April 29, 2008

CENTRE FOR HOUSING RIGHTS AND EVICTIONS

J. Kwan: The minister likes to read off that list, which I’m sure is the script for every single cabinet member of the government, because they all read off that same script.

[1500]

It doesn’t change the fact that we actually have a record high of homeless people under this government’s watch. That’s not a made-up number; it is a reality. In fact, just yesterday a report was released that says the Fraser Valley has a significant increase in homelessness. Mission, of all communities — it’s not the downtown east side; let’s be clear — their homelessness rate increased by some 30 percent. So it’s true that the homelessness has become a pandemic issue in the province of British Columbia under this government’s watch.

But I’m not here to debate the homelessness question broadly. I’d be happy to engage in that debate with this minister, but I know that those issues will also come up in the Housing estimates debate. People will take up with the Housing Minister…. The point that I’m making is more specific and is related to the Olympics and mega-events and their impacts in communities — and, more particularly, their impacts in the inner-city community and their impacts in the community of the downtown east side, which I represent.

There’s no denying it. If people come down to the community, they will see what the impacts are. People call it beautification. They call it all sorts of different names, but all of that is being done in preparation for one major event. It happens to be called the 2010 Olympics. That’s the reality of it, and the community members know it.

People will say: "Jeez, no one specifically said that you’re being evicted because your room is going to be taken for the purposes of visitors and workers, related to the 2010.” Yet all the speculative action is happening in that community, and coincidentally, it just happens to be close to the time when the Olympics or mega-events are being announced.

I’m sure that’s all coincidence, and we’re just sort of imagining it. If that was the case, maybe the government would have actually, to ensure the record is straight…. Maybe I’m wrong. If I’m wrong, I’m willing to admit it. But let some other independent group actually do that evaluation and set the benchmark.

VANOC has failed on that, even though they said that they would do it. Maybe in the coming weeks something will come forward. Maybe. I don’t know. We’ll see what the announcement is going to be.

We’ll also see who is going to be funded to do this work and whether or not that group is going to be truly independent or if it’s somebody else who’s just going to pay lip service to the government’s message and the spin-doctoring they want to put out.

I want to move on to another related piece. Has the minister heard of the multi-stakeholder guidelines that were developed by the Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions?

Hon. C. Hansen: I’m not familiar with those.

J. Kwan: This report was done by, again, an independent group of individuals, many of whom are not from Vancouver and who actually study mega-events and impacts of mega-events and look at the protection and promotion of housing rights. They have a number of principles they have set out on this.

I have actually written a letter to the Premier asking him to consider adopting the principles within the multi-stakeholder guidelines developed by the Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions, to which the Premier said that yeah, he’d take a look at it.

I’m asking this minister… I’ll be happy to pass along a copy of this report and its guidelines to him for his evaluation. I would ask the minister to commit, once he’s had the time to digest the report and its information, to respond to me and to advise whether or not he as the minister will be prepared to adopt these guidelines for the major mega-events for 2010. I’ll leave it at that and let the minister respond.

Hon. C. Hansen: I’d be pleased to take a look at the document and look forward to receiving it from the member.

[ Page 11746 ]

J. Kwan: I would assume that that includes a response from the minister on the request for him to adopt the principles of the multi-stakeholder guidelines developed by the Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions.

Hon. C. Hansen: I will certainly give her a response. In terms of what kind of substantive response that might be, I would want to look at the document first. It’s a response that may more appropriately come from the Minister Responsible for Housing, but as I say, I’ll certainly take a look at it and get back to her.

J. Kwan: Well, I’ll just say this on the record. I hope that it’s not going to be one of those responses where the minister just passes the buck. It’s very easy to do that, to say, "Well, you know, I have taken a look at it,” and for all I know, it might have just sat on the shelf. The staff crafts a letter, and the minister signs it and says: "Thanks very much. I’m going to pass the buck on to someone else.”

[1505]

I hope that it’s not going to be one of those responses. I hope that the minister will actually take this seriously, because the report is about impacts from mega-events, and it was a study worldwide with respect to that.

We can learn from it. We can adopt these principles, and we still have time. Maybe I’m eternally optimistic or something, but I actually think that we still have time, if the commitment is there, to adopt these principles and do it right, for the community that not only matters in my own riding but that matters for all British Columbians and Canadians.

I think it matters, also, for other host communities that may be coming down the road. They could learn from us how to do it differently and how to ensure that such an event is celebrated by everyone. We have a huge opportunity here, so I hope it’s not going to be one of those pat answers that the minister is just going to pass the buck on.

Now I want to also highlight some of the key pieces which were not addressed and which the multi-stakeholder guidelines would address if there’s a commitment to that. That would be that right now there is an absence of written funding commitments to a neutral watchdog group that can establish benchmarks and measure impacts and, therefore, avoid the difficulties in proving that evictions or displacements are Olympics-related.

I think that would be beneficial on all sides. Beneficial to the government…. If they say, "Hey, none of this actually happened,” then you have third-party independent people to come forward to say that. Then for the people who are disadvantaged…. If in fact it is happening, they have someone who can give them a voice and ensure that they have some rights afforded to them. It could work both ways.

Right now there’s an absence of budget dedicated to the implementation of socially sustainable recommendations made through whatever community consultation process has been established. Right now — and that’s the issue here — there isn’t a budget from anybody anywhere to say that they will spend this money to meet these commitments that have been made, whether it’s on housing or anything else. That’s what needs to be done in order for the community to know and see that it’s happening, as opposed to some sort of ad hoc approach that the government has adopted.

There’s an absence of dedicated government representatives with authority and mandate to bring forward necessary legislative amendments as required and to participate in all consultation processes, and the multi-stakeholder principles will also address that concern. There’s the presence of dedicated budget to anticipate the failure of social sustainability commitments. It’s also an important piece, and it’s also spoken about in the principles of the multi-stakeholder guidelines.

Then another piece is that right now the language for social sustainability commitments is insufficient and is not precise enough so that one could measure its outcomes, so that you could evaluate it with something tangible in terms of ensuring that social sustainability commitments are actually met.

Last but not least, there’s the question around the absence of any enforcement mechanism in the event of the disregard of the commitment statements by the host governments and/or VANOC. I think that’s important as well — to make sure that someone is enforcing it, to make sure that the work is actually getting done.

I say this on behalf of the folks in my community who are very concerned about it. We want to celebrate the Olympics, and we want it to be a success. But we want to make sure that it is a success for everyone and, most important of all, that the people who are disadvantaged in the community are not further marginalized because of major mega-events.

Hon. C. Hansen: I think the best I can say in response is that I certainly share that goal and that objective as well, and I know that VANOC does. I know that they are looking forward to a very successful event — the Winter Games in 2010 — and we want to make sure that it’s a great experience for everybody in the community.

[1510]

J. Kwan: Well, then I will look forward to the minister’s answers. I’ll look forward to VANOC’s answers with respect to the request for a surcharge on merchandising and ticketing, which the community has not received an answer on. I will look forward to the multi-stakeholder guidelines being adopted, and I’ll look forward to the recommendations from the ICI report also being implemented by the government. I think, then, that at that stage we can certainly claim success by all.

I’m going to move on at this juncture to the next phase of the estimates debate, because time is of the essence here, and hand the floor over to my good colleague from Cariboo North. It’s either north or south; sometimes I’m directionally challenged. He’s going to

[ Page 11747 ]

ask some questions around the regional economic development front, the trusts, along with the federal forestry workers funds.