Quantitative Analysis
Before examining the causes of Indo-Canadian under-representation in municipal politics, it is
first important to demonstrate the existence of this underrepresentation. This paragraph (MAY BE
MORE THAN A PARAGRAPH )will do so, and will subsequently place this inequality in the context of
other examples of minority political representation in Vancouver, Richmond, and Surrey. For the
purposes of this exercise, I will be utilizing the census visible minority category “South Asian”, as
opposed to the more specific ethnic origin census categories such as “Punjabi”.1 The percentage of
South Asians in various electorates will be compared with the percentage of elected South Asian
politicians. This comparison will be occur across cities and between levels of government. Subsequently,
these percentages will be compared with comparable statistics for the Chinese population, and with the
ethnic minority population as a whole (COULD SAY MAJORITY INSTEAD?).
South Asians compose the second largest ethnic minority population in British Columbia. This
trend holds true in both Vancouver and Richmond. In Surrey the South Asian population is 27.29%, while
it is 5.64% in Vancouver and 7.95%. To ensure entirely representative legislators, these would be the
ideal targets to reach in these cities, although a certain degree of variance would be inevitable from
election to election. Within the City of Vancouver, this number is very slightly exceeded when all levels
of government are aggregated together, as 6.98% of all elected politicians elected out of the City of
Vancouver are of South Asian ancestry. The federal level sees the strongest representation, with 20%
representation, specifically Vancouver South MP Ujjal Dosanjh. It is worth noting that Dosanjh won his
seat by 22 votes, the narrowest margin in the country, and there is a reasonable probability that he will
lose his seat in the Spring 2011 General Election. Provincially, 1 out of 11 MLA’s are South Asian. This
MP, Kash Heed, faces a high probability of losing his seat in the coming election, as a result of
1
Insert reason for why – i.e. this is more apples to apples
repercussions from an ongoing campaign financing investigation being conducted against him by the
RCMP. While both Heed and Dosanjh hold their seats precariously, there is no doubt that with 12.50% of
senior government legislators coming from the South Asian community, this is not the site of
underrepresentation.
Municipally, one member of the Parks Board, Raj Hundal, is of South Asian descent. In total, this
translates to 3.70% of municipal officials holding South Asian ancestry. This is somewhat
unrepresentative, but initially this seems to be within the reasonable level of variance expected as a
result of unpredicatable elections, and variations in popularity between individual candidates. Two
additional factors suggest the representation level of Indo-Canadians at the municipal level is lower than
this single number would at first suggest. First, Raj Hundal is a member of the Parks Board, arguably the
least important municipal body (ALSO IT IS WEIRD AND ONLY EXISTS IN VANCOUVER. This body manages
the smallest budget of the three elected Boards in Vancouver, and the non-importance of this body may
be seen through the fact that its members receive the lowest pay of any elected officials in Vancouver.
More importantly, Raj Hundal is the first South Asian elected to municipal office, since Harkipal S. Sara
of the NPA was defeated for a re-election bid to the school boardin 1990. Therefore, over the period of
the last 7 municipal elections, the Indo-Canadian representation has actually sat at 0.5%, which is one
order of magnitude below its expected level. Furthermore, Sara’s one 2 year term is the only case in
Vancouver’s history of a South Asian on any municipal body, other than Setty Pendakur’s two terms
from 1972-1976.2
While I would argue the level of Indo-Canadian representation in Vancouver is problematic, this
problem pales in comparison to the situation in Richmond. In Richmond, drawing distinctions between
2
FOOTNOTE SAYING TERMS WENT FROM 2-3 YEARS IN CIRCA 1990
the different levels of government is pointless. All levels of government have 0% South Asians
representation in their legislatures, despite South Asians forming the second largest ethnic group in the
municipality at 7.95%. This is especially surprising, given the high level of minority representation seen
in Richmond generally.
The situation is Surrey is considerably more complex than that of Richmond. 29% of elected
officials in Surrey are South Asian, which is an almost perfect reflection of Surrey’s 27.29% South Asian
population. As in Vancouver, a considerable divide exists between the different levels of government.
Federally, 50% of MP’s are South Asian, while provincially 37.5% of MLA’s are of South Asian descent.
This is in contrast to the 25% representation on city council, and 14.3% on School Board. While the
percentage of South Asians elected in Surrey is substantially higher than in Vancouver, when underlying
populations are taken into account, Surrey does not succeed in having more representative municipal
politics.
In two of the three cities studied here, the Chinese community has been more successful in
electing members of their community.3 It is unclear if this community is more successful once their
proportion of the population is taken into account. Within Vanocuver, 29.6% of residents are Chinese,
while 11.6% of elected politicians fit this description. These politicians are overwhelmingly found at the
municipal level, where they 14.8% of elected officials. Within the municipal level, they are most
prevalent at the city council level, filling 30% of seats. This is notable, as City Council is widely
understood as the most powerful branch of the municipal government, as it commands the largest
budget.4 Federally there is currently no Chinese representation, although Chinese candidates have high
chances of winning in both Vancouver Kingsway and Vancouver South in the coming federal election.
Provinically, Jenny Kwan is the only Chinese MLA, leaving a mere 9.09% ratio of Chinese MLA’s.
3
RICHMOND MAKES MINORITY A RIDICULOUS TERM BECAUSE 43% CHINESE, EASILY FAR AND AWAY THE LARGEST
ETHNIC GROUP
4
POSSIBLY ADD THAT THIS IS THE ONLY BODY THAT CAN’T HAVE ITS DECISIONS EASILY OVER TURNED
Within Richmond, 23.8% of politicians are of Chinese descent. This is an underrepresentation,
but substantially less egregious than several other examples in this paper (AWK). As in Vancouver, the
under-representation is caused at the municipal level. 50% of MP’s and 33% of MLA’s are Chinese, but
only 28.6% of school trustees and 12.5% councillors share this background.
The situation of Chinese elected officials in Surrey is a direct parallel to that of South Asians in
Richmond. In all levels of government, there are 0 Chinese officials, despite the Chinese forming the
second largest ethnic population in Surrey, at 5.1%.
Vancouver and Richmond are both “majority minority” cities, with slightly over half of
Vancouver and slightly under two thirds of Richmond are ethnic minorities. Surrey is slightly behind,
with 45.8% identifying as ethnic minorities in the 2006 census. Interestingly, all three cities have virtually
identical proportions of visible minorities elected to office at 28% +- 0.6%.5 At this highly aggregated
level, we can see that minority representation in Vancouver is far from perfec t. At the same time, on
the aggregate, the under-representation is not jarring. (AWK) In Vancouver and Surrey, the two larger
cities under review, less than 50% of minorities are underrepresented relative to the overall population.
This ratio is more pronounced in Richmond. The more pressing issue, however, is that of specific ethnic
representation within specific geographical and municipal, and jurisdictional boundaries. (AWK) (ETHNIC
MINORITIES IN GENERAL)
CAUSES
The most obvious reason for reason for the difference of Indo-Canadian representation at the
at-large municipal system and the geographically disaggregated districts used federal and provincial
levels is that Indo-Canadians are distributed in geographically tight clusters, thus allowing sufficient
5
SOMEWHERE ADD THAT I ARBITRARILY DECIDED TO COUNT ABORIGINAL AS MINORITY FOR SEVERAL REASONS
DESPITE CENSUS TERMINOLOGY- ONLY IMPACTS CLEMENTS
voting power to sway the outcome of an election. The existence of substantial geographic clustering is
clearly born out. In the provincial riding of Surrey Green-Timbers 57.1% of residents are South Asian,
while 55.2% of residents in Surrey Newton have this background. In sharp contrast, only 1.8% of
residents in UBC’s home riding of Vancouver Point Grey are of South Asian background. The contrast can
be easily seen within individual municipalities as well. Of Vancouver’s 11 provincial ridings, 7 have less
than 3% South Asian population, while Vancouver Fraserview has a South Asian population of 16.4%. A
comparable degree of geographic concentration occurs in Richmond, where Richmond-Steveston and
Richmond-Centre have approximately 4% Indo-Canadian population, with 16% Indo Canadians living in
Richmond East (DEMANGLE). In addition to having two ridings composed of an South Asian majority,
Surrey is also the only municipality to have a riding with an Indo-Canadian population of less than 2%.6
This is somewhat unsurprising. Surrey is traditionally divided into (5-7 ish?) town centres that are
geographically separated from each other. 7
The Chinese population in Vancouver, Surrey, and Richmond is by no means evenly distributed.
Nonetheless, the degree of geographic concentration is much less than in the Indo-Canadian
community. For instance, in Vancouver, the least Chinese riding, Vancouver West-End has a 7.8%
Chinese population, while the most Chinese riding, Vancouver Kingsway has a Chinese population of
48.1%. While this is a substantial difference, the highest Chinese population is 6.17 times higher than
the lowest one. In contrast, the highest Indo-Canadian population is 9.11 times higher than the lowest
within Vancouver. Furthermore, Vancouver West-End is something of an outlier, as the other less
Chinese ridings exhibit Chinese populations of approximately 3 times less than that of Kingsway.
In the other two municipalities under examination, the Chinese population is even more evenly
distributed than in Vancouver. The Chinese population in provincial Richmond ridings ranges only from
6
Surrey-White Rock- Acknowledge that part of this riding is not in the city of surrey
PROBABLY LOOK AT ADDING STUFF ABOUT STANDARD DEVIATIONS OF THE TWO, TO SHOW DEGREE OF
SCATTEREDNESS OR NOT
7
36.4% to 53.1%. In the case of Surrey, the Chinese population is 5% +- 2.6% in all ridings except for
Tynehead, where it is 12.7%. This contrasts markedly with the 33.59 fold difference between the highest
and lowest Indo-Canadian populations in Surrey.
(INDOS VOTE FOR OWN PEOPLE)
The demographic distributions discussed above are interesting in their own right, their
academic usefulness would be limited if such population patterns were not correlated to voting
patterns. This need not be of concern however, as clear(TOO CONVERSATIONAL?), as a strong
correlation does exist. No Indo-Canadian is elected in any provincial riding with an Indo-Canadian
population of less than 10%. Federally, no Indo-canadian is elected in a riding of less than 15% South
Asians, and as previously mentioned, this MP is heavily at risk of losing his seat to a candidate of Chinese
descent, in the Chinese heavy riding of Vancouver South. Within Surrey, the average South Asian
population in South Asian held ridings is 34.0%, while the average South-Asian population in other
ridings is 17.2%.8 Within provincial Surrey ridings, the average South-Asian population in South Asian
held ridings is 30.73%, while the South Asian population in other ridings is 23.06%, a significant, albeit
not overwhelming difference. The correlation is more clearly shown in Vancouver, when making a
comparison between the ridings held by Kash Heed and Ujjal Dosanjh, and the remainder of the city.
These two partially overlapping ridings respectively contain 16.4% and 15.1% South Asians. In contrast,
the remainder of the remaining 10 provincial ridings have an average South Asian population of 4.24%
and the remaining 4 federal ridings have an average south Asian population of 3.5%. (MENTION
SOMEWHERE ABOUT THE VERY SIMILAR CORRELATIOSN WHEN TAKEN TO PROVINCIAL LEVEL) (DOUBLE
CHECK QUILCHENA NUMBERS)
8
Not off-seting facts of White Rock portion, and Dona Cadman’s double sympathy/legacy advantage in Surrey
North.
RUNNER UPS- MATTER IF WITHIN 11% BASED ON REASONABLE ARBIRTRARY NUMBER AS
BENCHMARK (CO_ETHNIC MAJORITY WAS CLOSE RUNNER UP IN BOTH SOUTH AND FRASERVIEW ) SUKH
AND FLEETWOOD HAVE SOUTH ASIAN RUNNERS UP, WHILE TYNEHEAD DOESN’T
(POSSIBLY INSERT MORE MATH).
(DOUBLE CHECK SURREY TYNEHEAD NUMBERS TO MAKE SURE INDOS NOT UNDERCOUNTED)
(THEN SAY ALL THIS ONLY MATTERS IF THIS IS CORRELATED WITH THEM VOTING FOR
THEMSELVS
NOT SHORTCOMING OF NOT HAVING OTHER YEARS AS LIMITATION TO LOOK AT IN FUTURE
CASES
)
9
(ESPECIALLY SURPRISING VS OTHER MINORITIES HERE)
PUT SOMETHING SAYING THAT IN PRACTICAL SENSE MUNICIPAL IS NOT REALLY LESS
IMPORTANT THAN OTHER LEVELS SO DON’T SAY ACTUALLY INDOS IN BEST POSITIONS
(SURREY – SUPERFICIALLY APPEARS THAT REPRESENTATIVENESS IS EXACTLY PROPORTIONAL TO
THE IMPORTANCE OF THE ELECTED BODY)
9
SOMEWHERE I NEED TO MAKE SURE TO SAY ALL 3 MAYORS ARE WHITE