Interviews with British Columbia mayors

This page is a participant in the Burnaby Voter Funded Media campaign.

October 27, 2011

With over a quarter-century of experience on the Burnaby City Council, the outspoken and left-leaning Derek Corrigan has long been a familiar face in Lower Mainland municipal politics. First elected mayor in 2002, he is now seeking his fourth term.

What would you say is the biggest misconception about Burnaby?

That it’s a suburb. Burnaby is a city in its own right that has developed its own identity. We are very urban — in fact, we’re in the centre of the urban core in the centre of the peninsula.

Burnaby has become not only a great place to live, but a great place to do work. We’ve become a center for all kinds of economic opportunity, and have in many ways become an engine for greater Vancouver economic growth.

In other parts of Canada, there’s been a trend towards merging small cities into bigger ones, but that’s definitely not been the case in the Lower Mainland. Why do you think that is?

Because what we have now works so well.

In most cases, the amalgamation of cities has been compulsory. It’s been the provincial governments exercising authority to merge governments in places like Ontario and Quebec, and mostly, in my view, it’s been unsuccessful. It’s created unwieldy governments that are very difficult for citizens to contact and access, and it tends to Balkanize those cities into wards. What you then end up with is trade-offs between wards, rather than individual municipalities with the authority and ability to operate their own budgets and make their own choices.

So like the multicultural fabric of greater Vancouver, I think the idea that there are a number of cities that have different cultural attributes and different identities is important to us being very successful.

There are those who would say the fact that we have so many municipalities, and frankly, so many municipal politicians, is precisely what makes it hard to get large projects like the Evergreen Line stated, let alone completed.

That would be the exact opposite of the truth. The reality is that cities have always worked cooperatively. If you look at the Livable Region Strategic Plan that was done in 1996, you’ll see that we were well ahead of our time — and certainly many other amalgamated cities across Canada — in establishing a direction for substantiality and growth.

Unfortunately, we municipal governments are still constantly subjected to provincial interference in the decisions we make. We lobbied to get control of TransLink so cities could dovetail transportation with land-use planning, for example, but as soon as we did that the province was entirely dissatisfied and interfered again, taking TransLink away from us, if you remember.

So it’s not an inability of the cities to be able to cooperate as a regional entity or establish a regional consensus, it’s the constant interference of the provincial government on a political basis that tends to take our plans and send them off in wrong-headed directions.

What would be your ideal TransLink system, in terms of how it should be run?

Well, TransLink should be run by the cities in a cooperative manner. TransLink should be based on efficiency, ensuring that there is value for the taxpayer’s dollar.

It should be highly focused on busses, which are the most economic way of providing public transportation. Buses should be put in place before there’s ever a consideration of any sort of fixed-rail line, because fixed-rail is very expensive, and once fixed-rail has been established, that’s going to be the future of all transportation in that area.

I think that a TransLink run by the regional governments would have gone with light rail rather than SkyTrain. That was our intention for the Evergreen Line. If we had built the Evergreen Line when we had wanted to build it, it would have been an $800 million light rail line. Now it’s a $1.4 billion SkyTrain line. And that’s because the province took it over and they sought federal government funding, and they were required to use SkyTrain in order to get that federal funding. So you can see, in most cases we’re quite prepared to go with the more economic solutions, but often you find that interference from other orders of government sends us on a path that costs the taxpayer a lot more money.

Do we need to change provincial law to grant more sovereignty to municipalities?

What we need to do is change the Constitution, and give constitutional recognition to local governments.

Unfortunately, under Canada’s Constitution, it’s only the federal and provincial governments that are recognized. Cities thus become a creature of statute; they become the result of provincial legislation with the province constantly using their power to bully municipalities. In fact, they will often not allow a relationship between the federal government and the cities. But when you think that half the population of Canada is now living in six major cities, you have to realize that those cities are bigger than provinces, and they deserve to be recognized — especially their governmental structures.

People count on cities for their everyday life. We provide the water, the sewers, the garbage pickup, the police, fire stations, parks, recreation, roads; we provide all the things that people need to be able to have a productive life, and for business to have healthy infrastructure. But we only get eight cents out of every tax dollar. 92 cents go to the federal and provincial governments.

Do you think this is a movement that has trans-Canadian support? Do other big city mayors support changing the Constitution over this?

I think they would right across the board. I think you’d find every mayor across this land would support a constitutional change to recognize cities.

Your opposition would likely come from the other orders of government, who would be worried sick that giving cities the ability to determine their own destiny, and the authority to be able to assert autonomy in the courts or anywhere else, would be problematic for them. They’re used to having cities to push around, and if that situation changed it would change the way Canadian governance operates.

Why is turnout so low in municipal elections?

I think that people are confused, sometimes, by the roles of cities. I think that because there are a number of councilors, plus a mayor, to be elected, it’s hard for citizens to relate to those individuals and feel comfortable that they’re making an informed vote. So I think people are reluctant to vote in municipal elections because they’re not sure they understand the issues and they’re not sure they know the people.

We have to work harder to be able to get people more familiar with their local governments and make them more engaged.

You’ve been in municipal politics for a long time. Do you think municipal government has become more or less relevant in people’s lives over the last couple of decades?

Oh, increasingly relevant. People look to their municipal governments to deal with so many issues now. You see that happening in spades in Vancouver, where people are turning to their local government on issues like homelessness and daycare and poverty and other things that aren’t within the purview of local government. But people are still turning to them to find solutions because they’re so frustrated with the inaction by provincial and federal governments in those very important areas. The only problem is cities don’t have the resources to be able to cope with those problems.

Are city workers overpaid?

No, city workers are not overpaid. City workers are paid, in essence, a living wage. I think it’s a family-supporting wage where one can hope, if their partner works also, to buy a home in the Lower Mainland and put their kids into post-secondary education. I think we provide jobs that are well-paying, comparatively, but certainly not excessive.

I think cities have a responsibility to ensure that our wages fairly reflect the expectations of our community, and don’t exceed those expectations. But generally, city workers’ wages and government workers’ wages go under attack any time there’s a recession. When the private sector is not booming, people involved in the private sector become very jealous of the wages that public sector employees are making. And when the economy is booming and the private sector is rich and people are making good money and getting lots of hours, you get exactly the reverse: you get public sector workers saying “oh my gosh, I should be working in the private sector! Look at all the money they’re making!”

Is there enough racial integration in Burnaby?

Yes. In fact, I think Burnaby is one of the communities that is most symbolic of the new Canada, where so many people are coming from all over the world and integrating and working cooperatively together. Our city is so diverse that we’re not dominated by any one ethnic group — everyone has to consider themselves a minority in Burnaby. And part of being a minority is working to become part of that integrated majority. So I think the sheer diversity we have here — people from Afghanistan to Zanzibar — allows us to have a far more integrated community.

I think when you have concentrations of ethnic groups, when there is more ghettoization that occurs, I think then it’s more difficult then to achieve integration because communities can operate in their own language, they can shop at stores that reflect their cultural background, they can avoid the interaction that happens naturally in a city like Burnaby.

So I think that in many ways, people are moving out of places where there is a very large, concentrated ethnic community and seeking communities like Burnaby because they want the experience of integration. They’ve come to Canada to meet new people and integrate into a community that is very Canadian in its identity, and I think Burnaby offers that.

There’s been a lot of controversy lately regarding Burnaby schools and when is or is not the appropriate time to teach children about issues relating to homosexuality. What’s your stance?

Kids are learning about those issues younger and younger, whether they’re learning them in the schoolyard or the playground or in their neighborhood. And what happens is what they learn on the street is often taken into the classroom or into their interactions with other children. Teachers have to be able to give a safe environment for kids, and teachers need to be able to explain to children that the terms they might be using are offensive. And often that requires them to explain what the term means, in order for a child to understand why it’s offensive and why a child shouldn’t use a term like that.

So there is some educational component that is necessary for parents and for teachers in preventing behavior that’s offensive, and can be very hurtful to another child, but may not be intended that way. A child who says something offhand, or as part of childish teasing, can still be very hurtful, especially if his actions carry, because kids emulate other kids, especially kids who are leaders, in their classes.

So I think what our school board is trying to do is empower teachers to say, no, our policy is that that kind of discrimination will not be tolerated, and we’re going to deal with it in a pro-active manner. We’re going to tell kids that it’s improper to make fun of someone because they’re gay, and it’s improper to use those kinds of terms in a negative fashion towards someone, and if you do that you’re being very hurtful. And for a child to understand what you mean, it may require you to explain that a homosexual is someone who has relationships with their own sex. That kind of explanation is going to be necessary for children to understand those issues.

And I think that’s what frightens people, they believe their kids are somehow in a cocoon, and they aren’t aware of those kinds of things, or aren’t exposed to those kinds of things. The truth is, for all parents, your children are exposed. As soon as they hit the playground they are exposed to that kind of talk, and someone needs to explain those things to them. Hopefully, that’s being done at home. Hopefully, parents are educating their children as to what is or isn’t respectful language and attitudes, but in cases where it needs re-enforcement, then teachers are the people, as educators who need to reinforce those kinds of ideas. Our school board is trying to do that.

Unfortunately, there are people who, for their own political motivations, are trying to make this sound like it’s a sex education course, or that it’s somehow influencing children to a type of behavior, or it’s overly descriptive of types of behaviors, which is completely untrue.

Does it trouble you that a lot of that opposition seems to be disproportionately coming from the Chinese community?

I think the issue is one that is associated strongly with fundamentalist religious positions, and those aren’t just in the Chinese community, they’re in the Caucasian community and the Indo-Canadian community too. So I don’t think it’s isolated to one ethnic community, but it does tend to have very strong religious overtones, and a strong fundamentalist view of the world and the relationship that children should have to school. And that can be problematic.

I think also that it may be related to people who are new immigrants, and are a little frightened by the freedoms and attitudes in Canadian society and are reacting against that. You and I both know that discrimination towards anyone who is homosexual or comes from a different background, is not accepted in Canada, and it’s recognized that it’s unacceptable behavior. Whereas in other countries, that behavior and that kind of discrimination is still tolerated. So I think they’re having trouble adapting to what looks to them like a much more libertarian society. They have trouble adjusting to that and they’re afraid that their children are going to be introduced too young to ideas that are beyond their age.

Do you consider yourself a particularly religious man?

No. But I’m metro-religious in the sense that I have an appreciation for the vast range of religions in my city, and I’ve attended services in the broad range of religious institutions that we have. So you’ll see on my bookshelf that there is a Bible, but there’s also a Koran and also Buddhist teachings and Hindu teachings. So I’ve become kind of a religious scholar because of my job; I have to appreciate all of the religions and understand, in a rudimentary fashion, all of the concepts in those religions.

What I’ve discovered over that time is the similarity between religions. There are far more similarities than there are differences. The principle of “duo unto others as you would have them do unto you” is consistent throughout religions.

I’m always reminded of what the Guru Nanak, the founder of the Sikh religion said when he created the Sikh religion. It was one of the modern religions, created only about 600 years ago, and he said, “If heaven, or enlightenment, is the top of a mountain, there are many paths to the top.” Often I use that when I go out and talk to communities in Burnaby about these issues, because while someone might chose a different path, they’re still going to the same place, and you have to appreciate that they may choose a different path.

You’re known for being a strong NDP supporter. Your wife is an NDP MLA. Is there a danger of being too partisan in this position?

And the NDP say to me that I’m not NDP enough! (laughs) So I’m considered a bad New Democrat in the sense that I’m often critical of the New Democratic Party.

When the New Democratic Party was in government, I was fearless in my condemnation of some of the things that they did. For instance, I was one of the people who spoke out heavily against the choice by Premier Glen Clark to put SkyTrain along the Broadway corridor. I preferred light rail and made it clear that this was a big mistake as far as I was concerned. Which did not make the New Democrats very happy. But I felt I had to stand up on that issue and be counted. So I’ve been critical of NDP policy and I’ve been critical of Liberal policy any time they affect the city I represent.

I think I’m seen as being anti-Liberal because often I’m opposed to the policies that are put in place by the Liberal government, but I’m joined by many other mayors across the Lower Mainland who feel exactly the same way but are often reluctant to be as vociferous and outspoken as I am.

There wasn’t a mayor in this region who thought that it was a good idea for the provincial government to take over TransLink and appoint a private board. I was one of the people who spoke out on that issue and made it clear it was unacceptable, but every other mayor felt the same way, too — they just felt that in their individual cities opposing the Liberals was contraindicative for their reelection. I’ve always felt that speaking out on those issues is appreciated by people in my community and they expect me to be fearless in my defense of Burnaby taxpayers and policies that impact Burnaby.

Why don’t municipal politicians run under provincial or federal party labels? Why is there “Team Burnaby” and “Vision Vancouver” and these kinds of things instead of just “NDP” or “Liberal”?

I think it’s a tradition. It happened long ago. It probably came from one of the oldest parties in B.C. municipal politics, the Non-Partisan Association, and it came from the irony of that kind of political intent; how does one have a party that is non-partisan? If you can say those two things in one breath, “non-partisan party,” you say pretty much everything there is to be said about municipal politics, because people are always positioning themselves as non-partisan, or having a non-partisan air, but their political alliances are perfectly clear, and we know very often they will be moving on to another order of government with a particular party.

[Surrey Mayor] Dianne Watts who runs with “Surrey First,” for instance, was courted to be the Liberal successor to Gordon Campbell, and felt it incumbent upon herself to do a press release saying she wasn’t going to seek the position. Didn’t reject it out of hand, considered it for some particularly long period of time, but then said “well, I’m not going to do it.” Well, if you aren’t a Liberal, why would you consider running for the leadership? So everybody knows she’s a Liberal, but she runs under Surrey First. But she doesn’t get as much flak for that. She’s a darling to the media. So she doesn’t get “well you’re really a Liberal running under Surrey First, you’re friends with Kevin Falcon and all the Liberals who are out there.” She doesn’t get that. I do, because the press says “ah, you’re a dirty New Democrat! Oh my God, sign of the cross!” So I get it all the time, but it’s never landed on anyone else.

Clearly the mayors across this region are politically aligned one way or another. In British Columbia it’s ended up being a two party system, so every one of them has their own allegiances. Peter Fassbender in Langley City, Darrell Mussatto in North Van City, both Liberals. Pam Goldsmith-Jones in West Van — I wouldn’t be one iota surprised to see her running for the Liberals in the next election. But when it’s a New Democrat there seems to be this real focus. Maybe that happens because it’s a Liberal government, and I’ve been an outspoken advocate of a lot of policies that are contradictory to the provincial government, so I get branded. Others who support those polices don’t.

What do you make of the “Occupy” protests happening in cities around the world?

I think it’s a product of a widening gap between the rich and the poor. I think people are losing faith in the American dream, and they’re beginning to recognize that the harder they work the farther they get behind. Many of the interests that affect their lives are no longer controlled by politicians but a corporate elite, a faceless group of corporate CEOs who are determining the destiny of not only our country, but other countries around the world. They become a kind of “super government,” one that knows no borders and is given the ability to walk free with their capital from country to country. Their purpose is purely market-driven, and purely profit-driven.

So people see a loss of those values — values that they believe existed not only with government but corporate America — that success and opportunity for individuals was the direction of their society. Now they’re seeing that there’s a ceiling, and they’re getting frustrated. And I think the recession and the collapse of many of the financial institutions in the United States really awakened some people to the fact that things were truly out of control, that they no longer had the ability to control the decisions that were being made, even when they elect someone like Obama. They’re still not able to make the radical changes that some of them wanted to be able to make, to change the way the world is working.

Is there a “corporate elite” in Burnaby?

No, because I want to distinguish very clearly between the economic engine that comes from small business and entrepreneurs, which I truly respect. The idea that people, through their own creativity, can make profit, and that through energy and commitment they can develop a business and succeed, to me, are really important values. It’s the success of the western world that we’ve had people like that who are able to take that challenge on. That’s very different from corporations that are amalgamations of smaller corporations and are run, essentially, by super bureaucrats. Not by entrepreneurs, not by the people who made the company and took the risks, but people who have been educated to simply be corporate leaders. And many of them are rapacious. They take over those companies and they pump as much money into their own pockets as they can — whether it’s in shares, or warrants, or salary — they take every bit of the advantage that’s given to them in order to take from those companies. And it’s completely contrary to building what we would hope to see, which is a very strong economic presence.

So I think that’s has people frustrated. While they believe in the marketplace, and they believe in the ideas of capitalism, they’re seeing capitalism has gotten out of control, it’s run rampant, and now its controlled by an elite group of bureaucrats who are running companies that are bigger than countries, and who have bigger budgets than countries, and — in some cases — have bigger armies than countries. And that scares people, and makes them feel powerless.

Complete this sentence: “He will be remembered as the mayor who…”

Truly cared about the future of his city.