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