Raymond Tomlin is a veteran journalist and educator who has written frequently on the political realm — municipal, provincial and federal — as well as on cinema, mainstream popular culture, the arts, and technology.
View all posts by Raymond Tomlin →
In my 68 years on this planet, from the time of her birth, the most meaningful relationship in my life was the one I shared with my daughter, Megan, who saw something in me, a kindness of spirit and a gentleness of soul that previous to her birth on Saturday, March 26th 1977 was unplumbed, a capacity for love that remains in me still today, as will always be the case.
Megan was a breach birth, undecided if she wanted to make her entrance into the world. At Burnaby General Hospital, late on that Saturday night, Cathy under anaesthetic, forceps brought my daughter through the birth canal into the warmth of the operating room. After the umbilical cord had been snipped, Megan was wrapped in swaddling clothes, and given to me.
For the first 10 minutes of her new life, I held Megan in my arms, she looking directly into my eyes, and mine into hers, an event that is most often referred to as imprinting, a remarkable phenomenon that occurs in the first minutes and hours of life. From that moment to this, my connection with my daughter has remained the strongest bond of my life.
The months after Megan’s birth were tempestuous in her mother’s life, as our marriage was slowly breaking down.
By the time Megan was nine months of age, and I was enrolled in a Master’s programme at Simon Fraser University, her mother had removed Megan from the jurisdiction several times — these days we’d call it kidnapping, but back then in the limbo of a jurisdictional dispute between the family court and Supreme Court, and a supine provincial government seemingly unable or unwilling to bring closure to the jurisdictional debate (the Supreme Court eventually “won”, and was given jurisdiction over custodial and all other matters relating to the welfare of children), in B.C. we existed in a state of stasis, the welfare of our children in jeopardy.
Over the months of her first year, Megan would be taken away, I’d frantically attempt to discover her whereabouts, and the family court, police & Ministry of Human Resources would become involved in the pursuit of discovering Megan’s whereabouts (I was never overly concerned about Megan’s welfare — I knew she was with her mother and that was fine with me, it was just that I missed her & wished her reunited with her brother).
Early in 1978, when Megan had “disappeared” again, this time for a couple of months — Cathy had taken Megan to her mother’s winter home in Arizona — and was “apprehended” by Ministry social workers upon Cathy and Megan’s return, arrangements were made to once again place Megan in my care (at the time, I thought Cathy had got a raw deal in the courts).
One Saturday afternoon early in the year, arrangements were made for a social worker to drop Megan off at a friend’s home in the 4400 block of Albert Street, near Willingdon and East Hastings. A request had been made that the “exchange” take place in a public area — in this case, a friend’s home — and shortly after 1pm, there was a knock at the door. Someone sitting nearby the front entrance opened the door, the social worker asked if I was present, to which the person who’d answered the door said, “yes.” I could see around the corner near the front entrance, and could see Megan gently moved from the arms of the social worker, until her two feet touched the ground, at which point the social worker exited.
Megan, looking into the room, saw what I am sure she experienced as an unusual and confusing sight. That afternoon, was my usual practice, I was a participant in a Marxist reading group, about 20 friends scattered around the room, half of them men, half of them women. As was the de rigeur haberdashery presentation style of the day, I was wearing rimless glasses, had on a check shirt and jeans, my hair dark, wavy and unkempt, as I sat reclined in an armchair on the other side of the room, about twenty to twenty-five feet away from where Megan stood near the front entrance.
Megan set about to scan the room, all the men looking almost identical with their longish dark hair, checkered shirts, beards, worn jeans, with world weary, pre-revolutionary looks on their faces. The room went momentarily silent, at which point Megan took her first tentative steps, then a bit more determinedly, heading straight for me, stopping at and holding my bony knees, allowing me to pick her up and onto my lap, she turning to look at my face, then placing her body against my chest, breathing slowly and rhythmically. The Marxist reading group continued our afternoon’s activity.
After two months away from me, and at such a young age, how did Megan recognize me on that chill mid-winter’s afternoon?
The answer: the same way she has always recognized me, as my daughter, me as her father, our bond unbreakable, then, now and forever.
All of the late release films that are about to be nominated by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences in various of the categories for the much sought after little gold man are finally making their way in our multiplexes.
So far, VanRamblings has seen Bradley Cooper’s A Star is Born, which knocked us on our keester, flat out the most entertaining (and moving) film in the Oscars sweepstakes this year. Damien Chazelle’s First Man, a biopic about astronaut Neil Armstrong, the first man to walk on the moon, starring an impressively repressed and taciturn Ryan Gosling and a certain-to-be-nominated Claire Foy (Netflix’s The Crown) — we cried our eyes out every time she was on screen, as was the case in the entire first half of A Star is Born, Chazelle’s follow-up to La La Land and Whiplash a bit of departure for the filmmaker, who this year has filmed the most “serious” Oscar contender we’ve screened early on — both films are in wide release in theatres, and definitely worth catching.
Wash Westmoreland’s stunningly well-realized Colette, starring an exquisite Keira Knightley is the erudite film of the Oscar season, and would seem to be a lock for Best Adapted Screenplay, but perhaps not. Director George Tillman Jr.’s The Hate U Give is a must-see for families (and for the rest of us). Björn Runge The Wife will be hanging around in theatres for awhile, providing erudite competition for Colette — Glenn Close, like Ms. Knightley are both locks for a Best Actress Oscar nomination, in a very crowded field.
The first English language film for Gallic directorial master Jacques Audiard (The Prophet) is in a category all its own, part oater, part auteur European film, and entertaining and involving as all get out from beginning to end, sporting outstanding performances from everyone concerned, particularly a best-ever performance by John C. Reilly (prior to this film we were comme ci,comme ça about him — not after seeing The Sisters Brother’s were not … wow!) — with Oscar winner Joaquin Phoenix, Jake Gyllenhaal and Riz Ahmed all outstanding, as are all the members of the supporting cast.
Today’s Arts Friday is all about the indefinable science of Oscars-ology, which leads to asking questions we hope to answer in today’s column …
What is Oscar bait? Is it a derogatory term?
The phrase gets thrown around fairly loosely every awards season, but what does it really imply?
Quite obviously, “Oscar bait” refers to films that seem to have been produced for the purpose of garnering Oscar nominations for the studios which have either produced or acquired the films. These films are almost always released in the autumn, when the members of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences begin to think Oscar awards season.
Taking a look back at past Oscar winners, history shows that the Academy tends to favour biopics, war epics, films that take aim at social issues, films that focus on real-life tragedies, and films based on Hollywood.
The question still remains, though: Is Oscar bait a derogatory term?
VanRamblings would suggest that the answer is both yes and no.
While the term may be demeaning to the studios heads and the filmmakers making the prestigious Oscar fare, there seems to be good Oscar bait and bad Oscar bait — the latter rarely win awards.
If the past few decades have taught us anything, it’s that there is a tried-and-tested recipe for Oscar success; a specific formula to follow in order to stake a claim for a Best Picture gong.
1. Make a biopic. Whether that’s in the form of a monarch (The King’s Speech), a sports star (Rocky), or a politician (The Iron Lady), biopics often lead to Oscar success;
2. Hire a famous and/or male director. Female directors are conspicuous by their absence in the history of the Best Picture category. In fact, if you’re a woman, you might as well start practicing your humble congratulatory face for the cameras now — unless of course you’re Kathryn Bigelow, of The Hurt Locker fame;
3. Give the film a snappy title. Sixty-one of the 83 Academy Awards handed out for Best Picture have been given to films with titles that are three words or less. Since the turn of the century only the Cohen brothers’ No Country For Old Men and Peter Jackson’s Middle-Earth meander The Lord Of The Rings: The Return Of The King, have exceeded the three-word rule;
4. Make a period film. In recent years it has become more predictable, with 20 of the last 30 winners being set in the past. Nominations for The Help, War Horse and The Artist, all of which delve into the annals of history are tried and true Oscar bait period films.
A team of American scientists recently released a study which suggested they may have discovered a formula both for box office and Oscar success.
After analyzing data from 6,147 movie scripts and filtering them through a series of algorithms, the researchers identified the emotional arc that makes the most money, categorizing the movies according to six emotional profiles or clusters, which were previously applied to novels.
These are: rags to riches — an ongoing emotional rise as seen in films such as The Shawshank Redemption; riches to rags — an ongoing emotional fall (Psycho); “man in a hole” — a fall followed by a rise (The Godfather); Icarus — a rise followed by a fall (On the Waterfront); Cinderella — a rise followed by a fall followed by a rise (Babe); and Oedipus, a fall followed by a rise followed by a fall (All About My Mother).
The analysis showed that the films with the happy-sad-happy trajectory were the most financially successful movies across all genres. For biographical films, rags to riches came out on top, but it was far less successful in mysteries and thrillers. For comedies the riches to rags arc, which allows for a sad ending, was by far the least successful.
Riches to rags movies could be financially successful if they were epic and made with a huge budget, such as Christopher Nolan’s Batman movies; Icarus films are most successful with a low budget; and Oedipus films do not do well at awards ceremonies.
In publishing their academic research, the scientists conducting the study stated that they hoped their research would help film companies be more creative, because if they know what will be commercially successful it could give them security to produce more experimental movies.
“We don’t see it as limiting, it could allow companies to be more inventive,” one of the research scientists told VanRamblings.
Whatever the case, we’ve got some great films coming the pike between now and the new year: Peter Farrelly’s Green Book, the audience award winner in Toronto this year, which could end up walking away with the whole thing; Barry Jenkins’s adaptation of James Baldwin’s If Beale Street Could Talk, Marielle Heller’s Can You Ever Forgive Me (currently screening at the Fifth Avenue Cinema), Jason Reitman’s The Front Runner, director Steve McQueen’s Widows, Lee Chang-dong’s masterful thriller and Cannes FIPRESCI Prize winner Burning (set to open at the Vancity Theatre next Friday) — and, well, the list could go on and on, couldn’t it?
Suffice to say, for films lovers there’s great cinema coming down the pike.
2014 Mayor Gregor Robertson & City Councillor Inaugural, Creekside Community Centre
This upcoming, Monday, November 5th, Vancouver’s newly-elected Mayor and City Councillors will be sworn into office for a four-year term, as will their civic elected counterparts, the seven Park Board Commissioners, and nine new Board of Education Trustees with the Vancouver School Board.
Monday, October 29th were the last meetings of the now past term for all three elected bodies. Tears were shed at School Board for OneCity Vancouver’s Carrie Bercic, the conscience of the Board this past year, and the only incumbent Trustee not to be re-elected.
At a subdued Park Board meeting on Monday night, outgoing Commissioner Catherine Evans thanked the public for placing their faith in her to represent them around the Park Board table this past four years. And at Vancouver City Council, it was a happy-sad day, which saw several Councillors leaving City Hall — when now retired NPA City Councillor George Affleck left City Hall to head home, a surprise party was waiting for him.
Newly-elected Vancouver School Board trustees take office at their 2017 inauguration, a moving part of which involved an indigenous ceremony wishing the new trustees well.
The School Board inaugural will be a low-key affair open to the public, set to take place this upcoming Monday, November 5th at 7pm, in the large Board room (pictured above), situated within the VSB offices at 1580 West Broadway. The new and returning Trustees will be sworn into office by Secretary-Treasurer, J. David Green, with friends, family and the general public seated in the gallery; after the inaugural, a brief reception will be held in the cafeteria, with small pieces of cake available to the public.
2014 Park Board Inaugural for newly-elected Commissioners, at Van Dusen Gardens
The Park Board inaugural will also be a low key, open to the public affair, set to take place next Monday evening, November 5th at 7pm, at VanDusen Botanical Gardens, with seven new Commissioners set to be sworn in, with family, friends and the public — including VanRamblings and a couple of friends who will be present with us — seated in the room in the far southwest corner of the Van Dusen building. Afterwards, given that any “snacks” are paid for with taxpayer’s dollar, there’ll be canapés available - but if you don’t get in to grab one right away, they’ll be gone.
At neither of the School or Park Board inaugurals will wine be available.
Mayor and Council will be sworn in as part of an invitation only, private affair. One Councillor with whom we spoke was told he could invite 10 guests. Another Councillor has invited 15 of her friends and supporters. All totaled, as in the photo at the top of today’s column, anywhere from 180 – 200 specially invited guests will be present at this inaugural ceremony.
As we say, this inaugural is a private affair, not open to the public.
When Justin Trudeau was sworn into office as Canada’s 23rd Prime Minister on the afternoon of Wednesday, November 4, 2015, along with members of his new Cabinet the event, although the inaugural was special invitation only, from start to finish, from the time Justin Trudeau stepped off the bus heading toward Rideau Hall for the inaugural ceremony for his new government, the entire event was broadcast live on all of Canada’s broadcast networks. Hardly, then, a hidden-away-from-the-public event.
When John Horgan’s government was sworn in to office on Tuesday, July 18th, 2017, the incoming government broke precedent by inviting the public to attend the inaugural ceremony — more than 7,000 British Columbians, including VanRamblings and a coterie of friends — the Legislature wide open to the public throughout the day, with Premier John Horgan cheerfully trumpeting, “This is the people’s building!” And so it is. Note. Christy Clark’s inaugural in 2013 was private affair held in the Legislature, peopled mostly with developers and financial backers of both hers and the B.C. Liberal party’s campaign for office.
In 2008, 2011 and 2014, when the newly-elected Mayor and City Councillors were sworn into office, the press went to town on the private, invitation only City Hall inaugural ceremony, a private affair not open to the public (or “the rabble” as some Councillors liked to say — the sounds of “get those smelly plebes away from us, we don’t want anything to do with them” could be heard ringing through the air).
The press were only too happy to report that $74,000, $85,000 and $96,000 was spent in respective Vision Vancouver inaugurals on the private, closed door, not open to the public inaugural events, “a party at taxpayer expense” could read in our local newspapers, or viewed as the lead item on the evening news, that lustrous inaugural night.
On October 20th, only 12 short days ago, 38% of Vancouver’s voting public voted for change. Gosh. VanRamblings wonders if that call for change maybe, could have, might have meant a low-key inaugural for Mayor and Council that would be, y’know, open to the “rabble”, oh we mean … public.
Ain’t gonna be happening in 2018, VanRamblings is here to report.
Two weeks from now, when some enterprising civic affairs reporter - our money’s on CBC civic affairs reporter Justin McElroy - the most important new voice covering civic politics in our city in a generation - or that old (young?) curmudgeon, the Vancouver Courier’s Mike Howell, or maybe freelance curmudgeon, Bob Mackin - receives the reply to his FOI request, only to discover that City Council’s 2018 inaugural has set taxpayers back only $102,000 (what with inflation and all) — well, gosh, galldarnit, gee, shucks, there’ll be whoop-de-dooin’ galore in the media, Global TV’s Chris Gailus with a big shit eatin’ grin on his face as he reports out on “the bunch of spendthrifts just elected as Mayor and City Council in Vancouver” — he might have said “autocratic spendthrifts”, but GlobalBC News Director Jill Krop doesn’t go in for that kind of rhetorical malarkey.
A Prescription to Open Mayor & Council Inaugural To the Public
VanRamblings readers have asked that we publish an update, respecting how — either four years from now, or later this month or next — the Inaugural celebration of the investiture of the new Mayor and Council might be made open to the public.
The “solution”? Open up City Hall, in much the same way the provincial government opened the B.C. Legislature to the public for the inaugural of their new government. Perhaps on a Saturday (this year), or on a Monday after the Vancouver municipal election in 2022, hold the celebration at City Hall, opening up the main floor of City Hall, the cafeteria in the basement, and the third floor where the Mayor and Councillors offices are located, as well as Council chambers, and allow the public access to all of these areas.
Of course, security will be required, and Mayor and Council will have to be on hand throughout the day of celebration that could begin at 11am and conclude at 8pm — with City Hall left open for the day.
Mayor and Councillors would mingle with the public, as Cabinet ministers did at the NDP inaugural — what a great opportunity to get to know who it is Mayor and Council are serving. Chances are, too, that for many of the attendees, this might be the first time they’ve actually visited City Hall. An empowered public. A Mayor and Councillor meeting the public in a celebratory, party-like atmosphere. Sounds good to us — and to Mayor & Council, too, we bet. After all, who doesn’t like a party?
The cost for the day’s festivities, apart from cakes and perhaps a few canapés available in the cafeteria, minimal and for a good cause — Mayor and Council could even employ the celebratory event as a fundraiser for an agreed upon charitable foundation.
Winners all around, an invested and respected public, an opportunity to open up City Hall as “the people’s building”, and an engaged and delightful and delighted Mayor and Councillor contingent.
Over to you Mayor and newly-elected and returning City Councillors.
Okay. Let’s take a brief break for just a moment.
Is VanRamblings accusing our incoming Mayor and City Councillors of anything? No we are not. Let us repeat that, and expand on the idea: VanRamblings continues to believe, save one of the elected Councillors (who, in the early days, is proving to be just as unhinged as we thought s/he might be) that we have elected the strongest and most progressive Mayor and City Council in a generation, dating back as far as 1972.
Although we’ll get heck for writing the following, we’ll say it anyway: we love every cotton pickin’ one of our new Councillors, and Mayor, too, and believe all that they will do in the weeks, months and years to come will be beneficial to the public interest. All we’re sayin is: it’s the optics, kids. It’s always about the optics.
Why court, or be seen to court, a controversy not of your own making, when it was the outgoing Mayor and Council, and City Hall staff who made the decision to plow ahead with a private inaugural ceremony?
And, let’s get real here for a moment: who in heck wants to come onto Council, which one of our current newbie Councillor-elects wants to start making demands, even before they take office (well, so far there’s been one!) for what on the surface appears to be a picayune issue, hardly on the radar of our newly-electeds?
Heck, as we say above, the Councillor-elects haven’t even been sworn into office yet, and are hardly in any position to be making demands.
We have elected eight novice Vancouver City Councillors, five on the left side of the spectrum including an independent mayor & electeds from 4 different parties. So far, there’s been no caucusing going on among them.
Nope, let’s be clear: there ain’t no finger pointin’ going on here.
Just a word to the wise, a reminder: we live in a democracy, Mayor and Council are elected to serve the public interest, and when on the first day in office the public is excluded, kept away from participating in the celebratory Councillor inaugural they voted into office, a poor, anti-democratic “tone” is set from the outset. All we’re here to say is, it ain’t a very good look.
Top, l-r: Michael Wiebe, Christine Boyle, Jean Swanson, Colleen Hardwick, Pete Fry B (l-r:) Adriane Carr, Melissa De Genova, Lisa Dominato, Rebecca Bligh, Sarah Kirby-Yung
Mayor and Council are comprised of 9 rookies. When, as is the case at the moment & over the course of the past 10 days, they’re being overwhelmed with input from city staff and well-wishers (and bothersome cranks like VanRamblings), it’s amazing that any of the newly-elected officials at City Hall are keeping their sanity. VanRamblings is proud of each and every one of those persons voters elected into office, and we remain confident that, together, they’re going to do an outstanding job serving the public interest.
At 9am next Monday morning, November 5th, 2018, our newly-elected Mayor and Council will spend the morning having their pictures taken, separately and as a group, and be shown their new offices. The inaugural ceremony takes place in the afternoon, at a location we won’t disclose.
Then Councillors are going to have to fasten their seat belts …
Tuesday, November 5th at 9am, all day until 4:30pm, and every weekday that week and the next week, from 9am til 4:30pm, all the way through until Friday, November 16th, our newly electeds will be oriented to their new jobs, meeting department heads and staff, shown their way around all of the buildings where work takes place to serve citizens’ interests, shown all the secret corridors (and elevators), concluding with an all day “lecture” on meeting procedure and decorum.
Then they’ll be ready to get down to business.
Vancouver Mayor Gregor Robertson, with Vancouver City Councillors circa 2015
Long, long overdue, today VanRamblings sets about to right a wrong that, over many years, VanRamblings committed against Vision Vancouver, in failing to properly acknowledge all the good the Vancouver-based political party achieved in their 10 years in power at Vancouver City Hall.
Was Vision Vancouver “perfect” while in power? No, they weren’t. But short of a flower blooming in spring, or the birth of a newborn child, one is not likely to find perfect anywhere on Earth. Vision Vancouver set about to make our city the Greenest City on Earth — towards that end, the members of the Vision Vancouver civic administration did an outstanding job!
Reconciliation with our indigenous peoples, the adoption of a Women’s Equity Strategy, ensuring that the 33 Advisory Committees to Council remained vibrant, the adoption and implementation of a groundbreaking gender variant policy that helped to make ours a fairer and more just city for all of us who reside in our paradise by the sea, constructing hundreds of social housing units, creating the legacy Community Land Trust that will continue in the next civic administration to play a key role in the development of affordable housing for a sometimes beleaguered Vancouver population, declaring Vancouver a sanctuary city, and fighting against racism, xenophobia and intolerance — all of these necessary initiatives barely scratch the surface of all the good that Vision Vancouver was able to accomplish in their 10 progressive years in power at Vancouver City Hall.
First, a bit of perspective on VanRamblings’ apology, where we once again bury the lede. As per usual, a story that we hope helps to provide context.
Prime Minister Jean Chrétien, and federal Liberal party Finance Minister Paul Martin
After nine years in power, the federal Progressive Conservative Party administration of Prime Minister Brian Mulroney was soundly defeated at the polls in Canada 35th general election on October 25th 1993, leaving the once dominant party with only two seats in the house. The incoming Jean Chrétien Liberal Party government garnered 177 seats and 41.24% of the popular vote, while inheriting a $42 billion annual deficit, and a bankrupting $780 billion long term debt that emerged as a key factor in the unpopularity and eventual defeat of the Mulroney government. It is often said that Liberal and NDP administrations couldn’t manage a popsicle stand, that Conservatives are the fiscally responsible political party — which is so much poppycock and nonsense, and the absolute reversal of the truth.
Incoming Prime Minister Jean Chrétien, and the yet-to-be appointed Liberal party Finance Minister Paul Martin were hardly bosom buddies. Jean Chrétien, le p’tit gars de Shawinigan (“the Little Guy from Shawinigan”) raised in some degree of poverty in Québec in the 1930s and 1940s had little time for the wealthy Canada Steamships scion, raised with a silver spoon in his mouth. The bitter 1990 Liberal Party leadership convention left the political rivals bitter political enemies. Even so, in November 1993, once Paul Martin placed his family holdings in a blind trust, the newly re-elected Paul Martin was appointed to the cabinet and named Minister of Finance.
For Prime Minister Jean Chrétien appointing Paul Martin as Finance Minister was political payback — let Paul Martin garner the opprobrium of provincial governments across Canada, as well as public sector unions, the small business and corporate sector, and the people of Canada as he went about wrestling the $42 billion annual deficit to the ground, setting about to lower Canada’s economically unsustainable long term debt, as well.
Paul Martin did exactly that, but not without controversy. Martin implemented huge budget cuts that almost ground economic growth to a halt, scaling down government to 1951 levels, while cutting transfer payments to the provinces that had paid for social programnes, health care, and public infrastructure, including the construction of affordable housing.
By 1998, Martin introduced a balanced budget, an event that had occurred only twice in 36 years before 1997, while also ushering in a recession.
Even so, the budget was balanced, CPP overhauled, and Employment Insurance taxes were increased to a level that raised an “extra” $20 billion each year to pay down the long term debt — by 2002, Moody’s and Standard and Poor’s restored Canada’s domestic and foreign currency debt ratings to AAA. When Jean Chrétien announced he would be stepping down as Prime Minister, Paul Martin was removed from his position as Finance Minister in order to concentrate on his to run for the Liberal leadership. On November 14, 2003, Martin succeeded Jean Chrétien as leader of the Liberal Party, becoming Prime Minister on December 12, 2003.
Was it necessary for Jean Chrétien to remove Paul Martin as Finance Minister? Nope. That decision by the Prime Minister was yet another arrow aimed at the heart and the political ambition of his longtime political rival.
Soon after Paul Martin became Prime Minister, the Globe and Mail published a story alleging financial wrongdoings by the Chrétien government involving tens of million of federal taxpayers dollars improperly paid to Quebec-based Liberal operatives to secure victory in the 2004 Canadian federal election.
Martin met with now former Prime Minister Chrétien to ask him about the improper expenditures, which improper payment Chrétien readily admitted to, while also advising Martin to “bury it”, and announce to the press that his government would conduct an internal investigation — an investigation that would never see the light of day. Chrétien told Martin he’d successfully buried controversies, repeatedly, as Prime Minister of Canada.
But Paul Martin was a boy scout — and he thought Chrétien a despicable, corrupt, self-serving politician. “We’ll get to the bottom of this burgeoning scandal,” Martin bellowed to the press. Soon after, Martin struck The Gomery Commission (formally the Commission of Inquiry into the Sponsorship Programme and Advertising Activities), the federal Canadian Royal Commission headed by Justice John Gomery for the purpose of investigating the the Québec-based sponsorship scandal, which involved allegations of corruption within the Canadian government.
Justice Gomery released a first report on the scandal on November 1, 2005, which brought down the Martin government. To add insult to injury, after boy scout Prime Minister Paul Martin lost the early 2006 federal election to Conservative Party leader Stephen Harper, in 2008, Federal Court of Canada Judge Max M. Teitelbaum set aside Gomery’s conclusion that Jean Chrétien and Jean Pelletier shared blame for the mismanagement of the programme to boost the federal government’s profile in Quebec, a decision that was appealed and upheld by the Federal Court of Appeal.
From the outset, Chrétien had advised Martin to “bury” the story; if he didn’t, it would bring down his government, and Paul Martin would become the Prime Minister of shortest tenure in Canadian history, all while embroiled in a “scandal” not of his own making. But Paul Martin didn’t listen — he didn’t want to bury the story, he wanted to bury his long time rival Jean Chrétien — but in the process, he destroyed his legacy.
Why did Martin set about on this destructive path? One word: hubris. Hubris is often defined as “an extreme and unreasonable feeling of pride and confidence in oneself, an overweening presumption that leads a person to disregard the fixed limits on human action, that means to bring shame upon a rival, while asserting the piety of the accuser.” Proverbs 16:1 reads as follows, “Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall. Better it is to be of an humble spirit with the lowly, than to divide the spoil with the proud.”
Outside of the Biblical context, the proverb still has a ring of truth: overconfidence in oneself not only often leads to mistakes, it can lead to one’s downfall — while Paul Martin lost government, by 2008 his bitter rival, Jean Chrétien, had received absolution, leaving Martin as an unfortunate footnote is the politas of Canadian federal politics.
The Board of Variance at City Hall is the most powerful creature of city government. A quasi-judicial lay body, the Board of Variance possesses the authority to overturn decisions of both the Planning Department, and the City Council itself. In British Columbia, dating back to 1955, the provincial government has required local governments across British Columbia to establish a Board of Variance in their community to oversee all development decisions of the local government, in Vancouver involving not just development — inclusive of applications for property renovations by homeowners to the construction of massive towers, where a relaxation of the applicable zoning bylaw has been granted by either the Planning Department or City Council — but tree removal and signage.
Long story short, the COPE Council in 2005 appointed VanRamblings to Vancouver’s Board of Variance; in 2009, when a vacancy arose, the Vision Vancouver civic administration re-appointed VanRamblings to a new three year term of office — only to fire us two months after our appointment, as we sought to stand up for the central tenets of Board of Variance procedure: independence of Board appointees, and meetings that were open to the public, both of which necessary tenets we felt were breached by the appointed Board of Variance of the day.
We were devastated and bitter when fired by Vision Vancouver.
In response to the firing, VanRamblings made Vision Vancouver, and anyone associated with Vision Vancouver, our bitter enemy — which, as you might imagine, was not a very good look for us, although our bitterness and daily blogging on VanRamblings and thousands of social media posts taking Vision Vancouver to task, whether reasonably or unreasonably, bore fruit in the realpolitik of Vancouver.
As far as we were concerned, Vision Vancouver could do no good.
For years, VanRamblings continued to be bitter and pointed in our criticism of Vision Vancouver, which for the cynics in our community was satisfactory, indeed — human nature seems to take the greatest possible delight in “taking down” politicians. VanRamblings’ readership blossomed — the more bitter our denunciation of Vision Vancouver, the greater our readership.
VanRamblings was successful in creating destructive memes bitterly attacking Vision Vancouver, in the process creating an untoward narrative about Vision Vancouver that saw no good in anyone affiliated with Vision Vancouver, or anything Vision Vancouver did, no matter how laudatory was a Vision Vancouver accomplishment.
The result of all this bitterness? It almost killed us.
As I’ve written many times previously, in August 2016, VanRamblings was diagnosed with hilar cholangeocarcinoma, a deadly, rare form of inoperable cancer that steals the lives of all those who are diagnosed with this terminal form of cancer. In the near eight months we were bed-ridden following our diagnosis, we had a great deal of time to reflect on the meaning of our existence, and both all the good that we had achieved for others, and all the demeaning and destructive acts of hubris we had performed in the community, most directly in respect of Vision Vancouver.
For want of better phraseology, early on in our illness we had a ‘come to Jesus moment’ in respect of Vision Vancouver, and made ourselves a promise (one of several) that were we to survive this terminal and deadly cancer, we would dedicate a portion of our life to making up for the wrongs we had committed against Vision Vancouver. Hubris. It’s a bitter and ugly thing that can kill you.
Now, we’re not so naïve as to believe that a few words on a screen can make up for the damage we’ve caused. There’s no saying , “please forgive me” for that which is unforgivable. All we can do in the coming weeks and months is present to you all of the successes of Vision Vancouver, while responding to the bitter criticisms of the Vision Vancouver administration that we — much to our shame and regret — helped to foment. Note: the authors of both linked criticisms of Gregor Robertson’s the Vision Vancouver administration that may be found directly above are friends of VanRamblings — even so, we couldn’t disagree more with their bitter denunciations of, and the meanness of their criticism of the civic government that has held office at Vancouver City Hall these past 10 years.
Of course, the ironic consequence of all the above is, now that Vision Vancouver is out of office, remnants of that civic administration are setting about to destroy us, to take us down, and once and for all silence our voice.
As you might well imagine: we’re not going anywhere. Neither are we bitter towards or about Vision Vancouver — that’s a mug’s game, and we no longer play that game. To do so, we believe, would kill us, snuff out our life.
In 2018, we have a second chance at this thing called life — we’re going to use the opportunity we’ve been given not for ill, but for the common good.
