Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCL 40-02 REPORT TO THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE Report Number: CL 40-02 Date: November 22,2002 From: Bruce Taylor, AMCT, CMM City Clerk Subject: Proposed Regional Smoking By-law Recommendation: That the Council of the City of Pickering hereby advises the Council of the Regional Municipality of Durham that it supports the draft Regional Smoking By-law, attached as Appendix "0" to Report #2002-MOH-40 of the Commissioner & Medical Officer of Health, Executive Summary: The Council of the Regional Municipality of Durham has referred back to the area municipalities the draft Smoking By-law for further input. Financial Implications: Not applicable Background: Please find attached to this Report a letter from the Regional Clerk indicating that the Regional Council considered the draft Regional Smoking By-law at its meeting of November 13, 2002 and referred the By-law back to the area municipalities for further input. Essentially, the draft Regional Smoking By-law will prohibit smoking in most public places and workplaces on June 1, 2004. Bingo halls, casinos and racetracks may establish a designated smoking rooms and smoking may be permitted at private clubs. The Regional Health Department carried out extensive public consultation in the preparation of the draft By-law through public meetings in each of the area municipalities, through mailings to key stakeholders such as affected businesses and industries and through comprehensive information provided on the Region's website that was linked to some of the area municipality's websites. Report CL 40-02 Date: November 22, 2002 Subject: Proposed Regional Smoking By-law Page 2 The City of Pickering has been a major proponent of supporting a Regional Smoking By-law, as can be witnessed from the following two resolutions: Resolution #83/01. Item #11, Passed on June 25. 2001: 1. That Clerk's Report CL 25-01 regarding the regulation of smoking in public places and workplaces be received; and 2. That pursuant to Section 213(14) of the Municipal Act, the Council ofthe Regional Municipality of Durham be requested to undertake the enactment of a by-law to regulate smoking in public places and workplaces subject to the approval ofthe area municipalities. Resolution #39/02. Item #2. Passed on February 18. 2002: 1. That the letter dated January 23, 2002 from the Clerk of the Regional Municipality of Durham regarding a resolution passed by the Council of the Region regarding the regulation of smoking in public places and workplaces be received. 2. That the Council of the Regional Municipality of Durham be advised that the Council of the City of Pickering approves of the Regional Council passing a Region-wide by-law regulating the smoking of tobacco in public places and workplaces. Attachments: 1, Letter from the Regional Clerk dated November 15, 2002 Prepared By: //¿ --Bruce Taylor City Clerk c Attachment Report CL 40-02 Subject: Proposed Regional Smoking By-law Date: November 22,2002 Page 3 Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council The Regional Municipality of Durham Clerk's Department PO BOX 623 605 ROSSLAND ROAD ,E. WHITBY ON L 1 N 6A3 CANADA (905) 668-7711 1-800-372-1102 Fax: (905) 668-9963 E-mail: clerks@region.durham,on.ca www.region,durham,on,ca Pat M. Madill, A.M.C.T., CMM I Regional Clerk ' "SERVICE EXCELLENCE for .our COMMUNITY" I, nACH'v; . RECEIVED ..-./-- TU REPORT # c ill 0 -0:L CITY OF PICKERING NO V 1 8 2002 CLERK'S DIVISION THIS LETTER HAS BEEN FORWARDED TO ALL AREA MUNICIPALITIES . November 15, 2002 Mr. B. Taylor Clerk City of Pickering 1 The Esplanade Pickering, Ontario L1 V 6K7 Re: REGIONAL SMOKING BY-LAW (#2002-MOH-40) lOur F!le: P10-Q5) , Mr. Taylor, the Health and Social Services Committee'of Regional Council considered the above matter and at a meeting held on November 13, 2002, Council referred back the following . recommendations to the Area Municipalities for further input with a report back to Regional Council by February 2003: "a) THAT the draft Regional smoking by-law, attached as Appendix D to Report#2002-MOH-40 of the Commissioner & Medical Officer of Health, be approved; b) THAT Ontario's Ministers of Health and Long Term Care and Labour, Durham Region's MPs, MPPs and local area municipal Councils be so advised; and . c) THAT the local area municipal Councils and their staff be thanked for their cooperation and assistance in considering and responding to the Regional Smoking By-law report dated September 2002." .../2 <1) 100% Post Consumer ATTACHMENT # J.~.. , - ~ 0 -- 02- ",.,,'.1-1-'./+, CI.- ',.' ". ii",. -2- Enclosed, for your information, is a copy of Report #2002-MOH-40 of the Commissioner and Medical Officer of Health which . provides the comments from the Area Municipalities on this issue. Please place this matter before your Council at your earliest opportunity. If your Council wishes to .provide input, a response on ~o:e Fri;a~, J~nUàry 31, 2003 would be appreciated, P,M, Ma ill, AMCT, CMM I . Regional Clerk PMM/sc Ene!. c: Dr. RJ, Kyle, Commissioner & Medical Officer of Health ATTACHMEt-.!T f> \ "'.~". .."" C-L - L..\ D -0'2... ReportTo:. Chair L. O'Connor and Members Health & Social Services Committee Report No.: 2002-MOH-40 Date: October 31,2002 SUBJECT: Regional Smoking By-law RECOMMENDATION: THAT the Health & Social Services Committee recommends to the Regional Council that: a) The appended draft Regional smoking by-law is approved; b) Ontario's Ministers of Health and Long..Term Care and Labour and Durham Region's MPs, MPPs, and municipal Councils are so advised; and c) The municipal Councils and their staffs are thanked for their cooperation and assistance in considering and responding to the Regional Smoking By..law Report. REPORT: 1. On September 5, 2002, the Health & Social Services Committee: . Forwarded the Regional Smoking By-law Report (Appendix A) to the Durham Region's municipal Councils for information; and . Requested Ajax, Brock, Clarington, Oshawa, Scugog, Uxbridge and Whitby Councils to advise the Commissioner & Medical Officer of Health, preferably on or October 18, 2002, if they grant the Regional Council [final] approval to pass a Region..wide by-law regulating the smoking of tobacco in public places and workplaces. By October 18, all municipal Clerks had forwarded their Councils' resolutions regarding this matter to Regional staff (Appendix B). 2. Health and Legal staffs have reviewed the correspondence noted above. Andrew Allison, Senior Solicitor, advises that a majority of municipal Councils have granted the Regional Council permission to pass a Regional smoking by- law. Health staff has prepared the appended response to the issues raised by the municipal Councils (Appendix C). 87 Report No.: 2002..MOH-40 ATTACHMHn f ..1 , . ( ," \. . CL- - ~ (J.-o'L Page No: 2 In addition, Legal staff has amended the draft by-law (Appendix D) appended to the Regional Smoking By..law Report where reqLJired and in accordance with municipal feedback in order to clarify and improve the original intent of the draft by..law. 3. It is recommended that the Regional Council approves the appended draft Regional smoking by-law; and thanks the municipal Councils and their staffs for considering and responding to the Regional Smoking By..law Report. Respectfully submitted, R. J K e, MD, MHSc, CCFP, FRCPC Commissioner & Medical Officer of Health 88 j.\TTACHMF:\ ,I ,. ,. APPENDIX A . .. ".., .. , . . CL-- c..-¡ ()- 0 L- Regional Smoking By-Law Report 89 CL. - y (./ - ú"L Table of Contents Executive Summary,. ,..............,..,.., ....,............ ...., ,.. "',"' '.....,....... """"""""""" .......,.......,,2 Health Effects of Second-Hand Smoke ..........................,........,............ ..,...........,.............,3 The Region's Tobacco Control Mandate and Activities ...................,.........,.........,..........., 4 Smoking and Health in Durham Region..............,.........,......,......,..................,......,........... 5 Situation in Durham Region .......,........,.........,....""........."......,........,..,...,..,......,...,...5 Local By-Laws,.. ....... """ ................... ....,...,.., """"'" ,...""...."....,..;.., ....... ....., ,..... "'" 6 Regional Smoking By-law Public Consultation ....,............,....,.....,......,..............,..,.......... 7 Background......, """"""" """""'" """ ........,........ ,....."..". ..,..,... "...........,..,......,. ..,...., 7 Public Consultation Plan....., .....,.......,.....................,...,..,.,...,.. ..,....,.................."..,.... 7 Results of the Public Consultation ,..,................,....,..,.......... ...................................,....,..... 9 Public Consultation Meetings.........., .........,.,........, """" '...,.. ,.. ...."..... ,.........,..,. ........ 9 Web Surveys,... ....,... ....,......".....,...... ...,.., ....."....... ....",.,....,.,...,.",..... ........"....,...... 10 Regional Smoking By-law Comment Line...;.....,.......,......,..,.......,........................., 11 Correspondence,....,.." ..,....,... ...... """'" ....."., ........,.. ,...,....,...,...............,.,.. ..,.... ..."" 12 Council for a Smoke-Free Durham Region Postcards.....................................,....... 13 Issues related to By-law Development ,...............................,....,.......,.......,....,....,............ 15 Ontario By-Laws.. ......,......,..........,.. ..",......... """""" """"""" ,.. """ ....,..... ,..,.., ....,.. 15 Economic Impact ,..,............... ......." """'" ..." ,....,.......,...........,.....,..,.., ....,.. ,..,..,....,.. 15 Bingo Industry ..,.. .............,., ...,.... ,.., """""""" ,.....,. ,.....".,..............,..,......, ........,.... 16 Ventilation,...,......,.. ..,.....,.,..,... .....,.. .....,.... ""'" """""""""" """""" '........ """"""'" 17 Designated Smoking Rooms ,..,.......,....................,. ....,.,..."......., .................,....,..,.." 19 Enforcement....".... """" ,.......... """""" .........,...... """"""""" """"'...,.....". ,.. .......... 20 Conclusions...., """""'" ,....,..,....",................... '..'.... ,...... ..,................".....,..,........,..... ,..,.. 21 References..,......,......,..,...., ......,...............,........... ..,............. """'" ,......,..".,.........,........ ...,25 Appendices - Table of Contents, ....................,...."................... ................,........,..,.........,.27 Regional Smoking By-Law Report Page 1 90 ATTACHMENT#-L- TO REPORT#.Lb.- L-Ì U - cÎ- EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Exposure to second-hand smoke is an important public health concern and smoking by- laws are a way of protecting the public from that exposure. Boards of health are mandated by the Province to support and encourage municipal policy development, including the consideration of appropriate by-laws and their enforcement to reduce smoking in public places and workplaces. Exposure to second-hand smoke is the third leading preventable cause of death behind smoking and alcohol use, Second-hand smoke contains over 4000 chemicals, of which more than 40 are known to cause cancer. In adults, exposure to second-hand smoke causes heart disease, lung cancer and nasal sinus cancer. Children are particularly vulnerable to the effects of second-hand smoke. In children, exposure to second-hand smoke causes Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SillS), low birth-weight, bronchitis, pneumonia and other respiratory ilJnesses. Children with asthma have more attacks and the attacks can be more severe. . In June 200 I, the Council of the City of Pickering recommended that Regional Council enact a region-wide by-law regulating smoking in public places and workplaces subject to the approval of a majority of the area municipalities, In December, Durham Region's Health & Social Services (H&SS) Committee recommended that Regional Council ask the area municipalities for their approval to conduct public consultation regarding a Regional smoking by-law and to authorize H&SS Committee to lead this consultation, In January 2002, Regional Council passed these recommendations and subsequently, a majority of the area municipalities gave their approval. In April 2002, the H&SS Committee approved of the plan for the consultation process. The public consultation was conducted in June 2002. ' The public consultation consisted of two main components: communications and public hearings. Input was sought from all Durham Region residents including key stakeholders. The general public was notified about the public consultation through community newspaper advertisements, radio advertisements, media releases, and Regional/Municipal websites. Key Durham Region stakeholders were notified specifically through a mail out. Eight public meetings were held during the month of June 2002, one meeting in each of the eight area municipalities, The public was invited to speak at these meetings. In addition, residents were encouraged to complete a website survey, call a dedicated voice mail box and fax, write or email comments to the Health Department. There were 75 delegations at the public meetings, 994 website surveys completed, 299 telephone messages and 80 pieces of correspondence. Public opinion was also obtained through an on-going Health Department survey. A total of 579 residents were surveyed from October 2001 to March 2002 regarding their support for a by-law regulating smoking in public places, The analysis of the data from the public consultation and survey indicates the vast majority of residents support a Regional by-law regulating smoking in public places and workplaces. Regional Smoking By-Law Report Page 2 91 ATTACHMENT#. I _.TORE?O:FUCl".-YU~L- HEAL TH EFFECTS OF SECOND-HAND SMOKE Second-hand smoke contains over 4000 chemicals, of which more than 40 are known to cause cancer. The health effects of involuntary exposure to second-hand smoke have been thoroughly documented in scientific research over the last decade. An international scientific panel, consisting of 29 experts from 12 countries, convened by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, an agency of the World Health Organization, reviewed all significant published evidence related to tobacco and cancer. It unanimously concluded that second-hand smoke causes cancer, I In adults, exposure to second-hand smoke causes heart disease, lung cancer and nasal sinus cancer. New evidence suggests links with breast cancer and stroke, It has been established that children are at particular risk to the dangers of second-hand smoke. In children, exposure to second-hand smoke causes Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SillS), low birth-weight, bronchitis, pneumonia, other lower respiratory tract infections and middle ear disease. Children exposed to second-hand smoke are at greater risk of developing asthma; those with asthma have more attacks and the attacks can be more severe,2 (Appendix 1) There is no safe level of exposure to second-hand smoke, Exposure to second-hand smoke causes between 1100 and 7800 deaths per year in Canada, at least one-third of them in Ontario. Second-hand smoke exposure is the third leading preventable cause of death in Canada. 2 Many people are exposed to second-hand smoke at work. Employees of the hospitality industry are most in need of protection. Bar workers, during an 8-hour shift, inhale an amount of second-hand smoke equal to actively smoking nearly a pack of cigarettes. The risk of developing lung cancer is 50% higher for food service workers than for the general population.3 The establishment of smoke-free bars and taverns has been associated with rapid improvement of respiratory health in their employees,4 Regional Smoking By-Law Report Page 3 92 fTACH¡'H:!\ t/.-L_,TO REPORT#~ Yo-o. THE REGION'S TOBACCO CONTROL MANDATE AND ACTIVITIES The Regional Corporation, as Durham's Board of Health, is required by the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care (MOHLTC) under the Health Protection and Promotion Act to address tobacco issues at a variety of levels. Boards of health are mandated to support and encourage municipal policy development, including the consideration of appropriate by-laws and their enforcement to reduce smoking in public places and workplaces. The goal of the MOHLTC is to increase the proportion of smoke- ftee public places and workplaces to 100%. 5 (Appendix 2) The Regional Corporation's Health Department addresses tobacco issues through a comprehensive approach, focusing on prevention, protection and cessation, Programs such as peer-led tobacco-use prevention initiatives, the Tobacco Youth Vortal Project, Not to Kids, and the support and resources provided to educators and community groups help prevent youth ftom starting to smoke. The Health Department provides cessation support groups for women, and resources and telephone support for people who want to quit smoking, Resource support is also provided to physicians, pharmacies, dentists, and community groups/agencies. Smoke-ftee home and smoke-free car campaigns, as well as web-site information on second-hand smoke and the distribution of an up-to-date Durham Region Smoke-Free Dining Guide, encourage Durham Region residents to protect themselves and their children ftom exposure to second-hand smoke, Other responsibilities of the Health Department related to tobacco issues include the enforcement of the Tobacco Control Act, which prohibits the sale or supply of tobacco to youth under 19, and prohibits smoking in specified public places, Regarding legislation around tobacco issues, letters are also written to advocate for strengthened federal and provincial legislation, For example, a letter was sent to the Prime Minister, urging his government to remain committed to maintaining the integrity of the Tobacco Act by resisting pressure from the tobacco industry to provide exemption for tobacco sponsorship (December 15, 1997), Letters have been sent in support of Senator Colin Kenny's BilI S-20, The Tobacco Youth Protection Act (May 25, 2000) and followed up with a mail-merge writing campaign in May 2001 which yielded 1300 letters of support when the bill was reintroduced as BilI 8-15, A letter was sent in support of federal Health Minister Allan Rock's initiative to change health warning labels on cigarette packages (April 18, 2000) and his proposed limits on tobacco companies' use of descriptors like "light" and "mild" on cigarette packaging (May 25, 2001), An e-mail communication was forwarded to Ms. Helene Goulet, Director General of the Tobacco Control Programme at Health Canada, also regarding the importance of regulating the use of "light" and "mild" and similar terms or descriptors that lead the consumer to believe that the product is less harmful (Ian 4, 2002). The Health Department is currently involved in ådvocacy at the provincial level in requesting that Health Minister Tony Clement dedicate tobacco control funding to facilitate, at a local level, more effective public education, by-law support and activities targeted at youth to prevent smoking. Regional Smoking By-Law Report Page 4 93 HfTACrl¡V¡Ë, Sl/, tL -L./O-I.Y¿ SMOKING AND HEALTH IN DURHAM REGION The Situation in Durham Region The current smoking rate in Durham Region adults aged 18 years and older is 28% (+/- 3%), Current smoking rates consist of daily and occasional smokers. However, only 20% of Durham Region adults smoke on a daily basis.6 (Appendix 3) Durham Region residents are recognizing the health risks associated with exposure to second-hand smoke, and taking greater responsibility in protecting themselves and their families. In 2001, 80% of people in Durham lived in smoke-free homes, up from 66% when the Health Department's Smoke-Free Home campaign started in 1997. Smoking is not allowed in the vehicles of69% of Durham Region drivers, 6 The Health Department conducts an ongoing survey, known as the Rapid Risk Factor Surveillance System (RRFSS), Each month, Durham Region residents are randomly surveyed regarding health issues, The results of this survey indicated that the majority of Durham Region residents support making public places, such as restaurants, 100% smoke-free7(Appendix 4): . 75% of Durham Region residents support a by-law making restaurants smoke-free . 57% of Durham Region residents support a by-law making bars smoke-free . 55% of Durham Region residents support a by-law making bingo halls smoke-free . 66% of Durham Region residents support a by-law making bowling alleys smoke-free Additionally, the majority of Durham Region residents would frequent restaurants, bars, bowling alleys and similar public places more often or just as often if these places were 100% smoke-free environments7: . 90% of Durham Region residents indicated they would go out to restaurants more often or it would make no difference if they were smoke-free . 68% of Durham Region residents indicated they would go out to bars more often or it would make no difference if they were smoke-free . 54% of Durham Region residents indicated they would go out to bingo halls more often or it would make no difference if they were smoke-free . 73% of Durham Region residents indicated they would go out to bowling alleys more often or it would make no difference if they were smoke-free In contrast, Durham Region residents indicated they would go out less often to smoke- free environments7: . 9% of Durham Region residents indicated that they would go out less often to restaurants if they were smoke-free . 15% of Durham Region residents indicated that they would go out less often to bars if they were smoke-free . 6% of Durham Region residents indicated that they would go out less often to bingo halls if they were smoke-free . 5% of Durham Region residents indicated that they would go out less often to bowling alleys if they were smoke-free Regional Smoking By-Law Report Page 5 94 Local By-laws ¡ : CL - L-. 0 - 02 Presently, each municipality in Durham Region has a different by-law regulating smoking in public places (Appendix 5), For example, in Scugog and Brock Townships smoking in restaurants is not regulated, while in the Municipality of Clarington restaurants must be 75% no smoking. There are no municipal by-laws that cover workplaces in Durham Region, Regional Smoking By-Law Report Page 6 95 hi ;i\,,~,i, CL -L-{O-Q2- REGIONAL SMOKING BY-LAW PUBLIC CONSULTATION Background In June 2001, the Council of the City of Pickering recommended that Regional Council enact a region-wide by-law regulating smoking in public places and workplaces subject to the approval of a majority of the area municipalities, In December, Durham Region's Health & Social Services (H&SS) Committee recommended that Regional Council ask the area municipalities for their approval to conduct public consultation for a Regional smoking by-law and to authorize H&SS Committee to lead this consultation, In January 2002, Regional Council passed the recommendations and subsequently, a majority of the area municipalities gave their approval. The Public Consultation Plan At the April 4, 2002 meeting of the H&SS Committee, Health staff recommended that the public consultation consist of two main components, communications and public hearings, The Health staff outlined a plan for conducting the consultation and the plan was approved by the Committee (Appendix 6). The purpose of the public consultation was to obtain a broad range of opinions across Durham Region. Input was sought from all Durham Region residents including key stakeholders such as businesses/industries, health agencies, professionals, municipalities, non-governmental organizations, school boards and workplaces (Appendix 7), A 'Notice of Public Consultation' was developed that outlined the consultation process and the various ways that people could give input (Appendix 8), The Notice became the main vehicle for getting the message out to the public. Other resources were developed, including Background Information and Frequently Asked Questions documents. Packages (Appendix 9) containing these resources as well as a pamphlet about second- hand smoke, the Tobacco Snapshot developed by Durham Region Health Department and a summary of local municipal by-laws were distributed to Regional Councillors and to municipal offices. These resources were made available to the public on the Region's website, by contacting the Health Department, by attending the public meetings and at municipal offices. The general public was notified about the public consultation through community newspaper advertisements, radio advertisements, media releases and RegionaV municipal websites. Quarter page ads, featuring the Notice, were placed in community newspapers throughout the entire Region in mid-May 2002, and again at the end of May /beginning of June 2002 (Appendix 10), An additional ad was placed in the lakeshore community newspapers on Junel6, 2002. Radio ads (Appendix 11) ran for the week of May 25, 2002 on our two local radio stations, KX 96 and Energy FM/AM 1350. Both radio stations ran 40 rotations of a 30-second ad, Media releases were sent out on May 24, May 30, June 28 Regional Smoking By-Law Report Page 7 96 I-\TTACH;,' C L - L\O -UL and July 22 (Appendix 12). Media were very interested in the issue, resulting in articles, an editorial and Health staff participation in radio interviews. The timeliness of World No Tobacco Day on May 31st may have helped to focus the media interest. The Region's website housed comprehensive information on the public consultation that went live on May 8, 2002, Some of the area municipalities displayed links to the Region's website, highlighting the information. Key Durham Region stakeholders (e.g, affected businesses/industries, in conjunction with the Region's Economic Development and Tourism Department) were specifically notified, Approximately 4000 covering letters and Notices were mailed out to key stakeholders across the Region (Appendix 13), Public opinion was obtained through eight public meetings that were held throughout the month of June, one meeting in each of the eight area municipalities. Additional public opinion was obtained through the use of ongoing health surveiIIance information, a Regional website survey, and a dedicated voice mailbox. The public was encouraged to can, e-mail, complete a website survey, fax, write or speak at a public meeting, Each public meeting followed the same format. Committee Chair & Regional Councillor Larry O'Connor chaired the meetings. Dr, Kyle, Commissioner & Medical Officer of Health, gave a presentation, outlining the issues (Appendix 14), Scheduled speakers delivered their presentations, fonowed by speakers fÌ"om the floor, All speakers were given five minutes for their presentations. Everyone who came to a meeting wishing to speak had the opportunity to speak. People who caned in their comments to the dedicated voicemail box received a taped message that asked them to state their name, city/town and postal code (Appendix 15). The website survey included a comment section and to ensure survey results reflected the opinions of Durham Region residents, we asked for name, city/township and postal code (Appendix 16), Regional Smoking By-Law Report Page 8 97 ATTACHMEf' ...1, RESULTS OF THE PUBLIC CONSULTATION Public Consultation Meetings CL -YO -0 '- Approximately 160 people attended the public meetings and there were 75 delegations, Speakers' remarks were audio taped and staff from the Regional Clerk's office recorded the proceedings (Appendix 17). The comments received at the public consultation meetings were organized into themes based on their content. The following themes were identified: Theme Frequency of Comments Health Effects Supportive of a Smoke-Free By-law Implementation Timeline Detrimental Effects on Community caused by lost Bingo Revenue Enforcement Issues Freedom of Choice Negative Economic Effects In Favour of Designated Smoking Rooms Suggested By-law Elements Occupational Health Concerns Positive Economic Effects of By-law Smoking is Provincial or Federal Responsibility Non-Smokers'Rights Restaurants and Bars should be Treated Equally Must Have a Level Playing Field across the Region Protect the Children Smokers' Rights Second-Hand Smoke Drifts Hannonize By-law with Neighbouring regions Supports Smoke-Free Restaurants Problems with Designated Smoking Rooms Opposed to a Smoke-Free By-law Issues related to By-law Development Process Educate Children on the Dangers of Tobacco Doubts Health Hazards 20 19 18 16 12 12 11 10 10 9 8 7 6 6 6 6 6 5 5 5 5 3 3 2 2 An explanation of the themes and a representative sample of comments from residents for each theme can be found in Appendix 18. During the public consultation meeting held in Oshawa, many Bingo Operators expressed their views on how a Regional smoking by-law would be detrimental to the community, due to a potential loss of Bingo revenue, A collection of bingo hall surveys from Bruce Regional Smoking By-Law Report Page 9 98 ATTACHME~,r' CI....-L(u-u'L Baird, Chairman of Oshawa Bingo Country Charities Group Association, was presented to Health and Social Services chair Larry O'Connor. The survey (Appendix 19) asked for the respondents name, address, phone number, municipality, postal code and posed the question: "How supportive are you for prohibiting smoking in bingo hall?" When counted by health staff there were 194 completed surveys (34 additional surveys were spoiled as they were duplicates or not completed). The results were as follows: 181 responses were not at all supportive of prohibiting smoking in Bingo halls 13 responses were not very supportive of prohibiting smoking in Bingo halls Web Surveys The Durham Region Health Department received 994 web surveys (Appendix 20), A quantitative statistical analysis of these surveys was completed (Appendix 21), Many respondents included additional comments. The comments were organized into themes based on the content. The following themes were identified: Theme Frequency of Comments Supportive of Smoke-Free By-law Health Effects Non-Smokers' Rights Suggested By-law Elements Will Not Patronize Smoking Establishments Prefers Other Smoke-Free Regions Second-Hand Smoke Drifts Protect the Children Implementation of Timeline Positive Economic Effects Harmonizing By-law with Neighbouring Regions Occupational Heath Concerns In Favour of Designated Smoking Rooms Health Costs of Smoking Freedom of Choice Non-smoking Areas around DoorwaysÆntrances Negative Economic Effects Business Owner's Choice In Favour of Non-Smoking and Smoking Areas The Odour of Smoke Smokers' Rights Enforcement Issues Protection from Second-Hand Smoke is a Governmental Responsibility 182 139 106 65 64 62 50 49 44 44 38 36 33 28 28 27 26 25 21 20 18 18 16 Regional Smoking By-Law Report Page 10 99 ATTACHMH,;";. '" ,-, CL-Y(j.-U,- Opposed to Smoke-Free By-law Must have a Level Playing Field across the Region Would Increase Patronize of Smoke-Free Public Places Believes Ventilation Systems Work Outlaw/Restrict Tobacco Products By-law Supports Cessation Role Modeling Supports Smoke-Free Restaurants Will Not Patronize Smoke-Free Public Places People will Adapt Concerned with other Environmental Issues Government Interference Doesn't Like Waiting Believes Ventilation Systems Do Not Work 16 15 15 15 14 14 13 12 9 9 9 8 6 3 An explanation of the themes and a representative sample of comments from residents for each theme can be found in Appendix 22. Regional Smoking By-law Telephone Comment Line The Durham Region Health Department received 299 calls, All comments received were recorded and transcribed (Appendix 23), The comments were organized into themes based on the content. The following themes were identified: Theme Frequency of Comments Supportive of Smoke-Free By-law Health Effects Freedom of Choice Will Not Patronize Smoking Establishments Second-Hand Smoke Drifts Opposed to Smoke-Free By-law By-law Elements Protect the Children Non-Smokers' Rights Supports Smoke-Free Restaurants Hannonizing By-law with Neighbouring Regions Positive Economic Effects The adour of Smoke Prefers Other Smoke-Free Regions Against Smoking Occupational Health Concerns Would Increase Patronage of Smoke-Free Public Places 184 46 25 23 22 21 20 19 16 15 13 13 13 12 11 10 8 Regional Smoking By-Law Report Pagel 1 100 ^'JT.ACHM'I\P" /,.!- I 1"\ tl,,' ,-,' "'" (L - '- (- (j t.. Smokers'Rights Business Owner's Choice Implementation of Timeline Negative Economic Effects Concerned about Health Department Involvement Health Care Costs of Smoking Government Interference Role Modeling In Favour of Designated Smoking Rooms Concerned With Other Environmental Issues Must Have a Level Playing Field across the Region Non-Smoking Areas around DoorwaysÆntrances 8 6 6 4 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 An explanation of the themes and a representative sample of comments from residents for each theme can be found in Appendix 24. Correspondence We received 80 pieces of correspondence, in the fonn of letters, faxes, e-mails and written submissions at public meetings (Appendix 25). The comments from the correspondence were organized into themes based on the content. The following themes were identified: Theme Frequency of Comment Supportive of a Smoke-Free By-law Positive Economic Effects of a By-law Health Effects Will Not Patronize Smoking Establishments Non-Smokers' Rights Protect the Children Occupational Health Concerns Implementation Timeline Prefers Other Smoke-Free Regions Second-Hand Smoke Drifts Suggested By-law Elements Freedom of Choice Negative Economic Effects Harmonizing By-law with Neighbouring Regions Smoke-Free as a Societal Nonn Opposed to a Smoke-Free By-law In Favour of Designated Smoking Rooms Would Increase Patronage ofSmoke":'Free Public Places Level Playing Field 47 15 14 11 9 8 8 7 7 6 6 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Regional Smoking By-Law Report 101 Page 12 ATTACHMENT # _-L, Non-Smoking Areas Around Doorways! Entrances Detrimental Effects on Community Caused by Lost Bingo Revenue Role Modeling Benefits of By-law The Odour of Smoke Voluntarily Went Smoke-Free Believes that Ventilation Systems Do Not Work Responsibility for Durham Region Residents CJovernrnentInterference C L - Y Ú -(;2... 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 An explanation of the themes and a representative sample of comments from residents for each theme can be found in Appendix 26. ' Council for a Smoke-Free Durham Region Postcard The Council for a Smoke-Free Durham Region developed and distributed postcards which stated, "I Support Durham Region Smoke-Free By-law" (Appendix 27). These postcards were pre-addressed to Durham Region Health Department. A member of the Council for a Smoke-Free Durham Region presented 887 completed postcards to Chair O'Connor at the Pickering public consultation meeting on June 27. Subsequently, more cards were sent to the Health Department. In total, 1096 postcards were received by July 31, 2002, The postcards received were separated into the following municipalities: Amount 61 8 212 422 32 33 14 280 1062 34 1096 on Durham Region residents could also provide additional comments on these postcards. These additional comments were organized into themes based on the content. The following themes were identified: Theme Frequency of Comment Health Effects Implementation Timelines Non-Smokers' Rights 16 15 9 Regional Smoking By-Law Report Page 13 102 ÞT1ACH~1E!\n#J- TCREPORT#~ _.YC; -()2.. Protect the Children By-law Elements Delegalize Smoking Would Increase Patronage of Smoke-Free Public Places Will Not Patronize Smoking Establishments Supports Smoke-Free Public Places The Odour of Smoke Supports Smoke-Free Restaurants Level Playing Field Health Care Costs of Smoking Freedom of Choice 7 7 6 5 5 5 4 3 3 3 2 An explanation of the themes and a representative sample of comments from residents for each theme can be found in Appendix 28. Regional Smoking By-Law Report Page14 103 ATTACHMENT #-L (L--YC-CJ'L ISSUES RELATED TO BY-LAW DEVELOPMENT Ontario By-laws To address the health hazards of second-hand smoke, legislation restrictíng smoking in public places and workplaces is increasing throughout Ontario, There are 46 municipalities that have either implemented or are cun-ently developing 100% smoke-free by-Iaws8 (Appendix 29). In the GT A area, the City of Toronto and the Region of York and the municipalities of the Region of Peel have opted to phase-in smoking restrictions. They have passed by-laws to restrict smoking in public places, such as restaurants, food courts, bowling alleys and workplaces effective June 1,2001 and to regulate smoking in bars, bingo halls and billiard halls effective June 1, 2004, In August 2001, the City of Ottawa implemented a comprehensive by-law regulating smoking in all public places and workplaces, setting a gold standard for the protection of residents from the serious effects of second-hand smoke. A poll conducted by Decima Research Inc, in Ottawa, in June 2002, indicates that since the introduction of the by-law close to 7 in 10 City residents now strongly (53%) or generally (15%) support the by-law restricting smoking in all public rlaces and workplaces (including restaurants, bars, bingo halls, bowling alleys and taxis), Economic Impact Much of the debate around smoke-free public places has focused on the economic impact on the hospitality industry. The industry has argued that smokers will choose to dine in neighbouring communities or will not dine out as often. It is feared that this will mean reduced revenue for business. However, study after independent study, based on sales tax receipts confirms that the hospitality industry does not lose business when bars and restaurants go smoke-free. 10 A study in the Journal of the American Medical Association found smoke-free restaurant by-laws in three American states and six major cities had no adverse effect on tourist business and may have actually increased it!! In Canada, Dr. Ronald Colman of Genuine Progress Index Atlantic completed the fIrst comprehensive assessment of the economic impact of smoking restrictions,12 He reviewed all studies on the economic impact of smoking restrictions on restaurant and bar sales that have been done in North America. In his report, he concluded that without exception, every objective study using official sales tax data demonstrated that smoke- free legislation has no adverse impact on restaurant, bar, hotel and tourism receipts. Two studies found an initial decline in receipts in the first one to two months following enactment, but no evidence of any overall or aggregate decline in the long-term. Several studies found that restaurant, bar, hotel and tourism receipts increase following smoke- free legislation indicating that it may be good for business as non-smokers frequent eating and drinking establishments more often and smokers adjust to the new rules. Regional Smoking By-Law Report PagelS 104 p, f{",.L, '..... '., CL - y v -(f2. In a report prepared for The Workers Compensation Board of British Columbia, 16 studies were reviewed, examining the economic impact of smoking regulations on hospitality facilities in a number of jurisdictions in North America. J3 The conclusion of all published studies that used tax data in the analysis is that smoking restrictions do not impact negatively on hospitality sales and/or on employment or on tourism activity in the long run. The City of Ottawa engaged KPMG Chartered Accountants to monitor the economic impact of the smoking by-law that was enacted on August 1, 2001. KPMG issued their first report in December 2001,14 The preliminary findings indicated that since the by-law was enacted, there was an increase in employment in the food services industry and a corresponding decrease in employment insurance claims, A survey conducted in Ottawa, in June 2002, by Decima Research Inc., concluded "the city's smoking by-law has been accepted by the critical mass of area residents during its crucial early period of implementation. While specific establishments may have experienced a decline in business, across the City overall, the loss of customers due to this restriction is largely offset by others who are now more likely to visit bars and restaurants because they are smoke-free, ,,9 Bingo Industry There are currently five bingo operations functioning in Durham Region. Many charities and community groups are dependent on bingo revenues to support their work in the community, The rules governing the operation of charity bingos are set by the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario (AGCO). Municipalities may license the operation of charity bingos and are permitted by the AGCO to collect a license fee of up to 3% of the total prize value, The bingo industry in Ontario has been experiencing decreased revenues for a number of years, One factor has been the increased number of other gambling opportunities, A Mississauga report prepared in 2000, concluded that the "Mississauga bingo community has seen a steady reduction in its revenue since the introduction of slot machines at the Mohawk and Woodbine Raceways, Information received to date indicates that both attendance and revenue have been dramatically impacted by initiatives undertaken by the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation and the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario." Bingo halls in Mississauga reported decreases in revenue ranging from 5,1% - 40% attributed to the introduction of slot machines, The report quotes the General Manager of ¥eadowvale Bingo,- " It would be safe to say that since the opening of these casino/slots, hall revenue has decreased by at least 35% and the figure continues to grow." 15 A report submitted to Ottawa's Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee on February 28, 2002 identified that Ottawa was experiencing the same trends as in Mississauga. The report states that "Significant new gaming opportunities are now Regional Smoking By-Law Report Page 16 105 !.'"':"- ~-~ REPORT#~- l- U ""'"02- competing with bingo since the opening and expansion of the Casino du Lac-Leamy, the growth of the local Video Lottery Terminal industry, and the opening of Rideau-Carlton Slots in 2000, As a result of this new competition, and other changes in market conditions, attendance and profits for the charities have been declining for many years and continue to do so. For example, attendance and profits fell 15% and 13% respectively between 2000 and 2001.,,16 York Regional Council adopted a reportl? that analyzed the impact of their new no- smoking by-law on bingo revenues, and concluded that while the new by-law might have had some initial impact, it was competition fÌ'om a variety of new gaming activities that had reduced profits for charities. In conclusion, various municipalities in Ontario have examined the issue of declining bingo revenues and have found. that although no smoking by-laws may have had some impact, a major contributing factor is competition fÌ'om new gaming activities. Ventilation One of the first attempts to assess whether ventilation could be a solution to the problem of exposure to second-hand smoke in indoor places occun-ed in 1981. At that time the United States National Academy of Sciences assembled an expert panel to review a variety of indoor pollution and ventilation issues, including second-hand smoke in the workplace. The report of this expert panel concluded that a ventilation system capable of completely removing tobacco smoke fÌ'om the air did not exist.2 That conclusion has set the standard to measure the viability of ventilation systems as a solution. To be a viable solution, a ventilation system would have to be able to remove all tobacco smoke fÌ'om the air, . Since that time ventilation technology has become more sophisticated with techniques of air cleaning and recycling, Despite these advances in ventilation the conclusion about ventilation and second-hand smoke remains the same. There is no ventilation system capable of removing tobacco smoke fÌ'om the air,2 The American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) is the organization that sets the standards for ventilation safety, In 1999 ASHRAE accepted the evidence fÌ'om authorities that there is no acceptable level of exposure to the chemicals found in second-hand smoke. ASHRAE no longer provides ventilation standards for air with tobacco smoke in it, only for smoke-free buildings. IS Since there is no acceptable level of exposure to second-hand smoke, an adequate ventilation system would have to remove all tobacco smoke from the air, Cun-ently, there is no ventilation system that is capable of removing all tobacco smoke from the air. Therefore, ventilation may dilute tobacco smoke, but it will not eliminate the health risk. Ventilation is often presented as an option when municipalities consider a smoke-fÌ'ee by- law, When the City of Toronto was considering its smoke-free by-law, the Ontario Regional Smoking By-Law Report Page 17 106 t\TTACHMH,n éi .1 (L - L{(¡ -()2. Restaurant Association (ORA) and the Greater Toronto Hotel Association (GTHA) held a news conference at the Black Dog Pub to release results of its' demonstration project, and called on City of Toronto Councillors to adopt ventilation as a compliance option.19 (Appendix 30). The ventilation demonstration project involved set-up of a directional air-flow ventilation technology, The City of Toronto, ORA and GTHA agreed to ask Health Canada to test the technology. Health Canada however, turned down this request. Health Canada Assistant Deputy Minister Ian Potter stated: "When combusted, cigarettes produce both particulate and gaseous components. The premise behind ventilation is the replacement, at a constant level, of current air with "fresh" air, which both removes and dilutes smoke." The problem with ventilation as an exposure reduction strategy is that exposure, even if the system is operating at maximum efficiency, is never zero. In other words, in the best-case scenario, there is an explicit acceptance of some level of exposure to non-smokers. In the worst-case scenario, where the ventilation system is never maintained and becomes inoperative, exposlp"e of non-smokers to tobacco smoke is maximized. . . Since no ventilation system will protect everybody, and might even delude non-smokers into a false sense of protection, it is concluded that such systems are not as good as a total ban,., It is recommended that the City of Toronto be infonned that Health Canada will not test the proposed system.,,19 V entilationprovides no solution to the problem of exposure to second-hand smoke. Scientists around the world'agree - the only safe level of exposure to second-hand smoke is no exposure at all, A disturbing trend is noteworthy in this report, Recent release of Canadian tobacco documents have traced the activities of the Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council (CTMC) as it worked with the hospitality industry during the 1990's to develop a strategy to promote ventilation as a solution to smoking bans, The tobacco industry's main :tront group in promoting ventilation is the Hotel Association of Canada, which is funded by the CTMC to run "Courtesy of Choice"; a program designed to promote ventilation solutions, Tobacco company representatives have publicly revealed that the C1MC has been funding "Courtesy of Choice" by approximately $800 000 a year since 1995, The Hotel Association of Canada funded Roger Jenkin's study of the ventilation at the Black Dog Pub. Roger Jenkins is a well-known consultant to the American tobacco industry, who has testified on its behalf as an expert witness in court proceedings. In one case, a judge barred Mr. Jenkins' testimony on the grounds that U.S. tobacco giant R.J. Reynold's assistance with his research made it suspect. It is clear that despite technical evidence that ventilation cannot work, the tobacco industry is continuing to use :tront groups to promote ventilation as a solution to exposure to second-hand smoke.19 Regional Smoking By-Law Report Page 18 107 j.., ,,;,",..1.... C L - <--( ú - 0 '"2- Designated Smoking Rooms Designated smoking rooms (DSRs) are areas within a public place, which are enclosed from floor to ceiling and have a separate ventilation system. These rooms appear at first glance to be a possible solution, However, DSRs create the following problems: . Occupational Health: When employees enter these rooms, they are exposed to all of the harmful chemicals found in second-hand smoke, As a matter of occupational health and safety, a DSR does not protect these employees, . Unlevel Playing Field: DSRs create a fmancial burden on business owners, which prevents the establishment of a level playing field,DSRs are expensive to construct and maintain. Many establishments cannot afford to build a DSR, The lack of effectiveness of ventilation systems has previously been discussed in this report, In addition, ventilation systems have significant maintenance requirements and are costly. These systems would have to be on 24 hours a day to maintain the DSR negative pressure gradient in relation to the smoke-free area, As well, the ventilation in the DSR would have to be monitored regularly. Small business would be challenged to install and maintain two separate ventilation systems. . Protecting Children and Infants: Infants and children may be exposed to second-hand smoke in DSRs when they accompany their parents. It has been established that children are at particular risk to the dangers of second-hand smoke, 2 . DSRs are costly to the municipality: York Region No-Smoking By-law allows for DSRs. They have developed Ventilation Submission Requirements for constructing a Designated Smoking Room. Submissions must contain the following data as a minimum requirement for Designated Smoking Room Health Services Approval: 1. Three sets of drawings to scale, with dimensions indicating total occupiable area and Designated Smoking Room Area; including name, address and telephone number of Designer and qualifications of the designer. 2, Statement of area of occupiable area and Designated Smoking Room area with a calculation showing ratio ofDSR area as a percentage oftotal occupiable area, Note, this must be 25% or less and the area must not be required by any person for a thoroughfare, 3, Statement of occupancy ofDSR. Approval will be based on stated occupancy. Any greater occupancy will void all approvals, 4, Statement of separate air supply. This must be no less than 30 litres/second (63.5 CFM) per occupant. 5, Statement of interlock between air supply and exhaust to ensure continuous operation of both systems. 6. Statement of air exhaust. This must be a minimum 110% of separate air supply. 7. Statement and drawing verifying that supply and exhaust are separated by a minimum of 3 metres in any direction, 8, An undertaking that an independent air balancing contractor will provide verification of air supply and exhaust values, in written fonn, prior to occupancy of the Designated Smoking Room, Regional Smoking By-Law Report Page19 108 l Cl- -Yv -C; ~ 9. The applicant must verify that the Designated Smoking Room meets all other requirements of the Ontario Building Code, including barrier ffee access with the appropriate municipality prior to occupancy. 10. A statement that the DSR is completely enclosed, This means sealed walls, floor to slab, or sealed with solid drywall ceilings. Floor to ceiling partitions with acoustic tile will not be acceptable. 11, Verification of the installation must be obtained prior to occupancy. 12. A self-closing door,2o Enforcement Key to successful implementation of a by-law is a strong commitment to enforcement. The Health Department, which is already responsible for the Tobacco Control Act, is well suited to assume the responsibility of enforcing provisions of a Regional smoking by-law. In February 2002, most area municipalities informed Health & Social Services Committee that should the Region be granted the authority to pass a region-wide by-law that the Durham Region Health Department be responsible for the enforcement and promotion ofth~ by-law, Generally in other jurisdictions enforcement is a regional responsibility, led by staff of the Health Department with support from legal services and community partners. Staff experienced with enforcement of the Tobacco Control Act enforces the by-law with some assistance from Public Health Inspectors during critical periods of implementation of the by-law, Experience in other jurisdictions has shown that smoking by-laws are largely self-regulating through voluntary compliance by the public, employers, staff and owners/operators. However, other municipalities implementing smoke-free by-laws have required additional enforcement staff. Numbers of staff dedicated to enforcement ranges from three in Waterloo Region to six in York Region, Regional Smoking By-Law Report 109 Page20 (L- - L(ú - (.;~. CONCLUSIONS Based on the issues discussed in this report and analysis of the opinions voiced by Durham Region residents during the public consultation process, the following conclusions have been reached. An overwhelming majority of Durham Region residents supported a Regional by- law regulating smoking in all public places and workplaces. Of the residents who completed our website survey, 84,2% were strongly supportive of a regional by-law regulating smoking in public places and workplaces. There was overwhelming support for regulating smoking in restaurants (84.3%), workplaces (85.5%) and bowling alleys (80.4%) and significant support for regulating smoking in bars (64,9%) and bingo halls (70.4%), Durham Residents gave input into what they felt should be included in the by-law and when the by-law should become effective, People were very supportive of restrictions in workplaces and restaurants as previously noted. Other areas identified where smoking should be restricted were patios, arenas, community centres, and sporting events, Some people were very specific about areas they thought should be included or exempted in the by-law, For example, a: number of people expressed concerns about having to walk through smoke in order to enter public buildings such as hospitals and malls, and thèy suggested prohibiting smoking outside of buildings. There were a few suggestions that smoking continue to be allowèd in bars, but these bars should either be clearly designated as smoking establishments or smoking should be restricted until after 9 p,m, Concerns were expressed that private establishments, such as Legions, could operate under their own rules because they are not open to the public. Some people felt that business owners should have the choice Mwhether or not to permit smoking in their establishments. There were a few Durham Region residents that were satisfied with current smoking and non- smoking areas in restaurants, bars, bingos and bowling alleys, A majority of people who commented on timelines were in favor of a by-law being passed immediately or as soon as possible. Some business owners asked that sufficient time be allowed to enable them to adapt to the change, Input received from other municipalities recommended that an implementation date for a Durham Region by-law coincide with the [mal phase of the implementation of their by-laws, June 1, 2004. In order to facilitate the community's adjustment to a smoking by-law and to plan an effective implementation strategy, an implementation date of June 1, 2004 is recommended. Some residents supportive of implementing a by-law stressed the importance of effective and strong enforcement. Several business owners emphasized the importance of strong enforcement of a bylaw in maintaining a level playing field for businesses. Comments about the enforcement issue tended to be made by people who had first hand experience with the issue through their work or business. Many residents of Durham Region stated that if all businesses across the region, Regional Smoking By-Law Report Page2! 110 CL-YÙ-Ot. regardless of municipality or type of business, are treated equally under the by-law, a level playing field will be created. This is supported by other municipalities who, based on their experiences, have advised a level playing field be maintained by treating restaurants and bars equally. As well, differentiating between restaurants and bars is problematic because the Liquor License Act does not distinguish between restaurants and bars for licensing purposes. Instead it provides a single class of license for all establishments that serve alcohol and, in an attempt to reduce public harm associated with alcohol use, establishments that serve alcohol must serve food. Based on all of this information it makes sense to treat restaurants and bars equally in a smoking by-law. Bingo operators and their charity associations were the most vocal in opposing a ban on smoking in their establishments, They expressed concern about a potential loss of bingo revenue and its effect on the community if a smoke-free by-law was implemented in Durham Region, They consistently recommended that bingo halls be allowed a Designated Smoking Room (DSR). They also commented on the potential loss of revenue to municipalities resulting from a decrease in licensing fees. These concerns were brought forward at some of the public consultation meetings. The concern regarding the effect of the potential loss of bingo revenue on the community was a major concern at the meeting held in Oshawa, At that meeting Chair 0' Connor was presented with 194 completed "in hall" survey responses, Of these, 181 indicated that they were "not at all supportive of prohibiting smoking in bingo hall" and 13 indicated that they were "not very supportive", As previously documented in this report, other municipalities have investigated current trends in revenue losses in the bingo industry and have found that competition from other gaming establishments is a key factor, Currently there are five bingo operations, one casino and one racetrack in Durham Region, Based on the strong concerns expressed by bingo operators and their charity associations and the relatively small number of establishments involved, it would appear that allowances for DSRs could be made for these establishments. The issue of DSRs was brought forward by some other Durham Region residents and business owners, People commented on problems inherent with DSRs including the costs of building and maintaining them, which in turn would create an unlevel playing field, In addition, concerns were raised about employees having to work in DSRs. A small number of residents suggested that if smoking is allowed in restaurants and bars, that DSRs, separately enclosed and separately ventilated should be established, However, generally throughout the consultation process, there was little support for DSRs in public places and workplaces. This lack of support and concerns for employee health combined with the costs of DSRs to business owners and to the region related to an approval process provides a substantial argument for smoke-free workplaces and for limiting DSRs to a few establishments (i.e. the seven gaming establishments previously noted). Durham Region residents frequently cited the adverse health effects of second-hand smoke as a concern. Many people expressed concern that their lives have been adversely impacted by second-hand smoke because of existing health conditions such as asthma and allergies, Strong comments were made to the effect that second-hand smoke Regional Smoking By-Law Report Page22 111 þ"TTACH¡'ij[:f':~' é I.... - 1--\ Ú .- (I t.. . is dangerous and kills people. This indicates that there is a high level of awareness in our community about the serious and proven health hazards of second-hand smoke. Many residents had strong feelings about non-smokers' rights. Many expressed that their right to good health should prevail over a smoker's right to smoke. Other comments related to being subjected to a smoking environment included the unpleasant odour of smoke, the smell of smoke on hair and clothes, headaches, burning eyes, and food tasting like smoke. People commented that the current situation of having smoking and non-smoking areas doesn't provide protection from second-hand smoke as the smoke drifts from the smoking sections to the non-smoking sections, exposing patrons and employees to the harmful effects of tobacco smoke. Some people further requested that smoking not be pennitted even in outdoor areas where people gather. While the majority of the responses indicated that non-smokers' rights should supercede smokers' rights, there was a small minority of residents who smoked, and felt a smoke-free by-law would infringe on their right to smoke. Related to this issue, some people feel that there should be both smoking and non-smoking establishments, thus offering the public a choice. Durham Region residents singled out children and employees as being especially vulnerable to the effects of second-hand smoke and therefore in need of protection. These residents said they want to raise healthy children and view second-hand smoke as a threat to their children's health, This demonstrates people's awareness of the fact that children are particularly at risk from exposure to second-hand smoke. As well, people stated that children had no choice of being in a smoke-filled environment. The second group identified as vulnerable was employees. There were a variety of concerns expressed about the detrimental effects of second-hand smoke on employees working in smoking environments, Some people described having to quit their jobs because of the smoking in their work environment. Others womed about their health because of exposure to second-hand smoke in the workplace, Comments were received that addressed both the positive and negative economic effects of a smoking by-law. Some people commented that businesses would suffer and close due to lost revenue if a smoke-free by-law was implemented. Other residents expressed their belief that businesses would not suffer with a smoke-free by-law. This is supported by evidence already cited earlier is this document. While business may dip initially, there are no long-tenn negative effects. It was noted by a number of people that areas such as Waterloo, Ottawa, Toronto, York Region and Peterborough that have enacted smoke-free by-laws have not seen a loss in business, It was also noted that establishments in Durham Region that have voluntarily gone smoke-free (for example, Tim Hortons, Swiss Chalet, Red Lobster, and Williams Coffee Pub) are thriving. Regional Smoking By-Law Report Page23 112 CL. ~ '-t 0 -02. ' Some people indicated that they would frequent hospitality/entertainment establishments more often in Durham Region if they were smoke-free. In fact, many residents cUlTently leave the Region to dine in smoke-free establishments in neighboring municipalities that have enacted smoke-free by-laws (e.g" York Region, Toronto, Peterborough). A few people indicated that they would not patronize smoke-free establishments, ' Many residents expressed that Durham's smoking by-laws should harmonize with the neighbouring municipalities. This would prevent further losses to Durham's tourism and hospitality industry and ease the transition for business owners, Some people felt that Durham residents would adapt quickly to a smoke-free by-law as they have in other regions. Many people outlined additional benefits, which the by-law would bring to our community. These benefits include: . A smoke-free by-law would set an example for our children and youth that smoking is not acceptable, . A smoke-free by-law would support smokers in their efforts to quit. . A smoke-free by-law could help reduce the fmancial burden that tobacco places on our health care system. . A smoke-free by-law would create a social nonn in which smoking was seen as unacceptable, . A smoke-free by-law would mean less waiting time for non-smoking tables in restaurants, There were some comments from residents about the issue of responsibility for a smoke- free by-law, A few people commented that this should be the responsibility of a specific level of government (i.e. regional, provincial, federal), while others thought it should be the responsibility of the Health Department. Others thought that this was not at all a government responsibility, but in fact it should be an individual choice, Some people expressed their opinion about the sale of tobacco products, stating that because tobacco causes cancer, the sale of tobacco should be illegal. As requested by Ajax, Clarington, Oshawa and Whitby Councils, Regional legal staffhas drafted a Regional smoking by-law based on the results and conclusions of the public consultation for consideration by the Regional Council if a majority of the area municipal Councils approve of the Regional Council enacting such a by-law (Appendix 31), Regional Smoking By-Law Report Page24 113 . C L- - '-l (., .- Ú L . REFERENCE LIST 1. International Agency for Research on Cancer (!ARC), (2002), Involuntary smoking. Tobacco smoke and involuntary smoke: Summary of data reported and evaluation, 83, Retrieved from http://monographs,iarc,fr/htdocs/indexes/voI83 index. htm!. 2. Ontario Tobacco Research Unit. (2001), Protection From Second-Hand Smoke in Ontario, 3, Seigel, M, (1993). Involuntary smoking in the restaurant workplace, Journal of the American Medical Association, 270(4), 490-493, 4. Eisner, M.D, et al. (1998), Bartenders respiratory health after establishment of smoke- free bars and taverns, Journal of the American Medical Association, 280(22), 1909-1914. 5. Ministry of Health and Long Term Care, (1997). Mandatory Health Programs and Services Guidelines. Toronto, ON. 6. Durham Region Health Department. (Jan 2002), Still Fuming! Durham Region Tobacco Smoking. 7. Durham Region Health Department. (2002). Rapid Risk Factor Surveillance System, 8. Ontario Tobacco Network. (2002). Standards of Second-Hand Smoke Exposure in Ontario Hospitality and Recreational Premises, 9. Decima Research Inc, (2002), Decima's Ottawa Market Pulse: A Decima Quarterly Report on National Capital Region. 10. Ontario Tobacco Strategy Media Network. (2001). Restaurant Smoking Bans and their Economic Impact, 11. Giantz, S, & Charlesworth, A. (1999), Tourism and hotel revenues before and after passage of smoke- ftee restaurant ordinances. Journal of the American Medical Association, 281(20), 1911-1918, 12. Colman, R. (2001), The Economic Impact of Smoke-Free Workplaces: An Assessment for Nova Scotia. GPI Atlantic, Nova Scotia. 13. Pacific Analytics Inc. (2001). The Economic 1m pacts of the Proposed Amendment to the ETS Regulation. 14. Bourns, B., & Malcolmson, A. (2001). Economic Impact Analysis of the No Smoking By-Law on the Hospitality Industry in Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Regional Smoking By-Law Report Page25 114 (L- -YÚ-c-Z.' 15. Baker,J,M., Commissioner of Corporate Services and Treasurer. (2000). Bingo Industry Update (Report submitted to Chairman and Members of General Committee). Mississauga, ON. 16. Kirkpatrick, K. (2002), Ontario's declining charitable bingo revenues: A/our-point action plan for Ottawa (Report submitted to Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee). Ottawa, ON, 17. York Region, Commissioner of Health Services, (2002), Bingo operations in York Region (Report submitted to Health and Emergency Medical Services Committee). 18, American Society of Heating, Refiigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers. (1999). ASHRAE Published Updated Indoor Air Quality Standard (ASHRAE News Release), 19, Ontario Campaign for Action on Tobacco, (2002), The Hospitality Industry, The Tobacco Industry and Ventilation in Ontario. 20. York Region Health Services. (2000). Ventilation submission requirements for constructing a designated smoking room. Regional Smoking By-Law Report Page26 115 CL-QU-C<.. APPENDICES TO THE REGIONAL SMOKING BY-LAW REPORT TABLE OF CONTENTS I) Protection from Second-Hand Smoke in Ontario...........,..,.................................,.., 28 2) Mandatory Health Programs and Services Guidelines....,....................................... 92 3) RRFSS Still Fuming Durham Region: Tobacco Smoking ....................................11 0 4) RRFSS 2002 """"" "'" ........ ,.., ......... ............. ............................ """"""""'" """"" 113 5) Local Smoking By-law Report...........,.......,..........................................,.....,......... 117 6) Plan for Conducting the Consultation ,....,..,................,.........................,............,.. 121 7) Durham Region Stakeholders List (& attachments)..........,.............,..,.................. 124 8) A Notice of Public Consultation......................,.....,.... ..............,....... ...........,......... 210 9) Public Consultation Package ,............,.........,..,........................ .....,..,..,.... ....,......... 211 10) Newspaper Ad ....,...........,......."..".....,.. ....."..,..,....."..,..,.."".....,..,..,..... ......,......... 231 11) Radio Ad (Text).. ""'" "" '..,....., ......' .............. ............., , ,.........,.......,....., ,............",,232 12) Media Releases.... ........., ..,....., "" .......... ........"...........,......, "" ......."."..,.,.., '..,..,..... 233 13) Covering Letter,.. """ ""'" ,...... ....., ""'" ,..,......,....... .....,.......,..,.. ..,.........., .....,........,238 14) Presentation by Commissioner & Medical Officer of Health ...............,............... 239 15) Recorded Message for By-law Comment Line (Text) .......,........,......,.................. 245 16) Sample W ebsite .Survey,........,...,.........,....,.........................,......,...,.."..... ..,.......... 246 17) Public Consultation Meeting Minutes ........,...,.....,..,...............,....,........................ 247 18) Themes & Sample Comments from Public Consultation Meetings,..................... 296 19) Sample "In Hall Survey" ........,..,.....,........,......,.,.......... ......,..,.........................,....,309 20) Website Surveys...........,..,."",. "..,..", ..............,...... ....., """"'" ,.."... .....",......, ,...... 310 21) Frequency Analysis - Website Surveys ................................................................. 483 22) Themes & Sample Comments from Web Surveys,..,............................................ 485 23) Transcription of Regional Smoking By-law Comment Line ,..............,.............,.. 505 24) Themes & Sample Comments from Regional Smoking By-law Comment Line. 549 25) Correspondence Received '.. '..,.. '.. ,.........,.........................,........, ,........""......" """ 560 26) Themes & Sample Comments from Correspondence ........,.......................,....,.....671 27) Sample Postcard.. ........,..........,... ......,....... ...,.. ...............,.".., .....", ..........., ...,......... 681 28) Themes & Sample Comments from Postcards ............................,................,........ 682 29) Standards of Second-Hand Smoke Exposure in Ontario Hospitality and Recreational Premises...."......... ................", ...., ,..,....... ..'.., ........"....."...,.......,..,..,. """" ,....,......, 687 30) The Hospitality Industry, the Tobacco Industry & Ventilation in Ontario ,.......... 688 31) Regional Smoking By-law Draft ................,..............................,....,.............,..,..... 694 Please Note: The Appendices are available for review at the Regional Municipality of Durham, Clerk's Department, 605 Rossland Road East, Whitby, (905) 668-7711. Regional Smoking By-Law Report Page27 116 J.HI J.I)" A:lIlIA: It): 35 FAX 905 683 1061 TOWN OF AJAX CLERKS DEPT @OOl/OO2 Town of Ajax Ontario's First ISO 9001 Quality Community 65 Harwood Avenue S, - Ajax. Ontario LJS 2H9 (905) 683-4550 www.townofajax.com (90S) 619-2529, ext. 336 derond@townofajax.com APPENDIX B C L-. - q c -U/- October 16,2002 p, M. Madill Regional Clerk Regional Municipality of Durham 605 Rossland Road E, Whitby, Ontario LIN 6A3 Dear Ms. Madill: Re: Regional Smoking By-law R~ort At their meeting October 15, 2002, Ajax Town Council approved the following resolution: 1. "That the Counci} of the Town of Ajax approves a Regional Smolång By-law, provided it is in the fonn oitbe draft By-law appended to the Region ofDurbam "Regional Smolàng By-law Report". 2, That it be recommended that a Regional Smoking By-law include a provision to allow bars to also establish a designated smoláng room, no greater in size than 50% oftbe occupiable public space ofthe premises. 3.- That the Region review existing smoking regulations in other Ontario racetracks, casinos and gaming establishments, particularly the Blue Heron Casino and the Woodbine and Mohawk Race Track/Slots, and consider including similar standards for such facilities in a Regional Smoking By-law." Aj ax Town Council emphasizes that, while it endorses the principle of a Region Smoking By-law to create c~nsistency across the Region, it remams very concerned with the final regulations that may be incorporated into a Region By- ~aw. As a result, the To"WIl of Ajax authority to allow the Region to pass a Smoking By-law is conditional upon the Region By-law being identical to the Draft By-law appended to the Regional Smoking By-law report. Clauses 2 and 3 of the Ajax resolution are matters that Ajax Town Council would like the Region to review in greater detail and consider as possible areas of the Draft By-law that should perhaps be amended. 117 .1.\1/.1.\): ;.:uu~ HI: 36 f'AX 905 683 1061 TOWN OF AJAX CLERKS DEFT @002/002 CL-'-t() -Oi..- J In reviewing the Draft By-law, Ajax Council also identified concerns with the possible interpretation of certain sections, In particular, the inclusion of vehicles in the definition of a workplace seems to be subject to a very broad interpretation. Council wishes to ensure that this would not include a situation where charges might be laid against an employer if contracted drivers and vehicles (a delivery service, for example), are deemed to be in contravention oithe By-law. The Town requests clarification with respect to the definition of vehicle and how the Region would enforce this section. The Town of Ajax is also seeking clarification with respect to the exemption for private clubs. Does this exemption apply only when the club is occupied by bona-fide members only? Or, if the club is hosting a function that is attended by non-members and perhaps includes an mvítation to the general public, would the private club exemption be removed and the function be then become subject to the smoke-ÍÌee regulations imposed on other public places? Again, the Town seeks clarification of how these scenarios would be addressed through the draft Region By-law and the subsequent enforcement. Thank you for your kind attention and assistance with this matter. ~ M, de Rand Clerk /os cc Town Council Members Dr. Kyle, Regional Medical Officer of Health All Durham Clerk's N. Picov R. McArthur, Puck and Beaver T. O'Donnell, Plaza Bowl B, McKay, Pubco 118 OCT 17 2002 08:16 FR CLERKS DEPT 17Ø54323487 EROCK TWP 905 668 9963 TO 9057233428 P.03 517 P02 OCT 16 '02, 15:10 ll- - \...010-0'- ' THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF BROCK IN THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF DURHAM , CAMERON ST. E. P.O. BOX 10, CANNINGTON, ONTARIO LOE 1EO (705) 432-2355 OctQber 16, 2002 Region of Durham Health and Social Services Committee P.O, Box 623,605 Rossland Road East Whitby, Ontario L1N 1A3 Attention: Ms. Carol Smitton, AMCT Committee Secretary GentJemen/Ladies: Re; The Reaional Smoking BY-Law Public ConsultaUon This is to acknowledge your letter dated September 9, 2002, 10 response to your letter, the Township of Brock passed a resolution to support Regional Council in the passage of a Regional smoking by-law regulating smoking in public places and workplaces, I trust the above provides the direction requested. Yours truly, THE TOWNSHIP OF BROCK ~ AMCT, CMC Clerk-Administrator GSG:ac 119 ** TOTAL PAGE.03 ** C k - Y O.~ 0 z.. ClOO!Jgton October 1 , 2002 Ms, C, Smitton Committee Secretary . The Regional Municipal of Durham P.O. Box 623 605 Rossland Road East Whitby, Ontario L1N 6A3 Dear Ms. Smitton: Re: Smoking By-law Our File No.: SOB.8M At a meeting held on September 30, 2002, the Council of the Municipality of Clarington passed the following resolution: "THAT Correspondence Item 0-14 be received; and THAT the Regional Municipality of Durham be advised that the Council of the Municipality of Clarington grants Regional Council final approval to pass a Region-wide by-law regulating the smoking of tobacco in public places and workplaces, as per Regional Council's request of January 23, 2002, provided Regional Council has regard for the regulations contained within the Smoking in the Workplace Act, n PLB*cd Cc: R.J. Kyle, Commissioner & Medical Officer of Health ,120 ," " CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF ClARINGTON 40 TEMPERANCE STREET. BOWMANVILLE. ONTARIO l1 C 3A6 T (905) 623-3379 - ...., CL - Y (;-0,- Department of Corporate Services File A-2291 October 17, 2002 Dr, Robert Kyle Commissioner and Medical Officer of Health Regional Municipality of Durham Lang Tower, West Building Suite 210, Whitby Mall 1615 Dundas Street East Whitby, ON LIN 2L1 Re: Regional Smoking Bv-law Report This is further to the letter received from Carol Smitton, Committee Secretary concerning the above matter. Oshawa City Council at a meeting held October 16, 2002 adopted the following resolution: 4. 5. "1. That correspondence dated September 9,2002 from Carol Smitton, Committee Secretary, Region of Durham Health and Social Services Committee, requesting City Council's response with respect to the granting of a Region-wide by-law regulating smoking of tobacco in public places and workplaces be received for information; 2. That Oshawa City Council endorse the implementation of a Regional No-Smoking By-law; '" .J. THat it be recommended that a Regional Smoking By-law include a provision to allow bars to also establish a designated smoking room, no greater in size than 50% of the occupiable public space of the premises; That it be recommended that Section 1 (f)(iv) of the draft by-law concerning the definition of 'designated smoking room' be amended and redefmed so as to include the common area of the building or structure in the allotted non-smoking area; That it be recommended that the ventilation system identified by the Pub and Bar Coalition of Ontario be investigated." The Corporation of the City of Oshawa City Clerk Services 50 Centre Street South, Oshawa, Ontario L 1 H 327 TEL: (905) 436-5639, FAX: (905) 436-5697 121 With respect to Part 5 of the recommendation, once we have received the documentation ITom the Pub and Bar Coalition of Ontario concerning the specific ventilation system they spoke of, the information will be forwarded to you for your use, CL - <-tCJ-O'<:" If you need further assistance, please contact me at the address below or by telephone at 905-436-5636, extension 2230. ~~ Sandra Kranc City Clerk c. C. Smitton, Committee Secretary P. MadiII, Regional Clerk P. Barrie, Clerk, Municipality of Clarington M, de Rond, Clerk, Town of Ajax B. Taylor, Clerk, City of Pickering D. McKay, Clerk, Town of Whitby G, Graham, Clerk-Adminis:trator, Township of Brock K. Coates, Clerk, Township of Scugog W, Taylor, Clerk, Township ofUxbridge 122 I /' Pickering Civic Complex 1 0 .,o~e Th.e Esplanade ,) Pickenng. Ontario . '"'¡ Canada C L. - L( U - () L LIV 6K7 Direct Access (90S) 420-4660 dtyofpickering.com CitJ¡ o~ ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT Clerk's Division Division (905) 420-4611 Facsimile (905) 420-9685 cIerks@dty.pickering.on.ca FebI1,1~h;'~O~¿:it~f'~' ;~ . H. I I H Origin . J : 11 To: I , .! ¡I~op., , .~!/:'¡I " '" II 'I To;.. . , I . . -¡: \1 I Ii :1 ---.----- ..--- I I' n ! ~ It I. !i -:- -----~--¡-ïl " . I r I I' ~-_._---- - ! .. ., Ii , c.C F'I~ ----1---.11 .' L ' ~. - r I " : ',k~ ;>.:;>pr. .....d".: ; -.--.....'-:--.---,; Please be advised that the following resolution was passed bÿ the' Cöüncil of the Corporation of the City of Pickering at its meeting held on February 18,2002: . FEB21 '02 PM 3:1 Ms. P.M. Madill, Clerk, The Region of Durham, 605 Rossland Rd. E., Box 623, Whitby, Ontario LIN 6A3 1. That the letter dated January 23, 2002 ITom the Clerk of the Regional Municipality of Durham regarding a resolution passed by the Council of the Region regarding the regulation of smoking in public places and workplaces be received. 2. That the Council of the Regional Municipality ó{Durham be advised that the Council of the City of Pickering approves of the Regional Council passing a Region-wide by-law regulating the smoking of tobacco in public places and workplaces. If you have any questions with respect to this matter, please do not hesitate to contact the Clerks Division at 905-420-4611. Yours very truly, ¿ Bruce Taylor, AMCT, C.MM: City Clerk /dk (w~ç ~ ) 123 pro TOWNSHIP OF SCUGOG I 8 I PERRY STREET BOX 780, PORT PERRY ONTARIO L9L IA7 Phone: 905-985-7346 Main Office Fax: 905-985-99] 4 Clerk's Office Fax: 905-985-] 931 YVONNE de WIT , B, Math, MBA Chief Administrative Officer KIM COATES, A.M.O. éL-YCJ-O? Clerk October 1, 2002 Ms. C, Smitton, Committee Secretary Health & Social Services Committee Durham Region Clerk's Department P,O, Box 623 605 Rossland Road East Whitby, Ontario L 1N 6A3 Re: Regional Smoking By-Law Dear Ms. Smitton: Your correspondence dated September 9, 2002 requesting that Council advise of their position regarding the passing of the above captioned By-Law was considered by the Council of the Township of Scugog at a regular meeting held September 30, 2002, I wish to advise that Council adopted the following resolution in this regard: "THAT this Council fe-iterate its previously stated position to the effect that this Council is opposed to the Region of Durham enacting a Region-wide By-Law to regulate the smoking of tobacco in public places and workplaces as it is the view of this Council that local businesses have responded by self-regulating with respect to this matter," Should you have any questions in this regard, please do not hesitate to advise, Yours truly, ~rVÚDka ' Kim Coates, A.M,C,T, Clerk cc: Dr, R. J, Kyle, Commissioner & Medical Officer of Health, Durham Region 124 .Ji/~l A K E i~~)t '".-., -::- ~" ".To'.,)"" . ATTACHME~!': The Corporation of the Township of J]xbrid8e C L,... - 4 0 r- a 2..... Town flail 51 Toronto &trect South PO. Box 190 Uxbri~e. ON L9P ITI Telephone (905) 852 -9181 ~'àcsjmile (905) 852 -%74 Web www.town.uxbrid¿;c::.on.cB 'oJ< ".. ~ ~ ~. .~.;¡ ~ , I."; , "<t ,.:.;...'\ '.' \!r~~'f~ .~ . . . September 25, 2002 Carol Smitton, AM.c.T, Committee Secretary Region of Durham . 605 Rossland Road East Whitby, Ontario LIN 6A3 RE: REGIONAL SMOKING BY-LAW TOWNSHIP mE: GR-313 Please be advised that the Council of the Township ofUxbridge at its regular meeting held on Monday, September 25rd, 2002 adopted the following recommendation pertaining the implementation of a Regional Smoking By-law: "THAT we respond to the Region of Durham advising that we support the implementation of a Regional Smoking By-law subject to clarification on De:fuiï,tion 1, Sub-Section R, regarding reGreational facilities." .. I am by copy of this letter requesting Dr. Kyle to prove clarification on Definition 1, Sub-Section R regarding recreational facilities, Yours truly ø~ Walter E. Taylor Township Clerk /nas cc: Dr, RJ. Kyle, Commissioner & Medical Officer of Health 125 @ I ' ""oo'T# (" L- YU -U \... ' . ,:,¡"._,.:.¡;:¡'j:tt_IUKl:r ~ ~ THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN. OF WHITBY In the Regional Municipality of Durham Telepboae 905-668-5803 Toroato 905-686-26:"- Fax 905-686-7005 MUNICIPAL BUILDING 575 Rossland Road East Whitby, Ontario Canada LIN 2M8 October 17, 2002 File: A-2200 P.M. Madill, Regional Clerk Regional Municipality of Durham 605 Rossland Road East Whitby, Ontario L1N 6A3 Re: Proposed Regional Smoking BY-law At a meeting held on October 15, 2002 the Council of the Corporation of the Town of Whitby unanimously passed a resolution granting the Regional Municipality of D~rham the approval to pass a Region-wide by-law regulating the smoking of tobacco in public places and workplaces. ~ Whitby Town Council supports the basic intent and purpose of the draft smoking by-law prepared by the Region of Durham. However, the Council has concerns regarding specific aspects of the draft by-law. These concerns are elaborated in the enclosed Council notes. Whitby Council requests the Region of Durham have regard to these concerns prior to the final adoption of a Region-wide smoking by-law. / DGM/lcr Ene!. C.C.: ~r, RJ. Kyle, Commissioner and Medical Officer of Health Lang Tower, West Building, Suite 210 Whitby Mall, 1615 Dundas Street East Whitby, Onto L1N 2Ll 126 3. 4. . CL. - L\ (; --0 è WHITBY COUNCIL NOTES October 15. 2002 Proposed Regional Smoking By-law 1. Sections 8, 10, 13 and 15 of the draft Smoking By-law prohibit the placing of ashtrays in public places and enclosed workplaces. Considering that the by-law prohibits smoking in public places and enclosed workplaces, is it really necessary to regulate the placement of ashtrays in such places? Also, what is the definition of an ashtray? 2. Section 9 of the draft by-law provides that "subject to Sections 4, 5, 6 and 7 above, no person shall permit a person to smoke in a public place". The commonly accepted definition of a "person" is quite encompassing. Would it not be more appropriate to amend Section 9 to read "subject to .............. no proprietor shall permit a person to smoke in a public place'? This revision would reflect the wording used in other sections of the by-law. Sections 16 and 17 of the draft by-law provide for the posting of no-smoking signs in a conspicuous manner at each entrance to a public place or workplace. Should not the by-law prescribe what constitutes a proper no-smoking sign and more clearly describe just what a "conspicuoús manner" actually means? Section 23 of the by-law describes particular incidents or arguments that cannot be used in defence to any charge made pursuant to the by-law. In certain situations, the incidents or arguments described in the by-law are arguably reasonable grounds for a defence. Also, considering the provisions relating to smoking and signs in the by-law, arguably Section 23 of the by-law is unnecessary and inappropriate. 127 APPENDIX C CL - YÚ--ú2 Area MuniciDalities' ~ssues Re~eaional Smoldna Bv-Iaw Currently, all of the eight area municipal Councils have considered the Regional Smoking By-Law Report and have responded to Regional staff regarding their approval for Regional Council to pass a by-law regulating smoking in public places and workplaces, According to Legal staff, five municipalities have given their approval unconditionally, two have approved with recommendations and one has not given approval. Most municipalities commented favourably on the public consultation that was done over the summer and on the thoroughness and professionalism of the by-law report. Seven municipalities approved of a Regional smoking by-law, Many brought forward recommendations or concerns regarding specific areas of the draft by- law, This report will address the recommendations and concerns of the municipalities. Areas of Clarification Private Clubs (Town of Ajax) Some municipalities asked for clarification of specific sections of the draft by-law, The issue of private clubs was raised and whether private clubs would be subject to the by-law restrictions when hosting a function that is attended by non- members, It is the intent of the by-law that anytime a private club is open to the public, the restrictions would apply, This is contained in Section 7 of the by-law, which states, "The prohibitions and regulations in this by-law shall not apply to private clubs during such time periods when such private clubs are closed to members of the public", Vehicles (Town of Ajax) There was a request to clarify the definition of vehicle, It is the intent of the by- law that a vehicle used to transport the public would be subject to the by-law restrictions, As defined in Section 1 (q) a "public transport vehicle" means any vehicle used for transporting the public and includes a bus and a passenger vehicle used for hire such asa taxi or limousine, Also, it is the intent of the by-law that any vehicle that is a workplace is subject to the by-law restrictions, Thus, the definition of workplace in Section 1 (y) includes "a public transport vehicle and any other vehicle in which an employee works but does not include a private dwelling". No-Smoking Signs (Town of Whitby) The issue of no-smoking signs was discussed by one municipal Council. Section 1 (m) defines a "no-smoking sign" to mean a sign at least 10 centimetres in diameter showing an illustration of a black, lit cigarette on a white circle 128 CL -y (j -02-. surrounded by a red border with a width equal to one tenth of the diameter, with a red diagonal stroke of the same width crossing over the cigarette from the upper left to the lower portion of the circle. There is a requirement in Sections 15 and 16 of the by-law for no-smoking signs to be posted in a "conspicuous manner". This wording is consistent with the Tobacco Control Act and the intent is to ensure the sign is visible and the public is informed that smoking is prohibited. Smoking in the Workplace Act (Municipality of Clarington) The Ontario Smoking in the Workplace Act became effective January 1, 1990. The purpose of the Act is to restrict workplace smoking by establishing minimum standards that limit exposure to tobacco smoke in the workplace, However, the Act provides no protection for non-smokers, The Act states that in the event of conflict between this Act and a municipal by-law respecting smoking in a workplace, the provision that is the most restrictive of smoking prevails, The draft by-law is more restrictive than the Act; therefore the by-law would prevail. Definition of Recreational Facilities (Township of Uxbridge) One municipal Council requested clarification of the definition of recreational facilities as stated in the draft by-law. A letter of clarification was sent on October 2, 2002, (Annex 1) The Issue of DSRs in Bars (Town of Ajax, City of Oshawa) Two municipalities recommended that the Region consider making allowances in the by-law for bars to have designated smoking rooms (DSRs). These municipalities conducted additional public meetings, Ajax on October 15 and Oshawa on October 16. One bar owner spoke in favour of DSRs at the Oshawa public meeting and one at the Ajax meeting. As is noted in the Regional Smoking By-law Report, during the public consultation, the issue of DSRs was brought forward by some Durham Region residents and business owners. People commented on problems inherent with DSRs including the cost of building and maintaining them, which in turn would create an unlevel playing field. In addition, concerns were raised about people having to work in them, A small number of residents suggested that if smoking is allowed in restaurants and bars, that DSRs, separately enclosed and separately ventilated should be established, However, generally throughout the consultation process, there was little support for DSRs in public places and workplaces and strong public support for a level playing field. Other municipalities, based on their experiences, have advised a level playing field be maintained by treating bars and restaurants equally, As well, differentiating between restaurants and bars is difficult because the Liquor 129 1 (,L. -1....\ () --01... License Act does not distinguish between restaurants and bars for licensing purposes, Instead, it provides a single class of license for all establishments that serve alcohol and in an attempt to reduce public harm associated with alcohol use, establishments that serve alcohol must also serve food, There are 863 establishments in this category in Durham Region, Separately ventilated and completely enclosed DSRs do not protect workers from second-hand smoke, When employees enter these rooms, they are exposed to all 'of the harmful chemicals found in second-hand smoke. Employees of the hospitality industry are most in need of protection. Bar workers during an eight- hour shift inhale an amount of second-hand smoke equal to actively smoking nearly a pack of cigarettes, The risk of developing lung cancer is 50% higher for food service workers than for the general population, The establishment of smoke-free bars and taverns has been associated with rapid improvement of respiratory health in their employees. Recently, in a landmark decision, a non-smoking waitress diagnosed with terminal lung cancer after decades of working in smoky restaurants and bars was awarded compensation by the Ontario Workplace Safety and Insurance Board, This case sets a precedent and clearly identifies exposure to second-hand smoke as valid and provable grounds for compensation, DSRs create a financial burden on business owners, which prevents the establishment of a level playing field, Many establishments cannot afford to build a DSR. Ventilation systems in DSRs have significant maintenance requirements. These systems have to be functioning 24 hours a day to maintain the DSR negative pressure gradient in relation to the smoke-free area, As well. the ventilation in the DSR has to be monitored regularly. Small business would be challenged to install and maintain two separate ventilation systems, DSRs are costly to the municipality, York Region's smoking by-law allows for DSRs, At the Uxbridge public meeting on June 12, a representative from York Region outlined the considerable costs and challenges involved with DSRs, She recommended: . requiring the DSR to post the maximum occupancy load at the entrance . prohibiting anyone under 19 years from entry . hiring an experienced engineering firm or work in collaboration with the area municipality's Building Department in reviewing and approving the DSR. . employing dedicated staff to develop and implement the DSR approval process . creating appropriate DSR educational and promotional materials . holding DSR information workshops for Regional and Municipal staff, proprietors, and hospitality workers . ongoing review of the DSR approval process There is a substantial argument for having smoke-free public places and workplaces and limiting DSRs to a few establishments (Le, gaming 130 CL- '-lú-o2 establishments), In addition, generally throughout the public consultation process there was little support for DSRs in public places and workplaces, At the same time, many people expressed concerns for the health of employees who work in DSRs, DSRs are very costly for business owners and it would be costly for the Region to approve and monitor DSRs in bars. The issue of DSRs for gaming establishments was discussed by several municipalities during their deliberations, Generally, favourable comments were made about the decision to allow DSRs for gaming establishments because of the benefits to the community from charity bingo revenues. The Issue of Ventilation (City of Oshawa) At the public meetings held in Ajax and Oshawa earlier in October, a directional airflow ventilation system was advocated by Dan Taite as a solution to exposure to second-hand smoke, Mr. Taite, who came from Ottawa, spoke at these meetings representing PUBCO, PUBCO is an association of approximately 300 bars and pubs across Ontario. He did not say how many bars and pubs in Durham Region are members of this association, The most up to date technical analysis of why ventilation is not a solution to exposure to second-hand smoke, is contained in "Protection from Second-Hand Smoke in Ontario: A review of the Evidence Regarding Best Practices" prepared by the Ontario Tobacco Research Unit of the University of Toronto in May 2001. (Annex 2) This document states, 'With these advances in science on several fronts, the conclusion about ventilation and tobacco smoke nevertheless remains the same as it was twenty years ago- the ventilation system capable of removing tobacco smoke from the air does not exist". The directional airflow system as demonstrated by the Black Dog Pub in Scarborough, and advocated by Mr, Taite has been presented to municipal Councils in Ontario by representatives of several hospitality associations, For example: . In 1999, when Toronto City Council was considering its smoke-free by-law, the Ontario Restaurant Association (ORA) and the Greater Toronto Hotel Association (GTHA) urged Council to adopt the technology as a compliance option, Dr, Sheela Basrur, Medical Officer of Health for the City of Toronto, wrote a report recommending that a ventilation option not be included in the proposed by-law, . The City of Toronto, ORA and GTHA agreed to ask Health Canada to test the technology . Health Canada turned down the request. Their response was: 'When combusted, cigarettes produce both particulate and gaseous components, The premise behind ventilation is the replacement at a constant level, of current air with "fresh" air, which both removes and dilutes smoke..,The problem with 131 c.L-L{O-O2.. ventilation as an exposure reduction strategy is that exposure, even if the system is operating at maximum efficiency, is never zero, In other words, in the best case scenario, there is an explicit acceptance of some level of exposure to non-smokers. In the worst case scenario, where the ventilation system is never maintained and becomes inoperative, exposure of non- smokers to tobacco smoke is maximized, ",Since no ventilation system will protect everybody, and might even delude non- smokers into a false sense of protection, it is concluded that such systems are not as good as a total ban., , It is recommended that the City of Toronto be informed that Health Canada will not test the proposed system" . In April 2002, a representative of the Ontario Restaurant, Hotel and Motel Association (ORHMA), appeared before the City of Toronto's Economic Development Committee advocating for ventilation as a by-Jaw compliance option. This request was rejected, . In June, 2002, based on a delegation from the Canadian Restaurant and Foodservice Association and Ontario Restaurant, Hotel and Motel Association, York Regional Council asked Regional staff for a complete report on the feasibility of a pilot project to test an "energy recovery ventilation system" in a local restaurant. This report, accompanied by an independent engineering report which cast doubt on the technology, was presented to York Region's Health and Emergency Services Committee on September 5, 2002 (Annex 3). The Committee unanimously, and subsequently Council, rejected the request by these two hospitality associations to test the ventilation technology. We are not aware of any other municipality in Ontario where a by-law is under development, or has recently been passed or implemented, that allows directional airflow ventilation systems as a compliance option, Based on all the current information we have, it is clear that ventilation provides no solution to the problem of exposure to second-hand smoke, The Concern Related to Notification and Involvement of Billli!!:9s, Cas!!!Q! and Racetracks (City of Oshawa) At the Oshawa Municipal Council meeting on September 30, 2002, a question was raised about the involvement of billiards, casinos and racetracks in the public consultation process, specifically how they were notified, what discussions took place and what their input was, A covering letter and Notice of Public Consultation was mailed out to the following establishments in May 2002: Cadillac Billiards Central Billiards G, Cue's Billiards Oshawa Oshawa Whitby 132 Harwood Billiards Joe's Billiards Le Skratch Billiard B & G Partners Billiards Petrina's Taps & Billiard Petrina's Taps & Billiard Picov Downs Power of Q Billiards, The Shooters & Shots Billiard I Cc - L4 () -ÚL Ajax Pickering Oshawa Whitby Ajax Oshawa Ajax Pickering Bowmanville A Health staff member met with the management of the Blue Heron Casino in July 2002 to discuss in general the possible application of a Regional smoking by-law at the casino. In August, a staff member had a telephone conversation with the solicitor for the Mississaugas of Scugog First Nation Band, The solicitor indicated that currently the Mississaugas of Scugog First Nation draft, ratify and enforce their own by-laws, A Health staff member met with Mr, Norm Picov, owner of Picov Downs, the only racetrack in Durham Region in August, 2002, In addition, Mr, Picov called the telephone comment line to voice his opinions regarding a Regional smoking by- law, He commented that he felt most gaming establishments should be exempted, He said he was against smoking in restaurants but felt a by-law would hurt gaming and said that gamblers smoke, One of the establishments listed above, Partners Billiards Limited, sent a letter with their comments regarding a Regional smoking by-law, Their letter outlined their concern that a smoking by-law would have a direct impact on their business and they stated that well over 75% of their customers were smokers, While they acknowledged the impact of second-hand smoke, they felt that a non-smoking by-law would result in losing many of their customers, Smokin Re ulations for Gamin Establishments in Other Jurisdictions in Ontario (Town of Ajax) A review of 24 smoking by-laws of other jurisdictions in Ontario was completed, It was found that in 10 of these by-laws, either one or more type of gaming facility (casinos, slots and horse racing venues) was specifically included, In the City of Ottawa by-law, a specific slot machine gaming facility is designated as a public place and smoking is prohibited, Other by-laws provide for either OSRs, total exemptions or allow for smoking in some unenclosed areas of the designated gaming establishment. For instance, in the Niagara by-law, casinos and racetracks are on a list of places that are not included in the definition of a public place. In the City of Toronto's by-law, casinos and racetracks are designated as "Class 0" public places and may establish and designate an unenclosed smoking area no greater in size than 25% of the occupiable public 133 c'- - '-1. 0-01- space in the premises. As of June 1, 2004, unenclosed smoking will be prohibited and smoking will be permitted in an approved DSR no larger than 25% of occupiable public space, Bingo halls are specifically mentioned in 23 of the 24 by-laws that were reviewed, In 8 by-laws there are no exceptions for bingo establishments, while in 16 by- laws, bingo establishments have some form of exception. The most common form of exception for bingo halls is to permit them a DSR not greater than 50% of the occupiable public place, Additional information was sought from other boards of health. The Kingston, Frontenac And Lennox & Addington Health Unit responded that a new charity casino opened in Gananoque and had agreed, in discussions with the Alcohol & Gaming Commission, that they would comply with any by-law passed within the municipality, The Thunder Bay District Health Unit responded that they are recommending an Ottawa style by-law and that bingos and their local casino (downtown) would be treated as any other place and follow all provisions, There is no plan to regulate smoking on the Fort William First Nation Reserve, Ashtravs (Town of Whitby) The issue of whether the draft smoking by-law would prevent retailers from selling ashtrays was discussed by two municipal Councils. By-laws from 24 jurisdictions in Ontario were reviewed regarding the inclusion of ashtray provisions, In 21 of these by-laws there are clauses regarding ashtrays, Most by- laws place the onus on the proprietor or other person in charge of a public place to ensure that no ashtrays are placed or allowed to remain in any public place where smoking is prohibited pursuant to this by-law, The statements regarding placement of ashtrays in places where smoking is prohibited are an important component of a by-law, The presence of ashtrays represents a tacit acceptance of smoking and may even be seen as an invitation to smoke, Changes to the Draf!..Bv-law Based on responses from the municipalities, and continued scrutiny by the Region's Legal staff, there are some revisions that have been made to the draft by-law, At the October 16, public meeting in Oshawa, a delegate representing the bingo operators requested that Section 1 (f) (iv) of the draft by-law concerning the definition of "designated smoking room" be amended and redefined so as to include the common area of the building or structure in the allotted non-smoking area. It is thought, that this change can be made without substantially altering the intent of the draft by-law, which is to protect non- smokers, This clause has been deleted from the by-taw. Section 9 has been changed. It will read "Subject to sections 4,5,6 and 7 above, no proprietor shall permit a person to smoke in a public place, Section 11, which 134 C-L - Y () -0'1.. states "Subject to sections 4,5,6 and 7 above, no proprietor shall permit a person to smoke in a public place" then becomes redundant and has been removed, After further consideration by the Legal staff, it was decided that Section 23 be deleted, Section 23 states "It shall not be a defence to any charge made pursuant to this by-law that: (a) no or insufficient no-smoking signs were posted; or (b) a proprietor or employer did not warn that smoking was not permitted". The statements in the draft by-law regarding ashtrays are intended to prohibit placing ashtrays in a public place or workplace for the use of smokers, not to prohibit retailers from selling ashtrays, This distinction can be emphasized by including the words "for the use of smokers" in the clauses about ashtrays, Sections 8,10,12 and 14 of the by-law have been changed to reflect this. The draft by-law has been changed to include the following definition of an ashtray. An ashtray "means a receptacle of any type being used for tobacco ashes and for cigar and cigarette butts", 135 The Regional Municipality of Durham HEALTH, DEPARTMENT Heae! Office, ' ,1615 Dundas Stree~ East, ' Suite 21.0 Whitby; Ontario , . CanadaL 1N 2L 1 '(90S) 723-8521 ' Fax: (905) 723-6026 Tor: (90S) 686-27.40 Annex'1 C. L - Y Ú '-0"1... October 2, 2002 ' f\1r. Walter E, Taylor Township Clerk The Corporation of the Township of Uxbridge Town Hall, , ' , 51 Toronto Street South P.O, Box 190 , , Uxbridge, ON L9~ 1T1 Dear Mr, Taylor: Re: Regional Smòking By-law -:- yoúr File:.GR-~13, Thank you for informing me on September 25, 2002 about your Councii's position which supports the implementation of a R~ional smoktng by-law, ~' " , , , Further to 'Council's request for .clarification about the definition Qf (ecreatiohaL., .' .. facilities and in ,cqnsultation'with'ToWnship staff an,d our'Legal Department~',I', ' can advise you that facilities 'such as rurai halls and comm!Jnity centres oome .' ' , within the definition of "recreational facility" as. embodied in thë draft. RegIonal , ':,' , smoking by-law that is' app~nd~d ,to, the Regional Smoking By-Iå\ii 'RepQrt <, Morèover, these facilities also Come 'Within ,the definition of "municipal building" . if they are owne'd, cOntrollèd~ leased ,or used by the: Region or, the 'area," municipalities, , Finally,' both municipál bllilCiings and recreationaL facilities ',are designated as "public pl~ces" in sect~on 2 of.the ~raft Regional srnoki~g.:bY-Jaw, , , I trust,thåt the foregoing answerÎs satisfactorY. Please do not h'esitateto cont~ct me if you require ç¡ny additional advice or inform~tion. ' Yours sin~rely, , , '. " Robe J. yle"MD, MHSc, CCFP, FRCPC Com,missionetand Medical Officer'of Health RJK/kg cc: Regional Councillor Larry O'Connor , Steven Kamay Carol Smitton ~,~fP" "SERVICE EXCELLENCE " .... ..' .... ..-'.', fo';""our.COMMUNITY" ':f;;~:2?J;~1~ ~ 136 Annex 2 Protection from second-hand tobl/d.CO smoke in Ontario L C,L -Y 0 -01... No solution through ventilation Introduction In 1981, the United States National Academy of Sciences assembled an expert panel to review a varie~ of indoor pollution and ventilation issues, including tobacco smoke in the workplace, 3 For its time, the report of their work, entitled Indoor Pollutants, was the most authoritative scientific statement on indoor air pollution extant. The report concluded that a ventilation system capable of completely removing tobacco smoke from the air did not exist. The information on ventilation in the 1981 National Academy of Sciences report has been surpassed by many advances in ventilation science over the past two decades, Our knowledge of the health hazards of second-hand smoke, in its infancy in 1981, has also grown exponentially, as has our knowledge of the physics and chemistry of tobacco smoke in indoor air, Twenty years ago, techniques of air cleaning and recycling were less sophisticated than they are today, Little knowledge of the behaviour of tobacco smoke in indoor air was available, Now, we have predictive models that can tell us with great reliability how much of several components of tobacco smoke will be present in indoor air under different conditions of smoking and ventilation, In 1981, the very fIrst papers were being published pointing to a possible relationship between exposure to second-hand smoke and lung cancer, Now, scientific consensus has been established that exposure to second- hand smoke causes lung cancer and is a known or suspected cause of many other diseases or conditions (see Table 2), 'With these advances in science on several fronts, the conclusion about ventilation and tobacco smoke nevertheless remains the same as it was twenty years ago - the ventilation system capable of removing tobacco smoke from the air does not exist. The policy implications of this fact are more profound than they were twenty years ago, In 1981, there was stilI scientific debate about whether or not exposure to second-hand smoke was hazardous, and whether or not exposure should be reduced, Now, scientific consensus has been established - exposure to second-hand smoke causes lung cancer, heart disease and many other diseases. Moreover, scientists around the world agree - the only safe level of exposure to second-hand smoke is no exposure at all. If ventilation were to offer an effective public health solution to the problem of exposure to second- 21 137 Protection from second-hand fI.. ..:co smoke in Ontario - t CL - L.«.ro'2... hand smoke in the \vorkpIace, it \vould have to ensure virtually no exposure to second- hand smoke. In the remainder of this section, documentarion wiII be provided demonstrating that such a ventilation system does not exist. It will also be demonstrated that a preferred control method is to ban smoking in all public places and workplaces. ' Ventilation standards Heating, ventilation and air conditioning engineers around the world look to the American Society of Heating, Refrigeration and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) for guidance and standard setting on detennining ventilation rates for the buildings they design and manage. ASHRAE standards are frequently written into laws and regulations governing ventilation rates, Even when they are not written into law, they are widely followed by engineers and building managers as the prefeITed code of practice for ventilation rates, ASHRAE standards are the most widely observed code of ventilation practice in Canada, The ASHRAE standard that governs indoor air quality is caUed Ventilation/or Acceptable Indoor Air Quality, ASHRAE Standard 62-1999. This standard was revised in 1973, 1981, 1989 and 1999, The most recent revision is significant because it takes into account new knowledge on the health effects of second-hand tobacco'smoke (See Table 2), The revision removed a provision (present in the 1989 version of the standard) that reconunended ventilation rates for the control of odours from second-hand tobacco smoke,24 With the 1999 revision, ASHRAE, in essence, deferred to other authorities for standard setting on second-hand tobacco smoke, a known carcinogen, Now ventilation rates proposed by ASHRAE only apply to air free from tobacco smoke, For dealing with tobacco smoke, ASHRAE reconunends the reduction of "the concentration of all knO\\ln contaminants of concern to some specified acceptable leve1." To detennine this level, one is referred to a list of health authorities that include the US Environmental Protection Agency, the \Vorld Health Organization, the American Medical Association, the American Lung Association, the National Institutes for Occupational Safety and Health, the National Academy of Sciences, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration and the Surgeon General. There is consensus among aU these scientific agencies - there should be no exposure to second-hand tobacco smoke, In revising its standard, ASHRAE adhered to a time-tested principle of sound public health and ventilation engineering practice, First, remove known sources of air pollution, and only then apply air cleaning and ventilation techniques, Revised standard 62-1999 adheres closely to this principle, ASHRAE no longer provides ventilation standards for air with tobacco smoke in it, only for air in smoke-free buildings, To sum up, ASHRAE, the premier ventilation rate standard-setting agency in the world has said, in essence, the only air for which it sets ventilation standards is air that is already smoke-free, 22 138 C L PrQtec. lion from second-hand tob......co smoke in Ontario -yc.;-O2.. - Searching for a ventilation solution The revised ASHRAE standard was adopted only after considerable debate. Appeals were heard from many interests. Appellants included ventilation engineers, the t~bacco industry and the Neighbourhood Pub Owners' Association of British Columbia. 2) All points of vie\v were heard and considered before revisions to the standard were decided, Throughout the appeals procedure, the appeals panel indicated that ventilation standards could possibly be developed if cognizant health authorities were to define some safe non- zero level of exposure to second-hand smoke, That has not happened, In fact the appeals panel remarked, "The statements of cognizant health authorities have become more definitive and are unanimous \vith respect to the health impacts of ETS," As described earlier, health authorities have been unanimous in recommending that we move as quickly as reasonably possible towards eliminating aU exposure to second-hand tobacco smoke, No scientific basis has been found for recommending a non-zero limit for exposure to second-hand tobacco smoke, Notwithstanding the scientific conclusion that all exposure to second-hand smoke should be avoided, the search for a ventilation solution continued, In 1998, US OSHA and ACGIH teamed up to sponsor a scientific review by a panel of fourteen ventilation experts to detennine if there were technically and economically feasible engineering controls for environmental tobacco smoke in restaurants, bars and casinos. Their review was conducted in a scientific workshop held in Fort Mitchell, Kentucky in June 1998, The panel was instructed to conduct their work assuming that total elimination of second- hand tobacco smoke was not an option,26 : Panelists concluded that well-mixed dilution ventilation, the overwhelming majority of CUITent installations, was unsatisfactory for controlling worker exposure to ETS in hospitality venues, Local area exhaust ventilation, smokeless ashtrays, air cleaning, and displacement ventilation were identified as potentially more effective, Of these, displacement ventilation was thought to hold the most promise, Based on professional judgement, not measured data, panelists felt that a 90% reduction in levels of ambient tobacco smoke could be achieved under the most favourable conditions, Panelists noted, however, a number of practical problems: most ventilation engineers are unfamiliar with displacement technology; there would be difficulty in retrofitting existing installations; and there could be aesthetic problems, "'flY ventilation solutions do not work The United States Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has proposed (but not yet implemented) a rule on smoking in the workplace that would reduce exposure to tobacco smoke to zero for many workers in many workplaces,7 Banning smoking in the workplace is the prefeITed option under the proposed rule, However, smoking could be allowed under certain circumstances that were intended to greatly reduce exposure to tobacco smoke for non-smoking workers: 23 139 Protection from second-hand te. .co smoke in Ontario CL -\..(ù-O2 Tobacco smoke. (i) In worf...places v,,'here the smoking of tobacco products is not prohibited, the employer shall establish designated smoking areas and permit smoking only in such areas; (ii) The emplo,ver shall assure that designated smoking areas are enclosed and exhausted directly to the outside, and are maintained under negative pressure (1-1/ith respect to surrounding spaces) sufficient to contain tobacco smoke within the designated area; (iii) The employer shall assure that cleaning and maintenance work in designated smoking areas is conducted only when no smoking is taking place; (iv) The employer shall assure that employees are not required to enter designated smoking areas in the performance of normal work activities; (v) The emplo.-rer shall post signs clearly indicating areas that are designated smoking areas; (vi) The employer shall post signs that will clearly inform anyone entering the workplace that smoking is restricted to designated areas; and (vii) The employer shall prohibit smoking within designated smoking areas during any period that the exhaust ventilation system servicing that area is not properly operating, This proposed rule has not been implemented in the United States. Under current legislation, it could not possibly be implemented in Ontario, Under the proposed OSHA. scheme, tobacco smoke would be present in the working areas, Smokers would be exposed to it during the main working hours, Cleaning staff(who may be smokers or non-smokers) would enter at other times and be exposed to tobacco smoke remaining in the air, tobacco smoke particulates adhering to surfaces, and tobacco smoke re-released into the air, These exposures to tobacco smoke, affecting both smokers and cleaning staff that enter the smoking rooms, would be contrary to the Ontario Occupational Health and Safety Act, They would all necessarily result in worker exposure to seventeen chemicals in tobacco smoke (see Table 3 p, 39) which, under the regulations, are "known toxic agents for which exposure values have not been established, and to which any exposure should be avoided," In further considering the limitations of their proposed rule, OSHA recognized that smoking areas could not easily be constructed in bars, restaurants and casinos, prompting OSHA to co-sponsor with ACGIH the 1998 scientific workshop refelTed to above, However, the workshop did not produce any ready answers to the question of how smoking could continue to be allowed in bars, restaurants and casinos and still ensure the health and safety of workers and patrons, 24 140 \ c,.'-- -L U ,- Ci '2-. : Protection from second-hand to£.¡........co smoke in Ontario At the request of the California Department of Health Services, James Repace conducted such a further analysis. The analysis \vas completed in June 2000 and has been published electronically by the California Department of Health Services.27 Repace provided a synopsis of the Fort Mitchel1 Workshop proceedings and then noted a number of shortcomings: Despite the wealth of ETS data in the literature compiled in more than a half dozen reports, plus the fact that indoor air quality models have been under development for more than forty years, the panel did not use either models or data to characterize e."Cisting ETS exposures in hospitality venues. The panel did not apply the indoor air quality procedure in ASHRAE 62, section 6.2, which provides a direct solution to the problem by restricting concentration of ETS to some specified acceptable level. No data were presented to substantiate the panelists' belief that 90% reductions in ETS concentrations were obtainable under either controlled studies or in the field, especially in the view of the caveats raised about placement of supply air ducts, turbulent jlO'fIlS, and blowing smoke down or towards the workers (as often happens in casinos), Moreover, in view of OSHA 's estimates of more than 13,000 workers' deaths per year from ETS exposure, the panel's attitude that only a 90% reduction is sufficient for ETS control seems cavalier. The panel's confidence in displacement ventžlation is not well founded, In addition, the panel's conclusion on ETS-RSP being poorly correlated to more specific measures is not supported. Individual variability in cotinine levels does not compromise assessment of ETS dose. In his comment, Repace noted that the ASHRAE standard does recommend application of the Indoor Air Quality Procedure when human carcinogens (such as tobacco smoke) are present. Repace then applies this procedure to the problem of tobacco smoke in hospitality venues, In the first step, hazard assessment, Repace reviewed much of the same scientific literature reviewed in the "Health effects of involuntary exposure to tobacco smoke" section of this report, and noted essentially the same conclusion - scientific and health authorities are ~nanimous - all involuntary exposure to tobacco smoke should be avoided, He noted that 103 chemicals in tobacco smoke have been identified as hazardous by various scientific and regulatory authorities in the United States and identified respirable small particles (RSP), together with nicotine and its metabolite, cotinine, as markers for tobacco smoke in ambient air. 25 141 Protection from second-hand t<... .:co smoke in Ontario \ CL - L{ 0 -Cil.. The Fort Mitchell Workshop noted that general dilUtion yentilation accounted for about 99% of current heating, ventilation and air-conditioning installations. In the parlance of outdoor air pollution control, general dilution ventilation \vould be called reasonably achievable control technology (RACT), RACT is characterized by the US Environmental Protection Agency for outdoor air pollution control purposes as the lowest limit that a particular source is capable of meeting by the application of control technology that is reasonably available considering technological and economic feasibility, The Fort Mitchell \Vorkshop also concluded, based on the professional judgement of the participants, that a 90% reduction in tobacco smoke in indoor air could be achieved through application of displacement ventilation, coupled \vith the use of ventilated, do\vndraft ashtrays, Dilution ventilation requires the air to be well mixed, while displacement ventilation uses the opposite strategy, Supply air is released at floor level and is 5-10 degrees cooler than room air, Convection currents cause the air to rise, along with warm tobacco smoke. The tobacco-smoke-Iaden air is then exhausted through exhaust grilles near the ceiling on the opposite side of !be room from the supply vents, \Vhile workshop participants noted a number of problems with displacement ventilation, it can nevertheless be considered the best available control technology (BACT), Repace then provided quantitative risk assessments of exposure to second-hand smoke under both RACT and BACT, Under the BACT model, he assumed that a 90% reduction in environmental tobacco smoke could actually be achieved with displacement ventilation, despite the reservations that Fort Mitchell workshop participants noted about this technology, Based on the extensive scientific literature on the subject, Repace used a combination of field measurement data and risk modeling techniques to provide estimates oftobacco smoke concentrations (as measured by RSP-ETS) in smoking lounges, bars, restaurants, casinos and bowling alleys, In the United States, there are no national regulatory standards for tobacco smoke in the workplace,. However, there are many other standards for regulating contaminants in both indoor and outdoor air, These standards are based on a considerable body of literature that provides the philosophical and scientific basis for standard setting for indoor and outdoor air contamination control. Travis et al. 28 discuss the concepts of de minimis and de manifestis risks, In general, de minimis risks are so low that regulatory agencies almost never take action to reduce the risks to a lower level. De manifestis risks are so high that regulatory action is almost always imperative, Travis et al. reviewed 132 past regulatory decisions and concluded that de manifestis risk in practice corresponded to a lifetime risk of mortality of3 per ten thousand (3 x 10-4) while de minimis risk was one in a million (I x 10.6), However, these proposals have not been adopted, In Canada, greater levels of protection have been indicated. The Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency has observed that conventional levels of acceptable risk (de minimis risk) range from a low of one in 10 million (1 x 10-7) to a high of one in ten thousand (1 x 10-4),29 'This is not the case in Ontario. In Ontario, Strict application of the Occupational Health and Safety Act and its associated regulation Control of Erposl/re to Biological or Chemical Agents would result in ¡he elimination of tobacco smoke from Ontario workplaces. 26 142 . CL, Pro,tection from second-hand to/:.;....~co smoke in Ontario -y (.¡ -C2.. - The United States Occupational Safety and Heahh Administration has also defined a 45- year \vorking lifetime risk level of I death per 1000 \v'orkers at risk as c'orresponding to a "significant risk of material impainnent of health." Using data from observations of respirable suspended particulate from environmental tobacco smoke (RSP-ETS), known risk-exposure relationships and risk modeling techniques, Repace estimated excess lifetime mortality risk in smoking lounges, bars, restaurants, casinos and bowling alleys. He compared these to de manifestis and de minimis risks as described by Travis et al., and to the significant risk level defined by OSHA. Excess mortality for workers due to exposure to tobacco smoke in these locations ranges from 15 to 26 times higher than the one-in-a-thousand significant risk level defined by OSHA, It is 1.5 to 2.6 million times higher than the lowest (one-in-ten million) level of acceptable risk discussed by the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, Regular patrons of these hospitality industry establishments fare little better, Even if they were exposed only about 10% of the time of employees, their level of risk would also exceed the OSHA significant risk level. Repace then discusses how well various ventilation alternatives protect workers in the hospitality industry, Using ordinary dilution ventilation (reasonably available control technology - RACT), workers are still exposed to risks 20,000 times the de minimis level. Despite doubts about the achievability of a 90% reduction in tobacco smoke with displacement ventilation (best available control technology - BACT), Repace nevertheless assumed that a 90% reduction was achievable. Even with optimum perfonnance of this best available technology, hospitality workers would still be exposed to risks two thousand times greater than the de minimis risk level. There is no known way to make dilution ventilation twenty thousand times more effective at providing protection from tobacco smoke, nor any known way of making displacement ventilation two thousand times more effective. Repace concluded by noting that there is an obvious solution to the problem of tobacco smoke in hospitality venues, and more generally all workplaces. Banning smoking in the workplace would remove the risk entirely at no cost, while providing significant health benefits to workers and the public, CouId there be a ventilation solution in the future? Improvements in ventiJation technology. It seems entirely unlikely that ventilation technology could become twenty thousand times more effective at removing tobacco smoke from the air, even with the most remarkable of technological advances, Systems have been imagined that are ten times more effective, but as Repace has demonstrated, even these systems would have to become a further two thousand times more effective to achieve the requisite level of protection, 27 143 Protection from second-hand I., ...ceo smoke in Ontario (..L- -L{ (¡ -Q'L Improvements in air cleaning technology. ASHRAE has examined air cleaning technology carefully and concluded that none exists to effectively reduce tobacco smoke in the air to levels that \vould provide adequate public health protection,33 In response to a query on this matter, an ASHRAE appeal panel replied: Before air cleaning can be applied in a definitive manner, target concentrations of all ETS constituents that affect health or cause adaur or irritation must be identified, and the removal efficiency afthe air cleaning device with respect to each of these constituems must be established by a repeatable rating procedure. The state-of-the-art is not yet at this level. In particular, no cognizant health authorities have established ETS concentrations that result in a reasonable health risk. Until these technical issues are addressed, the standard cannot provide definitive procedures for using air cleaners to control ETs. Development of new technology capable of removing or reducing most of the more than lOO toxic agents from air polluted by tobacco smoke seems unlikely, Even if it were to happen, it would be a long time before the new technology found its way into an ASHRAE standard. ASHRAE takes a prudent, deliberate and cautious approach to changing its air quality standards. Allowing some exposure to tobacco smoke. ASHRAE has indicated that a ventilation standard could be proposed for smoking areas if, in the future, recognized health authorities were to propose some non-zero standard for exposure to tobacco smoke, However, this seems unlikely, On the basis of current knowledge, health authorities agree that there is no safe level of exposure to second-hand smoke, Furthennore, as knowledge has advanced, we have found more, not fewer, diseases to be associated with second-hand tobacco smoke, Recent findings have pointed to second-hand smoke as a possible risk factor for breast cancer and strokes. With more knowledge of the health effects of second-hand smoke, we wi11likely see development of reasonably accurate estimates of mortality attributable to exposure to'second-hand smoke for these additional diseases. The continuing development of more accurate knowledge of more diseases associated with second-hand smoke makes it unlikely that any scenario could be foreseen where health authorities would recommend a non-zero level of exposure to second-hand smoke as safe. ASHRAE has indicated that it is developing guidance for restaurants' where smoking is pennitted. To date, however, no such guidance has been published.3D Separate smoking areas with separate ventilation. OSHA has proposed a system whereby smoking areas and their air exhaust could be kept entirely separate from other work areas,35 Under this scheme, workers could not be required to enter the smoking areas, Smoking areas would be required to have separate exhaust to the outside and negative pressure ventilation. However, this proposed system could not be implemented in Ontario \vithout coming into conflict with Ontario regulations that declare, "any exposure should be avoided" to "known toxic agents," of which seventeen so identified in the Ontario regulations are also present among the 103 known poisons in tobacco smoke, 28 144 hI I r>\",rí¡olí:r", *i...L.. . " ., CL- ...Protection from second-hand tov..."co smoke in Ontario '-1 <.J- c.. <.. - Accommodating smokers and non-smokers. By the expedient of simply disagreeing "vith the scientific findings on the health hazards of second-haJ)d tobacco smoke, the tobacco industry promotes the notion that smokers and non-smokers can accommodate each other in \vorkplaces and, in particular, in the hospitality industry, Statements to this effect appear on the web sites of all major tobacco companies.3! To this end the tobacco industry sponsors the Courtesy of Choice campaign for the hospitality industry, Many hotels, bars and restaurants endorse this principle of accommodation and participate in the Courtesy of Choice campaign. However, there are no scientific findings or public he,alth protection principles underlying the notion of the safe accommodation of tobacco smoke in indoor air, The Hotel Association of Canada has so far received a total of$3.2 million at the rate of $800,000 per year from the Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council to operate the Courtesy of Choice campaign, 32 The notion of accommodation of tobacco smoke in the workplace is not based on any principle of public health protection and flies in the face of the scientific findings that any exposure to second-hand smoke is hazardous. Finding some way of accommodating tobacco smoke in the workplace, as advocated by the tobacco industry and their financial partners in the hospitality industry, will not provide protection from second-hand smoke. A ventilation solution is unlikely in the future. Sound. science remains open to nev,,- possibilities in the future, However, given all knowledge accumulated to date in the health, risk assessment and ventilation sciences, it seems entirely unlikely that tobacco smoke in indoor workplaces could ever be reduced to safe levels through the application of ventilation technology, Ventilation provides no solution to the problem of exposure to second-hand smoke. 29 145 HU\,.: ,,)10 .10':: .lO'l'::l r'R YORK i'<~l:¡ HERL TH SERLJI905 895 2531 I U B190;,'(,¿,j6026 p, I:::J.¿/,¿'¡ Annex 3 ~ è.L.. -L. C;-G THE REGIONAL lvfUNICIP.ALITY OF YOR1( Health and Emergency Medical Services Committee September 5, 2002 Report of the Commissioner of Health Services VENTILATION PILOT PROJECT 1. RECOMMENDATIONS It is recommended that 1. Health and Emergency Medical Services Committee and Regional Council receive this report rcpding the feasibility of conducting a ven~tion pilot project for infonnatton purposes, ," 2. The Regional auk circulate this report to the area municipalities; the City of Toronto; Simcoe County; the Regions of Peel, Halton and Durham; and the proponents for their infomutÏon. 2. PURPOSE At meetings of the Health and Emergency Medical Services Conunittee 2nd Regional Council held respeCtively on June 13 and June 27, 2002. the following direcdon was provided to staff with respect to the issue of ventiktion systems: "That in the spirit of preserving the integrity of the Region's No-Smoking By-law and protecting the health and safety of the residents of York Region: a) All infonnation received from the deputantS be presented to staff foJ: a complete .report on the feuibility of a pilot project to study the proponentS' [Canadian Restaurant and Foodservices AssoCÍ2.tÍ.on and the Ontario Restaurant. Hotel and Motel Association] venribtion technology; and b) The repo.rt be presented to the September S~ 2002 meeting of the Health and Emergency Medical Services Committee." This report wil]; . Review the: Desigll:1ted Smoking Room (DSR) and venål2.tíon system requirementS pursuant to the York Region No-Smoking By-12w. . Discuss the feasibility of a pilot stUdy based on the proposal submitted by the proponents dated July 30, 2002 and received in the Health Services Department on August: 15, 2002. Health and Emergency MedicsJ Services Committee September 5. 2002 1 ,/ 146 AUG 30 '02 16:19 FR YORK REG HEALTH SERUi905 895 2631 TO 819057236026 P.03/27 Ventilation Pilot Project \ CL. - Y C - (;2. 3. BACKGROUND For many yea.rs health authorities around the world have concluded that Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) causes c:mcex and that e:q>osure to ETS should be eliminated, It has also been established that a ban on smoking activities is the only means to rid aIDÏXed-use ax~ of ETS, 3.1 The Current York Region No-Smoking By-law The No-Smoking By-law was passed by Regional Council in Octob~ 2000. Phase I of the implementacion of the No-Smoking By-law (100% smoke-free worl-places) came into effect on Jamwy 26.2001, Phase II came intO effect on June 1,2001, and covers Class CIA" Public Places Q.e., restaurmts, banquet hàlls, food courts) and Class cc:B" Public Places Q.e" bowling 2lleys) skating rinks), These facilities can either choose to be 100% smoke-free or to incorpO2:ate a Designated Smoking Room (DSR) within their occupiable space. On June 1, 2004, Class ,cC" c'Du and ,~" Public Places Q.e.. billiard halls. bingo b21ls) casinos, bus, taverns) can either choose to be 100% smoke-free or to incotporaœ a DSR. within their occupiable space, As of that date, all provisions for design2ted, unenclosed smoking areas will be repealed, 3.1.1 The Designated Smoking Room (DSR) Option The development of the York Region No-Smoking By-law included an examination of the best options for removal of Environmental T oba.c:co Smoke recognized at that time. Protecting the he2lth and safety of non-smokers. smokers and employees alike was oC utmost importance to the No-Smoking By-law Task Force, During the public consultation sessions held in locations throughout York Region during the development of the by-law, the optional construction' of a DSR rather than an outtight smoking b2.tl was deemed the most widely acceptable opcion by memben of the public including representarives of the hospitality indusuy. An Environics survey commissioned by the HC2lth SeIVices Department on behalf of the No-Smoking By-law Task Force betWeen June 2 and 7. 2000) found that 61 % of the: 600 York Region residents swveyed supported the proposal that 25% of the space in a public place should be set aside as a designated' smoking room. At the time when the No-Smoking By-law was enaCted, DSRs were seen as a compromise betWeen the positions adopted by the hospitality industty and health ~oencies supporting smoke-free public pla.ces, The DSR requirements that had recently been adopted by the City of Toronto and Region of Ped for Class '~A" and Class leBO> Public Places in their respective no-smoking by-laws were also carefully considered in order to achieve the highest possible standards at the time and to encourage: consistency across the three GT A uppex-tier municipalicies that had adopted no-smoking by-laws. A consistent approoch betWeen these municipaliries would afford appIoximarely 4 million people with some protection from Environmental Tobacco Smoke, ------". 2 147 Health and emergency Medics! Services Committee September S. 2002 ~UG 30 '02 16:20 FR YORK REG HEALTH SERUI905 895 2631 TO 819057236026 P.04/27 Ventilation Pilot Project QL-- L{u-ú2 The following DSR option was chosen: Pursuant to the No-Smoking law, "'Designated Smoking Room' or 'DSR' mea.ns 2; room within a buiIdi.ng or structuIe or patt thereof in which Smoking is pennitted and that. a) is completely Enclosed on all sides and not required by any pe.tson for a thoroughfue; b) i.~ equipped with a separate ventilation system that maintains a minimum vent:ihtion rate of thirty (30) titles per second per person. based on maximum occupancy load, that is ventilated directly to. the outside air and exhausted at a rate of at least one hundred and ten pen:ent (110%) of supply. Such exha.ust must be no less than th.tee (3) metres from any air intake or building opening; and c) does not occupy more than tWenty-five percent (25%) of the occupiable public space within the building or structure or part thereof" It should be noted tha~ in Spring 2002. the DSR specifications for bingo halls were 2%I1ended . such that DSRs in bingo halls are permitted to occupy no more th2n 50% of occupiable public space. ' Further. it should be emphasized tha.t the current No-Smoking By-kw does not have a provision for a permanent, unenclosed smoking axe2. as a compliance option. Cuuently, there is no technology that effectively removes ~ non-smoker ETS exposure in a facility where smoking is not isolated. Therefore. non-smoking patrons may be exposed to significant levels of ETS, at my time, unless a facility is declared 100% smoke-free and smoking activities occur outdoors, The key dement of the No-Smoking By-la.w is t:ha.t smoking ocCUtS in a designated~ fully enclosed area that is ventilated under specific pa.t2..tJ1ete:rS, Smolcing does not occur in the same room/area in which non-smokers and employees are present in order to m:l'l';m;ze theû: pzotection from ETS, Through its provisions to enclose those patrons who wish to smoke. and their companions who choose to be presen~ in the DSRs. the by-law is also enclosing non-smokers in their own uea and providing them protection £rom ETS. Proposal for Pilot Study on Ventilation Technologies in York Region In June 1999, the Onwio Restaurant, Hotel and Motcl Association (ORHMA) and the Greater Toronto Hotel Association (GTHA) held a news conference at the Black Dog Pub located in Scuborough, Ontario, to release results of their demonstration ventihtion project, Their rcsults were subsequently published ÎJl Dccember 2001 by RogcrA, Jenkins, Derrick Finn, Broce A, TomJåns, and Michael P. Maskarinec, "Envitonmenw Tobacco Smoke in the Nonsmoking Section of a Rcsrauranc A Case Study," R4gMl4tory ToXÍ&ology)4 (2001): 213-220. The ORHMA and GTHA called upon the City of Toronto's Councillors to adopt the Buck Dog Pub venrihtion technology as a potO1tial compliance option of the City's 3.2 Health and emergency Medical Ssrvices Committee September 5. 2002 3 148 RUG 30 '02 16:20FR YORK REG HEALTH SERUI905 895 2631 TO 819057236026 P.05/27 Ventilation Pilot Project c.L-~ -0"2... pending smoke-free by-law, The City of TOIonto Board of Health made a formal request to Health Canada to test the technology and to provide :recommendations, In Much 200O. ?v.&, Ian Potter, Health Cmaca's Assistant Deputy Minister. Health Promotion and Programs B.r:anch, tumed down the :request to test the technology. His Much 17,2000 note on this ma.tte.r indicated that «when combusted, cigarettes p.roduce both pa.r:ticulate and gaseous components, The premise behind ventilation is the teplacement, at a conSWlt level, of current airwith.'.&:esh' aÏ.t, which both removes and dilutes smoke. . , The problem with ventilation as an exposure reduction sttategy is th2t e-..<posure. even if the system is ope:rating at maximum efficiency. is never zero. In other words, in the best-a5e scenario. there is an explicit acceptance of some level of exposure to non-smokers. In the worst-case scenario. where the ventilation system is never maint2Ùled and becomes inope.n.tive, exposure of non-smokers to tobacco smoke is maximized. Since no ventihtion system will protect evetybody, and might even delude non-smokers into a false sense of protcction, it is concluded that such systems are not 2S good as a total bm .., Consequently, it is tecomme:nded that the City of Toronto be informed that Health Canada will not test the proposed system" , .. At the June 13, 2002, meeting of the Health and Emergency Medial Services Committëc. Mr. Douglas Needham of the CRF A and Mr, T eny Mundcll of the ORHMA. made a deputation requesting that a pilot project to evaluate ventihtion technology súniW: to that in the Black Dog Pub be considered in York Region. Further to the June 2002 meetings of the Health and Emergency Medical Services Committcè and RegiotW Council, a proposal outlining the puameters for a pilot p%oject to compue air quality in the no-smoking areas in tWo settings with tWo different ventihtion options was submitted by the CRF A and the ORHMA to the Regional Munic:ipa1i1y of York (see Attachment 1), The proposal dated July 30, 2002 was received in the Health Services Department on August 15,2002, The submission proposes that "the pUIpose of the proposed test is to evaluate the air quality, specifically the presence of c:nvironmental tobacco smoke (ETS) in the non-smoking area of a rest:r.urant with ~ Energy Recovery Ventilation (ERV) system. compared to the air quality in the non-smoking section of a rest~u.r~nt which has a funCtioning designated smoking room (DSR), as specified in the current York Region No-Smoking By-law'" The Health Services Department has engaged the assistance oED:::, Ugís Bickis, Environmental Hygienist and Toxicologist, Phoenix OHC, Inc., to provide an objective third party review of me proposal submitted by CRF A and ORHlVIA.. The review is to 4 Health and Emergency Me<frcaJ SeNices Committee September 5, 2002 149 RUG 30 '02 16:20 FR YORK REG HEALTH SERU!90S 895 2631 TO 819057236026 P,06/27 (L -u C V. entilation Pilot Proiect 1.--<.,;2.. ~ provide an an.:ùysis of the fcasibility. reliability and validity of pw:suing the pilot project as submitted. Dr. Bickis h2.San M,Eng, in,Chemical Engineering/IndusttW. Hygiene. and a Ph.D. in Toxicology, Be is accredited by the Canadian and Am~pc:an Hygiene Boards (ROB and CIH. respectively). He 112s two decades of professional consulting experience dealing with health risks in the human environment. In addition to his coIpoIate affiliation, he is on adjunct faculty at Queen's UmveJ:Sity (in the Faculties/Schools of Meclicine. Applied Science and Graduate Studies) as well as at the Royal Miliwy College of Canada and the University of Ottawa, wd lectures at all three, He is a member of numerous professioI12l associations in the environment/health field. 4. ANALYSIS AND OPTIONS Results of the Third Party Assessment of the CRFA and ORHMA Ventilation Pilot Project Proposal The mdependent review of the propos~ submitted by the CRF A and the ORHMA and entitled "Protocol for the Testing of the Effectiveness of a Ventilation System in a Restaurant" conducted by Dr, Ugis Bickis is attached (.mAttat:lmmft 2). 4.1 Dx, Bickis states that «it is the conclusion of this reviewer tb.a.t the pxoposed testing will not result in data that can be used to conclude whether the'tWo facilities in which the assessments were conducted have an equivalent degree of control over environmenw tobacco smoke, The extrapolation of the findings to other' facilities would be even more proble.ma.tic'" Thacfore. the protocol «will not address the pw:pose," . 4.2 Feasibility of Conducting the CRFA and ORHMA Ventilation Pilot Project Proposal The results of thc above-mentiòned independent review indicate that the pilot study as proposed by CRF A and ORHMA will not meet the objective of comparing the air quality of an unenclosed non-smoking area in a restaunnt equipped with a specific type of ventilation technology with the air quality of a non-smoking uea. in a rest2.U.t2nt equipped with a DSR and the ventilation parameters required pu.rsuant to the York Region No-Smoking By-law. Based on the expertise and an2.lysis of the independent reviewer, the attempt to compare air from a non-smolOng area within a restaw:ant which houses smokers and non-smokers in the same unenclosed floor space at the same time, with the air from a restaurant with a fully enclosed non-smoking area and a fully enclosed DSR in which smoking occurs, contains too many vanables which cannot be controlled. Variables that would need to be addressed as part of the protocol for this cype of pilot project to be st2.cisúcally ~oni£icant iaclude, but are not limited to: . The specific issue of comparing totally enclosed non-smoking areas with Wlenclosed non-smoking ueas, HeaJth éII"Id Emergency Medical Services Committee September 5. 2002 5 150 AUG 30 '02 15:21 FR YORK REG HEALTH SERUr905 895 2631 TO 819057236026 P.07/27 Ventilation Pilot Project Cc- L.{u ~ L'L . The number and loation of assessment/control sites in order to rule out other contributing factors (includiDg environmental ones), . The number and location o~ occupants in test and control sites and the amount of smoking materials consumed in order to provide identical testing conditions. . The use of universally recognized indicators of ETS. . Sound testing methodology. In addition to the methodology concerns regarding the proposed pilot projec~ a number of practical considerations exist with respect to the feasibility of embarking on such a study in YoLk Region at this time. Of Utmost coneem.is the identification of the test sites as tWo restaurants within York Region. As of June 1. 2001, the ability to have an unenclosed smoking a.rea within Class uA" 2nd Class .~,. Public Places was repealed by the York Region No-Smoking By-law. Therefore, any res~urant site in York Region that was utilized as a mt site(s) in such a pilot project would be in non-complUnce with the by-hw. Certain resuu.rantS in York Region that have elected to construct DSRs that meet the requirements of the by-law (rather than be 100% smoke-free) could be utilized as £he control sites mentioned in the proposal as long as they: (a) continue to be: in compliance with the by-law. and (b) possess configuration chazacteriscics that could be zmtched or are reproducible in other control and test sites, The restaunnt configuration(s) used would aho need to be of the type that could allow any results achieved to be univena..Uy applicable to other restaurant sites in York Region and beyond. In responding to the direction from Health and Emergency Medical Services Committee and Regional Council to assess the feasibility of conducting a venti1a.tion pilot project, staff respectfully recommend that the pilot projeCt proposal as submitted by CRF A and ORHMA nor: be pu.rsued due to inherent problems in comparing unenclosed non-smoking areas with enclosed non-smolcing areas, the technical difficulties in controlling the multipJicity of fuctO%$ outlined by the independent reviewer and the practical considerations described above. . 5. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS The Health and Emergency Medical Services Committee has direCted we all costs for a pilot project be borne by the proponents. The Health Services Depanmcnt has recently enpged Dr, Ugis Bickis, Phoenix OHC, Inc., to perform an independent third party review of the submitted proposal, The cost of t:b.is review, all staff costs and activities associated with this report, and any further staff reviews that nuy be required within the current year, can however be accommodated within the 2002 Health Services Deputment Budget. 6. LOCAL MUNICIPAL IMPACT Hca.lth Services Department staff continue to communicate and co1labor:a.te with area municipa.l.ities on matters related to the cunene No-Smolcing By-hw, The goal of the York Region No-SmokIng By-law cont:Ïnues to be the protection of the health and safety of York Region residents from the dangers of Environmental Tobacco Smoke. 6 151 Health and Emergency Medical Services Comminee September 5. 2002 AUG 30 '02 16:21 FR YORK REG'HEALTH SERUI905 895 2631 TO 819057236026 P,08/27 Ventilation Pilot Project CL-L(o-OL 7. CONCLUSION Furthex to the direction provided by Health and Emergency Medical Sexviccs Committee and Regional Council in June 2002 to assess the feasibility of conduccing a ventilation pilot . project as proposed by CRF A and ORHMA, Health Services Deputment staff respectfully submit this report for consideration, An an21ysis conducted by the objecthre third patty reviewer engaged by the He2lth Services Department has concluded that the pilot project p!oposa~ as submitted. docs not address the st2.ted purpose. In addition, a number of practical considetatlons exist with respect to the feasibility of embarking on such a project at this time in York Region, These a.re described within this report. In responding to the direction from Health and Emergency Medical Services Committee and Regional Council to assess the feasibility of conducting a ventilation pilot projeCt, staff respectfully recommend that the pilot project proposal as submitted by CRFA and ORHMA not be pursued. This report has been reviewed by the Senior Management GIOUP, Prepa.red by: ~~- tv\J~t~ Diane Bladek-Willett Director) Policy and Planning Branch Recommended by: Approved fOI~Ub . sion: ..- 0 ¿ å~ 'I "'. /(/ IJI( ~ h A "" J ~/ :',.'.' F' ~ ~~~~ v . . I . . Mich2el R. Ga.rrett Chief Administtative Officer ~~..¿L Dr, 1<. Helena ]aczek Commissioner of Health Services and Medical Officer of Health AugUst: 28, 2002 Attachments (2) V=ion 2-2001-10-29 Health and Emergency MedicaJ Services Committee September S. 2002 7 152 RUG 30 '02 16:21 FR YORK REG HEALTH SERUI905 895 2631 TO 819057236026 P,09/27 Council Attaèhment 1 Cc -'Yv --CIL - ct. Association canadienne des rest;&unteurs el des se,.,,;ces aliment;&ires 316 8100r Street West Toronto. Ontario Canada MSS 1WS Tel: (416) 923-8-416 or 1-800-387-5649 Fax: (416) 923-1450 www.afa.a Canadian Restaurant and Fooclservices Association July 30, 2002 Ms, SOO Wong Project Manager No-Smoking By-Jaw Enforcement Div Region of York 17250 Yonge Street Newmark~ Ontario Dear Ms. Wong: Subject: ETS and Enere:v Recoverv Ventilation in ~estaurants I am Miring on behalf of the Canadian Restaurant and Foodservices Association (CRFA) and the Ontario Restaurant, Hotel & Motel Association (ORHMA) with regard to the restaurant ventilation pilot project which the Health and Emergency Medical Services Committee agreed to consider at its meeting of June 14,2002. . At the June 14th meeting, our associations proposed that a pilot project be undertaken in tWo York Region reSTaurants with the objeCtive of evaluating the air quality, specifically the presence of environmental tobacco smoke (ETS), in the non-smoking section of a restaurant with an Energy Recovery Ventilation (ER. V) system compared to the air quality in the non-smoking section of a restaW'a.I1t which has an existing designated smoking room (DSR) installed as specified in the current York Region No-Smoking By-law, . We have taken the liberty of asking Demck Finn of Finn Projects to prepare the enclosed guidelines for the proposed test. }..fr. Finn is a professional engineer whose' career has focused on energy conservation and ventilation in hospitality eStablishments, He has developed energy efficiency guidelines for restaurants on behalf ofNatw'aI Resources Canada, He was also involved in the installation and testing of an EVR system in Scarborough's Black Dog Pub. We recognize that the proposed test is a highly complex undertaking and we provide these guidelines as a means of facilitating consultation and discussion with you and your colleagues at York Region. 153 AUG 30 '02 16:21 FR YORK REG HEALTH SERU!905 895 2631 TO 819057236026 .1 . CC-YU-CL -2- Our two associations look forward to working with the you and the H~th & Emergency Medical S"ervices Committee on the development of a protocol to evaluate the effectiveness of an EVR system in restaurants. I look forward to your feedback. Sincerely yours, . . -. ._-'~.- ;,. . .;_._~--- ." Douglas Needham President cc: Teny Mundell. President. ORHMA Members. Health & Emergency Medical Services Committee William Fisch~ Chairman. Yark Region 154 p , 1(2)/27 ill. RUG 30 '02 15:22 FR YORK REG HERLTH SERUi905 895 2631 Tû 819057236026 P.l1/27 C L - Lf () --0 '2... PROTOCOL FOR THE TESTING OF THE EFFECTIVENESS OF A VENTILATION SYSTE.i\f iN A RESTAURANT I. Purpose The purpose of the proposed test is to evaluate the air quality, specifically the . presence of environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) in the non-smoking area. ofa restaurant with an El,1ergy Recovery Ventilation (ERV) system, compared to the air quality in the non-smoking section of a restaurant which has a functioning designated smoking room (DSR), as specified in the current York Region No- Smoking ByJaw. II. Indoor Air Quality Measurements The object oftbe mechanical intervention is to detenrune if the air quality in thenan- smoking section of the test site can be made comparable to the air quality in other similar . establishments (control sites) that are regulated non-smoking facilities. The Indoor Air Quality (IAQ) measurements will be for the fonowing: Respirable suspended particles ~ The RSPs of interest are lung-darnagjng particles that may be retained in the lungs and are in the 0,2 to 5 micrometer úuD) $ize range. . Carbon. monoxide (CO)' CO is a by-product of smoking, but also has other sources of incomplete cornbusti~n, High levels of carbon monoxide are deadly. It is generally recommended that the 8 hour average should not exceed 9 ppm and the I hour average should not exceed 35 ppm. (A~HRAE 62-1999). Carbon dioxide (C°z-). CO2 is exhaled by the patrons ~d is a very good indicator of Occupancy. It also gives a very good inmcation of how well the ventilation system is working. If the CO2 level is Jow, it means that sufficient ftesh air is being provided to the restaurant or bar. Outdoor ambient levels of CO2 arc approx, 400 partS per million (ppm). It is generaHy accepted that indoor levels should be kept below approx, 1000 ppm, Initial Testing Testing will be carned out at the test site prior to the installation. of the new ventilation system to establish the current levels ofRSP concentrations, The RSP sampling equipment will be located with tbe CO2 and CO sampling at locaêons to be detennined bytbe Principal Investigator and the field team, Samples will be collected on one evening betWeen the hours of5:00 PM and 12:00 AM. Page 1 of 5 155 RUG 30 '02 16:22 FR YORK REG HEALTH SERU!90S 895 2631 TO 819057236026 P. 12/27 , CL -G(O '-ú'2- IV. Sampling P12n a. Test Site Following the'mechanical intervention at the test site the testing will be carried out again. as described in section n above, Samples will be collected on two separate evenings between the hours of5:00 PM and 12:00 AM, b. Control Site TeSting will be carried out at the control site to establish the CUlTent levels ofRSP concentrations, to make direct comparisons with the data obtained ftom the test site. The RSP sampling equip~ent will be located with the CO2 and CO sampling equipment at locations to be detennined by the Principal Investigator and the fleld team, Samples will be collected on one evening between the hours of5:00 PM and 12:00 AM. The projected occupant loaclings in the test sites and control sites must be similar for the test periods, v. Sampling Equipment Respirable suspended particulate (RSP) concen1rations will be determined in real time, using a DustTrak 8520 Aerosol Monitor.' . . Calibration: . Calibrate, the writ as per manufacturer's recommèndations, Adjust for altitude, Adjust for the ETS calibration factor. Annually Record date oflast calibration Calibrate for ETS Follow manufacturers cleaning instructions as per maintenanc~ schedule. Allow 5 minutes for the unit to stabilize before taking readings, Set the flowrate to 1.7 1Imin, check that the unit has been zeroed at the $aJIlpling temperature. Ensure that there is no obstruction to air flow around the unit. Use the cyclone accessory to provide a cut-off at 4J.Lm. Operate as per manufacturer's recommendations. Calibration Period: Calibration Record: Calibration Factor: Cleaning: Warm-up Period: Operation: Carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations will be determined in real time, using a YES-206' Falcon Monitor. Page 2 01 5 156 AUG 30 '02 15:22 FR YORK REG HEALTH SERUI905 8952631 TO 819057236626 P. 13/27 CL- yu - ú'L Instrument: Model: YES-206 Falcon, Y OWlg Environmental Systems Inc, 2061 or LH Calibrate the unit as per manufacturer's recommendations. Adjust for altitude. . Annually Record date of last calibration 1.0 Calibration: Calibration Period: Calibration Record: Calibration Factor: WanD-UP Period: Allow 5 minutes for the unit to stabilize before taking readings. Ensure that there is at least 5 feet distance :fì:om the operator or other persons as breathing on the instnune.nt will affect the readings. Operate as per manufacturer's recommendations, Operation: Carbon monoxide (CO) concentrations will be detennined in real time, using a TSI Incorporated Q- TRA.K Monitor. Instrument: Q- TRAK Monitor, TSI Incorporated Model: Q-TRAK Mo~e18551, or ~-TRAK'Plus.Model.8S~4 . Calibration: Calibrate the unit as per manufacturer' s ~ecommendatioDS. Adjust for altitude. Calibration Period: Annually Calibration Record: Record date of last calibration Calibration Factor: 1.0 :1:3% of reading or 3 ppm, whichever is greater Allow 5 minutes for the unit to stabilize before taking readings. Program the start time, test duration, sampling fi'equency and other parameters. Ensure that there is no obstruction to air flow around the unit. Operate as per manufacturer's recommendations, Sampling durations will be for a minimwn of 5 hours. This is to insure than an adequate amount of sample can be obtained for the analyticaJ determinations. Patron counts will be made once per hour, and cigarette butts win be colIected by the wait staff and counted, to estimate the number of smoking products used by patrons dwing the measurement period, Accuracy WanD-UP Period: Operation: Page 3 01 5 157 VII. AUG 30 '02 16:22 FR YORK REG HEALTH SERUI905 895 2631 TO 819057236026 P,14/27 C <=--Yû ~<- Table 1. Summary of Data to be Acquired Sample Location RSP CO2 CO No. of No. of (ppm) (ppm) (ppm) Cigarettes Patrons Test Site Prior to Intervention Continuous Continuous Continuous Oncelhour Oncelhour Test Site Evening] Continuous Continuous Continuous Oncelhour Once.lhour Test Site: Evening 2 Continuous Continuous Continuous ODce/hour Oncelhour Control Site 1 Continuous Continuous Continuous OnceJhour Once/hour VI. Data' Valida nonN erification Data validation is a systematic procedure of reviewing a body of data against a set of established criteria to provide a specified level of assurance 'of its validity prior to use. The validation process will include checks for internal consistency. checks for transmittal etTors, and checks for quality control. Ev~uation of these criteria will involve review of: InstIument calibrations' Reproducibility of replicate analyses Detection Limits Data reporting completeness Transcription elTors Accuracy of data results calculation. Evaluation of quality control samples At the completion of the data validation process, the reviewer will prepare a summary of the results and specify the uses for which the data is suitable.. Calibration and Maintenance ofField Instruments and Sampling Equipment Measurements that affect the quality of an activity or operation wiIl'be taken only with instruments, tools, gauges, or other measuring devices that are controlled, calibrated, adjusted and maintained at predetermined intervals to a specified accuracy. The calibration and maintenance of field equipment and instrumentation will be in accordance with manufacturer's specifications or applicable test specifications, and shall be Page 4 of 5 158 RUG 30 '02 16:23 FR YORK REG HERLTH SERUI905 895 2631 TO 819057236026 p, 15/27 CL - YO '-C/2 documented in the Daily Activity or Site Safety and Health Logbooks. Tbe ca1ibIation program described in the manufactures recommendations will be. followed for all instruments requiring calibration. Preventive maintenance programs will, at a micimum, be establishe~ for eqwpment that would otherwise be subject to breakdown, when the breakdown èouId lead to safety hazards. environmental contamination, or loss of completeness and accuracy in data. The program will include a schedule of the important preventative maintenance tasks that will be carried out to minimize downtime of measurement systems, and a list of any critical spare parts that need to be on band to minimize downtime. vllI. Principal Investigator Derrick Finn. P.En~. DCITick Finn is a Professional Engineer with over 30 years of experience and is the President of Finn Projects, a company that provides Facilities Management, Energy Management and Project Management. Demck's extensive experience in the hospitality industry, includes: ç . Vice President of Construction for College Park in charge of the 600 room addition to the Delta Chelsea Inn ç Assis~tProject Manager for the co~ction of the Pan.Pacific Vancouver Horel . ç Hospitality Action Group Manager for Natural Resources Canada's Energy Innovators Initiative, worldng with the major hotel and restaurant chains ~ Development the energy efficiency design guidelines for restaurants 'for Natural Resources Canada's new Commercial Building Incentive Program (CBIP) ç Energy audits of restaurants ç Development and testing of a ventilation solution for environmental tobacco smoke in restaurants and bars. ç Management of the maintenance program for a chain ofhorels ç Project management of the refurbishing and capital projects for a number of hotels ç Condition audits ofhorels ç Energy audits of hotels ç Utility billing analysis and energy monitoring and tracking for hotels ç Development of hotel maintenance management manuals for hotel chains , . Page 5 of S 159 AUG 30 '02 16:23 FR YORK REG HEALTH SERUI905 895 2531 TO 819057236025 UO/¿O/¿UU¿ Rtill l~:~~ PA! 1 blJ ~44 JIU4 ftlUtlNIA Utl~ IN~, P.15/27 /lJUU2IU14 Phoenix ORC, Inc. Council Attacbment 2 CL-~. -.,-..- ....-, " ConsultanlS in OccupatioNI and Environmental Health FOtlft8t1y Occup.JIiøn.)'."*,,,h ("4'!tI1I1I» Qu...,., univenity 837 Princess SL. Suite SOD l(inplÞn. ON Canada IC7ltC8 Tel (613) 5+9-4046 fax (613)544.3104 h ttp;A,ome. isIar. c:V - phoeni ~ mail 8phoen ix-ohc:.on.c:a REVIEW OF "PROTOCOL FOR THE TESTING OF THE EFFECTIVENESS OF A VENTILATION SYSTEM IN A RESTAURANT" SUBMITI'ED BY: Ugis Bickis MEng, PhD. CIH, ItOH ON: 2002.08.28 AS REQUESTED BY: Dr. K. Helena Jacze~ York. Region REF No.: 5381 Summary A Canadian and an Ontario hospitality association have collectively proposed that an air quality evaluation be undc:rt.aIœ:n, to compare the levels of environmental tobacco smoke in the non-smoking sections of restauranTS in York Region. The intent is to make a deter.mination as to the relative effectiveness oflberespectivemeans of controlling the emissions produced:in thcirsmoking sectiODS. A protocol fer conducting this evaluation bas been reviewed) with the conclusion that it wiD not address the purpose. 160 AL'G 28 'e2 ls:sa 1 C1"? 0:...... ~.r:>.. o.v-.~ ....... AUG 30 '02 16:23 FR YORK REG HEALTH SERUI905 895 2631 TO 819057236026 08/28/2002 WKV 15:5~ fA! 1 013 ~44 3104 fHU~Nl! Utl~/ lN~. P,17/27 IgdUU3/U14 CL- YO ~G2. . Background . The Canadian Restaurant and Foodservict"S Association (CRFA) and the Ontario :Restaurant, Hotel and Motel Association (OlUWA) have collectively proposed to the Regional Municipality o!Yorlc that an air quality project be undertaken. This would be a comparative quantitative cval'qation of environmental tobacco smoke concentr-.d:ìons jn "the non-smoking sections of two (unspecified) rcstaumnts. 1:0. one~ smoIång is confined to a designated smoking room (DSR) as prescribed in the corresponding municipal by-law, and in the other it is not. A protocol for underta.1åDg this project has been prepared by Finn Projects at the request of the associations, and was submitted to the Municipality. The Health Services Department of the Municipality in turn commissiollCd the present report, to review the proto co] in question. Thepurposeoftheproposed 'cœst", as described in a 2002.07.30 letter :trom the: CRP A, is to compare the ccair quality" (speciñca11y, in terms of enviromnental tobacco smoke - ETS) in the non-smoking seCtion of a restaurant equipped with an "energy recovery ventilation'. (ERV) system with that "in the non-smoking section of a restaurmt which has an existing desigT1~f"ed smoking room (DS.R.) installed as specified in the cum::nt York Region No-Smoking By-1aw.,,1 The protocol itself slates the object of the exercise as being to detem1Úle if the air qua1i~ at the test site can be "made comparable" to that in '~cgu1aœd non-smoking faci!;tics". Qvcra]l, then, the intent appears to be to provide data that can sezve as a basis for ccmcluding whether an equivalent level of control over ETS can be achieved by means ofBRV and DSR: a) in the two specific facilities undergoing evaluation b) in ERV- and DSR- equipped facilities, generaJly.2 The purpose of this report is to review the protocol with respect to its likely yield of data that could serve as rhe basis for a conclusion regarding this equivalency. I :R.c:gioca1 Municipality ofYm:k by-law A-028S-2000-10S 2 and, since the pro~col ~lso refers to "non-smolcins facilities", comparison to such enYircnments may be an additional infe:rencc ~r is intended, although such ~ facility is nor addressed in ~ pt'OU3cO1. Phoenix OfIc, Inc. Consultants in OccupaJional and Envil'onmenlal Health 2 161 0.111": .,Q .~., Ie:: e:o 4 c.4"1 C:AA "':I4t: OA 0""""0=- "'." HUI.;¡ ,j~ '132 15:23 FR YORK REG HEALTH SERUI905 895 2531 ro 81:¡¡j~'(2.36Ø26 08/28/2002 WED 15:59 FAX 1 613 544 3104 PHO&~IX ORC, INC. t-' , 11::1/ ,U @OO4/014 . CL-YU-Cn . Principles of control It would be usefUl to:first clarify a few aspectS of building ventilation. since it appears that some key principles may have been obfuscated by various technical te.rms, which are not always used consistently in the context oftbis issue. For example, the terms ERV and HRV (heat recovery ventilator) are sometimes used inter~eably, as in lenkins td oP, 2001. T1ûs is a case study of the "Black Dog Pub", a facility often raised in the context of the tobacco smoke issue in the Toronto area. The HRV I EI{V distinction normally made is that an HR V exchanges only heat (as in any .4J1eat exchanger") across impermeable surfaces, whereas an ER. V also exchanges humidity - i.e. molecules of water are physically transfez:red between the outbound aDd inbound air streams. As a result of this :factor~ 3rI ERV is less desirable than an HRV in situations where specific substances are to be con1roned: the t:quipment has the potential to similarly transfer other chemicals :&om the exhaust air stream to the ' air bemg supplied into the facility, i.e. contaminating the supply a:Ïr. In the case of the ERVat the above pub, this degree of contamination was reportedly 4% before modification of tile systeuL.-'. Amore fundamenta1 issue is that the features of energy Tecovezy (ERVIHRV) and those that control tObacco smolce by inco.rporating the design features of containment (DSR) are seemingly regarded (e.g, by the proponents) as mutually exclusive featUres. In fact, they are 110t. This dichotomization may well confuse a clear discussion of the issues, and the design I inte.L}1J.~on of test protocols. V3I'ious public health officials. have expressed strong concerns about the use of ventilation as.an altcmative to an outright bamili:1g of smoking in public spaces. A distinction needs to be made between the ventilation approach typically used to provide comfort and that used for contaminant control. The fonner process (sometimes te:rmed "genera! ventila1.ion") is comprised largely of air tempering (heating J coolin.g) and exchange. by mezns of equipmc:nt c~lXImonly referenced as heating, ) RA Iemcins. D Firm. BA 'T0!IIldn9 I1z MP M.:1s.1cRrlncc, 2001. ReS. Tox. "~hzrm. 34;213. . eog. Dr, B3Srur, June 28, 1999 memo to Board of Hc:ilth, as postcd IX) OCA T web-site Phoenix ORC, Inc, CollSulla.n!S in Occupational and EnvÙ'onmenzðl Health 3 - RUG 2S-'Ø2 15:53 162 1 ¡::'1~ ~ -:t1c:1d l:Ior:= CIA RUG 30 '02 16:24 FR YORK REG HEALTH SERUI90S 895 2631 TO 819057236026 ual .,U( l.VUlo J.:¡JJ LV. UU I'M l. U.l.ù ",In ùlU't l.uU~I1lA v.ul./ ,1!11./. P.19/27 Il:l UUIlI Ul 'f CC-40-ú"è ventilating and air-conditioning (i.e. HV AC) systems. There is typically extensive mixing ofth.e air within the occupied space, and exhausted air is usually largely returned to the space, once heated/cooled/filtered; some outdoor ("dilutionj air is added mecbanicaIly a.od/Ol' passively. Conversely. a ventilation system that is intended to control the levels of (and/or exposures to) contaminAntS is characteriZed by containment ofl:he sources, exhausting of the CODt:am1nauts as locaJly as feasibl~ and a cürected flow of iÛT itom a clean zone past the occupantS before picking up the con~ÏIlmts and discharging them oUtdoors. withoUt any retu.m oEtho COD~m ift~cd air back: to the occupied space. The fUndamental ccmsidemions in achieving control, then s, arc: - captUre of the contaminant close to the source, rather than. promoting dispersion I mixing within source area. a:odIor contamination of a clean area - exhaust of the contaminauts away ftom the bwCÜ11g envelope (with prior treatment as mandated byenvironmentaJ consi derations) ratherthan pennittiDg reoiIouJation (de1ibe.rately or inadvertently) of the contaminants back to the occupied space (except where specific requircmc:nts arc met). Clearly.aDSR is an examp1e of a syStem that demonstrates this principle. The by-law descn"bes the . DSR features as: - physically separated from the remainder oftbe occupied space (enclosed by wa11s acd ceiling. with doorways closed except when used for ingress I egress) - maintained at a negative pressure with. respect to the rest of the occupied space' exhausted at a rate of 30 Lps per oocupant (with this number as it would be at the maximum capacity of the room).' According(y, measures that patane} these should be success:fu1 on a commensurate basis. However, , i.c. when !In e:limÍlw.tion of me: SOurce: is %lot tc:asi'blc. ~ in the by-taw this is aceomplishccì by rcqu:iriDg that the D SR' s me of air Ð:Á4lLft he 10% mare than the me of ~/;J. ~ intent would be more c:le2t if the wold "mechanical" were to be in front ot .supply" ie. the 10% is made up by infiltration, etc. , the by-law uses the term "ventilation rateI' 'lUithClUt 5pecifyi'llg whether the air supply is to be outdoor air, at' ¡fit can be 3ir drawn from the ~t of'thc fsciIity (i.e. the :lOn-smoking areas), The Iatter could be a :casonab1e approach. without co:::IprotWsÏIIg the health principles in question. Phoenix OHC, Inc. Co1L$ultants in Occupational and Environmental Health 4 163 ALG 28 ïØ2 16:00 1 ':;1~ c;..s4 ~"'4 gQ(;~ ~ HUb .:S~ . 02 lb: ¿4 FR YORK REG HERL TH SERUI905 895 2631 TO 81::¡~:::"(¿,jb~¿b UO/~ð/~UUl ntiV lO:UU rdA 1 Dl~ O~i ~lU~ rnUG~lA unv lnv. t-'. ¿~/ ¿'( !!IUUD/UB ( CL -YC-ú'-2 . the proponem's premise appearst to be that ETS can be controlled (Le. overall concentrations rednced, and eocposure of those in non-smoking areas precluded) as effectively (i.e. to the same extent) without the use of the three above features, as w:ith. In other words, the key component in the test site that is undergoing comparative analysis is presented as being the ERV~ which (as mentioned) is simply a means of recovering energy fi'om exhmsted air. Its app1icàtion in a mixed use "open conceptn design, rather than one incorporating cont2inment fcatarcs, is (based on fundamental principles of ventilation) not expecrted to be successful. It appears to have been overlooked (or, at least under-stated) that the system iDstaJ1ed at the pub m the above-mentioned case study does incoIporate segregation I containment partially by physical (structural) means and partly by means of air pressure and flow. It is these features (along the lines of what is found in a DSR) that would lead to improved control over ETS, compared with fa.cilities not designed with such control iD mind. The fact that the facility also bas an!RV is inciden~ and would actUa.1ly CDmpromùe the quality of the air supplied to the non-smoking section. A more appropriate phrasing of the question to be addressed in this project may be something like "ean the ETS-related air quality in non-smoJ.ång areas of facilities that have smoking that ~Mt confmed to DSRs (as prescnèed) be made companble to that in facilities in which aU smoking is confined to DSRs?U However, it is not clear from the protocol exactly what faci1ity variables are to be coDSidered. . no site I system specifics fOT the locations proposed were included in the protocol , Ie.n1..;ns III ai, :2.00t Phoenix OHc. Inc. Consufltm.!$ in OccupaJiona/ and Enviro'1Ul1eneal Health s 164 AUG 29 '02 16:00 1 6135443124 Ps:G:: . a; RUG 313 '132 16: 24 FR YORK REG HEALTH SERUI9ø5 895 2631 TO 81:;f:: :;:"(¿,j6026 UO/¿O/¿UU¿ "tV lO:UU rA! 1 DIJ ~~q JIU~ rnU~~l! vnv, Inv. r',¿l/¿'( /f:lUUI/U14 CL-L{O - 02... Assessment Protocol Two very important principles :bzr¡e not been addressed in the protocoL 1. samples (e.g. oftbc two types of establishment tmder considera.t:ion) must be repr~~tive of what they are purported to represent (quaIitativeJy, quantitatively and tempo.ra11y). How monitoring locations are selected, even within each facility. is important for a valid comparison. 2. the air quality parameters assessed must be sufficientlydíscriminating (e.g. basedoD.1àctors such as sensitivity, specificity. etc.) to legitimately serve as a comparative basis for relative levels of ETS. Deficiencies in this respect would predispose the test outcome towanls the ~u1l hypothc:sis)9 Le. that there is no significant difference between the two sites, or in other words. that the air quality is comparable (itTespective of the actual situation). There are, also, an the other -requirements of a valid evaluation of this natUIè, such as accuracy (as determined by calibration),precision (as detenníned by reproducibility). etc:. However, these ate secondory to the tWo key points, above. From Table 1 of the protocol, the data rhat are to be col1ected, during a 5 - 7 hour period over sepante evenings in each of the four instances. are indicated below. The fust three parameteIs (to be used as the sote basis for the assessment of air quality, ETS levels and ventilation effectiveness) are to be monitored continuously, and the last two çouuted once per hour. Location r RSP I CO~ CO I Butts r Patrons Test site - pre-inU:tYention. .. poSt..werve.n'tion, day 1 - post-intervention, day 2 Control site A number 9f deficiencies ate discussed. in tumiD. \0 RSP is to be Tt:pOrtcd in ~m"j presumably, this is cm1y a "typo" (ac:rosoh UI: 110 t rcpom:d in vJv or w/w WJÏtt. but rö\ther ÌD w/v (Le. mg or uglm ) units). Phcenix OHC. lnc. Consultants in Occupational and Enviromnental Heal¡h 6 165 - ~UG'8 .~~ 1~:~~ 1 ¡:'1~ ~4 -:t1014 pcr:; ~ HUU ~~ .~¿ lb;¿4 I-r< YORK REG H!::RLIH SERU!9ØS 895 2S.::s1 IU I::il'::1~::>(¿.,jb~¿b UO/lOUUU, IUW 10: U1 flU 1 Ul.J i)'i~ ùJ.U/f fnU.cltlA UI!v U'lI, t".¿.:;:/.:;:r If:JUUlJlUl't CL-~().-CL Sites assessed In the protocol. these are tenned the ('test" and "control" sites. A "control" site in an evaluation such as 1ÌJÌS needs to be representati"e of siteS equipped with DSRs that are constIUcted and operated. in a manner that is consistent with the intent of the no smoking by-law, And) in a scientific study, ~ control is identicaI to the test item in every respect excepting the factor being studied. Anyone site equipped with a DSR may ha.ve circumstances which make it inappropriate as a llcontror' for any such air quality dete.tmina1io.Q, This may ]]avc to do with the nature ofit$ coo1cing processes, the cbara.ctc:ristics ofits ambient (outdoor) air quality, or the volumç of the occupied space (e.g. high versus low ceilings, or occupancy density). Furthermore, there may be meteoro]ogicaJ variables that make it inappropriate to present the results nom an evaluation as being representative of those determined. at another time, even in the same facility. Por ex:ample, the by-law indicates that air must be exhauSted from a DSR. llno less than three (3) metres from any air intake or bl1Í'diT1g' operiing". However, there may well be DSRs in which emausted air is D£Vertheless partially drawn back in to the air supply system of the facility, either typically or under certain weather conditions. Or) the outside air intakes may be situated so as to entr3.in street-level contaminants (from vebiculartraffic, or smokers congregating outdOOIS). The air quality in the non-smokiDg area(s) in these cases would not be exc:mp1a.ty of what the by-law is intending to accomplish. Accordingly, the selection of the control sites must be by conscmsus (Involving tbose cognisant of . the facilities in question) if the results are to be relevant. And, there clearly must be more than one day of eva11Li1tion, if a legitimate comparison is to be made (i.e. the inheTent variabiHty in each group ofvaJues is one factor that needs to be considered in detennining if there is a sigmficant difference. or not), Iftb.crc is an intent to extrapolate beyond the two specific sites, then more locations wi11 have to be assessed, given the Jow likelihood of controlling for all variables. The actual number of sites assessed, and the days attesting at ~ must encompass the range offactors that may impact on the levels ofETS. Further, the placement of the monitoring equipment within each of the sites can also significantly Phoenix OHC. Inc. ConJultants in Occupazional wui ElfIIironmentlJ.l Health. . 7 AUG 28-'132 16:01 166 l' 613 S44 3104 PAGE - Ø8 RUG 30 '02 16:25 FR YORK REG HEALTH SERUI905 895 2631 TO 819057236026 UO/lOI¿UUl ntlV lO:Ul rdA 1 OlJ ~qq J1U4 rnU~nlA un~1 ln~. P.23/27 IgJUUHIU14 cc.. -4C: -CL affect the outcome. For example. partiÇtÚarly in a facility in which smoking is not confined to a DSR, it would reasonably be expected that there would be an increasing conoe.ntration gradient of Erg componentS with increasing distance 1Tom the direct zone of mtluence of a clean air supply diffuset'o Accordingly, if multiple locations are not to be assessed within each site, then it could be appropriate to assess only the worst-case area that may be occupied by a patron or employee of each type of establishment This would (again) have to be pre-determined by mutual agreement. The protocol indicates that "locations" (number. se1eçtion aiterianot indicated) would be detennincd by the protocol's writer.u 12 II ~ .indicate$ tha~ mcrc than one location per site is envisaged which, without beingdescri'bed, further c:œfoUDCk the difficulty of making a re:zsoœ1e1 dd'cnstòle comparison between the sites. 12 It is not clear whether the wrizet' ofthø protOcol ms c:xpe:rtis$ in the aæa of air quality, Phoenix one, Inc. Ccnsultants in Occupazional and EnllÚ'onmenral HeQ!th 8 167 - ~û 28 102 16:e1 1 '¡:;,' ~4 ,'~ POr.C I:'Q MUU ~~ ~~ ~O'G~ ~~ TU~K ~~U n~H~IH ~~~V!~~~ C~~ GO~~ IU O~~~~(~~O~~O r . ':;"" ~ ( 08/2H/2UU2 W~lllö:Ol rA! 1 613 ~44 31U4 ftlU~Nl! Utl~1 IN~, I{gUIUIU14 , ., CL--\...1Ú-o'l- ETS indicator substances Tobacco smoke is ahigbly complex and variablemOOure. In terms ofETS, there is even a difference from. the same cigarette in the composition between maiDs1ream smoke (iDhaled by the user) and sidestream smoke (that produ.çed while the cigarette is]it. but without inhalation by the user). The protocol would evaluate only three paramctc:zs of air quaJity I ETS I venti1ation effectiveness: carbon dioxide (C~. carbon monoxide (CO) aod respirabIe suspended particulate (RSP). Although all three of these are emitted by burning tobacco. they are not suBicimtIy disaiminating to serve as an çpropriate index of ETS concentrations for the purposes of the study as outlined. Both qualitative and qumtitative considerations apply. There are many non-tobacco sources of each of the three proposœ test su~ and they may (accordingly) be "red herrings" (i.e. not a valid indicator of the presence of ETS). In fac~ the protocol affirms that COl is useful as an index of occupancy and "how wen the ventilation s~em is working". However, that is only with respect to ventilation in terms of a. faci1ity's. h~ occupancy (with exhalation as the main source), and not with respect to environmental tobacco smoke. Hedge el aL 199413 determined $be airborne factors14 over 212 locations in 27 office buildings representing five different smoking policies. They found tbat smo1cing policy (e,g. whether prohibited in the building, or permitted in specified modes) does not have an overall effect on the levels of carbon monoxide or dioxide in open areas. Although elevations in the êÜrbome concentrations of these materials couldbe associated with !be accumulation of ETS, it would not be to a large degree. The range in mean CO or CO: levels in smoking I non-smoking occupancies is a small factorl', re1ative to the range in tobacco-specific I.) Ann. 0<=<:, Byg. 38(3):265- I' They 411s0 measured levels ofíorma1dehyde, respirable p:1ttic:ulaœ matUt (by microbalmee), ulttAvio1e't pmic:ulate m&ttc', and nicOtine, fmding .significant difi'CZ'CDCC::¡ in th.c ~C ofchc latkr th:t:c. Many other tobscc:o.spcc:üic mark=r of ETS haVe been ev:l.luaœd by others, IS Hc:dge d 1111olmd a cüfr=:=u of only 1 ppm in tbe meo.n CO 1e'Ye1. when compazi.Dg sm"'~g =d DOa.-smokia¡ are~j such a difference would not be identified according to this proœeoL Jenkins el t:l., 2001 ¡bowed a nDge of 4158 .. 1734ppm. COl (:I. factOr of3.7; or, ihdjusting 10r a nominal outdoo: coACcntn1tion of370ppm. 1I.!oct.ar of'14), But. Phoenix OHC. Inc. Cansulrtmls in Occupational and Environmental Health 9 168 AUCi 2S 'a:? 16:01 1 613544 31a4 ~e:_10 ~UG 30 '02 16:25 FR YORK REG HE~LTH SERUI905 895 2631 TO 819057236026 Uð/Zð/ZUUl W~ Ib:U¿ ~A! 1 DIJ ~qq JIU4 rtlU~~lA Utlv, Inv. P.25/27 IS/UH/U14 CL-YC- O'L , marke.rs oiETS such as mcotinc!&. By virtue of the several additional sources of these çont:iminantS Ú1 restaUrants) they would be even le3$ specific markers for ETS in the proposed study, than in office buildings. Respirable suspended particulate (RSP) has been widely used as an ETS marker, but knowledge of the co11'esponding outdoor lev~ and consideration of 11on-ETS RSP (e.g. fi'om various cooIång processes in restaurant occupancies) is important. In the study, :R.S.P is to be determined with areal. time monitor that operates on a light-scattering principle. The optical properties of the airbome particulate being monitored, such as the sizes, shapes and colours of the particl~ would have a significant impact on the instrument respocse. The protocol advises that an '"ETS calibration factot" adjustment is to be used (which would normally indicate that many gravimetrically-d.etenninedRSP levels would be recorded in parallel), but also describes amwal calibration (presumably conducted by the manufacturer, with the standard .~oad dust"). It may be that the intent is to use the factor tq)orted in I enkins et al; this would reduce by a 1àctor of 3, the actDal readings. However, it must be, emphasized that RSP is not speci:fiç to ETS. The cahòranon factor. in view o!the heterogeneity of ICRSP" and the variety of potentiaIly contributing sources (each with different optical properties) would need to be determined in each case on a site-specific: basis, if there is to be a quantitative comparison between sites. Accotdingly, the selection of these materials for the teSt as oUtlined is likely to lead to a conclusion ofno significant difference between th.e two types offacilities being tested, despite difI'eœnccs in the effectiveness of ETS control, and in lev~ ofBTS actu.aJly present. the average level of CO: in eacb ofthenon..smolång facililie$ was !tigher than the avetõlge in the pub. evco 0\1 &lose nighu whac tbc: =oking section was iI1ccnpoutc:d in the: tDesstm:md1t!: this of itself: should cL:mODSt:atc the: ineleY:lZ1ce of CO: in this rest. CO:! is use&! cmJyas a measme oime degree of air exchange. relative to the degree of occ:upmcy, " Nicotine exposures in occup~tiona1 settings hsve been sho'IIID as raapug D:om Jess than I. dcœction limit of 0.05 ~glm'. to ls:'vels in excess of SO uglrIt. or a ~e or 4 orders oC mi1g.aitude (ie, 1000 x). Aeçordingly, not QD}y is this ' m3.lwI tObscco-spcci.6.c. but it also is a more: uscWl mctri.c (c.g.) by virtue of the broader range. - And. it shol1ld be zccog,nized thö1t the human ol!.actDry response to ETS may be more sensitive than ~cal raetñods. P hoeni:c OBC. 111(;, CO7UUUants in. Occupational and EnvironmenJal Health 10 169 QI~ ~~ ,~~ ,~:~, 1 ~1~ C:::A..d ~1CM 1:)01':= 1 1 n~~ ~~ ~~ .~'~Q r~ TU~~ ~~U M~~~IM ~~KV!~~~ O~~ ~C~~ IU O~~~~(~~C~~C r.'::;QI'~( Uð/ZKIZOUZ W~U lö:Ul fAll tilJ ~44 J1U4 ftlUtN1A Uö~ In~. I¥J UHI UllJ J. LL - '-l G -- C, L Data analysis Section VI of the protocol (titled "Data. VaJidationNeriñcation" describes how the ~dation process win include checks for intemaI cousistency. checks for traIlSmittal errors) and checks for qu.ali1y control. Evaluation of these criteria ('coo, to provide a specified level of assurance ...'1 will involve a review of: 1nstrument c:alibratio.ns . Reproducibility of replicate analyses Detection Limits Data reporting completeness Tnmscri.ption mars Accuracy of data results calculation Evaluation of quality control samples." These po.ints, as wen the subsequent section VII, add buDc to the protocol without relevance and lor valuo-added. For example, detection limits etc. must be a. fundamental part of the pre-project work- up, It does not appear that there will be any replicate analyses. nor that any on-site ca1ibration win actUally be undatake.n (i.e. cah'bration annually is cited for all three insuumcn1S). Thet'e is no indication of how the proponent win analyze the data - will the air quality patalllctcIS be - averaged over one hour maements7 - individually? . as a composite? - comprised of parameters equally weighted? - with (say) gOO/Ó of t1w weighting going to ItSP? - considered in terms of 95&11 percentile values over the sampling period? - normalized to the number of cigarettes consumed per unit time? . nonnalized to the mnnberofpatrons? What will be considered to be significant differences, and what is the ability of the protocol to identify these? The protocol states "At the completion ofth.c data. validation process, the reviewer will prepare a summary of the results and specify the uses for which the data is suitab1e." Like so many other factors, thjs needs to be established before the fåct. Phoe:rVx. OHC. Inc, Consultan!3 in Occupational and &vi,o1U1lwal Healtlz 11 170 ~I~ ~Q-'~~ 1~:~~ 1 1:.1 ":I ..:::.44 ":11 ~4 PQ '"",J:: 1";) -~... -------- --- -~_. .- -----.------ , ,~" ¡:;'1 UO/l.Uf "\111" Jill) lU. u'" I'M!. Uhl ù'i'1 "'.LV'! JlIv.un.14 V.L\v, .1l1v. '!I UJ.dl Ul'f .¡u-Ú'~ Cl---~' Conclusions It is the conclusion of this reviewer that the proposed testing will not result in data that can be used 1:0 conclude whether the two !acilities in which the 8.SSt"SSDlents were condueted have an equivalent degree of con'trot over environmental tobacoo smoke. The extrapolation oftbe m,mftgs to other facilities would be even. more problematic. A matter to be c1ari.ñod by the proponent is the specific: comparison that is intended to be made, andJ(JC the :faeility diffe:rence(s) that are to be evaluated. In Other words, there should be an elaboniion of one specific question. with as much detail provided as neccssazy to make it clear. That could then be a logical basis for a delineation of the types and J1UJ:'Dbers of facilities that should be includ~ the most appropriate ErS markers to be used and the manner of their detenninatioD, as we)! as all of the other components of a more co:a.sidered protocol. Phoenix OHC. Inc. Comndlant.r in Occupational fJJJd E1rvironmenLal Health I2 AVG 29 . 02 16: 02 171 1 613 S44 3104 PAGE, 13 ** TOTAL PAGE,27 ** APPENDIX D C L- \f.AJtD . - ~ BY -LAW NUMBER _-2002 OF THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF DURHAM. being a by-law to regulate smoking in public places and in the workplace WHEREAS research has proven the adverse effects and risks to health posed by second-hand tobacco smoke (exhaled smoke and smoke from idling cigarettes, cigars or pipes); AND WHEREAS second-hand tobacco smoke is a serious health hazard to inhabitants and workers within the Region; AND WHEREAS second-hand tobacco smoke is a public nuisance because of its irritating and discomforting properties; . AND WHEREAS subsection 213(2) of the Municipal Act, RS,O, 1990, c. MA5, as amended (the "Municipal Act') authorizes the council of a local municipality to pass a by-law regulating the smoking of tobacco in public places and workplaces within the municipality and designating public places or workplaces or classes or parts of such places in which smoking tobacco or holding lighted tobacco is prohibited; . AND WHEREAS subsection 213(14) of the Municipal Act provides that a regional municipality may exercise the powers under subsection 213(2) if a majority of the councils of the area municipalities within the regional municipality approve the exercise of such powers; AND WHEREAS a majority of the councils of the area municipalities in the Regional Municipality of Durham have requested that Regional Council pass a by-law regulating the smoking of tobacco in public places and workplaces within the Regional Municipality of Durham; NOW THEREFORE the Council of The Regional Municipality of Durham enacts as follows: Definitions 1. In this by-law, (a) "ashtray" means a receptacle of any type being used for tobacco ashes and for cigar and cigarette butts; (b) "bar" means an establishment licensed by the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario where persons under 19 years of age are not permitted to enter, either as a patron or as an employee; (c) "billiard hall" means any building, structure or premises at which billiard or pool tables are made available for use by the public; (d) "bingo hall" means any building, structure or premises where bingo events are conducted; 172 CL~ YG-C'L , (e) "casino" means a place which is kept for the purpose of playing a lottery scheme conducted and managed by the Ontario Casino Corporation under the authority of paragraph 207(1 )(a) of the Criminal Code; (f) (g) (iii) (iv) (h) "common area" means any indoor area of a building or structure that is open to the public for the purpose of access and includes elevators, escalators, corridors, stairways, passageways, hallways, foyers, parking garages, and space for the receiving or greeting of customers, clients or other persons; "designated smoking room" means a room within a building or structure or part thereof in which smoking is permitted and that, (i) is completely enclosed on all sides and not required by any person for a thoroughfare; is equipped with a separate ventilation system that maintains a minimum ventilation rate of thirty (30) litres per second per person, based on maximum occupancy load, that is ventilated directly to the outside air and exhausted at a rate of at least one hundred and ten percent (110%) of supply, with any exhaust no less than three (3) metres from any air intake or building opening; does not occupy more than fifty percent (50%) of the occupiable public space within the building or structure or part thereof; and is approved in accordance with the terms and provisions of this By-law by an inspector appointed by the Medical Officer of Health; (ii) "employee" means a person who performs any work for or supplies any service to an employer with or without compensation and includes a volunteer but does not include a person who is a member of a private club; employer" means a person who, as an owner, manager, contractor, superintendent, or overseer of any activity, business, work, trade, occupation or profession, has control over or direction of, or is indirectly or directly responsible for, the employment or services of an employee; "enclosed" means closed in by a roof or ceiling and walls with an appropriate opening or openings for ingress or egress, provided that such openings are kept closed when not in use for such ingress or egress; (k) (I) "inspector" means a person appointed by the Region to enforce this by-law; "municipal building" means any building or structure owned, leased, controlled or used by the Region or any area municipality in the Region including libraries, community centres and recreational facilities; (m) "no-smoking sign" means a sign at least 10 centimetres in diameter showing an illustration of a black, lit cigarette on a white circle surrounded by a red border with a width equal to one tenth of the diameter, with a red diagonal stroke of the same width crossing over the cigarette from the upper left to the lower portion of the circle; (i) ü) 173 2 C l - '-to - CIè - (n) "private club" means a not for profit corporate establishment that operates solely for the benefit and pleasure of its members, that directs its publicity and advertisements to its members, and has passed by-laws regulating the admission of persons and the conditions of membership, the fees and dues of members, the issue of memberships cards, the suspension and termination of memberships, the qualification of and remuneration of directors, the time for and the manner of electing directors and the time, place and notice to be given for the holding of meetings of the members and of the board of directors, (0) "proprietor" includes the person or persons who own, occupy, operate, maintain, manage, control or direct the activities carried on within any premises referred to in this by-law; "public place" means the whole or part of an indoor area of any place that is open to the public or to which the public has access by right, permission or invitation, express or implied, whether by payment of money or not, and whether publicly or privately owned and includes, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the indoor area of those places designated as public places in section 2 of this by-law but does not include a private club; (p) (q) "public transport vehicle" means any vehicle used for transporting the public and includes a bus and a passenger vehicle used for hire such as a taxi or limousine; (r) "racetrack" means a horse racing track operated under the authority of a licence issued under the Racing Commission Act, 2000, S.O, 2000, c.20, as amended, (s) "recreational facility" includes an arena, swimming pool, concert hall, theatre, auditorium, gymnasium, museum and art gallery; (t) "Region" means the geographic area of the Regional Municipality of Durham or The Regional Municipality of Durham acting as a body corporate, as the context requires; . (u) "restaurant" means an establishment engaged in the sale and service of food or drink or both food and drink to the public for consumption on the premises but does not include a bar; (v) "service line" means an indoor line of two or more persons providing, receiving, or awaiting service of any kind, regardless of whether or not such service involves the exchange of money, including but not limited to sales services, provision of information, transactions or advice and transfers of money or goods; (w) "smoke or smoking" includes the carrying or holding of a lighted cigar, cigarette, pipe or any other lighted smoking equipment, but does not include the carrying or holding of any lighted cigar, cigarette, pipe or any other lighted smoking equipment that is being used in a stage production or theatrical performance; (x) "theatre" means any building or part of a building intended for the screening and viewing of motion pictures or the production and staging of public performances of culture, musical or dramatic entertainment; and 174 3 (L - \...tú- c '~ (y) "workplace" means a building or structure or part thereof in which one or more employees work, including amenity areas, corridors, eating areas, elevators, entrances, escalators, exits, foyers, hallways, laundry rooms, lobbies, lounges, meeting rooms, parking garages, reception areas, stairways and washrooms, and includes a public transport vehicle and any other vehicle in which an employee works but does not include a private dwelling, Smokina in Public Places 2. The following places are designated as public places for purposes of this by-law: (a) those places set out in subsection 9(1) of the Tobacco Control Act, S.D. 1994, c,10; (b) (c) common area; public washroom; (d) municipal building; (e) funeral home; (f) racetrack; (g) casino; (h) bingo hall; (i) billiard hall; 0) bowling alley; (k) restaurant; (I) bar; (m) recreational facility; (n) service line; and (0) public transport vehicle, 3, Except as set out below in sections 4,5,6 and 7, no person shall smoke in a public. place. 4. The proprietor of a bingo hall may establish a designated smoking room no greater in size than fifty percent (50%) of the occupiable public space of the premises, 5. The proprietor of a casino may establish a designated smoking room no greater in size than fifty percent (50%) of the occupiable public space of the premises. . 175 4 Cc, -Llú -0 ~ 6. The proprietor of a racetrack may establish a designated smoking room no greater than fifty percent (50%) of the occupiable public space of the premises, The prohibitions and regulations in this By-law shall not apply to private clubs during such time periods when such private clubs are closed to members of the public, 7. 8. Subject to sections 4, 5, 6 and 7 above, no person shall place an ashtray for the use of smokers in a public place, Subject to sections 4, 5, 6 and 7 above, no proprietor shall permit a person to smoke in a public place. 9. 10, Subject to sections 4, 5, 6 and 7 above, no proprietor shall permit a person to place an ashtray for the use of smokers in a public place. Smoking in Workplaces 11, No person shall smoke in an enclosed workplace, 12. No person shall place an ashtray for the use of smokers in an enclosed workplace. 13, No employer shall permit a person to smoke in an enclosed workplace, 14. No employer shall permit a person to place an ashtray for the use of smokers in an enclosed workplace. Signs 15. The proprietor of a public place shall ensure that such public place is posted with no- smoking signs in a conspicuous manner at each entrance to the public place to indicate that smoking is prohibited. 16. Every employer shall ensure that the enclosed workplace is posted with no-smoking signs in a conspicuous manner at each entrance to the workplace to indicate that smoking is prohibited, Enforcement 17, 18, 19. 20, The Medical Officer of Health of the Region may, from time to time, appoint inspectors for the purpose of enforcing this by-law. An inspector may, at any reasonable time, enter any public place or workplace (other than a private dwelling) without warrant or notice for the purpose of determining whether there is compliance with this by-law. An inspector may make such examinations, investigations and inquiries as are necessary to determine whether there is compliance with this by-law. No person shall hinder, obstruct or interfere with an inspector carrying out an inspection under this by-law. 176 5 Conflict 22, CC-L-{O - ~.~ Offence 21. Any person who contravenes any provision of this by-law is guilty of an offence and upon conviction is liable to a fine of not more than $5,000.00 exclusive of costs, as provided in the Provincial Offences Act, RS.O. 1990, c. P.33, as amended. If any provision of this by-law conflicts with any Act, regulation or other by-law, the provision that is the most restrictive of smoking shall prevail. Severability 23, Set Fines 26. If any section of this by-law or parts thereof are found by any Court to be illegal or beyond the power of the Region to enact, such section or parts thereof shall be deemed to be severable and all other sections or parts of this by-law shall be deemed to be separate and independent therefrom and to be enacted as such, Set fines for contraventions of this by-law shall be in accordance with Schedule "An to this by-law, attached hereto and forming part of this by-law, Effective Date 27. This by-law shall come into effect on June 1 2004. BY-LAW read a first time this 13th day of November, 2002. BY-LAW read a second time this 13th day of November, 2002, BY-LAW read a third time and finally passed this 13th day of November, 2002, Roger Anderson, Regional Chair P,M. Madill, Regional Clerk Smoking By-law 2002 . BY-22-01 177 6 q. .L "E;PORT # C L- L-lU ~ 0 2.. . --_. Schedule "A" SET FINE SCHEDULE ITEM COLUMNl COLUMN 2 COLUMN 3 Short Form Wording Offence Creating Set Fine Provision (Includes costs) 1 Smoke tobacco in a prohibited place Sections 3 and 11 $205,00 2 Place ashtray in a prohibited place Sections 8 and 12 $205.00 3 Failure to prohibit persons ITom Sections 9 and 13 $205.00 smoking in a prohibited place 4 Failure to prohibit persons ITom placing Sections 1O and 14 $205.00 ashtray in a prohibited place 5 Failure to post No Smoking signs where Sections 15 and 16 $205.00 smoking is prohibited 6 Obstruct inspector Section 20 $205,00 NOTE: the penalty provision for the offences indicated above is Section 21 of the By-law 178