This is a lifestyle reality rather than a political footnote within immigrant communities.
I don’t always agree with Progressive Intercultural Community Services (PICS) CEO Charan Gill, and over the years, some of his political and policy related utterances have really riled me up.
Gill’s latest commentary on the mega house debate (#5), however, isn’t one of those instances.
Coming from a mixed heritage background, half of which is South Asian, and having married into a Punjabi family, my support for multi-generational households is based on my upbringing and personal experience.
So when I read a comment by City Caucus’ Mike Klassen like this:
“In spite of family size decreasing since WW2, home sizes have increased,”
I cannot help but ascertain that it was written without consideration for what Gill refers to as “a lifestyle that newcomers from agrarian societies live…” where a “…joint family system is practiced.”
In Klassen’s entire piece, there is barely a reference made to the cultural aspects of the debate with the exception of comments like this about Dianne Watts’ political considerations:
“Watts can ill-afford to alienate a strong base built within ethnic communities…”
This is more than politics, Mike. This is about respect and consideration for other ways of living.
As the front page Vancouver Province story from a month ago that Klassen references clearly states, the debate in Surrey over “mega homes” represents a huge cultural divide.
As Gill points out:
“I know several families consisting of 15 to 20 members that live together as one unit in the Lower Mainland. These families are socially and economically successful because they save money for themselves living as a larger unit. They also save money for tax payers as they are self sufficient. They don’t rely on day care for their children or homes for seniors as they look after each other. They are able to have their elders transmit cultural values which helps to enforce and strengthen their family ties.”
Without trying to generalize, this kind of a setup is largely unheard of within Caucasian households.
Take for example my wife’s eldest uncle’s household, which has four generations living together. Now this is a man who has been here for over three decades, is an extremely successful business owner and land developer, and someone who is very acclimatized to the more typical “Canadian” way of life, customs and traditions.
With that in mind, Gill also states that:
“Many people believe immigrants should adapt to a Canadian way of life with Western values, overnight. However, leaving behind thousands of years of cultural background is difficult for anyone. All immigrants are in a transitional stage, given time they adapt and integrate into larger mosaics.”
But for me, this isn’t about transitioning. This is about giving people the opportunity to live as they feel comfortable, meaning that regardless of whether someone has been here for 3 or 30 years, multi-generational living arrangements are not going away any time soon.
Gill doesn’t claim to have an “technical” expertise on the issue, but his points about resource use, child care, and family economics ring true.
What Klassen fails to recognize is that larger houses with double the amount of residents than your typical Canadian household is another variation of density.
Klassen states that:
“All signs are that Surrey will make a political decision to accommodate the monster home market. What the city should do is ask stakeholders for new ideas on how to create better quality housing options without using more land.”
Well Mike, your definition of stakeholders in this situation should also include those that support larger homes for cultural and familial reasons.
You would be well-advised to broaden your horizons, and get yourself an invite to an ethnic household with multiple generations under one roof. It would do you some good, and more than likely, you’ll get a fantastic meal out of it.
