Tales from the Hearing

Written by Brian Revel on January 18th, 2013

Enbridge-ConversationIt has been a couple of day since I made my presentation before the Enbridge Northern Gateway hearings and I thought I’d share my impressions of what happened to you.

I figure I probably should since there was almost no way for you, the public, to know.

As a presenter scheduled to speak on Tuesday afternoon starting at 1:30, I reported to the 4th floor of the Sheraton Wall Centre Hotel by about 1:10. When I got there, one of the hearings officials was already in the middle of her presentation to tell us what to expect when we went into the hearings room.

I listened to the presentation and then signed in.

The first group of three speakers was called and they were shuffled off to another room on the 4th floor and we sat in our holding room and watched them enter and sit down in front of the panel. The camera angle looked over the shoulders of the representatives of the ‘applicant’, with the panel sitting to the left and the presenters sitting to the right facing them.

The Chair of the panel would welcome the three speakers and then ask the first to speak. When the speaker was finished, there was no comment, nothing more than a cursory “Thank you” and then the next speaker was invited to begin.

Once the third speaker had concluded, they were shuffled out of the room (not to return to our holding room) and the next three who had been called during the presentation of the last speaker of the previous group, were shuffled in and the whole play began anew.

I sat there, watching the big-screen TV displaying the goings-on in the hearing room and was deeply moved by what some of the other speakers had to say.

One was an engineer who spoke passionately about the engineering, the science and the chemistry behind this stuff benignly called “bitumen”. “Once the condensate evaporates after the accident, it’s basically asphalt without the sand”, he said. In his younger years, he remembered working for a firm that used bitumen in this form to patch roads.

Another was a photographer who chose to speak about two different types of albatrosses. It turns out that she encountered them on the Midway Atoll, but reminded us that they matter because while they nest half-way to Japan, they forage for food in the Douglas Channel.

Another was a lawyer who, if I recall, in a previous life, was a chemical engineer. She talked about how there is so much missing in the hearings, in the science, in the planning- and she was utterly astounded by how third-world-ish our environmental hearings are compared to what she encountered in Chile, Argentina and elsewhere in the supposedly less civilized world than ours.

And then there were those who spoke of close personal ties to the region. They spoke of swimming and drinking the beautiful, sweet waters of the Kitimat River. They recalled seeing humpback whales at the very docks that the tankers would be docking. Others contrasted the wonders of nature with the hazards of avalanches, of potential leaks under 30 feet of snow, of emergencies where helicopters can’t fly in because of the bad weather.

Others spoke of the hazards of navigating not only the Douglas Channel (one quipped that they were impressed by the hubris of Enbridge and its plan to remove all the islands of Douglas Channel- he just wondered where it was going to get the money to do all that work!) but the challenges of the Hecate Strait and the Dixon Entrance- both classified as some of the most dangerous navigable ocean waters in the world.

Meanwhile, I watched what the Enbridge representatives were doing. Sometimes there were two people at the table. Sometimes only one. Sometimes it was a woman, sometimes not. They clearly weren’t really interested in what was being said; they were there because the “applicant” had to be present. That’s all.

During these passionate speeches (all excellently presented, by the way), I watched Enbridge representatives type emails on their Blackberries, fiddle with their iPads and on occasion, check their watches. They looked like teenagers in detention- or else well on their way to being on detention, sitting at the back of the room like caged animals yearning to be doing better things than listen to these endless speeches.

It truly must have been terribly tedious for them. All they want is a goddamned pipeline. All they want is to provide the conduit for billions of barrels of ‘bitumen’ and ‘condensate (read billions of dollars into their shareholder’s pockets and their little take for their childrens’ retirements). To be forced to listen to all these people drone on about the environment, about the disasters which have been designed out of the proposal, about personal ties to the land, about oil tankers and their shortcomings when they really did have better things to do like, say, golf in Palm Springs. Poor things.

It is ironic that while I was sitting in the holding pen on the 4th floor of the Sheraton Wall Centre Hotel, I found in Tuesday’s issue of the Vancouver Sun on page A8 an advertisement from Enbridge’s Executive Vice President, Janet Holder, expounding on the economic benefits (spun so tightly it was self-evident in the ad that the benefits were dubious) and inviting a conversation after we ‘dug deeper‘ to see just how great this project is.

At 5:20 it was finally my turn along with two others and just as all the others were, we where staged just outside the hearings room, two VPD officers and a couple of security-types milling about the front door. When the previous three speakers were done, the door was opened and they filed out. We shuffled into our allocated seats and, just as with the others, briefly welcomed, and then instructed to begin.

So I launched into my speech, (see my previous blog entry below for the text) and ensured that no Enbridge representative was going to fiddle with his Blackberry or iPad while I spoke.

I’ll give the panel members credit: they actually listened. They actually took notes. Brief ones but hey- it was a C+ / B- performance. The truants at the back of the class? They may not have taken any notes but at least when it was time to nail them with the Truth, they were like deer in the headlights.

I was allocated 10 minutes. Because of two very small insertions into my speech, including a reference to the image of the air quality in Beijing in the very same issue of the Vancouver Sun as the ad, I ran overtime. I still had three sentences to go when I was cut off and ‘asked’ to give them one more sentence.

So I did. “We do not inherit the Earth from our parents; we borrow it from our children,” is what I closed with. And with that, the panel was on to the next speaker.

Twenty minutes later we were lead out of the room and after collecting our coats we took to the elevator and headed back out onto Burrard Street and on with our lives.

But I’m happy to smirk that I have one small footnote: I went up to the panelists and shook their hands. And then, like the smiling opponent I know I am, I went up to the Enbridge representatives and held out my hand. The first took my hand and shook it knowing that it was part of the show.

But the other one I know I got under his skin. Sitting there, he looked up at me standing with my hand extended. He looked at me in the eye and then looked at my hand. I could see disgust flash across his face- he really didn’t want to shake my hand- and then reluctantly, very reluctantly, he shook my hand extended in front of his face for over five seconds- but there was no eye contact.

I got you right between the eyes, Mr Enbridge Representative. You may get your pipeline, but I got your conscience.

After digging deeper, just as your Executive Vice-President invited me to do, I did my part. I said my piece and you didn’t like it one bit. Welcome to the conversation.  Enjoy it now, because for you, it’s only going to get worse.

 

Speech to the Northern Gateway Environmental Panel

Written by Brian Revel on January 15th, 2013

Brian RevelToday I will be speaking before the Enbridge Northern Gateway Environmental Panel at the Sheraton Wall Hotel.

Below is the text of my 10-minute speech. Not much allowance for breathing but I’ll do my best to get it all in.

As always, I welcome your comments.

* * * * *

We have all heard the fable of the Goose that Laid the Golden Egg. Welcome to Enbridge Northern Gateway project. Welcome to the conversation that decides whether Canada is going to sacrifice Canada’s pristine coastal rainforest and grasslands of its Interior Plateau to sell its oil to China.

Members of the Board, before I begin my substantive points, I’d like to start by talking about two gorillas that are here sitting in this room.

First, I have serious reservations regarding this consultative process: It feels like these hearings are being treated as a necessary evil to get the public out of the way so the government and business agenda can go ahead regardless. The sterility of these public hearings has alienated the people from the process. And that, I am sorry to say undermines your credibility and weakens your authority.

The second gorilla is the fact that the people of British Columbia, including aboriginal peoples, are sovereign. Irrespective of your decision, opposition to this project is widespread. Battle hardened War in the Woods activists are ready. And the general population, fresh from standing up to our own provincial government that ran roughshod over us by imposing the HST, is not shy to another fight to remind our government that it works for us. Not only are British Columbians sovereign on their territory, there is strong solidarity and cohesion amongst otherwise disparate groups. I would strongly suggest to this panel that it heed the implications behind these facts.

Enough of the gorillas.

The purpose of these public hearings is to take the public interest into account.

Public Interest is defined as what is in the interest of the population.

Lets start with the population’s environmental interest:

The Honourable Peter Kent, Minister of the Environment has said that Canadians need to make more of an effort to minimize Greenhouse Gas emissions. At best, Canadians will only be able to achieve this goal at the margin. What good is it for 30-sum-odd million Canadians to switch to energy-efficient light bulbs and take transit whenever they can when we’re about to sell literally billions of barrels of oil to the billion-strong China over whom we have no jurisdiction to regulate?

How about the population’s economic interest:

The Honourable Jim Flaherty, Minister of Finance and others including Mark Carney at the Bank of Canada and economists at the Conference Board of Canada have all stated that we need to improve our productivity and become more innovative. And herein lies another contradiction: building pipelines and sending unprocessed bitumen overseas is not innovative. It’s just more of the same hewing of wood, drawing of water and, may I add, sucking of oil, that we have always done.

More immediately, why are we even considering selling our oil to a foreign country when we are still importing oil from Venezuela and elsewhere? Why isn’t Canadian oil being sent across Canada first?

What makes equally little sense is that there are people here in Vancouver who unknowingly purchase gas at local gas stations that is refined at Cherry Point, Washington.

Further, this region is facing a similar debate over tankers ferrying jet fuel from Cherry Point. So I ask this to you, the face of the environmental conscience of the entire energy industrial complex this country: What kind of insanity might you be thinking about perpetuating here?

Then there is the population’s political interest:

I know that there are people who share grave reservations about trading with the United States. Regardless of their concerns, I don’t understand why our federal government is so intent on getting this deal done with the Chinese. Yes, the Americans are down right now, their economy is in tatters. But they won’t be down forever.

And given a choice of the two giants I’d rather invest in, I’d rather be feathering my bed with the Americans. For all their faults, American values are much closer to ours. Their government is much more transparent and much more democratic.

Now I’d like to take a quick look at the project and the company that proposes it:

I am very wary of Enbridge. It seems to me that it comes across as a shifty card dealer in a shady casino. Everything it has done thus far has been a public relations exercise aimed to placate the population.

After being called out for pretending the Douglas Channel was a simple fjord, Enbridge says it will have ships with the most modern navigation equipment.

Do the people at Enbridge realize that by just saying that they will have ships with the most modern navigation equipment they insult Canadians’ intelligence?

A couple of cases in point: One year ago the day before yesterday the Costa Concordia ran aground.

Also the day before yesterday, the final chapter in the sinking of BC Ferries’ Queen of the North opened with the trial of Navigation Officer Karl Lilgert. The ship was the pride of the fleet. Sailed by British Columbians every day of their long careers in their home waters, it still managed to run aground.

And most recently, on December 9th, the MV Cape Apricot, bulk carrier smashed through the docks here at the Robert’s Bank Coal Terminal.

Notably, it was the first such accident in 8,300 simple dockings over 42 years. An otherwise ‘excellent’ safety record. 42 years without a ‘single’ incident. Would that be good enough for Enbridge? Methinks that for Enbridge it would be.

Sadly, for the environment, one single navigation error, one tiny hiccup in a very elaborate and complex network of systems and interfaces between temperamental technology and human fallibility and we will have a disaster that will change the course of history on this coast forever. I am not convinced. In 42 years the chance of a marine disaster involving the Northern Gateway project is almost 100%.

Never mind the inevitable questions about environmental impact during the construction, what about the grossly negligent management of their extant pipelines? Between 2000 and 2010 alone, some 132,715 barrels of oil- about 1/2 the capacity of the Exxon Valdez- have leaked from Enbridge lines.

What about the federal government’s commitment to BC?

Meanwhile, just as these environmental challenges mount, the federal government has closed all of its western offices established to deal with oil spills that happen in federal jurisdictions. It’s showing its cards on the water too.

The Coast Guard is closing down its one and only station in Vancouver, reducing it to a summer-student project. In short, the presence and the relevance of the federal government to actually deal with any potential trouble has been cut- leaving British Columbians to fend for themselves- yet again- if something goes wrong.

To close

I sense these hearings are all a charade, no matter how well intentioned you as committee members may be. I fear for your reputations as I believe the Harper government is setting you up to be stooges. Sadly, even if you do recommend that this project not proceed, your recommendations will be swept aside and the project will go ahead as planned. To great detriment.

Our democratic process using public hearings will be discredited not just by the government but worse, by the population.

Our economy will be steered off-track because we will be ploughing our future into oil and pipelines rather than innovation and higher productivity.

Our environment will see significant destruction, one way or another, as there will be localized destruction to the coastal rain forests and high grasslands during its construction.

There will be leaks- inadvertent, accidental, one-in-a-million, but inevitable- leaks that will enter into our pristine watersheds and destroy salmon runs and hence entire eco-systems for generations to come.

We will see a further increase in greenhouse gasses. Even if Canadians stopped driving altogether, lived out the long cold winters sitting, shivering away in the dark- and even stopped raising cattle that fart in the fields, supplying bitumen to China is going to make the greenhouse gases that originate in Canada worse no matter what we do here in Canada.

And finally, British Columbians, sovereign on their land, do not want this project. Period.

And so as we look toward the abyss that follows your decision, I recall Aesop’s Fable, The Goose that laid the Golden Egg.

Keeping the moral of this fable in mind, you will know the risks associated with Enbridge Northern Gateway project far outweigh the potential benefits. I urge the panel to reject this proposal outright.

We do not inherit the Earth from our forefathers; rather we borrow it from our children.”

* * * * *

Useful links:

I would like to thank the Westcoast Environmental Law Society for alerting people about the public hearings. This has been a very long and drawn out process where I had to register about this time last year to be able to speak. Because of their forethought, I have this opportunity to speak at the hearings. I only wish that the general public could attend as well, rather than be shut out of the process using closed-circuit television.

What can I say? Apart from the fact that our own government is trying to stifle dissent and conversation, there’s not much else to say. I just hope my efforts and the efforts of those others who are speaking to the panel don’t go ignored as well.

 

The Province is the Problem at the Marpole Midden

Written by Brian Revel on May 10th, 2012
Demonstrators at Marpole Midden

I dropped by to visit the demonstrators outside the HQ Living worksite beside the Arthur Lang Bridge on Southwest Marine Drive today. Boy were my eyes opened.

Off and on, they have been outside this worksite for a couple of months. A small rabble, huddled under the Arthur Lang Bridge against the driving rain.

“Save our Ancestors!” say their signs, “Musqueam History is BC History!”

Yeah, whatever, one might conclude. Whatever the problem, there is no workable solution. Enough of this appeasing of ancient history when progress calls for development!

Call me naive, but I was shocked to hear what I was told.

Before I go on, let me ask you if you value ‘due process‘?

Due process is important in our society and in our government because it is a check on arbitrary decisions and a way to mitigate adverse consequences when tough decisions need to be made.

Imagine how you would feel and what you might do if you were to learn that your house was to be torn down because your city’s planning department didn’t like the color you painted it.

Moreover, imagine your state of mind if this decision was made and a letter was sent to you informing that this decision was pending while they knew you were on holidays and out of town.

Then, imagine how you would feel and what you might do if the house was torn down before you even had a chance to repaint it… and that any avenue of appeal fell on deaf ears?

It is due process that ensures that these sorts of egregious decisions are never made or carried out.

But in effect this is exactly what has happened to the Musqueam and their documented long-standing efforts to protect their former town-site. And when I say long-standing, I mean 80+ years.

I’m not going to bore you with a detailed timeline- at least not here and now. Suffice it to say, although the land in question is not actually privately held Musqueam property, it is one of 127 parcels of land that the Musqueam consider to be culturally relevant.

Since the 1930s this parcel of land has been considered to be an historic site and an archeological “No Digging” covenant was placed on the property at that time. Much of the land was paved over behind a building built on shallow footings at the time so it has not been much of an issue.

Until now.

Despite the covenant that was written into the deed of the property, the current owner maintains that he was not aware of the covenant when he bought the property expressly to build a condominium development with underground parking.

He says that the original owner of the property did not tell him about the no-digging clause. As an aside, it makes you wonder whether developers actually care about these “details” or whether they neglect to conduct due diligence when making multi-million dollar investments in land. In either case, the ultimate responsibility for ‘not knowing’ is the person who buys the land- not the person who sells it.

Why do I say this? I say this because if it was the responsibility of the guy who sold the land, there would be a law suit between the seller and the buyer, where the buyer would be trying to reverse the sale.

But let’s put these doubts aside and presume only good will and the best of intentions on the part of the developer, Century Group Ltd.

So what about the due process that presumably exists to ensure that nobody is run roughshod by faceless bureaucrats?

When the property changed hands, the archeological branch in Victoria served notice that the developer intended to dig into the parcel of land with the intention to develop during the weeks in December they knew the Musqueam office would be closed. How could they not?

By the time they opened and read the letter, the dig was already underway.

Fast forward just a few months later to the present day, and several developments in the story have taken place.

The Musqueam Nation and the developers have arranged a land swap. The developers will be able to receive land at the foot of Kerr Street in exchange for this parcel adjacent to Montcalm Street. The Musqueam are even prepared to sweeten the pot with financial incentives. With this parcel of land, they intend to create a memorial park to preserve the sanctity of the village site.

The sad thing is that the swap cannot happen until the Archeological Branch approves it.

What is worse, the Provincial Government- both at the leadership level as well as at the Archeological Branch is dragging its heels as it has remained completely silent.

The government maintains, as it did in the Legislature today to an audience that included dignitaries from various First Nations, that it is “fully engaged”, working with all parties, through a special facilitator to resolve the issue.

All of this is complete platitude because nobody even knows who the facilitator is. No member of the Archeological Branch has spoken to the issue-  let alone acted.

The developer is getting frustrated. He is losing money with every passing day he cannot get his development built. The Musqueam know this too and are sympathetic with his plight.

But the longer the provincial government sits on its hands, the more volatile the situation is going to get. According to a source at the protest site, the developer is trying to provoke a confrontation with the protesters to put pressure on the provincial government to act. Even the Vancouver police see it this way.

And all of this is so unnecessary.

The City of Vancouver is onside. The developer, with the best of intentions moving forward, is onside. The Musqueam Nation is onside. The Marpole community is onside. So where is the provincial government?

Since December, the Musqueam have been shut out of any due process. Yet they are doing what they can to work with the developer to find a reasonable solution.

But the provincial government, responsible for the breach of due process has yet to step forward. The provincial government, whose responsibility it apparently is to ‘protect’ the site but isn’t, is not doing what it can to help undo the mess it has created. Indeed, it has nothing at all to alleviate the situation at all.

To me, this is just a continuation of the past how governments that presume to speak for me, mistreat our aboriginal brothers and sisters.

It is quite unfair to assert my judgement on those who came before me for their racist attitudes and their transparent mistreatment of the “Indians”. There is nothing I can do to unring the bell in these instances.

But it is quite another for me to stand by today and watch silently the same institutional mistreatment, the same ‘convenient’ ignorance of previous agreements and treaties, the same short-circuiting of due process in the Law, the same marginalization of an oft-ignored community within our ranks- actions that we all find so repugnant in our past.

This cannot continue. It is time to do something different.

It is time for the provincial government came to the table to solve this issue before it becomes a crisis. The time for dithering is over.

 

Telus Park-Gate

Written by Brian Revel on March 10th, 2012

The province is hundreds of millions of dollars in the red. The teachers have been on strike. Hospitals are dirtier and overflowing to the point that Tim Horton’s does a better job of cleaning and accommodating patients. BC Ferries is broke. The Enbridge oil pipeline is going to be a bigger issue in BC than all the logging confrontations in the past- put together.

And the best we can do for a debate on the direction of this government in Victoria, is whether Christy Clark was responsible for sabotaging a 20 million dollar deal with Telus to rename BC Place Stadium, Telus Park?

According to Vaughn Palmer of the Vancouver Sun, the Liberals were running full-steam-ahead with the plan with Adrian Dix of the NDP claiming that the stadium should always be called BC Place as it was build and renovated with taxpayers’ money. Suddenly, the Liberals ‘change their minds’ over the deal and Telus is left out in the cold. And get this… Dix is now fiddling the other tune… how could the government scuttle such a ‘valuable’ deal?

In my mind, what’s valuable about a $20 million, ten year deal? In 10 years, a single family house in Vancouver will probably sell for $2.0 million. So in 2022, Telus will have the naming rights to a 55,000 seat stadium for the price of an average house. Doesn’t sound like a great deal for BC at all.

Now don’t get me wrong. I am no supporter of the BC Liberals. Read my past entries and remember that I ran against Christy Clark for NDP in 2001. So when I say that this was the right decision, I am definitely singing outside the choir, apparently. But then again, BC politics rarely involves discussions and positions that actually make sense.

Let me say this again: In ten years, the average house will probably be equivalent to one year’s naming rights to BC Place Stadium.

Come on. Enough with this piddling around over a few bucks.

It feels like the governance and management of the province is being run off the end of the Premier’s desk while she applies herself to more important things- like being liked. Adrian Dix is doing no better. And the media seem to be content to sell advertising by reporting how bad the traffic is.

It’s time we had a serious debate about how we are going to afford the services we need in the province, and how we are going to put people back to work.

 

More on the end of Occupy Vancouver

Written by Brian Revel on November 6th, 2011

This entry is a copy of my response I have posted to the Georgia Straight‘s online article about the calls to shut the Occupy Vancouver camp down. It is here so you can post comments directly in response to my own.

If you are here at this site as a result of reading my comment on the Georgia Straight site, Welcome!

The Occupy Wall Street movement is firmly based on protesting the economic and political injustices waged by those at the top of the corporate structures that have corrupted our economics and our politics.

But in Vancouver, it never really seemed to achieve these lofty kinds of goals. Yes, we have a homeless issue. Yes, we have a drug addiction issue. Those facts are painfully obvious to us all already. And we are working on them. There is INSITE- something that Vancouverites are fighting hard to protect and foster. There is more non-market housing being built.

Certainly we have much work to do but Rome wasn’t built in a day, you know.

I so wanted the Occupy Vancouver protest to be successful. Vancouver is, after all, the birthplace of Greenpeace and home to Kalle Lasn’s Adbuster Magazine that called for the Occupy Wall Street movement in the first place.

But right from the start, despite the efforts of some very well intentioned activists, the OV movement has degenerated into a self-destructive shell of what could have been a poignant statement.

Then, the first overdose followed by the second resulting in a death have completely undermined the point of the OV movement. It has lost its vitality, it’s moral stance.

The corporate elite do not speak for me. But neither do those who enable drug addiction and justify it happening at such a protest.

Never mind all the “repressed and marginalized” gibber. Enough of the guilt-ridden ‘sorry you had to do this to yourself to escape this awful, terrible world’ tales of woe to glorify a heroin addict’s untimely passing. She is no martyr. Every person must take responsibility for his and her Self. The choice to come to Vancouver, to take the drugs, was hers and hers alone.

Don’t get me wrong: I am sorry she is gone and I grieve for her friend’s and family’s loss. I hope for her she is in a better place.

If you always do what you’ve always done, you’ll always get what you’ve always got.

To those who desire a Utopian future… do you think that Che Guevara would have tolerated drug addicts in his ranks? Do you think that Fidel Castro would have welcomed heroin addicts into his revolutionary world?

Would de Robespierre have allowed supporters to nip out for hours to “forget their pain” on the way to Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité? Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin or George Washington, would they have embraced self-indugences like shooting up while encamped against the British on the road to Independence?

A clue to the correct answer: Everybody pulls his or her weight when striving for change. And change certainly doesn’t happen by taking pit-stops along the way to get high for the sake of getting high. I would even gently suggest that drug addicts are the first to be set adrift when serious change is in the offing.

To date, many of the calls for the camp’s removal have been bogus. Rodents. Hygene. Blah Blah Blah. We’ve heard it all before. But sadly, enablement and worse, justification, of drug abuse has undermined everything. Like a cancer, it has reared its ugly head and now the patient is dead.

Respect only comes with respect. Respect for others, respect for Self. By disrespecting themselves, by not being disciplined in their standards regarding drug use on the site, those who are there are dishonouring the movement. They are dishonouring those of us who stand in solidarity but who have not the luxury at this time to be physically present.

Further, by disrespecting the fire crews and those concerned with public safety (and the requests to eliminate fire hazards and to create safe thoroughfares are hardly bogus attempts to de-camp), the OV campers are only getting what is coming to them.

They marginalized themselves and so in the process, marginalized the movement. Making the world a different place means doing- and being- something different.

A very wise man once told me, “If you always do what you’ve always done, you’ll always get what you’ve always got“.

Like it or not, accepting, justifying and enabling drug abuse is a surefire way to undermine any effort towards change. Those hanging on to the OV movement as our saviour moment are now fighting for the wrong kind of humanity.

If the cops have swooped in without provocation as they have in other Occupy sites, hundreds would have come down to protect the camp. I’m sure of that. If I weren’t working, I would have.

But sadly, now it’s different. I wouldn’t cross the street to defend people’s ‘right’ to shoot up there… especially when Vancouver has fought so hard to get and to protect INSITE.

And so the Occupy Vancouver movement, despite its initial ideals, is done. It’s toast.

I continue to support the OWS movement- the one in New York City- but here in Vancouver, it’s time to pack up and go home.

There will be another time.