Tag Archives: toronto

#VIFF45: A Festival to Remember — The Films, the Discoveries, and the Magic of Cinema

A three-part VanRamblings wrap-up of the 45th Vancouver International Film Festival | October 1–11, 2026

Part One: A Final Weekend Worth Celebrating

There is something gloriously bittersweet about the final weekend of the Vancouver International Film Festival. For 10 days, Vancouver’s moviegoing community has been living inside a world of discovery, moving from one cinema to another, comparing notes over coffee, arguing about performances, falling hopelessly in love with films we could never have anticipated, and wondering how on earth we are going to fit just one more screening into an already impossibly crowded schedule.

And then, suddenly, the end is in sight.

The 45th annual Vancouver International Film Festival has given Vancouver audiences an embarrassment of cinematic riches, with films arriving from Cannes, Berlin, Venice, Telluride, Toronto and the New York Film Festival. The final weekend offers one last opportunity to catch some of the year’s most accomplished international films, several of which have already become personal favourites here at VanRamblings.

Friday, October 9, begins with a particularly tantalizing double bill at the Park Theatre. At 6:15 p.m., Japanese master Hirokazu Kore-eda’s Look Back offers another opportunity to experience the director’s extraordinary gift for finding tenderness in the everyday. Kore-eda has spent a career exploring the fragile bonds between parents and children, the families we inherit and the families we create. Here, he turns his attention to youth and the nature of storytelling, bringing his customary grace and emotional intelligence to a film that understands how imagination can transform the lives of young people. His work has a way of making the apparently ordinary feel quietly miraculous.

The Friday double bill continues with James Gray’s Paper Tiger, which has attracted considerable attention on the festival circuit. The intimate crime drama features Adam Driver, Scarlett Johansson and Miles Teller, three performers whose contrasting screen personas promise a compelling study in loyalty, ambition and the dangerous entanglements of criminal life. Gray is a filmmaker fascinated by family, betrayal and the moral compromises people make in pursuit of security. With a cast of this calibre, Paper Tiger is a particularly enticing prospect.

The final weekend also brings a remarkable collection of films shared with the prestigious New York Film Festival. Friday’s offerings include Once Upon a Time in Harlem and 9 Temples to Heaven at Fifth Avenue, with Marine Atlan’s La Gradiva at International Village 9 at 8 p.m. and Andrey Zvyagintsev’s Minotaur at the Lindsay Family Stage on Granville Island at 8:30 p.m. For festivalgoers who relish the experience of discovering a film before it reaches a wider audience, these screenings are precisely what VIFF is all about.

And then there is Lukas Dhont’s Coward, VanRamblings’ favourite film at VIFF 45, screening Friday evening at the Park Theatre. The Belgian filmmaker’s First World War drama, whose stars Emmanuel Macchia and Valentin Campagne shared the Best Actor prize at Cannes, is a work of breathtaking emotional delicacy. More about that extraordinary film in Part Two of VanRamblings final column on VIFF 45.

At 9 p.m. Friday, the Vancouver Playhouse welcomes La Bola Negra, Javier Calvo and Javier Ambrossi’s ambitious historical melodrama, which won the Audience Award at this year’s Toronto International Film Festival. Moving between 1932, 1937 and 2017, the film interweaves the lives of three gay protagonists, giving a traditional historical epic a thrillingly contemporary queer sensibility. The filmmakers also shared the Best Director prize at Cannes. It is precisely the sort of ambitious, emotionally expansive storytelling that makes international cinema so rewarding.

Saturday, October 10, brings another remarkable sequence of screenings. At 11 a.m., The Only Living Pickpocket in New York opens the day’s programme at the Vancouver Playhouse. At 1:45 p.m., Ryûsuke Hamaguchi’s All of a Sudden, Japan’s Oscar submission, offers a quietly expansive meditation on human connection. Making his French-language debut, Hamaguchi explores the fragile structures that bind us to one another, with luminous, Cannes-recognized performances from Virginie Efira and Tao Okamoto. This is cinema that understands the expressive power of conversation, observation and silence.

The evening’s centrepiece is Martin McDonagh’s Wild Horse Nine, VIFF’s Closing Gala, at 6:15 p.m. at the Vancouver Playhouse. With John Malkovich leading the cast, the film arrives amid considerable awards-season anticipation. McDonagh’s gift for combining dark humour, moral unease and unpredictable human behaviour makes this a fittingly provocative way to approach the festival’s conclusion.

And for those determined to make the absolute most of Saturday, there is a 9:15 p.m. screening of NAZA at the Park Theatre. Directed by Yuval Abraham and Rachel Szor, the investigative documentary examines Israeli military targeting practices in Gaza through interviews with military insiders. The title refers to a reported intelligence euphemism for anticipated civilian deaths in airstrikes. Produced by Jonathan Glazer and James Wilson, the team behind The Zone of Interest, NAZA has become one of the festival’s most controversial and politically urgent films. Its filmmakers argue that the systems used to calculate civilian casualties reveal a devastating process of dehumanization; its claims and implications have provoked fierce debate. The film received the Special Jury Prize at Venice. Whatever one’s response, this is documentary filmmaking that insists audiences confront uncomfortable questions about technology, accountability and the human cost of war.

Sunday, October 11, is the final day of VIFF 45, and the schedule is hardly a gentle winding-down. La Gradiva returns at the Lindsay Family Stage, while Everytime screens at Fifth Avenue. Mina Shum’s Whatcha Want brings a distinctly Vancouver perspective to the final day’s offerings at the Rio Theatre at 3:30 p.m. Meanwhile, Minotaur, Zvyagintsev’s Grand Prix winner at Cannes, offers another opportunity to experience the work of a formidable contemporary filmmaker.

At the Park Theatre, Mike Leigh’s Tender Loving Care screens at 6 p.m., followed by Pedro Almodóvar’s Bitter Christmas at 9:15 p.m. And at 6:15 p.m., the Rio Theatre screens I Play Rocky, one of VanRamblings’ other personal favourites of the festival.

The beauty of VIFF, of course, is that the festival’s final screening need not be the final opportunity to see a film. Programmer Tom Charity and the VIFF Centre regularly help bring festival discoveries back to Vancouver audiences, while other titles secure conventional theatrical engagements across Metro Vancouver. It is worth keeping an eye on the VIFF Centre’s subsequent programming rather than assuming that missing a festival screening means missing a film forever.

But first, there are two films that deserve a special place in this year’s festival conversation.

Coward: Lukas Dhont’s Most Beautiful Film Yet

VanRamblings’ favourite film of VIFF 45 | Directed by Lukas Dhont | Belgium, France, Netherlands

Some films move you. Others quietly rearrange the furniture of your heart. And then there is Lukas Dhont’s Coward, an achingly beautiful, tenderly observed, emotionally transporting work of cinema that left VanRamblings with the extraordinary conviction that we had just encountered one of the finest films of the year — of any year.

At the 79th Cannes Film Festival, Dhont’s First World War drama earned the Best Actor prize for its remarkable young stars, Emmanuel Macchia and Valentin Campagne. Their performances are the beating heart of a film that could easily have succumbed to the familiar conventions of the tragic queer period drama, yet instead finds something infinitely more generous, more courageous and ultimately more life-affirming.

Set amid the brutal realities of the Belgian trenches, Coward introduces us to Pierre (Macchia), a young soldier arriving at the front eager to prove himself in a world in which courage is measured in blood, obedience and the willingness to march towards almost certain death. But Pierre’s understanding of the world begins to change when he meets Francis (Campagne), a fellow soldier with an unexpected idea: to stage a theatrical performance for their comrades.

It is an audacious proposal in a place where imagination might seem like an unaffordable luxury. Yet the makeshift theatre becomes something extraordinary — a sanctuary of beauty, laughter and human connection amid the machinery of destruction. And between Pierre and Francis, something tender and transformative begins to emerge.

Dhont, whose Girl and Close established him as one of contemporary cinema’s most sensitive observers of adolescent vulnerability, has made his most mature film to date. Here, his storytelling possesses an emotional restraint that makes every fleeting glance, every tentative touch and every moment of physical closeness feel almost unbearably precious.

The chemistry between Macchia and Campagne is simply magnificent. Dhont has a tactile, compassionate understanding of how men — queer men especially — watch other men, the way attraction and affection can reveal themselves in a look held a second too long, or in a gesture whose significance cannot safely be spoken aloud. Coward is, by turns, breathtakingly violent and sweetly, shiveringly sensual. Its most intimate moments feel less like conventional romantic scenes than like the discovery of an entirely new language.

And what a relief it is that Dhont refuses to drown that love in tragedy.

Unlike so many period tales of forbidden queer affection, Coward is not interested in dripping its canvas in despair. Dhont wants to leave us with a glimmer of hope. Actually, more than a glimmer: a wry smile of anticipation, a suggestion that all is not lost, that love can find a way even when the world seems determined to extinguish it.

This is a recuperation of queer representation as resilient and hopeful. Happiness — or, perhaps more importantly, contentment — is possible when we seek it and seize it. That assertion feels quietly radical in a film set amid the carnage of the First World War, where tenderness itself becomes an act of resistance.

Dhont does not minimize the horror surrounding his characters. Rather, he understands that the existence of beauty in terrible circumstances does not diminish suffering; it makes the preservation of our humanity all the more urgent. The theatre they create becomes an emblem of what art can accomplish when the world has seemingly abandoned its obligations to the living.

There is something almost miraculous about the film’s tonal balance. The violence is genuinely frightening, the romance achingly delicate, the humour unexpectedly liberating. Dhont allows the film to breathe, trusting his actors and the emotional intelligence of his audience. He never insists that we feel something when a glance or a silence can accomplish so much more.

And when Coward reaches its final passages, its hopefulness feels neither sentimental nor cheaply won. It emerges from everything these men have endured, from the risks they have taken and from the simple, extraordinary recognition that another person can make a life worth living.

This is sensitive storytelling at its most affecting: sweetly played, elegantly mounted, reaching towards hope not in light of war’s horrors, but in spite of them.

For VanRamblings, Coward is the film of VIFF 45. It is a reminder that cinema’s greatest achievement is not always to break our hearts.

Sometimes, it is to show us how beautifully they can mend.

VanRamblings Grade: A+


Fatherland: A Haunted Masterpiece of Memory and Exile

VanRamblings feels strongly Fatherland is the best film to screen at VIFF 45, one of the best films of the year | Directed by Paweł Pawlikowski | Poland, Germany, Italy, France

If Coward is the film that most tenderly captured VanRamblings heart at VIFF 45, Paweł Pawlikowski’s Fatherland is the film that most completely convinced us of cinema’s extraordinary power to transform history into poetry.

Pawlikowski, the modern master behind Ida and Cold War, has fashioned another immaculate black-and-white work of European cinema, an 82-minute elegy of such precision, intelligence and emotional depth that its brevity feels almost audacious.

Winner of the Best Director prize at Cannes, Fatherland is a gorgeous, gripping drama whose resonance extends far beyond its carefully chosen postwar setting.

The film centres on Nobel Prize-winning writer Thomas Mann (Hanns Zischler) and his daughter Erika (Sandra Hüller), the actress, writer and rally driver. In the summer of 1949, sixteen years after fleeing Nazi Germany for the safety of the United States, Mann returns to his native country. Accompanied by Erika, he embarks on an emotionally fraught road trip in a black Buick, traveling from American-controlled Frankfurt to Soviet-controlled Weimar through a Germany devastated by war and divided by ideology.

It is a journey across a shattered nation, but also across the wreckage of a family.

Pawlikowski understands that the aftermath of catastrophe is not merely a matter of rebuilding cities or redrawing borders. It is also about confronting the moral compromises of the past, the things people did, the things they failed to do, and the stories they tell themselves to make those failures bearable.

Mann is a towering literary figure, a man whose opposition to Hitler forced him into exile. Yet the film is not content to celebrate the Nobel laureate as a convenient moral monument. His relationship with Erika reveals a more complicated figure, a father whose public stature and intellectual authority cannot protect him from the consequences of private shortcomings.

Hüller, one of contemporary cinema’s most compelling actors, is extraordinary as Erika. Her performance is a study in intelligence, resentment, wit and barely contained pain. She gives the film its emotional counterweight, suggesting a lifetime of accumulated disappointment beneath the surface of an apparently formidable woman. Zischler is equally compelling, creating a Mann whose authority is unmistakable but whose capacity for self-understanding remains uncertain.

The relationship between them is the film’s beating heart. Every exchange seems to carry the weight of conversations that have never taken place, apologies never offered, affection expressed too late or withheld altogether.

Shot by cinematographer Łukasz Żal in exquisitely chiselled monochrome, Fatherland is a visual marvel. The landscape passes through the car windows like a wounded memory, the ruins and the uneasy coexistence of two political systems rendering history tangible. Pawlikowski’s compositions are austere but never sterile; his camera finds beauty in the contours of a devastated landscape without ever pretending that beauty can erase what happened there.

As the journey progresses eastwards, the film becomes increasingly preoccupied with grief and the responsibility of the artist. What does it mean to create art in the aftermath of catastrophe? Can intellectual achievement compensate for emotional failure? And what obligation does a celebrated writer have to the people closest to him, rather than to the abstract ideals he represents?

These questions converge in a beautiful, sad epiphany, delivered with the divine economy that distinguishes Pawlikowski’s finest work.

There are moments when Fatherland feels chilly, even deliberately withholding. But that restraint is part of its achievement. Pawlikowski trusts us to recognize what remains unspoken, to find the sorrow in a pause, the tenderness in an awkward gesture, the devastation in an exchange that appears almost incidental.

The result is a film of haunted, ravaged beauty. Its mournful meditation on national identity, private tragedy and the dangers of trying to remain apolitical in deeply political times speaks directly to our own fractured moment. The cultural riches that survive catastrophe offer no easy redemption, but they can provide small, crucial forms of solace.

Fatherland is an elegant, engrossing masterpiece, an extraordinarily economical film that leaves behind an emotional echo far greater than its running time might suggest.

If VIFF 45 has offered a reminder of why we go to the movies, Pawlikowski’s film supplies one of the most compelling answers: to experience the past not as a distant abstraction, but as a living, breathing presence in the room.

This is a gorgeous poem of a film, and, for VanRamblings, the best film to screen at this year’s festival.

VanRamblings Grade: A+


Part Three: The Movies, the Memories, and the Promise of What’s Next

What, then, has VIFF 45 achieved?

First, it has reminded us that the Vancouver International Film Festival remains one of this city’s most important cultural institutions. For eleven days, it has created a space in which audiences can encounter stories beyond their own experience, discover filmmakers they might otherwise never have encountered, and engage with works that challenge, provoke, entertain and occasionally change the way we see the world.

Second, this year’s festival has offered compelling evidence that 2026 may be one of the strongest years for cinema in a decade, both domestically and internationally.

From the moral complexities of Cristian Mungiu’s Fjord to the exquisite emotional restraint of Coward, from Pawlikowski’s haunted Fatherland to the imaginative daring of films arriving from Japan, Spain and elsewhere, the year’s finest work has demonstrated that ambitious filmmaking is alive and flourishing. Cannes’ awards have been especially revealing, recognizing films that are artistically adventurous while remaining profoundly attentive to the human condition.

And what a year for Canadian cinema, too. Mina Shum’s Whatcha Want is a welcome reminder of the importance of Vancouver filmmakers telling stories that emerge from the communities they know, while the festival’s wider Canadian programme has offered audiences opportunities to encounter the country’s extraordinary range of voices and perspectives. A healthy film culture depends not simply on importing the world’s best work, but on creating the conditions in which our own filmmakers can flourish.

There is, of course, a practical challenge awaiting us after the closing credits roll. How do we sustain the excitement? How do we ensure that these films find audiences beyond the festival’s eleven-day window?

The work of VIFF Centre programmer Tom Charity, and the subsequent theatrical engagements that some festival titles will secure across Metro Vancouver, is essential. A festival should be a beginning, not an ending. The conversation that starts in a crowded cinema ought to continue over dinner, in the pages of publications such as VanRamblings, and in the choices we make when deciding what to watch next.

Most importantly, VIFF reminds us that watching movies together is an act of community. We sit in the darkness beside strangers, laughing at the same unexpected joke, holding our breath through the same moment of suspense, or emerging into the Vancouver night with tears in our eyes and the sudden urge to talk to someone about what we have just experienced. For a few precious hours, another person’s story becomes part of our own.

That is the enduring magic of cinema. It allows us to inhabit lives we have never lived, to recognize ourselves in people whose circumstances are utterly unlike our own, and to discover that tenderness, courage, grief, longing and hope are not the possessions of any one nation or culture. They belong to all of us.

As VIFF 45 draws to a close, VanRamblings find ourselves thinking again about Coward, about those young soldiers who discover a measure of beauty in a world consumed by violence, and about Fatherland, with its wounded landscapes and its insistence that the past must be confronted if we are to make sense of the present. These films are very different, yet both understand that art can preserve something precious when the world seems determined to destroy it.

And perhaps that is the most hopeful thing we can take away from this year’s festival.

In a time of political division, technological upheaval and genuine uncertainty about the future, filmmakers continue to make works of astonishing beauty, intelligence and compassion. Audiences continue to seek them out. Cinemas continue to fill with people willing to give themselves over to a story.

For eleven days, Vancouver has been a city of movie lovers, united by curiosity and the shared pleasure of discovery. The festival ends, but the films remain with us, becoming part of our private histories, our conversations and our understanding of one another.

Here’s to VIFF 46. Here’s to the filmmakers who will surprise us, the performances that will break our hearts, and the stories that will remind us what we share.

And here’s to the simple, extraordinary miracle of sitting in a darkened cinema, surrounded by strangers, and discovering that, for a little while, we are all watching the world together.

#VanPoli | Vancouver Needs a Ward System: Democracy Begins Where People Live

Vancouver Liberals Mayoral candidate Kareem Allam’s proposal to place a plebiscite before voters in the 2030 Vancouver municipal election asking voters / Vancouver residents — should he become Mayor on October 17 2026 — whether they would like to see the adoption of a “ward” system / that is, elect a Councillor to represent their neighbourhood or geographic area, rather than electing 10 City Councillors at-large, deserves more than a passing mention in the 2026 Vancouver municipal campaign.

This issue goes to the heart of what democracy at the municipal level is supposed to accomplish: Is a Councillor primarily accountable to an entire city, or should there be a Councillor whose first responsibility is to the people and neighbourhoods of a particular part of that city?


Kareem Allam, the Vancouver Liberals’ Mayoral candidate, has proposed establishing a Citizens’ Assembly to examine the adoption of a ward system in Vancouver.

The assembly would make recommendations and develop the question that could go before voters in 2030, with a ward system potentially taking effect for the 2034 civic election. The Vancouver Liberals say the present at-large system makes campaigns expensive and can leave neighbourhoods without direct representation.

Wards / geographic neighbourhood representation is an idea whose time has come.

Vancouver Needs a Ward System: Democracy Begins Where People Live

Vancouver is an extraordinary city, but electing City Councillors at-large is an anachronism.

Today, Vancouverites elect the Mayor and 10 Councillors at-large.

Every voter can vote for every Councillor, and every Councillor is theoretically responsible for every resident of the city.

On paper, that sounds wonderfully democratic.

In practice, it can mean the opposite.

When everyone represents everyone, no one necessarily represents you.

That is the fundamental weakness of Vancouver’s at-large electoral system.

Imagine a resident in Killarney confronting a serious neighbourhood issue: a proposed development, traffic problems, inadequate pedestrian infrastructure, a community facility under threat or a local planning decision. Under the current system, that resident has 10 Councillors to whom she or he can appeal — and, paradoxically, no single Councillor whose political job is to be that neighbourhood’s representative.

Under a ward system, there would be one.

That distinction matters.

A Councillor Who Knows, Lives In and Cares About Your Neighbourhood

In the heart of the city, Vancouver’s Mount Pleasant neighbourhood, looking north towards the mountains

Consider what happens in federal and provincial politics.

If you have a problem with a federal matter, you know who your Member of Parliament is.

If you have a provincial concern, you know who your MLA is.

You may not agree with that person politically. You may never have voted for them. But you know that person is your representative.

There is a geographical relationship between citizen and elected official.

Municipal government should work the same way.

A Councillor representing, for example, a ward encompassing Hastings-Sunrise and Renfrew-Collingwood would have an obvious political responsibility to understand those communities: their transportation problems, housing pressures, parks, schools, businesses, community centres, development proposals and neighbourhood concerns.

That Councillor could hold regular constituency meetings, maintain an office, attend community-association meetings and become known to the people who live there.

Most importantly, residents would know exactly who to call.

That is accountability.

Vancouver is The Outlier: Every Other Major City in Canada Has Wards

Located in the NE part of Vancouver, the Killarney neighbourhood where ABC Councillor Mike Klassen grew up

The argument for a ward system is strengthened by looking beyond Vancouver.

Toronto elects 25 ward Councillors, with the Mayor elected city-wide.

Edmonton has 12 wards and one Councillor per ward. Winnipeg has 15 wards, again with one Councillor representing each. Ottawa has 24 wards, with one Councillor elected from each and the Mayor elected at-large.

These are not small communities experimenting with an untested democratic theory. They are some of Canada’s largest municipalities.

And the principle is straightforward: the Mayor represents the entire city; Councillors represent both their communities and the city as a whole.

That is precisely the model Vancouver should consider.

It is worth correcting one point, however. It would be inaccurate to say that British Columbia is literally the only Canadian province in which large municipalities lack ward systems. Canadian provincial legislation permits different electoral arrangements, and some municipalities outside B.C. also use at-large or hybrid systems.

But Vancouver is unquestionably unusual among Canada’s major cities in continuing to elect its entire Council at-large.

And there is no compelling reason why Vancouver should remain an exception.

The At-large Election System Favours The City-Wide Political Machine

The almost always sunny Vancouver Point Grey neighbourhood, located in the western part of the city

There is another argument for wards that should not be ignored: money.

Running for one of 10 city-wide Council positions is enormously different from campaigning in a defined geographical constituency.

An at-large candidate must communicate with hundreds of thousands of voters across Vancouver. That requires money, organization, name recognition, volunteers and often the support of a political party or electoral slate.

A ward campaign would be different.

A candidate could concentrate on 50,000 or 60,000 residents rather than the entire city.

That opens the door to people who do not have the financial resources, political connections or city-wide name recognition required to mount an effective at-large campaign.

It could make civic politics more accessible to community activists, small-business owners, renters, neighbourhood advocates, younger candidates and people who have spent years working in their communities but have never contemplated a city-wide campaign.

In that respect, wards could actually democratize Vancouver politics.

Every Vancouver Councillor Must Have a Neighbourhood Constituency

Vancouver’s east side Grandview-Woodland neighbourhood, home to a thriving retail Commercial Drive

Critics of ward systems argue that Councillors should think about the entire city.

Of course they should.

A ward Councillor would still vote on the city budget, transportation policy, housing, policing, parks, taxation, climate policy and every other issue before Council.

But representing a ward does not mean abandoning the city.

It means bringing a particular community’s perspective into the debate.

Indeed, a Council composed of geographically accountable representatives could arguably produce better city-wide decisions, because Councillors would arrive at the table with a deeper understanding of the communities affected by those decisions.

Vancouver is not one homogeneous city.

The concerns of Downtown are not identical to those of Kerrisdale.

Killarney is not Kitsilano.

Marpole is not Mount Pleasant.

Renfrew-Collingwood is not the West End.

That diversity should be reflected in the composition of City Council.

Elect a Mayor At-Large + 10 Councillors Representing Wards Makes Sense

Osler Street in the Shaughnessy neighbourhood, Vancouver’s richest and most well-heeled neighbourhood

Kareem Allam has not proposed simply drawing 10 arbitrary lines across Vancouver. His proposal is to establish a Citizens’ Assembly that would examine the question and make recommendations.

That is precisely the right approach.

The neighbourhood groupings suggested for discussion provide a starting point:

  • Hastings-Sunrise / Renfrew-Collingwood
  • Grandview-Woodland / Kensington-Cedar Cottage
  • Riley Park / Mount Pleasant
  • Chinatown / Strathcona / Downtown / West End
  • Fairview / Kitsilano
  • Point Grey / Dunbar-Southlands
  • Arbutus Ridge / Shaughnessy
  • South Cambie / Oakridge
  • Kerrisdale / Marpole
  • Sunset / Victoria-Fraserview / Killarney

These should not be treated as predetermined boundaries. Population equality, communities of interest, natural boundaries, transportation patterns, neighbourhood identities and future population growth would all have to be considered.

Toronto’s ward-boundary process, for example, explicitly considered population equality, communities of interest, neighbourhoods, history and physical or natural features.

That is precisely the kind of independent, evidence-based process Vancouver needs.

Creating a Citizens’ Assembly is Critical to Adopting a Ward System

Vancouver’s West End neighbourhood, incorporating towers, tennis courts, English Bay and Stanley Park

The beauty of Kareem Allam’s proposal is that he is not saying: Elect me and I will impose 10 wards.

He is saying: let Vancouverites study the question first.

That distinction matters.

A Citizens’ Assembly could hear from constitutional and municipal-government experts, community associations, Indigenous representatives, political scientists, former Councillors, election administrators and ordinary residents.

It could examine ward sizes, boundaries, the number of Councillors, campaign financing, representation of renters and homeowners, population growth and whether a hybrid system might work better than a pure ward system.

Then, in 2030, Vancouverites could decide.

That gives the proposal democratic legitimacy.

Electing  Vancouver’s Mayor Through The At-Large System Should Remain

Vancouver’s welcoming, family friendly east side Riley Park neighbourhood, bounded by 16th Avenue to the north, 41st Avenue to the south, Cambie Street to the west, and Fraser Street to the east

There is a strong argument for retaining a city-wide Mayor.

The Mayor is the one elected official whose mandate should encompass the entire city.

The Councillor’s job is different.

The Mayor should speak for Vancouver.

The Councillor should speak for Vancouver, and for their respective neighbourhoods.

That creates a healthy balance between city-wide leadership and local accountability.

It is already the model used in Edmonton and Ottawa, among other cities. Edmonton explicitly describes its system this way: the Mayor is elected by all Edmontonians, while Councillors are elected by voters in their individual wards.

Why shouldn’t Vancouver do the same?

Changing the Vancouver Charter: The Province Can Accommodate Wards

Vancouver’s east side Victoria-Fraserview neighbourhood, current home to ABC Councillor Mike Klassen and the love of his life, Stacey, Mike’s lovely bride, who together celebrated 28 years of marriage in July

There is an important misconception about this debate.

The Vancouver Charter already contemplates Councillors being elected on a neighbourhood-constituency basis.

Section 138 currently provides that Councillors are elected at-large unless Council adopts a by-law establishing neighbourhood constituencies. Such a by-law must receive approval from the Lieutenant Governor in Council before it can take effect.

In other words, the idea of geographically based representation is not foreign to Vancouver’s governing legislation.

The Province ultimately has the authority to approve the change.

The Vancouver Charter is provincial legislation, and the Province describes it as the statute that governs Vancouver’s structure, elections and principal municipal powers.

So, Kareem Allam’s proposal would ultimately require co-operation between Vancouver and Victoria.

That is entirely appropriate.

A Better, More Representative Democracy in Vancouver is Worth Pursuing

Dunbar, one of Vancouver’s oldest west side neighbourhoods, adjacent to the University of British Columbia

There is no electoral system that guarantees perfect representation.

Ward Councillors can become overly parochial. They can favour their own neighbourhood at the expense of the wider city. Boundary-drawing can become contentious. Population changes can make wards unequal unless boundaries are periodically reviewed.

These are arguments for designing a good ward system — not preserving a flawed one.

Toronto has undertaken independent ward reviews specifically because population growth can make some wards substantially larger than others.

Vancouver can learn from Toronto, Ottawa, Edmonton, Winnipeg and other municipalities.

The central question is remarkably simple:

When a Vancouver resident has a problem with City Hall, a citizen should be able to look at a map, identify their Councillor and say, “That’s my representative”?

The Sunset and Marpole neighbourhoods of Vancouver, the Sunset neighbourhood home to Vancouver’s thriving Indo-Canadian population, Marpole bounded by the Fraser River, British Columbia’s longest river, to the south

The answer should be yes.

For too long, Vancouver has treated city-wide elections as synonymous with democracy.

But democracy is not merely the ability to vote for 10 Councillors.

Democracy is also representation, accessibility, accountability and proximity.

A ward system would bring City Hall closer to the people it serves.

It would give neighbourhoods a recognizable voice.

It could lower the barriers to entering municipal politics.

It could make Councillors more accountable to their constituents.

And it could ensure when a resident knocks on the door of City Hall, there is a Councillor whose political responsibility begins with the community where s/he lives.

Kareem Allam is right to put the question on the table.

The final decision should not belong to Kareem Allam, COPE, OneCity, ABC, TEAM, Vote Vancouver, the Greens, the Vancouver Liberals or any other political organization.

The decision on whether to adopt a ward system must belong to Vancouver’s citizens.

Let the Citizens’ Assembly do its work. Let the experts and residents debate the alternatives. Draw fair and transparent boundaries. And then let Vancouverites vote.

If, in 2030, the people of Vancouver decide that they want Councillors who actually represent where they live, then the 2034 election should mark the beginning of a new era in Vancouver democracy.

The city should elect its Mayor at-large. But those of us who live in one of Vancouver’s 23 neighbourhoods deserve Councillors of our own to represent our voices at City Hall.