon Festival Parade as a member of Rotary Club of Richmond in Steveston. I visited the Gulf of Georgia Cannery after the parade to tour the historical artifacts inside the museum which preserves the importance of Canada’s West Coast fishing industry. 2. I visited the 23rd Annual Richmond Maritime Festival at Britannia Shipyards on August 22, 26 to enjoy free music and martime-themed activities and a display of restored wooden boats ships.

2. Do you see heritage as part of Richmond’s economic strategy, or mainly as a cost? Why?

I see heritage as part of Richmond’s economic strategy. According to the organizers and local media, the annual Salmon Festival estimate that up to around 70,000 people attended this celebration in Steveston Village each year. This special event has a split-off econmic impact on the local economy. At the same time, it would also promote local businesses including entertainment, retailing and the historical site in Steveston Village, in addition to creating jobs.

3. Richmond relies on volunteer-founded societies to run several heritage sites on the City’s behalf. What do you see as the City’s obligations to those organizations, and how should it judge whether that partnership is working?

The city can recurite volunteers to support such programs by working with local media, Richmond Chamber of Commerce, non-profit organizations and Richmond School District. In order to evaluate if certain partnership is working, the City can prepare an annual report to review this program by seeking feedbacks from participants.

4. Steveston’s history includes Musqueam presence long before settlement, Japanese Canadian fishing families and their 1942 dispossession, and Chinese Canadian cannery labour. How should the City support telling those histories, including the difficult parts?

The City could consider utilizing AI technology to design a learning program to support telling those history in in the Steveston Museum. In addition, the City can invite guest speakers and artists to offer activities to the public on this subject.

5. Do you support keeping heritage review, including Heritage Alteration Permits, as a meaningful step rather than a formality?

I support keeping heritage review including Heritage Aleration Permits as a legal requirement. Local governments and heritage advisory commissions must evaluate applications thoroughly for consistency with historic conservation standards.

Campaign website: riterichmond.com

1. When did you last visit a Richmond museum or heritage site, and what stayed with you?

On May 23rd 2026, I attended the Plaque Ceremony with my son, for the unveiling of the Cunningham v Homma commemorative case. The speeches included memorable parts of Richmond’s history and challenges that were overcome thanks to Tomey. I met with family members of Tomekichi Homma and members of the Steveston Japanese community. We checked out the displays of the museum and post office. Whenever I am walking through that part of Steveston, I usually pop in to see the latest changes to the displays. I also went into many of the building of the Britannia Shipyards precinct during the Maritime Festival this summer.

2. Do you see heritage as part of Richmond’s economic strategy, or mainly as a cost? Why?

Heritage is a very important part of Richmond’s economic strategy. My family members from 3 generations ago, would take the Interurban Tram to Steveston and eventually they settled on a small farm plot in Northeast Richmond. We have the YVR airport here and the result is we have many visitors staying in our local hotels and are always looking for something to do in the area. When I worked as a customer service rep, I would direct many tourists to our heritage landmarks. Preserving our heritage features is extremely important to me, from Steveston and beyond. During my 2 terms on council, I have been vocal for heritage and I vote against the major and minor losses of it.

3. Richmond relies on volunteer-founded societies to run several heritage sites on the City’s behalf. What do you see as the City’s obligations to those organizations, and how should it judge whether that partnership is working?

As a past council liaison to the Heritage Commission and Richmond Museum, I learned a great deal about our existing strategies to preserve and showcase Richmond’s heritage. Much of the work done by those advisory groups is volunteer driven. As for the societies, I see their advocacy as essential when they advocate through letters of support or presentations a delegates to council and committee meetings. With retired city staff and former city councillors working in those organizations, it has resulted in successful approaches as they know what the city needs and how it operates. These partnerships work well as is, but we need to ensure succession planning and for new staff to be brought up to speed on the relevancy and valuable contributions they offer us.

4. Steveston’s history includes Musqueam presence long before settlement, Japanese Canadian fishing families and their 1942 dispossession, and Chinese Canadian cannery labour. How should the City support telling those histories, including the difficult parts?

The City of Richmond needs to listen to the Indigenous peoples of this area. When I chair the Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Committee meetings, I choose to make a land acknowledgement. I would hope that the new council expands its connection with the Musqueam Band Council to further our relationship and gain further support to have Indigenous history shared. As the council liaison for the Richmond Public Library, I learn the many Indigenous author events and cultural connections we offer. I was the lone councillor candidate who attended the Truth and Reconciliation Ceremony this year, and with my seven year old daughter, so we could learn together and talk about the difficult parts of our history.

5. Do you support keeping heritage review, including Heritage Alteration Permits, as a meaningful step rather than a formality?

I fully support keeping heritage review, including the HAPs. I want to see it further expanded within Steveston and to the rest of Richmond too. I see these as meaningful steps to preserving heritage and cultural values. If elected, I will continue as I have to be a lead advocate for heritage on council and will educate my colleagues, just as I do with the high school students that I teach.

Campaign website: www.richmondcitizens.ca

1. When did you last visit a Richmond museum or heritage site, and what stayed with you?

I most recently visited Britannia Shipyards during Richmond’s Maritime Festival. What stayed with me was seeing the heritage site come alive with art, music and culture woven throughout the festival. Seeing families, community members and visitors come together to celebrate Richmond’s connection to the waterfront, boats, arts and maritime history was really meaningful and exciting to be apart of.

I especially appreciated seeing history presented in a way that was engaging and accessible for families. Events like the Maritime Festival show that heritage does not have to be something we simply preserve and look at, it can be something we actively experience, engage with, and share with the next generation.

Richmond has a unique history, and we have to respect, preserve and continue sharing the places and stories that make our community special.

2. Do you see heritage as part of Richmond’s economic strategy, or mainly as a cost? Why?

Heritage is most definitely an important part of Richmond’s economic strategy, and it should not be viewed simply as a cost.

Heritage sites create opportunities for culture, education, connection and community identity. That is what makes them unique. Richmond’s heritage: Steveston’s waterfront, historic buildings, museums, cultural stories and working heritage, are all part of what makes Richmond special.

When we invest in heritage, we are also investing in tourism and local businesses. Visitors come to experience our history and culture, and in doing so, they support restaurants, shops, markets and other local businesses. Heritage can help create vibrant, welcoming places that people want to visit, live near, spend time in, and return to.

Preserving and honouring Richmond’s past and building Richmond’s future should go hand in hand. We can protect and celebrate the history that makes Richmond special while also creating new, meaningful spaces, experiences and opportunities for future generations.

Our heritage is part of what makes Richmond unique, and I believe we should see it as an investment in both our community and our future.

3. Richmond relies on volunteer-founded societies to run several heritage sites on the City’s behalf. What do you see as the City’s obligations to those organizations, and how should it judge whether that partnership is working?

Volunteer-founded heritage organizations are valuable community partners, and the City should respect these volunteers and work collaboratively with them to ensure they can continue the work they are passionate about. However, volunteers should also have clear expectations and responsibilities within their roles. The goals, vision and desired outcomes should be shared and aligned between the City and the societies.

To determine if a partnership is working, regular communication between the City and the societies should be maintained. Heritage sites should be well maintained and appropriately staffed, while data on accessibility, visitors and participation should be monitored. Both the societies and the City should be accountable for their respective responsibilities and shared outcomes.

4. Steveston’s history includes Musqueam presence long before settlement, Japanese Canadian fishing families and their 1942 dispossession, and Chinese Canadian cannery labour. How should the City support telling those histories, including the difficult parts?

The City should tell Richmond’s history honestly and respectfully, including the parts that are difficult or uncomfortable.

Presenting our history accurately means acknowledging our mistakes and missteps, while also recognizing the achievements and contributions that shaped our community.

That means recognizing Musqueam’s presence and relationship to this land long before settlement, honouring the Japanese Canadian families who built lives and businesses in Steveston before their dispossession in 1942, and recognizing the contributions of Chinese Canadian workers to Richmond’s fishing and canning industries.

Heritage should not be presented as only the "good parts". The difficult parts are part of our history too, and acknowledging them helps us understand how far we have come and what work remains.

We should not erase or avoid uncomfortable history. We should learn from it, preserve it accurately and ensure future generations understand the full story of Richmond. And that is how heritage can help build understanding, reconciliation and a stronger more inclusive community.

5. Do you support keeping heritage review, including Heritage Alteration Permits, as a meaningful step rather than a formality?

Yes, I support keeping heritage review, including Heritage Alteration Permits, as a meaningful part of protecting and preserving Richmond’s heritage.

At the same time, meaningful heritage review should be clear and transparent, with predictable and reasonable timelines. This would allow for appropriate upgrades, accessibility improvements, safety work and reasonable adaptations to move forward in good faith, with clear expectations for property owners.

Campaign website: richmondforward.ca

1. When did you last visit a Richmond museum or heritage site, and what stayed with you?

My most recent visit was to Britannia Shipyards during this year’s Richmond Maritime Festival.
Two things stayed with me. First, the cannery workforce reflected a remarkable diversity of cultures and backgrounds. It is a reminder that Richmond’s multicultural character is not something new—it has deep roots in the people who worked, lived and built communities here generations ago.
Second, I was struck by how vulnerable that economy was to our own decisions. The collapse of the salmon run following the disruption at Hell’s Gate in the Fraser Canyon showed how human activity can have lasting environmental and economic consequences.
Britannia makes Richmond’s history tangible. It connects immigration, labour, industry and the environment in one place, and reminds us why preserving these stories matters for future generations.

2. Do you see heritage as part of Richmond’s economic strategy, or mainly as a cost? Why?

I see heritage as an asset and an important part of Richmond’s economic strategy, not simply as a cost.
Places such as Steveston demonstrate how heritage, tourism, restaurants, small businesses and the waterfront can reinforce one another. Richmond already promotes a “Steveston Heritage Experience” built around its historic sites, fishing and boatbuilding history.
That does not mean every heritage project should proceed regardless of cost. We still need sound business cases, realistic capital planning and careful stewardship of public funds.
But well-managed heritage investment can preserve Richmond’s identity while attracting visitors, supporting local businesses and creating cultural and educational opportunities. As we consider future waterfront development, I would look for ways to integrate heritage into tourism, arts and economic-development planning rather than treating these as separate priorities.

3. Richmond relies on volunteer-founded societies to run several heritage sites on the City’s behalf. What do you see as the City’s obligations to those organizations, and how should it judge whether that partnership is working?

The City has an obligation to treat any volunteer-founded societies that are helping delivery a City service, as genuine partners.
That means clear operating agreements, predictable funding, appropriate City support for major capital and maintenance needs, and regular communication about responsibilities and expectations. Richmond already uses these kinds of agreements with heritage societies, and Council recently approved additional support for enhanced Steveston Historical Society operations.
I would judge success using practical measures: visitor participation, educational programming, volunteer capacity, financial accountability, preservation of the assets, public satisfaction and whether the partnership is achieving agreed heritage objectives.
The City should not expect volunteers to carry responsibilities that properly belong to the City. At the same time, public funding should come with clear expectations, measurable outcomes and transparent reporting.

4. Steveston’s history includes Musqueam presence long before settlement, Japanese Canadian fishing families and their 1942 dispossession, and Chinese Canadian cannery labour. How should the City support telling those histories, including the difficult parts?

Richmond should tell its history honestly and completely, including the parts that are difficult.
As a former Richmond School Trustee and Chair of the Board of Education, I believe strongly in the importance of helping young people understand the full history of the community they live in. That includes Musqueam presence, Japanese Canadian fishing families and their 1942 dispossession, Chinese Canadian cannery labour, and the many other communities that helped shape Steveston and Richmond.
The City should work with Indigenous communities, Japanese Canadian and Chinese Canadian organizations, historians, educators and heritage groups so these stories are told accurately and respectfully. That can happen through exhibits, oral histories, public art, school partnerships, digital resources and preservation of meaningful places and buildings.
Heritage education is not only about looking back. It helps future generations understand how Richmond became the city it is today, recognize both achievement and injustice, and build a stronger sense of shared community.

5. Do you support keeping heritage review, including Heritage Alteration Permits, as a meaningful step rather than a formality?

Yes. Heritage review should be meaningful, evidence-based and proportionate.
Richmond currently protects designated heritage resources through Heritage Alteration Permits, which allow Council to consider whether proposed changes preserve the heritage value of a property. The process has recently been used for major restoration work at Britannia Shipyards, where materials, structural integrity and national conservation standards were considered.
At the same time, heritage review should not create unnecessary delay or uncertainty. Applicants should receive clear requirements, predictable timelines and early guidance from City staff.
My approach would be to preserve the significance of genuine heritage assets while allowing reasonable adaptation so historic buildings can remain safe, useful and economically viable.

Campaign website: richmondforward.ca

1. When did you last visit a Richmond museum or heritage site, and what stayed with you?

My most recent visit was to Britannia Shipyards on August 23 during the Maritime Festival, following my visit to the Steveston Museum on July 26 for its 50th anniversary celebration.

What stayed with me was how Richmond’s heritage comes alive through its historic places, community celebrations, and the people who dedicate their time to preserving our stories.

At Britannia Shipyards, I was reminded of the hard work and diverse communities that shaped Richmond’s waterfront. At the Steveston Museum’s anniversary, I was especially touched by the generations of dedication behind preserving our local history.

These experiences reinforced my belief that heritage is not simply about looking back. It is about understanding who we are, appreciating those who came before us, and passing that sense of identity on to the next generation.

2. Do you see heritage as part of Richmond’s economic strategy, or mainly as a cost? Why?

I see heritage as an investment in Richmond’s identity, tourism, and local economy—not simply a cost.

Heritage sites attract visitors, support local businesses, create educational opportunities, and give Richmond a distinctive character that cannot be replicated elsewhere. Steveston’s waterfront, historic buildings, cultural attractions, restaurants, and local shops together create an experience that benefits both residents and visitors.

However, heritage investment must be responsible and sustainable. We should explore partnerships, tourism opportunities, grants, and creative programming to increase public access and economic benefits while protecting historical integrity.

Preserving our past and building our future should go hand in hand.

3. Richmond relies on volunteer-founded societies to run several heritage sites on the City’s behalf. What do you see as the City’s obligations to those organizations, and how should it judge whether that partnership is working?

Volunteer-founded heritage societies are invaluable partners in preserving Richmond’s history. Having served with community organizations, I understand the dedication, time, and commitment required to sustain this work.

The City’s obligations should include clear agreements, reliable operational support, appropriate funding, well-maintained facilities, access to professional expertise, and open communication. Volunteers should be respected as partners, not treated as substitutes for the City’s responsibilities.

Partnership success should be measured by more than financial cost. We should consider heritage preservation, public access, visitor engagement, educational programming, volunteer participation, financial accountability, and community impact.

The City should regularly consult these organizations, understand their challenges, and work collaboratively toward long-term sustainability. Strong partnerships preserve not only buildings and collections, but also the community spirit behind them.

4. Steveston’s history includes Musqueam presence long before settlement, Japanese Canadian fishing families and their 1942 dispossession, and Chinese Canadian cannery labour. How should the City support telling those histories, including the difficult parts?

Richmond’s history must be told honestly, respectfully, and inclusively. Our heritage is made up of many communities, and we must acknowledge both their contributions and the injustices they experienced.

The City should work in meaningful partnership with Musqueam to recognize the deep Indigenous history of this land, support Indigenous-led storytelling, and ensure appropriate representation.

We must also preserve and share the experiences of Japanese Canadian fishing families, including their forced dispossession and internment during the Second World War, as well as the contributions and working conditions of Chinese Canadian cannery workers.

Through museums, oral histories, school programs, public interpretation, and community partnerships, we can make these stories accessible to future generations.

Remembering difficult history is not about assigning blame to today’s residents. It is about truth, understanding, respect, and learning from the past so we can build a more inclusive community.

5. Do you support keeping heritage review, including Heritage Alteration Permits, as a meaningful step rather than a formality?

Yes. Heritage review, including Heritage Alteration Permits, should be a meaningful process that protects Richmond’s heritage assets while allowing responsible adaptation and revitalization.

Preservation should not mean preventing all change. It means understanding the historical significance of a property, assessing proposed changes carefully, and finding practical ways to retain its character and value.

The City should provide clear guidelines, timely decisions, and early communication with property owners and applicants. Where possible, adaptive reuse should be encouraged so heritage buildings remain active, accessible, and economically sustainable.

A meaningful review process should protect what makes Richmond unique without creating unnecessary delays or uncertainty. Our responsibility is to balance preservation, property considerations, community interests, and the City’s long-term heritage objectives.