Stories of a Life | When Megan Was 7 Years of Age | Marriage

December 11, 2020Jude and Megan, Stories of a Life, Vancouver, VanRamblingsRaymond Tomlin

Megan Jessica Tomlin at age 7 in 1984, black and white photo
Unless I’m mistaken, and I don’t think I am, the photo of Megan above was taken by her mother, when Cathy was taking a photography class she very much enjoyed. As you can see in the photo, Megan is a distinct personality. Look at those wondrous eyes of hers.

When out for a walk in our Kitsilano neighbourhood when Megan was 7 years of age, as we were walking down the street heading towards Jericho Beach, Megan stopped and turned to me, and said in a matter-of-fact and portentous manner, “Dad, when I grow up, I’m going to get married.”

“Good for you,” I said to Megan in response.

As we were nearing McBride Park on that sunny summer 1984 Saturday afternoon, Megan pulled me over to sit on the grass opposite the tennis courts to begin a discourse on her thoughts on marriage …

“I could marry a poor boy, and I would love him, and he would love me, and we would have children together, and be as happy as happy could be every moment of our lives together, for many, many years of wedded bliss, happily raising our children together, all of us loving one another.”

“On the other hand, I could marry a rich boy, someone with whom I could love with all my heart, and we would have children, and love our children as much as it possible for a parent to love their children — which, if you and mom are any indication as to how much love there is to be given to their children, is a huge love, one of immense and sustaining proportion.”

“Now, if I was to marry the rich boy, and we were to have children together, as we most assuredly would, each of the children would have their own bedroom, and my husband and I would have ours. My children would not want for anything, ever, we could travel, and every day of our lives together would be filled with joy untold, our love for one another carrying us through all of our days, in a life of immense satisfaction and happiness, in comfort and without concern to distract from our lives.”

“Y’know, Dad, if I have a choice, I am going to marry the rich boy.”

Megan’s extemporaneous but thoughtful treatise on marriage was surprising for a number of reasons, the most prominent being that her mother and I were in the midst of an overtly contentious and very ugly divorce and custody battle that had gone on for some years — which both Jude and Megan found themselves precipitously and distressingly in the middle of — so I found it to be a bit more than surprising she would ever want to marry, given what she was experiencing with her own parents, that she had quite obviously given the matter some thought, and how pragmatic she was about whom she might choose to marry, and the — forgive me for saying so, but somewhat mercenary — criteria she had set for her future intended, and the tenor of the married life she felt assured would follow.

Make no mistake, Megan was raised as a feminist and a socialist — at least by me, her mother’s “politics” post marriage reverting to the conservative politics of her parents, and the peers of her distinctly privileged youth.

Over time, Megan and I returned to the topic of her future marriage — still many, many years away — as I took pains to impress upon Megan the necessity of agency, that she should always be true to herself and to her values of compassion and contribution, that love must be a part of her life always, but not if it were to come at the expense of her independence and place in society as a difference maker striving to make ours a better and more just world for all. From time to time, Cathy would catch wind of my philosophizing and say to me, “Stop lecturing the kids. They don’t like it!”

There is so much more that I would wish to write on the subject I’ve begun to explore above, but perhaps I’ll save that for another day.

And Megan?

Yes, Megan married the “rich boy”, the two very happy together, their children perhaps not quite so much (children, as we all know can be, and often are, rebellious, as Megan was with her mother most of the time she was growing up, and as she often was with me — honestly, it’s to be expected), although her children (and her lovely and successful husband, Maz) love her to distraction, Megan in “middle age” quite the sophisticated (if too bourgeoise for my tastes, if I might be so bold as to say so) woman of 43 years of age, her life not having taken the path of her best friend growing up, Kasari Govender (she/her/hers, who took office as B.C.’s first independent Human Rights Commissioner on September 3, 2019), but for Megan, her life still one of meaning and substance, if not quite the degree of societal contribution for which she possesses an unparalleled aptitude.

Merry Christmas & Happy Hanukkah | Holiday Lights Tour 2020

December 10, 2020Diversions, News, Stories of a Life, Vancouver, VanRamblingsRaymond Tomlin

2020 represents the 50th anniversary of VanRamblings’ annual “Christmas” (holiday) lights tour — a seasonally appropriate and joy-filled tour we’ve conducted with our spouse, children, family and friends dating back to 1970, an utterly free, quietening, joyous and much-look-forwarded to event on the Tomlin household calendar lo these many joyous holiday seasons.

DuPlessis Family Christmas Display, 8222 Burnlake Drive, in Burnaby | nightly from 4:30pm til midnight, through until January 10th, 2021

In the 1980s with my two children, Jude and Megan, we’d begin our holiday lights tour in Burnaby, and wend our way back to Vancouver hitting all the spots you’ll find listed on the holiday light display tour, and before heading into Stanley Park for Bright Nights and a ride on the Christmas train, we’d stop in at the (now closed) White Spot on Georgia Street — after which we would continue our tour, alighting at each stop to admire the light display, the children placing monies into the various donation boxes along the way.

During our annual holiday lights tour, in most instances we would forego paid displays — such as the annual Van Dusen Festival of Lights (currently postponed), to which we would dedicate a whole night out at some point during the holiday season — and stick to home-style family light displays.

By the time Megan hit 9 years of age, being the decided personality she is (read: Megan must always get her way … everyone who knows her accepts that as a fact of life), Megan decided that while our annual Christmas Lights Tour would begin in Burnaby, and after completing our tour of Dundarave, West and North Vancouver, and Trinity Street, we would next head out to Coquitlam, and then out to Surrey — which meant that the holiday lights tour wouldn’t end until somewhere around 3 a.m. Then it was home.

Three of the city’s most popular seasonal events — the VanDusen Botanical Garden’s Festival of Lights, the Capilano Suspension Bridge Park’s Canyon Lights, and Stanley Park’s Bright Nights, and the Christmas Train — have all been cancelled this COVID year.

For the purposes of this year’s Holiday Lights Tour column, we are going to limit ourselves to writing about holiday light displays and attractions in Vancouver, and West and North Vancouver — offering you the opportunity to enjoy a socially safe distanced tour that is filled with much light, and even more joy — while linking to posts made by other media that go farther afield. In the main, in 2020, we have relied on the good folks at News1130, and their holiday lights tour guide — although, we organized our tour in a logical manner as if your are driving in a vehicle, and making your way around the Metro Vancouver region.

Now onto the 2020 Holiday Lights Tour …

Continue reading Merry Christmas & Happy Hanukkah | Holiday Lights Tour 2020 →

#COVID19 | As The Pandemic Wends Its Glorious Way to A Close

December 8, 2020BC Politics, Canada, Food & Health, News, Politics, VancouverRaymond Tomlin

Hope for an expeditious end to our current pandemic circumstance appears to be relatively close, with vaccines from at least four — and more probably, six — companies appear well on their way to receiving approval in the next short while, with the two-injection Pfizer vaccine appearing set for approval by Health Canada as early as this Thursday, December 10th, with Moderna, AstraZenica and Johnson & Johnson not far behind in the pipeline. Update: Health Canada approved the Pfizer/BioNTech on December 9th.

A number of announcements have been made in recent days involving the roll-out of the vaccines that will, eventually, keep us all safe …

On November 27th, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced the appointment of former NATO commander Maj.-Gen. Dany Fortin to lead the national vaccine distribution effort, with a target of immunizing half of all Canadians — that’s 19 million of us — or more, by September, 2021;

Just yesterday, the Prime Minister told Canadians that Canada has secured an agreement to receive its first batch of Pfizer’s coronavirus vaccine before the end of the year — up to 249,000 doses. Pending Health Canada approval, “Canadians will be getting vaccinated starting next week,” Trudeau said at a news conference in Ottawa. Shipments will continue to arrive in 2021; the second batch will be reserved for the same people vaccinated in the first batch — which is to say, the elderly in long term care facilities across Canada. “We’re facing the largest immunization in the history of our country,” Trudeau said.

Canada’s National Advisory Committee on Immunization (NACI) this past Friday released its final directive addressing the prioritization of who should receive the vaccines first, and which groups would be next, right through until the late spring. By the end of March, NACI scientists said they expect 3 million Canadians will have been vaccinated with one of the three (soon to be four, or more) approved COVID-19 vaccines, that number doubling by late June, and doubling yet again by early to mid-autumn of 2021.

The initial batch of Pfizer/BioNTech vaccines will roll out to 249,000, or more, Canadians

NACI scientists advise the roll-out of vaccines will occur, as follows …

(a) Long-term care and assisted living facility residents, as well as residents in retirement homes and chronic care hospitals, who face “severe outcomes” and a much greater chance of dying from the disease than the population as a whole;
(b) NACI scientists said the next priority group would be “adults 80 years of age and older;”
Number of Canadians, by province, expected to receive the initial batch of Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine in the early part of 2021, beginning in January.

(c) NACI scientists expressed concern about Indigenous adults living in communities “where infection can have disproportionate consequences, such as those living in remote or isolated areas.” Indigenous persons will be the third group of Canadians to be vaccinated;
(d) Adults aged 75 – 79 would be next to receive vaccinations, followed by adults aged 70 – 74 years of age.

These four groups — long-term care residents and staff, the elderly, front line health care workers and some Indigenous adults — are expected to consume all of the six million doses (the Pfizer vaccine requires two doses) to be delivered in the first three months of 2021.

In the second phase of the vaccine roll-out, which would begin in April 2021, as more supply comes online, other essential workers will have access. The NACI advisory committee said first responders — such as police officers, firefighters and health care workers not included in the initial rollout — would be next in line, followed by residents and staff in other “congregate settings” — such as migrant workers, prisoners in correctional facilities and people in homeless shelters.
At the end of the day, though, it is the provincial Premiers, their Health Ministers and Public Health Officers who will determine prioritization of vaccine roll-out in their jurisdictions. By late summer / early autumn, Prime Minister Trudeau has said he expects half of all Canadians would be vaccinated — that’s 19 million Canadians.
The vaccine roll-out will continue through the end of 2021, and beyond.

#ParkBoard | The Politics Never End Within Our Civic Bodies

December 4, 2020BC Politics, Park Board, Politics, VancouverRaymond Tomlin

John Coupar, Non Partisan Association Park Board Commissioner | Standing in opposition to an anti-democratic motion coming to the Vancouver Park Board | Photo: Dan Toulgoet

In civic governance as practiced within the City of Vancouver, politics — you know, the kind of politics that have our electeds sniping at, belittling, attempting to one up, disliking verging on hatred, while actively engaged in disrespecting one another — remains the order of the day, less so at Vancouver School Board, but ever present at Council (or, now, during their safe socially distanced Webex online meetings), and around the Park Board table nestled within the Vancouver Park Board offices, or is now the case during our pandemic times, online using the city’s Webex online platform.
In the new year, VanRamblings will dedicate the early months of the year to writing about Vancouver civic governance (suffice to say, we’re not happy), and had intended to enjoy the season and leave for another day what will in all likelihood be an evisceration (such a nasty word) of governance in the city of Vancouver, as it is currently practiced, until the following arose …

Vancouver Park Board staff will bring the above recommendation to the Park Board table next Monday, December 7th, first in an in-camera online meeting not available to the public, and then at 6:30pm when the final online meeting of Park Board Commissioners — before the holiday break — will take place. The next Park Board meeting is set for January 18th, 2021.
According to a 31-page Vancouver Park Board staff report [PDF] …

The Vancouver Board of Parks and Recreation Procedure By-law (Park Board Procedure By-law) guides how the business of the Park Board Commissioners is handled and applies to all meetings of the Board and its committees. While the current by-law underwent a comprehensive review in 2018 before being enacted by the Board January 2019, it is best practice to undertake regular administrative reviews to ensure procedures remain relevant.

The revisions outlined in this report, and attached as Appendix A, are proposed to reflect current practices, address gaps, and clarify procedures that may have led to some ambiguity or confusion. Additionally, recommendations have been included to provide Commissioners options to follow-up on the “Future Considerations noted in the last by-law update report regarding electronic and special meetings.

The net impact of the recommendation, when it becomes a motion before the Board this next Monday, as it surely will, would be to deny a minority contingent of duly elected Park Board members to call a Special Meeting of the Board to seek public input on issues of concern to the general populace.
In these parts, we call that bullying, rule of the majority, arrogant decision-making by elected officials, and - let’s face it - downright anti-democratic.

Vancouver Park Board Commissioners, l-r: Tricia Barker, John Coupar (NPA); Gwen Giesbrecht, John Irwin (COPE); Stuart Mackinnon, Camil Dumont, Dave Demers (Greens)

Apparently, the genesis for the staff recommendation arises from a Special Meeting of the Board that two Commissioners, John Coupar and Tricia Barker, called this past summer to discuss transportation issues within Stanley Park, with which members of the public had expressed concern.
As a general rule — be it at Council, School Board or Park Board — senior staff are reluctant, at best, to meet with the public to discuss issues of public concern, cuz it’s messy and democratic, and diminishes their power as the professionals who, in actuality, “run” city governance — not to mention which, these time consuming meetings can go on for days, and it takes them away from the familial comfort of their homey and cozy offices.
Park Board staff were none-too-pleased with the calling of the June 18, 2020 Special Meeting — thus, their recommendation to Commissioners. And, if truth be told, neither were COPE Commissioners Gwen Giesbrecht — who viscerally dislikes the rather lovable John Coupar — and John Irwin, and Green Party of Vancouver Park Board Commissioners, current Chairperson, Camil Dumont (also not much of a fan of his NPA Park Board colleagues, ditto his fellow Greens) — Dave Demers & Stuart Mackinnon.
Yes, it’s civic governance as a particularly bad high school experience.

Now, should the staff “recommendation” be accepted by a majority of the Board at this upcoming final 2020 meeting of Park Board, here’s what the net effect the passage of the motion would mean for governance at the Board, as well as the process to realize the intention of Park Board staff …

1. Going forward only the Park Board Chairperson, or a majority of Board members could call for a Special Meeting of the Board — a derivation of Board practice dating back to its inception more than a century ago;

2. Although there is a provision in the by-law and Park Board governance provisions that would allow a minority contingent of Park Board Commissioners to call a Special Meeting, to address urgent issues of concern to the public, such a motion could (and probably would) be tabled by the majority of the Board Commissioners, effectively making moot the urgent concern provisions of Park Board governance;

3. Assuming the “motion” passes, it would then be forwarded to Vancouver City Council for passage before Council (where such provisions as staff are recommending at Park Board are already in place). How would Council likely respond to the entreaty of Park Board to make application to the provincial government for a change to the Vancouver Charter to accommodate the expressed wishes of the current Park Board? VanRamblings believes the answer would be, contentiously not well;

4. For the sake of argument, let’s say Council says, “Okay you buckos at Park Board, we’ll grant you your Christmas wish, and post your recommended Charter change to our mistresses and masters in Victoria.” La-di-dah. How would British Columbia’s new Minister Responsible for Municipal Affairs, former Tofino Mayor, Josie Osborne, receive the entreaty of Council and Park Board for a change to the Vancouver Charter?

Uuummmm, not well?

One would think that our currently elected Park Board Commissioners would have many better things to do with their time than to seek to diminish democratic governance around the Park Board table, and diminish input from the public into decision-making by our elected Commissioners.
Apparently not.

Vancouver Park Board Commissioner John Coupar on his opposition to a motion to be presented at Park Board on December 7 2020 that would limit public input into decision-making at the Park Board table, and prevent minority members of the Board from calling for a Special Meeting of the Board when issues of public concern arise.

Note should be made that Park Board Chair Dumont determines what items find their way onto the Park Board agenda — as it happens, the Park Board Chair is all powerful. Nothing gets onto the agenda if he doesn’t want it to. So, apparently, Mr. Dumont is possessed of a strong desire to see this staff recommendation become a motion at the Park Board table, a motion he would vigorously support and urge his fellow Commissioners to support.

‘Ceptin one thing: at some point, it’s possible that Mr. Dumont and Mr. Demers would comprise a minority contingent of Green Party of Vancouver Park Board Commissioners on the elected Vancouver Park Board, the values of the remaining Park Board Commissioners in diametric opposition to that for which Mr. Dumont and Mr. Demers steadfastly stand.
Note to Park Board Chairperson Camil Dumont, and his fellow COPE and Green Party of Vancouver Park Board Commissioners: turn the the staff governance report into a motion of Park Board at next Monday’s meeting, and risk that at some point down the road, your very own power as a duly elected Park Board Commissioner will be much diminished.
A risky venture for our elected Park Board Commissioners, anti-democratic in design and intention, and very much contrary to the public interest.