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.

Sam Sullivan's inspiration for dealing with Vancouver's labour dispute in 2007.

“We have a very good working relationship with our union and we negotiate directly with them. And we’re going along quite well and we’ll be reaching an agreement very quickly.” – Surrey Mayor Dianne Watts just before settling her labour dispute

“The strike is a considerable regret. I don’t like to implicate anybody. These are all my own weaknesses, my own shortcomings. But I chose to not have any role in it – to leave a lot of room for our staff…” – Sam Sullivan in an interview with the Vancouver Sun conducted just days before relinquishing his right to the Mayor’s office

Looking at these two quotes, it is no wonder why Sam Sullivan was more than happy to let the Greater Vancouver Labour Relations Bureau do the heavy lifting in terms of negotiations, while Dianne Watts was ready and willing to end the labour dispute quickly and amicably.

So when I confronted former Sullivan Chief of Staff Daniel Fontaine this morning on CKNW about his spinning on the GVLRB and the supposed dire consequences of Vancouver pulling out of the organization, it was no wonder that I got the response that I did.

First, I have not got my technical department to put in an audio plug-in yet, so here is the link to the civic affairs panel this morning…it is an interesting listen.

At about the 40 minute mark of the broadcast, I pointed out that that Sam Sullivan self-admittedly knew the figures and the terms that it would have taken to end the strike early.  I also talked about how the first agreements signed happened outside of the GVLRB negotiating process.

Daniel of course brushed this off to political spin, and continued to stick to the story that the City of Richmond’s agreement boxed in all the other municipalities, in spite of the fact that Sullivan’s awareness of a set of dispute-ending figures and terms existed long before Richmond’s agreement.

Richmond settled seamlessly. Surrey settled soon afterwards.  And they negotiated outside of the GVLRB.

With Burnaby already given notice of its intent to pull  out, and a government now in place in Vancouver that is willing to negotiate amicably, fairly and expediently with CUPE, the GVLRB ceased to be useful.

Bottom line?  If you want to create conflict where none needs to exist, and then abandon responsibilty over the task at hand, Sam Sullivan et al. (including his most trusted advisors) are worthy of a case study in what not to do when attempting to maintain peaceful labour relations.

Geoff Meggs provides his thoughts on the issues regarding his motion on the Greater Vancouver Labour Relations Bureau.

This morning I conducted an interview with Councillor Geoff Meggs to seek out comments on his motion, which is slated to appear before Council next week.

First, the exact wording of the motion can be found here.

Here is CivicScene’s interview with Councillor Meggs:

1)  How in your opinion is the Greater Vancouver Labour Relations Bureau (GVLRB) harmful to the City of Vancouver?

With Vancouver the last major municipality with full membership, it is time to assess the pros and cons of participation, especially given that Vancouver has experienced the most strikes of any municipality in the region.  Not only is there the potential for significant cost savings, I also think that it is very clear that the City of Vancouver can achieve labour peace independent of the GVLRB.

2) Are you doing the bidding of CUPE in pulling Vancouver out of the GVLRB?  And do the absences of Vancouver and other municipalities assist in CUPE’s bargaining positions?

That is ridiculous.  This kind of claim seems to suggest that I have been at the helm of regional decision-making on labour relations – that somehow I am behind the withdrawal of other municipalities.  Did CUPE hypnotise the civic leaders of all those municipalities over the years?  I don’t think so.  Burnaby, Surrey and Richmond are out or leaving.  Are I missing something here?

I cannot speak for CUPE in terms of what their preference is with regards to the GVLRB’s membership, but I can offer the opinion that the City of Vancouver’s bargaining position will be significantly improved from the outside.

3) What has characterized the Richmond and Surrey models for negotiations since these municipalities escaped the GVLRB?

Simply put, labour agreements that have been reached quickly and through positive and productive interactions between municipalities and CUPE.

4) Why didn’t you wait until the city staff report on Vancouver’s participation in the GVLRB was released before putting this motion forward?

There have been some major regional shifts on policies and procedures as a result of Burnaby’s notice to withdraw from the GVLRB.  I felt that it was time for Council to have a discussion on the issue sooner rather than later.  Harmful? Positive?  Let’s find out – but let’s not shut off any options.  That’s all I’m doing – keeping Vancouver’s options open.

5) What are the regional implications should Burnaby also choose to pull out of the GVLRB?

The GVLRB will be dealt a severe blow with 3 out of 4 of Metro Vancouver’s largest municipalities out of the mix.  This is why the City of Vancouver cannot afford to wait before having a serious debate about our future membership.

6) Do you feel that the City of Vancouver will be in a better position for taxpayers outside of the GVLRB?

Well like I mentioned, the potential for annual savings for $500,000 is the immediate benefit.  But the ability to design labour agreements that take Vancouver’s needs into consideration above terms which are favoured by other municipalities, would be a huge victory for the City and its taxpayers.

7) Is there a way to reform the GVLRB so that it is more acceptable and cities can continue to work on labour relations regionally?

I have my doubts at this point.  Interestingly I’ve talked to right-wing Councillors from other cities who want change and labour-backed ones who don’t.  Regionally, we are far from a consenus on the GVLRB.  This kind of uncertainty makes the organization’s legitimacy suspect to say the least.

I am saying let’s have the debate.  I’m not afraid of it, and I am certainly not afraid of telling CUPE we need some kind of co-ordinated new structure if that’s what Council decides.  I’m also not afraid to do tough bargaining with or without co-ordination regionally if that’s how things unfold.

So, back on October 6th, City Council proclaimed Saturday, October 17th, 2009 as “Diwali: Festival of Lights Day” in the City of Vancouver and had  Ms. Mita Naidu, Chair, Vancouver Celebrates Diwali, to the podium to receive the proclamation and say a few words (she gave a fantastic presentation).

A picture used on the City of Vancouver website that was not taken at the celebration that occurred at City Hall on October 6th.

The proclamation was immediately followed by a reception in the foyer outside Council Chamber.

Here is where the caller was quite upset.

There were a number of members of the Vancouver Celebrates Diwali society, which puts on the annual Diwali community-based celebrations in Vancouver every year.  There were also a few prominent South Asian supporters of the NPA, including former Council candidate Daljit Sidhu and Kewal Pabla, who is one of the most prominent business owners/developers of the Punjabi Market, all invited by Suzanne Anton.

That was the extent of the invitee list.  Many leaders from across the community would have liked to have been there, but were never made aware.

Furthermore, the reception served sushi and other appetizers that had absolutely nothing to do with the culture that was being celebrated.

So, the caller and now I would like to have a few questions answered:

1. Who drafted the invite list for the event?  Why was it not more broadly shared with South Asian community leaders?
2. Why couldn’t traditional Indian sweets (traditional fixtures for any Diwali celebration), at the very minimum, been among the offerings served to guests?
3. Why is Diwali treated in such a low-key fashion when compared to City-endorsed celebrations for Chinese New Year, for example?

Vancouver could really take some lessons from the City of Surrey on this particular issue.