Meena Wong is COPE’s first mayoral candidate since 2002. Since then COPE’s political influence in Vancouver has waned. Even school trustee Allan Wong, its only elected member in the 2011 election, switched allegiances to Vision Vancouver.
But the Bejing-born politician, who’s lived in Canada for 33 years, has attracted national attention by focusing attention on issues such as affordable housing and a living wage and proposing policies such as taxing owners of vacant properties.
If Wong is elected, she would be Vancouver’s first female mayor and its first mayor of Asian origin. But a recent poll revealed she has a lot of ground to cover. Of those surveyed, only 16 per cent supported Wong, compared to 46 per cent for Gregor Robertson and 32 per cent for Kirk LaPointe.
Last week, Wong took questions from the Courier during a livestreamed event at Creekside Community Centre. Here is the condensed and edited version.
Courier: Why are you running for mayor?
Meena Wong: Government accountability and transparency and accessibility, to me, means a lot because I came from a system [where] I’ve seen what it’s like when government has absolute power and there’s corruption and there is disrespect for the people, the rights of the people and the voices of people. Unfortunately, I’ve seen that happening in Canada at large and in Vancouver as well, where government is not accountable to the people anymore. They pay 33, I believe, [staff] in the corporate communications department to stop people from accessing information to the city hall, which is owned by the people, paid by the people. I believe that government has to be accountable to the people, and COPE, I’m proud to say, is [the] people’s party.
If you were elected, you would not only be the first female mayor in Vancouver, you’d be the first of Asian descent. Is that important?
Of course. Vancouver is very diverse in its culture… we are built by immigrants, whether you are immigrant from another city or from outside of B.C. or from outside of the country… and also by the First Nations. They have not been recognized enough, we believe, and that’s why in our candidates, we have a majority women candidates, first ever, in any party.
And we also — in each slate, council, school board and parks board, we have our Aboriginal, First Nation representation. And that is also a first.
Your party once dominated city hall, school board, park board. What happened?
I think some COPE members had this idea that by working with Vision, that it would change — make the City of Vancouver a better city. I think the last six years have proved them wrong. And the city has become less and less affordable for the people of Vancouver… it’s becoming harder because their wages haven’t gone up. You all know that the living wage in Vancouver is $20.10, according to Centre of Policy Alternatives. And yet the B.C. minimum wage is $10.25… I don’t think it’s right. I don’t think people who work hard should be working poor. This is what’s happening in our city. People who work in our city can’t afford to live in our city.
But what happened to the relationship that you had with Vision Vancouver? COPE ran coordinated campaigns with Vision over the last few elections.
In 2005, I was involved and I saw the lack of sincerity. Vision came out of COPE, right. And I see that as a betrayal, but of course not everybody believes that. And I believe in loyalty. I believe in principle, and if COPE members say that we don’t want to accept money from developers, and yet certain elected candidates decided to go and then accept [that] money. We can see the result when they are in government and they [are] obviously pro-developer…
Let’s talk about taxing [foreign-owned properties]. How feasible is it? If I own a home in Vancouver and I have enough money to vacation two or three months out of the year in Palm Springs, why should I be taxed? Isn’t this a privacy issue?
Our policy is targeted towards people who are away 12 months, one year.
How do you track that?
Through Hydro and that’s how a study of downtown condo[s] came about. And so there is other ways, thanks to smart meters I guess. Don’t forget, [we’re] going to have a Vancouver Housing Authority. When you buy a property you need to register [with] Land Registry. So what we want to do is tap into that as well, and then owners have to register, whether you are residential or commercial. You register, and then we charge a small fee. So it’s cost neutral to the city. You buy a car, you register your car, whether it’s for commercial use or for private use, right. So we think it’s the same thing.
Don’t you think it’s a privacy issue?
There’s privacy — I agree, but there’s also duty… You live in the city. You own property. You have a duty to the city. The duty means that you pay property tax, right? You contribute to the city. If you own — you need to maintain your property. You have it rented out, you need to be responsible to your tenants.
Your party has an idea to stop renovictions. How are you going to do that? If a person owns a building that’s deteriorating and they say I’m going to fix up my building, but if I spend that bundle of money, I’m going to have to raise the rents to actually pay for it — what’s wrong with that?
You know, there’s nothing wrong with that. Just don’t evict the tenants and jack up the price of the rents to the point that the tenants cannot afford to come back in. I have to periodically do upgrades and maintenance to properties. I don’t evict my tenants if I want to paint it unless it’s the pipes and it’s plumbing system that need to be revamped — refurbished and all that.
Then I will — fine, [but] I think the owner needs to find a place for the tenants and be responsible. This is the duty the owners have towards the tenants. Also as government, we are going to put a clause, a condition on the permit for renovation and for redevelopment that makes sure the existing tenant can come back… you have to prove to the city whether the renovation is really necessary or is cosmetic.
A big issue over several years has been the relationship between city hall and neighbourhoods that complain about the consultation process. How do you propose to improve it?
It’s respect. Why is government, the city, [being taken to court] — over a dozen court cases going on right now. It’s a waste of taxpayer’s money, taking people to court. Why can’t you talk to these people and find out what their needs are and negotiate? I’m very good at negotiations by the way, and then talk about — and come to a consensus. It’s a respect for neighbourhood’s needs.
But how, in a very practical way, do you imagine changing the consultation process?
In any development, we’re going to make sure the neighbourhood has a say [in] what they want. There was, in the ’90s — there was consultation going on. There’s a plan, and Vision basically [tore] that up and then brought in what the developers want. We would go back to those plans and then we would want more — because the city have changed in the last 20 years. We want to go back to the neighbourhoods and then we want to talk to them and say, what would you like to see happening? And then bring in the developer, say, can you meet the demands of these areas?
A controversial issue in Grandview-Woodland, and in many other neighbourhoods, is highrises and towers. What are your thoughts on towers in neighbourhoods?
From an environment point of view, glass towers are the least energy efficient. They’re as energy efficient as a medieval tower — castle. That’s what I was told. And so I believe in low and mid-level shops, local shops on the ground level and residential buildings. If you look at a vibrant neighbourhood, you see Kits, you see Commercial [Drive]. You see Main Street, and then you see Victoria where it’s all low rise and with shops underneath, where there’s traffic around. Guess where is the worst neighbourhood? It’s Coal Harbour.
Your website says: “COPE is proposing to abandon all municipal bylaws that discriminate against squatters and homeless people and provide health and safety supports to squatters in abandoned government buildings and properties.” Can you name me a building where that would happen? Or is that just a fluid thing? That if somebody or a group takes over a building and they want to squat there, that you just let them continue to do that?
This is out of frustration. Compassion [is] my first pillar. A city this wealthy… you’re telling me that we cannot afford to find homes for people who are on the street, who are suffering with mental health issues, who have drug addictions? These people need a home, a permanent location where health support workers can go and visit and provide help to these people. A shelter, that’s what Vision’s been doing. Stuff them in the shelter and a mat on the floor, and to evict them from Oppenheimer Park when they could feel safe there and a liveable environment. I just can’t imagine anybody that’s healthy and well want to end up on the street, want to live in a park, want to live in SROs filled with rats and bedbugs and cockroaches. COPE [believes] that this is up to the city — the determination of providing affordable homes for these people. The situation is so bad under Vision, that they did not keep their promise. That they failed these people and the citizens of Vancouver for not solving the homeless issue.
But you’re talking about abandoning bylaws and allowing people to live in abandoned government buildings. Some people might say that that’s kind of radical thinking. But what you’re saying is, what’s the alternative right now? Is that what you’re saying?
It’s a critical time right now and we need to take drastic steps. The bottom line is, do you want to see people on the street, homeless and with mental health issues without providing services and providing a permanent home to these people? I believe the City of Vancouver can do that, can afford to provide those services. We don’t believe in giving our city land in a non-transparent, non-accountable way to developers so they can make big bucks on them. We believe that city — we can take over and build affordable housing on city-owned lands and city-owned properties [and provide] adequate, affordable residences to the citizens of Vancouver.
Vision is putting together a Housing Authority. How would COPE’s be different than what you have read about Vision’s housing authority?
Their housing authority is basically to cut all the red tape for developers so they can build —$1,400, $1,800 rents for those STIR programs and while at the same time, cut their tax commitment to the city… COPE, we have a plan. We have a 98-page housing plan. I encourage everyone to go on [to our website] and then have a look how we’re going to do it. We have taken the last few years to study this issue because affordability is a big, big issue in Vancouver.
You’re proposing a $30-a-month transit pass. How is it going to work?
I’m so excited about this program because right now [it’s] $170, right, a month. In Vancouver we have 480,000 adults. We’re not even counting students because they have a U-Pass. This is very similar to U-Pass that the university students are getting, college students are getting. Right now TransLink is getting $150 million from fares. If 480,000 adults sign up on this program, TransLink is going to get a $160 million dollars from this program. $30 a month.
So people would sign up?
That’s right. They could sign up.
So you don’t have to?
No, you don’t have to.
So what if you don’t get enough [participation]?
So we have $10 million surplus and then we can pay for people who want to opt out of this program. And with [that] money, we can actually improve transit. We believe [in] adding more buses on Broadway corridor, a major transit corridor in Vancouver. That $3 billion subway that Vision is [behind] — we don’t know where the money comes from. They never make any commitment. Do people in Vancouver want to wait 30 years for it to happen?
Let’s say everybody opts in to the transit pass — you’ve got a problem with accommodating all those people at that point. Even with U-Pass — that created very crowded buses.
Not everybody’s going to hop on the bus right away the next morning. And many of these people are part-time public transit riders. And it’s just that they may not use their car as often — once they have a pass. They will go — for example, downtown to party. Everybody can afford a $30 bus pass. So this will reduce car rides and then reduce pollution in our city.
The mayor set this goal of ending —well, he actually said homelessness and he changed it to street homelessness — by 2015. Do you think he’s going to meet his goal?
Not a chance. He can hide people. He can take — evict people out of Oppenheimer Park and then push these people into alleys and shop doorways. But without a permanent home for these people, it’s not going to happen.
Would a COPE government promise to end street homelessness?
We will.
After four years in, it will be done?
Yes.
So at the end of your four year term, you would end street homelessness?
Yes, it’s all a priority. Who do you serve? Obviously we serve the people and they serve developers.
But how would you do that?
We are going to build affordable housing on city-owned lands.
And that would take care of the homeless people living on the streets? You see enough housing being built over the next four years that we would no longer have a street homelessness problem in the city?
This is what I would like to see.
Do you support more injection sites in the city?
If there is a way to help these people, this is harm prevention. Do we want to see more dead bodies on the street? We don’t, do we?
I know at the start of our broadcast here you mentioned the “developer parties.” Tim Louis has referred to the NPA and Vision as the developer parties many times. And so that I’m clear, you’re saying that you don’t accept — COPE does not accept money from developers, full stop?
That’s what my understanding is. Our members and executives voted for that. Our policy came from the members. It’s not like a top down. We are bottom up. We listen to the grassroots. And I’m proud that we are not in the pockets of developers.
According to the records at city hall, COPE has a history of accepting them from developers. In 2005 Concord gave COPE $9,200 dollars.
We gave [it] back.
OK. Then in 2008 you received $2,000 dollars from Terrance Hui. He’s the head of Concord Pacific Developments. He gave COPE $2,000 dollars. At the time, that was the single biggest individual contribution to COPE. [We’re] not sure if you gave that back. Last year, Terrance Hui gave $3,000 dollars to COPE. He does a lot of development in this city. So does COPE take money from developers or doesn’t it?
Well, in this election, when I am the mayoral candidate, I can be very clear to you that we do not. Every paycheque [that comes] in, I talk to our financial agent, talk to our executives. You make sure that it’s not from developers, because I want to be able to be honest and to be clear and to be proud when I stand there and I say that we don’t accept money from developers. Under my watch, no way.
Where are you getting the money from?
From people, [individuals].
What about unions? [We] just want to be clear on — are you getting union money? Or is it mostly from individuals?
It depends on, as you said, individual unions… some unions, individual unions are giving us their support. And we also have other companies, local companies give us support because they see that our policy is beneficial to local business.
Why is voting for you not a throwaway vote?
Because I believe in the people, and the people’s voice has to be represented in this election. And they need to see the change, and I am that change.
Next in the series: Vision Vancouver’s Gregor Robertson Nov. 5.
