#VanPoli | An Instructive Tale for Vancouver City Councillors

May 21, 2019#VanPoli Civic PoliticsRaymond Tomlin

The Board of Variance. A History and Background.
Since the mid-1950s, every village, town & city elected body / City Council on the North American continent with a population of 10,000, or more, has been required by law to empower a quasi-judicial body of its citizens to constitute a Board of Variance, a lay body of five or more persons who are vested with the authority, and required under the provincial or state Act governing their conduct, to review — and should Board members deem it necessary, make changes to or even reject — any development application that in its conception requires a relaxation of the existing zoning bylaw applicable to the zone or neighbourhood where a developer, or homeowner, has made application for development or re-development of a property.
In Vancouver, as in most jurisdictions, the Board of Variance also oversees all applications concerning parking, signage, and tree matters, as well as — on occasion — licensing of a business for proper use.
As such, as an independent lay body overseeing all development in, say in this case, the City of Vancouver, the Board of Variance is seen by City Council, and the development services and planning departments at City Hall, as well as developers and homeowners requiring a relaxation of an existing zoning bylaw, as the most powerful creature of City Hall.
In point of fact, there are few Boards of Variance that are not regularly sued by the city or town government relating to a decision made by the Board to which city councillors, and more often administrators in development services or planning, have taken umbrage.

If you’ve seen the Oscar award-winning 1975 film Chinatown, which showed development decisions taking place behind closed doors and in smoke-filled rooms — more often than not with payoffs to elected officials, or city administrators — you can see why Canadian and U.S. Courts ruled that state and provincial governments must enact legislation empowering an open to the public and utterly transparent lay body, called the Board of Variance, to review all development decisions requiring a zoning relaxation.
The Board of Variance. A Raymond Tomlin Tale. Part One.

In early 2005, Aaron Jasper, Gary Kennedy, Quincey Kirschner and I had taken on the position of co-campaign managers / organizers on Mel Lehan’s Vancouver Point Grey provincial NDP campaign.
Terry Martin, a contractor and longtime NDP member, had — in provincial and federal NDP campaigns, and in municipal Coalition of Progressive Electors campaigns — taken on the task of building a workable office for campaigns, creating a volunteer phone bank centre, as well as taking responsibility for creating the office, locating desks, filing cabinets and all the materials required to run a functioning political campaign.
Over a number of weeks in January, February & March 2005, Terry and I became friends. One March afternoon, Terry informed me that he was a member of Vancouver’s Board of Variance, explaining what the Board did and his role on the Board, informing me that a Board vacancy was upcoming and he would like me to apply to fill the vacancy. Terry was very complimentary about how he saw me as a person of integrity, an individual committed to social justice, and someone with whom he would like to work on the Board of Variance. After some persuading, I filed my application.
At the time, there were three members of Vancouver City Council who constituted the Selection Committee responsible for filling all vacancies on the 33 advisory committees to Council, including the Board of Variance: the late Jim Green, then COPE Councillor Tim Louis, and NPA Councillor Sam Sullivan. As it happened, I knew them all. Terry arranged for me to meet with Jim and Tim, separately, to promote my application to the Board (there were 200 applicants, most more qualified than I). Both Jim Green and Tim Louis (the latter to whom I became very close for the next decade, and to the present) were welcoming of my application to fill the vacant Board of Variance position, and told Terry and I each would cast a ballot in my favour to fill the vacancy. I knew Sam Sullivan through friends —&#32we spoke, and I’m given to understand that he, too, cast a ballot in favour of my, now successful, application to the Board of Variance.
[Side note. At present, the Chairperson of Vancouver City Council’s Selection Committee is OneCity Vancouver Councillor Christine Boyle, who is joined her Council colleagues, the Non-Partisan Association’s Rebecca Bligh, and the Green Party of Vancouver’s Michael Wiebe.)
Long story short, my time — what would turn out to be truncated tenure on the Board, as all members were fired by Mayor Sam Sullivan on July 1, 2006 (a story for another day) — on the Board of Variance remains one of the highlights of my life. There is not one block in the city on which the Board of Variance on which I sat did not make a life-changing decision, for homeowners, for developers, and more importantly, for citizens.
Terry Martin, Jan Pierce, Quincey Kirschner and Bruce Chown were, and remain to this day, the finest, most thoughtful, hardest working people of wit, intelligence, conscience & integrity with whom I have worked in the collective endeavour of city building, in the interest of Vancouver citizens.
Each member on the Board of Variance on which I sat was a rugged individualist committed to the common good, and responsible conduct that best served the interests of citizens — and we were damn good at our job.
As chaired by Terry Martin, the meetings — which began Wednesday afternoon at 1:30pm — often lasted until two or three the next morning. Twelve to fourteen hour Board of Variance meetings were not uncommon — the public wanted to be heard, and we heard them. Of course, at the time the Board was empowered to hear Third Party Appeals, empowering any citizen in a neighbourhood where the development was taking place the opportunity to be heard before the Board — and citizens, often strumming guitars, singing, putting on little skits and otherwise addressing the members of the Board — appeared in droves. Everyone was heard, and all decisions were citizen driven, in the finest, most celebratory act of respectful citizen engagement in which I have ever been a participant.
The Board of Variance. A Raymond Tomlin Tale. Part Two.

Here’s how the Board worked, the standard process for decision-making:
The Board of Variance met to adjudicate appeals every second Wednesday. On the Friday before the Board meeting, a 300-page binder was delivered to each of the Board members’ homes, containing all the relevant materials from the 30 appeals that would be heard the following week.
Much of the Board member’s weekend was spent reading the documentation contained in the binder, and performing whatever research tasks a Board member felt was relevant to the taking of a fair and just decision. On the Tuesday, at noon the day before the Board of Variance meeting, the five members of the Board met with the Secretary to the Board, Louis Ng (who still acts in that position) at the bottom of the steps at the back of City Hall, whereupon we all climbed into a van acquired from the City by Louis, to ferry the Board members around to the sites of applicant appeals, with Louis providing a narrative concerning each appeal, the history of the appeal, the position of both the Planning and Development Services departments at City Hall respecting the appeal, answering any and all proper and judicious questions put to him by Board members. The “drive around” was generally completed by 7pm.
The Board met the next day at 1:15pm in Committee Room 1 — the largest meeting room on the third floor at City Hall, situated in the southeast corner of that floor. As Board members were forbidden to discuss any appeal prior to its hearing, we greeted one another, and place our binders in front of us, as well as any relevant materials we felt necessary for us to properly take a decision on any given appeal. Each Board member had a sheet in front of them listing the order in which all the appeals would be heard, with a suggested time frame for the hearing of each appeal.
The Board of Variance meeting began on time at 1:30pm, with Board members situated around the east end of the massive oak Board table, with a citizens gallery on the west end of the Board room. Louis Ng introduced each appeal, stating the technical facts. Representatives from development services and planning, sitting on chairs in the southeast corner of the Board table presented the position of their departments on the efficacy of the appeal, giving indication as to whether the City opposed or approved of the applicant’s appeal. Once the City had been heard, the appellant was asked to take a seat at the far west end of the Board table & begin their appeal.
Within the first minute of being heard, most (okay, okay — make that all) applicants burst into tears, inconsolable, and more often than not fearful of the process, and / or the position taken by the City opposing their appeal.
Once the appellant was calmed, the appeal continued. Upon completion of the statement / presentation of the appeals applicant, as well as input from neighbours and citizens opposed to the appeal, at the end of each statement by appellant or neighbour / citizen, the Board members were provided the opportunity to ask questions of the appellant, or the citizens opposed to the appeal. The focus of the meeting was then returned to the City, where administrative development and planning staff assigned to present the City’s position on an appeal re-iterated their position on the appeal. Each Board member queried city staff on issues that had arisen during the appeal — with City staff very much wanting their way, and Board members uncertain as to whether the enunciated position of staff best served the interests of Vancouver citizens, and just city building.
More often than not, the members of the Board of Variance voted contrary to the wishes of city staff — not because Board members harboured any ill will towards city staff, almost all of whom were dedicated and accomplished civil servants, with years of experience in city building, and advanced Masters, PhDs, urban planning and architectural and engineering degrees.
As lay citizens dedicated to an open and transparent development appeals process, the members of the Board — again, among the finest and most accomplished persons with whom I have ever had the opportunity to work — cast a vote, separately, individually and without any external pressure exerted on the Board decision makers, votes that we as citizens believed best served the interests of those of us who reside in Vancouver, and who are committed to a fair and just city, a livable city, a city that serves the interests of all. I will write another day on a few of the decisions taken by the Board, for which all Board members remain justly proud today.
The Board of Variance. Raymond finally gets to the point. Why it is important for Vancouver City Councillors to read the following …

One particular spring afternoon in 2006, the senior administrator in development and planning with the City, a particularly avuncular fellow, always smiling, always of good cheer, a sort of Wilford Brimley type, clearly a very bright and accomplished man, a good-natured but no nonsense type of fellow, the second in command in development and planning services at City Hall, and for very good reason one would have to think upon meeting him. There was about this fellow, as well, something … well, sinister, nothing you could put your finger on, but you knew upon meeting him that you wouldn’t want to get on his bad side, or some night find yourself in a dark alley with him — now, that’s a prospect no one would look forward to.
The particular day in question, this senior City official turned up at the Board meeting to present the City’s position on an appeal by a developer — an appeal that the City made abundantly clear they were in full support of. The developer presented drawings for a 90-foot high, 25-foot wide backlit “blade sign” that was to be placed above the parking entrance next to the Starbucks in the Paramount Centre / the Scotiabank Theatre complex.
From the tenor of the questions put to the developer respecting this massive backlit sign, and more specifically to the avuncular senior City official speaking in support of the sign, indication was Board members’ were in strong opposition to the sign, which it became clear in its “massive scale” was inappropriate for the downtown neighbourhood, or any city neighbourhood. But me being me, I came into these sorts of appeals with an open mind, even more so because I believed in the integrity of the City official — there must be a reason he supported the appeal.
I wanted to know why. Our give & take dialogue went something like this …

Me. Mr. (Avuncular), I would like to welcome you to this Board of Variance meeting. Your attendance at our meetings is rare, and I want to go on record as stating that I am pleased that a senior City official is taking time out of his busy day to spend a half hour with the members of the Board of Variance.

Mr. A. Mr. Tomlin, I am always pleased to meet with the members of the Board, although as you say, my schedule is often very busy, and I am not afforded the opportunity as often as I would like to attend at the very important Board of Variance meetings.

Me. Mr. A, you speak very much in favour of the appeal, and I am wondering from where the genesis of your support arises. As I sit around the Board table this afternoon, I wonder about your prior involvement with the developer, if any, and whether such involvement, if such is the case, plays any role in your support of the appeal, as presented to the Board today.

Mr. A. I assure you, Mr. Tomlin, that the only reason I am here today to present the appeal arises from an opening in my schedule this afternoon, and my heartfelt desire to sit in this sun-filled room with you and your Board colleagues, to spend an afternoon with people for whom I hold the highest regard, and arising as well from my commitment to the democratic process, particularly as it is practiced by the very fine members of the Board of Variance, present here today.

Mr. A. then went on to elucidate the specific reasons why he found himself speaking in support of the “blade sign”, a downtown design element, he suggested in no uncertain terms, that would enhance the cultural and design integrity of a downtown core in the midst of change, the blade sign a bold and, in his estimation, beautiful, design forward and architecturally sound sign element entirely consistent with the City’s design guidelines.

Mr. A. assured me that prior to that afternoon, he had no involvement with the developer, or anyone else associated with Paramount building, that he was absentis, si rem (absent of interest) in respect of the sign — he simply thought it was beautiful, and on a personal level looked forward to seeing the sign mounted, should the Board see fit to cast their vote in favour.
At the completion of his statement, the Chair called for a vote on the appeal respecting the sign: four opposed, one in favour.
I was the one who voted in favour, my vote based on the eloquent presentation of the senior City official.
After the meeting, my fellow Board members shook their heads at me, wondering what I was thinking in voting to approve “that godawful sign that would have lit up the West End, and caused countless hours of unrest to citizens living nearby.” Still, and all, the Board members stood by the integrity of the Board’s decision-making process, acknowledging that we often voted differently from one another, and taking solace in the fact that the “blade sign” application had been refused.

Now, here’s where the story begins to get interesting.
At the time, and even still, I believe myself to be much like our current City Councillors — a person of integrity and good will, a person with a steadfast belief in humanity, and a respect for accomplished persons of character, most particularly the hard working and dedicated individuals who toil on our behalf at Vancouver City Hall, and around the City.
Who am I to question the integrity of accomplished persons who have long dedicated their energies, and the better part of their professional lives, to the process of city building in Vancouver.
In the weeks that followed I learned the following: the senior development services and planning official who presented the Paramount “blade sign” appeal had appointed himself the point person on the development from its inception, some six years prior. This avuncular City official had worked closely with the developer to move the development expeditiously forward through City Hall, and as far as was possible, champion the development in the offices, committee rooms and hallways at Vancouver City Hall.
I learned, further, that this senior City official had some years previous presented to the Vancouver Planning Commission on his support for the Paramount development, and in particular the “blade sign”.
Even more, I learned that this senior City official had chaired the Development Permit Board that had approved the development, a development for which he stated he was in full support (as could be attested to in a reading of the minutes of the DP Board).
I presented the “evidence” of which I was now aware to the Board Chair. Terry just shook his head, and rolled his eyes. “Raymond, Raymond, Raymond,” he said, “let this be a lesson to you. Do your research, don’t let your good nature and your insistent and heartening belief in the humanity of all get in the way of good and proper decision-making at the Board.”
In weeks subsequent, I had opportunity to meet and speak with Mr. A., our conversation going something like this …

Me. Do you recall the appeal on the blade sign that you presented to the Board some weeks ago?

Mr. A. Yes, and despite my loss at the Board, I appreciated your support of the appeal, and the opportunity with which I was provided to spend part of a productive afternoon with you and your Board colleagues.

Me. I recently became aware that, contrary to the information you presented to me at the Board meeting that afternoon that you, 1) Were involved with the Paramount development from its outset, and had championed the development in the offices, committee rooms and hallways of City Hall, and 2) That not only had you presented to the Planning Commission some years back in support of the Paramount development, that you were the Chairperson of the Development Permit Board that had approved the Paramount development, and at that time had spoken specifically about your support for the blade sign.

I am left to wonder, “A”, why is it you mislead me that sunny afternoon in Committee Room 1?

Mr. A. Well, Raymond, I think it is important that you know that any time a member of my department presents on an appeal to the Board, that we come in to the Board meeting with an agenda: we want what we want, and we’re going to do everything in our power to ensure that the position of development services and planning is not only heard, but successful in its adherence to the heartfelt desires of senior staff at City Hall. Your job is to be informed and to do your homework, and to never ask a question to which you do not already know the answer.

My job is to champion the interests of my department, to do whatever it takes to ensure that we — the civil servants charged with the responsibility of city building — and the arguments we make carry the day, to do whatever it takes to ensure our success, given our heartfelt belief that we, as professionals, know what is best for the citizenry. Sometimes we’re successful before the Board, most times I would say, and sometimes we’re not. That’s life.

Great speaking with you, Raymond. I look forward to presenting to the Board at sometime again in the near future.”

Following my conversation with Mr. A, did I emerge a different person than I was before the conversation? The short answer: no.
I continue to believe in the goodness of humanity.
Still and all, subsequent to my conversation with Mr. A, I became ever more diligent in my decision-making, ever more dedicated to conducting in-depth research into the appeals the Board would hear, and for as much as I respected the city staff who presented to the Board, I was now much more acutely aware that city staff presented to the Board with an agenda, that city staff had been sent to the Board by senior staff to get what the planning staff wanted — for a city staff person to consistently fail at the Board was to jeopardize her or his employment, and potential for advancement in the structure of city decision-making.

Vancouver City Council, l-r: Councillors Rebecca Bligh, Christine Boyle, Colleen Hardwick, Pete Fry, Adriane Carr and Mayor Kennedy Stewart, and Councillors Melissa De Genova, Jean Swanson, Michael Wiebe, Lisa Dominato, and Sarah Kirby-Yung

A word to the wise to our accomplished City Councillors is in order: keep your eyes open, do your research, remember that you are on Council to champion the interests of the electorate, and not necessarily the interests of the city staff who present to you. More often than not, I think you will come to find, the interests of citizens and the interests of city staff are at odds, the interests of city staff while well-intentioned more often than not inconsistent with the interests of the citizenry, with the city staff in need of a good-natured “nudge” (direction) from our elected officials.
Going forward, it is critical that our Vancouver City Councillors reclaim the City for the citizenry, and put behind us aspects of 10 years of top down decision-making by the previous civic regime, that while serving the interests of developers, too often ill-served the interests of citizens.
You, our most beloved City Councillors, were elected on a wave of change for the better. The work of Vision Vancouver, and the senior city staff who were appointed to carry out the wishes of the previous civic party in power, were soundly rejected at the polls last October.
We, the citizens of Vancouver, want change, change for the better.
For our City Councillors to focus on the #1 priority identified by the electorate, and to which you committed yourselves to addressing: relief from the affordable housing crisis that imperils our city and the lives of too many of our citizens, and the recognition of housing as a human right.
Almost everything else you do, however well-intentioned, is a distraction from the job you are meant to achieve, not years down the road, but now.
Your responsibility as City Councillors is to set the agenda — and have city staff carry out that agenda. There are many in our community who believe you are in sway to our city staff, that you are quiescent in the face of change, that as some have written that you are Vision 2.0, perhaps the worst thing that may be said about you, our new Council, by people who voted for change for the better & called upon you to achieve that change.

Colleen Hardwick | Vancouver City Councillor | Nobody’s Fool

May 20, 2019#VanPoli Civic Politics, News, Politics, Vancouver Votes 2018Raymond Tomlin

Vancouver City Council. Councillor Colleen Hardwick looks askance at a Council colleague.

There’s a good reason why Vancouver City Councillor Colleen Hardwick (along with her Councillor colleague, Jean Swanson) are a lock to be re-elected in the autumn municipal election of 2022, while the rest of her Council colleagues will be scrambling to even make it into the top 30 of candidates running for office, once all the citizens’ votes are counted.

You’ll notice in the video above, Vancouver City Councillor Jean Swanson in solidarity with citizens protesting their eviction. “Woman of the people,” that’s Jean Swanson. Seems so with Councillor Hardwick, as well — both Councillors attending a Tenants Union rally last summer at English Bay, decrying the renoviction of long term tenants in a west end building due for demolition, to be re-developed as a high-end condominium tower.

For while her other nine colleagues, including Mayor Kennedy and fellow Councillors (excluding Councillor Swanson), are all namby-pamby on the affordable housing and transit files (“Oh, just you wait til the fall, when [Vision Vancouver] city staff report back to us,” her NP colleagues tell all who will listen, “… on just what needs to be done on the affordable housing file, and updating the Rental 100 programme … yessiree, Alice and Bob, dem city staff, they sure have citizens’ interests at heart, every galldarn pickin’ one of ’em, and we’re just the lowly electeds collecting our $100,000 a year plus salaries just so we can rubber stamp whatever they tell us to do”) — but not Vancouver City Councillor Colleen Hardwick, who calls a spade a spade, and lets city staff know just how she feels about being lied to when, oh let’s say City Manager, Sadhu Johnston, addresses Council with his usual, “Oh NO, you can’t do that. That just not the way things are done. Please, oh please, let me lead you novice city councillors down the garden path, it’s oh so pretty, really it is. C’mon now, just follow me.”
Vancouver Councillor Colleen Hardwick ain’t havin’ none of that hogwash.

NPA Coun. Colleen Hardwick to Jerry Dobrovolny as he explains why capital budget is being increased:

Nice. Last October, we seem to have elected a Council committed to nice.
After 10 years of the bitter reign of Vision Vancouver, who made opposition Councillors lives a hell on Earth, our new Council has turned a new leaf, where niceness and respect and not getting anything done of real benefit to the vast majority of the electorate would seem to be the order of the day.
VanRamblings appreciates, and lobbied for, collegiality on Vancouver City Council. So far, so good. No bitter recriminations, most votes passing unanimously, and everyone seems to be getting along quite well. Councillors Hardwick and Swanson are kind of frustrated with their fellow Councillors, but on a Council committed to nice, Hardwick and Swanson are viewed as “outliers”, and to be ignored, or even worse … called out.
Imagine. Three term Vancouver City Councillor Adriane Carr taking Councillor Colleen Hardwick to task for not being nice.

“Ah, gee shucks — Councillor Hardwick be nice, take your $115,000 Councillor’s salary, and just shut the hell up, will ya? If you don’t pipe down, we’re not gonna let you eat at our table, or play with our ball, or invite you to any of our parties. Nah, nah poopy face Hardwick …”

Yep, that Councillor Adriane Carr, she sure could teach a class on how to win friends and influence people aka curry favour with city staff.
It is to weep.
Little wonder that among the great unwashed (you know, the non-aligned, non-pedantic among the electorate — as in the vast majority of those Vancouver citizens who vote) have come to champion Hardwick & Swanson as, the “Women of The People” in these early days of this term of Council, emerging as the electorate’s favourites, the only two Councillors seemingly keeping their eye of the ball, remembering their commitments to the electorate (advocating for tenant’s rights and affordable housing — and in Councillor Hardwick’s case, financial accountability), while not engaging in flights of fancy that have nothing to do with why our current Council was elected to office, a great pastime for many of our other City Councillors.

Music Sundays | Early ’60s | Phil Spector | The Wall of Sound

May 19, 2019A & E, Music, Pop CultureRaymond Tomlin

Growing up in the ’60s, in the era of Phil Spector and the Wall of Sound, The Beachboys, The Beatles — and all the groups who were a part of The British Invasion — was to feel vibrant and alive, hopeful for a better world for all, within a revolutionary era of societal change that spanned the globe.
Music served to awaken a younger generation to the possibility of change, to define an era for themselves, and be moved to work collectively for the betterment of society. And as anarchist Emma Goldman was wont to say, “If I can’t dance, I don’t want to be part of your revolution.” There was no music better to dance to than the music of Phil Spector’s Wall of Sound.

An excerpt from Danny Tedesco’s very fine 2008 documentary, The Wrecking Crew, in which Cher, American record producer and recording engineer, Bones Howe, bassist Carol Kaye, drummers Hal Blaine, and more, exclaim about Phil Spector and the Wall of Sound.

To attain the Wall of Sound, Spector’s arrangements called for large ensembles (including some instruments not generally used for ensemble playing, such as electric and acoustic guitars), with multiple instruments doubling or tripling many of the parts to create a fuller, richer tone.
For example, Spector would often duplicate a part played by an acoustic piano with an electric piano and a harpsichord. Mixed well enough, the three instruments would then be indistinguishable to the listener.
Additionally, Spector incorporated an array of orchestral instruments (strings, woodwind, brass and percussion) not previously associated with youth-oriented pop music. Reverb from an echo chamber was highlighted for additional texture, which he characterized as “a Wagnerian approach to rock & roll: little symphonies for the kids”. The intricacies of the technique were unprecedented in the field of sound production for popular music

Imagine being 12 years old, turning on the radio and hearing Darlene Love and The Crystals, The Ronettes, Smoky Robinson and The Miracles, The Beatles, Marvin Gaye, The Zombies, The Righteous Brothers, The Kinks, The Beach Boys, Diana Ross and The Supremes, Mary Wells, The Drifters, Chris Montez, Dionne Warwick, Martha and the Vandellas, Otis Redding, Roy Orbison, Ray Charles, and more, so much more — in the early ’60s, the hits really did ‘keep on comin‘, Vancouver’s CKLG part of the musical revolution.
Today on VanRamblings, a musical tribute to Phil Spector’s Wall of Sound, which in an era of one track studios embodied a revolutionary approach to the recording of music, setting a standard that prevails to this day, in the complex arrangements of your very favourite progressive bands and artists.

Stories of a Life | 1975 | Happy 44th Birthday, My Sweetheart!

May 18, 2019fixin to die rag, Jude and Megan, Stories of a Life, Thought for the Day, VanRamblingsRaymond Tomlin

In the spring of 1974, Cathy and I traveled to Europe for a three-month vacation across the vast expanse of the European continent, something Cathy had insisted on — and when Cathy wanted something, she got it.

Within 48 hours of our arrival at Heathrow Airport, and after snuggling down in a small hotel, Cathy — who was two months pregnant at the time, her pregnancy not in any way proving a deterrent to her desire for a summer European sojourn — fell “ill”. Cathy and I took a taxi to the hospital, where she ended up staying a week, miscarrying our child.

In the two months prior to our departure, Cathy and I had talked about whether we should follow through on our summer plans, given that when we had traveled to San Francisco to visit her mother’s cousins, she had miscarried. But Cathy’s mind was set, and the doctor signed off, so …

After leaving the hospital, Cathy needed rest, so we traveled down to and vacationed on the Isle of Wight for a week, before continuing our vacation on the continent, taking a luxury cruise ship from Southampton to Lisbon.
The vacation was everything and more that we both thought it might be, and by the end of our vacation in the latter part of August, upon returning home (landing in Edmonton, where her mother and sister lived), we were both thrilled to discover that Cathy was pregnant once again!
Over the course of the nine months Cathy was pregnant this time, Cathy took every precaution to preserve her pregnancy: changing her diet to organic foods, plant-based proteins, and upon the advice of the doulas who worked with us during the pregnancy, a great many foods with Vitamin E, including almonds, sunflower seeds, spinach and broccoli, wheat germ and safflower oil, in order that Cathy’s uterus might become more supple.

On Friday, May 16th, 1975, just two days before Jude’s date of birth, Cathy and I took in a concert at the Queen Elizabeth Theatre, with Eric Andersen opening, and Phoebe Snow as the headliner. As it happened, our doctors — Roy, our primary physician, and his wife Dr. Patricia Blackshaw, who also saw Cathy during her pregnancy — were sitting in the row right behind us.
When Eric Andersen took the stage, Cathy went into labour, no Braxton Hicks contractions this time. We spoke with Roy and Patricia during the intermission — Patricia examining Cathy in a private room — with both advising us that it would be fine for the two of us to remain at the concert.
We called our doulas to inform them that Cathy was in labour, and that we’d be home around 11:30pm. Our son to be was on his way, and about to announce himself to the world!

16343 96th Avenue, in the Tynehead area of Surrey. In the early 1970s, a decision had been taken by the GVRD to acquire all the land from 160th to 176th streets, and from 96th Avenue to Highway #1, in order that the regional district might create a large regional zoo. While discussions were ongoing, the GVRD acquired all of the land, renting it out to any who applied — which Cathy and I did early in 1973, living on the farm until August 1975, after which we traveled into the Interior for me to begin a teaching job.

At the time Cathy and I were living on a five-acre farm in the Tynehead area of Surrey, renting our farm home (pictured above) from the Greater Vancouver Regional District, for $125 a month. Between boarding horses and selling hay (and the eggs from our chickens out back), we ended up living rent free on the property for more than two years.
Upon arriving home, our doulas were waiting for us, taking Cathy up to our bedroom to examine her. Cathy was only 1cm dilated, and birth didn’t seem imminent. We had prepared for a home birth and kept up our communication with Dr. Roy Blackshaw (who visited the next day), as Cathy’s labour continued throughout the Saturday, and into the evening.
Cathy’s mother called on Saturday morning, the phone answered by a friend of ours (who we had instructed not to tell her of the pending birth — Myrtle was opposed to the home birth, despite our precautions, and we felt sure that were she present, she’d harass us into going to the hospital).
Myrtle knew that something was afoot. When she hung the phone up at 10am, she almost immediately had friends take her to the Edmonton airport. By 2pm, she was bursting through the front door of our house, all but screaming, “Where’s my daughter? Where’s Cathy? I want to see her now,” yelling this in a packed front room of 20 of our closest friends.

Now, you can see a picture of Cathy above in the week before Jude’s birth — Cathy gained massive weight, going from 110 pounds to 185 pounds. By the time her labour pains started, she was more than ready to give birth — but truth be told, both a little uncertain and a little scared at the prospect.
We had made the decision for a home birth in large measure because: Cathy wanted me present and in the room for the birth, which at the time no hospital would allow, and because we didn’t want drops placed into our child’s eyes, and his care taking place in an antiseptic hospital setting.
From the time Myrtle arrived on Saturday til noon on Sunday, she was like a broken record: “Get Cathy to the hospital now. What are you trying to do, kill my daughter?” Myrtle threatened to sue the doulas, and have me charged if any harm came to her daughter. To be fair, had I the opportunity to do it all over again, I would opt for a hospital birth, despite the attendant “problems” that a hospital birth would have conferred on us, and our baby.
Finally, at noon on Sunday, after speaking with the doulas and on the advice of Roy Blackshaw, we made the decision to have the birth at Surrey Memorial Hospital, who were ready for us upon our arrival, placing Cathy in a wheelchair and whisking her to the maternity ward, and into a surgical room where Roy and three nurses were waiting for us.
The room was brightly lit (not what we wanted), the nurses overly officious and insisting that everything be “done by the book”, ordering me out surgical room with Cathy screaming, “No, no, no! He stays!”
Roy took charge, and ordered the nurses out of the delivery room, telling me to stay, and asking that I dim the lights. By 1pm, Jude was ready to announce himself to the world, with Cathy’s screams of pain piercing the room, with me not knowing what the heck was going on, and Roy keeping the both of us calm, and focused.
At 1:42pm, on a warm, sunny and wondrous Sunday, May 18, 1975 afternoon, Jude Nathan Tomlin was born — the single most transformative and most joyous moment of my life (and Cathy’s, too, as within seconds of Jude’s birth, Cathy looked at me to say, “I want another baby right away!”).
Roy recommended keeping Cathy in the hospital overnight, with Cathy and I discussing a middle name for our new baby boy. Earlier, we had decided on the name Jude — one sunny afternoon while visiting friends a couple of months prior to our son’s birth, as we were conversing around the dinner table about what we would name our child, something miraculous occurred: at the very same moment, the song Hey Jude came on the radio, the recently drafted Montréal Canadiens centre Jude Drouin, scored a goal (the hockey game was playing on the TV, which could just be heard in the background), and at the very same moment, Cathy and I simultaneously spotted a copy of Thomas Hardy’s Jude the Obscure on a side table. Almost in unison, Cathy and I screamed out, “Jude, we’ll name our child Jude!”
And so we did.
In her hospital room early on Monday, with me by her side, Cathy and I discussed what name we would choose for Jude’s middle name. At the time, Cathy was reading Nathaniel West’s Miss Lonelyhearts, West’s widely regarded masterpiece, the book on the table by her bed (Cathy had asked me to bring the paperback to the hospital later on the Sunday afternoon of Jude’s birth). I suggested to Cathy, “How about Nathaniel as the middle name?” Cathy considered my suggestion for a moment before saying, “Nathan, let’s choose Nathan, instead, for his middle name.” And so we did.
By 2pm on Monday afternoon, just 24 hours after Jude’s birth, Cathy and I left the hospital to return to our home (Myrtle traveling in a taxi, right behind our car). Once home, Cathy rested, and I assumed Jude’s care, along with his maternal grandmother, who was now calmer, and … elated!

Cathy’s mom stayed only through Tuesday afternoon (Cathy insisted she leave — Cathy wanted the experience to be ours, sans her mother). On Wednesday, we left our farm house to go shopping at the Woodward’s food floor at the nearby Guildford Shopping Centre, Jude’s first foray into his bright new world — from the time we got out of the car, until we reached the entrance to the food floor, at least a dozen people stopped us to look at our newborn son, with Cathy & I beaming like the proud parents we were!

Jude Nathan Tomlin, the boy now man, in the winter of 2017, snow boarding up on Grouse Mountain. Happy 44th birthday, my most beloved, precious and much-loved son.