April 6, 1993

Region-wide smoking law proposed

By Carol Goodwin, Record staff



Waterloo Region’s associate medical officer of health says he’s shocked by the number of people in the region who are dying of tobacco-related illnesses.
	And Dr. Doug Sider says that because a "massive body of evidence" is placing increasing blame on environmetal or second-hand smoke, health officials will be urging regional council to impose a uniform region-wide smoking bylaw.
	Sider was commenting on a report to be presented to the region’s health and social services committee Wednesday.
	The report recommends a committee be formed that would include representatives of the region’s seven local municipalities, officials of the regional health and legal departments, and representatives of the Council for a Tobacco Free Waterloo Region. The committee would look at the feasibility of such a bylaw.
	Sider said he could not release the actual numbers of smoke-related deaths. Those are contained in a Smoking and Health report by his department that will be ready later this month.
	"Of all the causes of death associated with smoke, we were quite shocked at the role that tobacco plays in mortality in Waterloo Region. The high statistics are shocking. We are dealing with a significant problem."
	Both Sider and Medical Officer of Health Dr. Ronald Sax agree that local laws should go further than the proposed provincial legislation, expected to be in place later this year. But it will need the political clout of a "uniform, state-of-the-art bylaw that will supercede individual (and differing) municipal bylaws," Sider said, hence the recommendation to explore the feasibility of region-wide legislation.
	Although some members of the health and social services committee have expressed concern about enforcing tougher smoking bylaws, Sider said he believes there will be more compliance than resistance.
	"I was just in Victoria, B.C., where 75 restaurants have declared themselves totally smoke-free. He said partial restrictions in restaurants are often meaningless, because smoke diffuses and drifts.
	Sider said while some restaurateurs feel they would lose customers if they were smoke-free, they are probably losing more customers because smoking is allowed.
	Kitchener Ald. Mike Wagner, who sits on the Twin-City committee, said he is astounded that there’s not been greater demand from non-smokers for tougher restrictions.
	The proposed provincial law called the Ontario Tobacco Act, aims at reducing tobacco use through prevention, protection from second-hand smoke and more rigorous enforcement of smoking laws.
	Among other restrictions, the law will prohibit or restrict smoking in certain public places including banks, retail stores, transit shelters, hairdressing and barber shops. So far, restaurants, bars and bingo halls are not included.


November 15, 1993

Smoking bylaws could get tougher

By Catherine Thompson, Record Staff



	Clearing the air on local no-smoklng bylaws is the goal of a new Waterloo Region committee.
	The regional tobacco bylaw review committee is taking a hard look at smoking regulations in the region’s seven local municipalities. It wants to remove discrepancies and determine if tougher restrictions are needed.
	Current bylaws don’t regulate smoking in restaurants, hairdressing salons, child care centres, laundromats or transit shelters.
	"It’s something that keeps coming up, more frequently than any other issue. I don’t know how many calls I’ve had about the smoking bylaw," said Kitchener Coun. Mike Wagner, the Kitchener representative on the committee.
	The bylaws in Kitchener and Waterloo are 12 and 15 years old and don’t reflect new data on the dangers of smoking, said Kim Hodgson, a health promotion officer with the regional community health department.
	"We’ve learned a lot about second-hand smoke," Hodgson said, referring to the smoke a non-smoker inhales simply by being near a smoker.
	Earlier this year, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency rated second-hand smoke a "Class A" carcinogen, meaning it’s proven to cause cancer in human beings, Hodgson said.
	"If it were asbestos or benzine, we would probably have a swift response," but society’s response to tobacco concerns is slower because of its traditional place in society, she said.
	Over the next few months, the regional committee plans to draft a sample bylaw that each of the seven local municipalities can adapt to its needs, Wagner said, adding that he hopes Kitchener and Waterloo work together to ensure their bylaws are consistent. Extensive public consultation is also planned, Hodgson said.
	Local restaurateurs and service club representatives also sit on the committee. Henry Krebs, president of Krebs Restaurants, said most businesses in the hospitality industry are aware of the need to provide more no-smoking areas.
	Krebs said he would rather see businesses left to police themselves, however. "I’m totally against regulations that you can’t enforce ... We don't need anymore bylaws. We’ve got plenty."
	He said he’s worried that a tougher bylaw might not be flexible enough to accommodate events like Oktoberfest or international conferences that attract people from other countries, where smoking may be more common.
	Health concerns are the driving force behind the review, Hodgson said. The aim is to try and find a balance between smokers’ and non-smokers’ rights.
	Kitchener’s current bylaw has fines of up to $2,000. It bans smoking in retail stores and at service counters of banks and municipal offices, but is silent about several other public areas. Waterloo’s bylaw is similar. The Cambridge bylaw has fines of up to $1,000, except for restaurants where no-smoking areas are optional and the fine is $25.


September 30, 1994

Region seeks views on smoking bylaw

By Luisa D’Amato, Record staff



	Phil Evers has very definite ideas about where smoking should be allowed in an ideal world.
	"You can't smoke anywhere on earth," he said, as Waterloo Region health officials set up a booth at Kitchener’s Fairview Park Mall and asked members of the public for their thoughts on a new smoking bylaw.
	Evers, whose wife Evelyn is allergic to formaldehyde, an ingredient found in cigarette smoke, is from Tiverton. He was on vacation in this area when he was asked for his thoughts.
	Under the proposed bylaw, 50 per cent of space in bingo halls would be designated non-smoking. No staff or visitors at acute-care hospitals such as Cambridge General, K-W or St. Mary’s General hospital would be allowed to smoke in the buildings. And restaurants with more than 50 seats would have to provide non-smoking areas.
	Anyone who wants to give an opinion on the proposed changes can go to Conestoga Mall in Waterloo Saturday to receive a summary of the proposals and fill out a questionnaire.
	Or they may call the tobacco bylaw information line at the regions health department, 883-2279, and offer comments either verbally or have a questionnaire mailed to them.
	The proposed regional bylaw is expected to supplement the provincial Tobacco Control Act, which will come into effect a few weeks from now. It prohibits smoking in public places and makes it illegal to sell cigarettes to anyone under 19.
	Not everyone’s opinions were as firm as Evers’.
	"I think the bylaw’s good in some ways, but in other ways, I think it stinks," said Kevin Madigatl, a maintenance employee at Fairview mall, who said he smokes half a pack of cigarettes a day.
	He understands that second-hand smoke is bad for the health of non-smokers, but "you can’t go any place nowadays and have a smoke."
	In a nearby coffee shop, Kathleen Meyer of Waterloo and Jocelyn DeLong of Kitchener sat and thought as they filled out the questionnaires.
	Meyer said she thinks there should be a rule that non-smoking sections in restaurants are properly separated from smoking sections.
 	"If they want to smoke in their car, OK," said Meyer, a non-smoker who was recently operated on for cancer caused, her doctor says by smoking earlier in life and second-hand smoke.
	But in a restaurant, "there’s no way to contain it," she said. "It’s a habit that includes everyone else."
	"It can kill people and that’s why I think the law has got to step in."


October 3, 1995

No-smoking bylaw rejected cold turkey

By Christian Aagaard, Record Staff



Cambridge councillors want Waterloo Region to write a better smoking bylaw.
	Council's planning and development committee Monday night rejected a draft bylaw that would set aside at least 25 per cent of the space in some private and public facilities for non-smokers.
	Restauranteurs would not be allowed to have anymore than half of a dining area open to smoking.
	Coun. Bill Brown argued the bylaw should ban smoking in publicly-owned facilities and private halls and restaurants. Percentages of space would be too difficult for bylaw enforcement officers to judge, he added.
	"It’s virtually unenforceable," Brown said. "Why would we pass a useless piece of legislation? Let’s go all the way or let’s not do it at all."
	Committee members voted unanimously to reject the bylaw Instead, they called for tougher standards. Council reviews the decision next Tuesday.
	Waterloo also recently rejected the bylaw. Kitchener has it under study
	"There are lots of places that are 100 per cent smoke-free and they survive, even thrive," said Coun. Gary Price.
	The planning committee’s decision drew a thumbs-up from Terry Polevoy, a Waterloo physician and critic of the proposed smoking bylaw who watched the vote.
	"Reject it cold turkey and get 100 per cent no-smoking in all your restaurants," Polevoy told committee members earlier.
	The idea behind the bylaw is to have standard smoking regulations across the region.
	But the bylaw wouldn’t prohibit all affected establishments or municipalities from adopting stricter rules.
	Polevoy has warned that a bylaw that condones smoking could leave municipalities open to lawsuits from people affected by second-hand smoke.


Lifestyles - Saturday, November 11, 1995

Smoke ender: No butts about it, this doctor is obsessed with smoking

By Joel Rubinoff, Record staff



Dr. Terry Polevoy is a man obsessed - with smoking, with justice, with what he sees as corruption. And right now, with getting his computer to work properly.
Clank, clank, clank. "We’re putting on a web site so people all over the world can see how we’re approaching the fight against tobacco," says the John Wayne of anti-smoking activism, punching buttons at his Waterloo medical practice in a valiant attept to call up the desired file.
	"It’s gonna be more of a political activist type of board, not just information. But it will lead to other sites and we’ll be getting our own page called PATSY - People Attacking Tobacco Sales to Youth."
	He raps the computer with his knuckles, clicks the mouse a few times for good measure and smiles contentedly as a file of satirical, anti-smoking ads pops up on screen.
	It is a rare restive moment for the man who has spent almost every waking minute since he quit smoking six years ago fighting the business interests and government dealmakers he says encourage this potentially fatal habit at every turn.
	An anti-smoking fixture at city council meetings throughout the region, Polevoy also lectures to school kids, faxes virulent anti-smoking memos to the media and medical establishment and has plans to market a series of T-shirts with satirical messages and a book, Views From Behind the Golden Haze.
	"Listen, when somebody is told to go eat dented tunafish and ends up throwing an egg at Mike Harris’s face, why doesn’t anybody get bent out of shape against a corner store who’s selling tobacco to miners?" he asks rhetorically. "No one cares."
	Polevoy does. And as he orates at length about a "worldwide tobacco conspiracy" and the "media prostitutes" and "merchants of death" who profit from it, it’s hard to believe this intense, outspoken activist was once an unconscious advocate for the industry he now loathes.
	But he was. The eldest of three children and parents who puffed constantly, the New York native, now 51, picked up his first cigarette at 15 and inhaled for almost 30 years before a near death experience on the freeway convinced him to quit "cold turkey."
	"Not one of my patients ever complained to me because I smelled like tobacco smoke," reflects the acne care specialist and former pediatrician, who blames the medical profession's weak-kneed stance against tobacco for allowlng his own ignorance to flourish. "No one ever told me to stop smoking because it looked uncool."
	Not that his combative, individualistic nature completely submerged. A civil rights activist as a teen and later, a draft dodger opposed to the Vietnam war, Polevoy has made it a pollicy to speak out against any practice that benefits society’s elite at the expense of those less prilvileged.
	"I guess being Jewish had alot to do with it," he muses. "Looking at what happened in the Second World War and how people were swayed by leaders, I was very skeptical."
	But things didn’t reach ahead until his second wife, Claudia, died of cancer in 1993, an event that haunts him to this day.
	"She was put in a room right across the hall from the smoking room in the cancer ward (at London’s Victoria Hospital)," recounts Polevoy, his bitterness palpable.
	"And I said to myself. ‘She can’t get services, she can’t get the resident to come in and change an IV and yet she has to sit in her bed and watch six smokers puffing away’... so I pulled her out of the hospital never to come back again."
	Relocating at a friend’s house down the road, Polevoy began to notice billboards promoting a golf tournament sponsored by tobacco monolith du Maurier. His blood pressure rose accordingly.
	"It makes you kind of nauseous, coupling that picture of her dying and wasting away with a nice healthy picture of a women playing golf in a short skirt."
	It was too much for him and he decided to take action, launching his defiant, zero-tolerance stand against tobacco.
	"I’m doing what’s right," insists Polevoy, who has advocated, among other things, setting up police stings to charge store owners selling cigarettes to minors, "a public display of non-affection" toward billboards promoting smoklng and a Royal inquiry of tobacco company heads to expose what he considers to be corrupt business practices.
	His efforts, not surprisingly, have made him a not entirely welcome presence in government health-care circles, which prefer a more gradual, less radical approach to change.
	"We haven’t found him helpful," says Merrilla Gagnon, a health educator who served with Polevoy on the council for a tobacco-free Waterloo region a few years back.
	"We had to ask him to resign due to the fact he wrote a very radical letter to police condemning their inaction around the issue of youths buying cigarettes in stores."
	And while she says most committee members agreed with Polevoy’s tough stand on smoking, his "no-compromise" attitude got their backs up.
	"I guess it’s the old argument between evolution and revolution. We’re looking for evolution, he’s trying to get a revolution going, which is great.
	"But from the perspective of health groups you’d rather see a bit of a change, rather than going for the ideal and not getting any change at all."
	Kitchener Coun. Mike Wagner, who serves on the regional tobacco bylaw committee, takes the concept further.
	"He’s obviously very passionate about the subject, and I thihk he’s helping the anti-smoking cause considerably."
	"The problem, however, is the fact that it takes time for public perception to catch up to the realIty of what he says, which means that whatever he wants is not going to happen overnight."
	Not that any of this fazes Polevoy, who dismisses anti-smoking committees as so much smoke and mirrors - no pun intended - their members more concerned with securing government grants than dealing with the issue.
	"I want to be able to participate in culture," explains Polevoy. "I don’t want to get to the Centre in the Square and find out the (bleep)ing mezzanine is smoking."
	"Where the hell is the health system in this country? They can’t even defend our kids."
	He settles into his chair with the look of one who has not yet begun to fight."
	"My commitment is, if I see a problem, and if the problem can be related to my medical teaching and my philosophy, I will tackle it."
	"And I’m trying to motivate my patients and people around me to take issue with these things, also."


December 5, 1995

Total smoking ban rejected: Kitchener council allows puffers in bars, restaurants

By Barbara Aggerholm, Record Staff



So rather than make those businesses 100 per cent smoke-free next year, some councillors wondered, why not require them to reserve 75 per cent of their seating for non-smokers? And why not consider the idea of monitoring air quality in restaurants and other facilities?
	Despite strong arguments from several councillors and no-smoking activist Dr. Terry Polevoy, the finance and administration committee refused to support a revamped proposal for a region-wide no-smoking bylaw. Under the most recent proposed regional bylaw, smoking would be banned in all restaurants. Bars and other facilities were to be considered later.
	An earlier proposal, which Kitchener had accepted as a "starting point," was rejected by four other municipalities in the region as being too soft on smokers.
	Polevoy, a Waterloo physician who is appealing to municipalities to toughen the proposed bylaw, urged councillors to protect workers in restaurants, bars and other facilities from the hazards of tobacco smoke.
	If restaurant employees were asked what they want, most would say they favor a 100 per cent ban, he said.
	Polevoy, a former smoker, said councillors should not be misled by those who say they would lose business if there were a ban on smoking.
	That hasn’t happened in cities in the United States that have the ban, he said.
	Coun. Mike Wagner, who is on the regional tobacco bylaw committee, challenged his fellow councillors to agree to a total smoking ban in bars, restaurants and other public places.
	"I am disturbed when all I hear is the idea of lost business and money on this issue," he said.
	"There is no evidence of lost business." Health issues, instead, should take priority, he said.
	"We have to provide an environment that discourages young people from smoking." If councillors supported a smoking ban in public places, there would be a "level playing field," Coun. Mark Yantzi said.
	"There’s no way to be half way on this issue," he said.
	Councillors John Smola and Jim Ziegler spoke in support of a total ban.
	A ban could, in fact, bring business to the region, Ziegler said.
	But councillors opposed to the ban said bar and restaurant owners have asked them not to support it.
	Mayor Richard Christy called smoking a "socially destructive activity," but said any ban should not come too quickly. Christy said the region should work towards a ban, but urged a compromise such as a 60-40 split.
	"We’ve been told by business there is too much government," Coun. Tom Galloway said. If businesses believe there is an economic benefit to having a total ban, they’ll initiate it, he said.
	A ban is too much of an all-or-nothing proposal concerning a legal pasttime, Coun. Berry Vrbanovic said. "What’s the next step? Will we have an all-or-nothing ban on alcohol in our bars as well? Health impact can be raised there too," Vrbanovic said.
	Councillors Karen Redman and Jake Smola suggested air quality be monitored in restaurants offering smoking sections.
	If council agrees with the committee’s recommendation, the bylaw will return to regional committees for consideration before it goes to regional council.


December 12, 1995

Council supports gradual smoke ban

By Tony Reinhart, Record Staff



Kitchener councillors continued to back away Monday from tough anti-smoking rules for public places in Waterloo Region.
	Instead, they called for a gradual ban on smoking, and in fewer places than earlier suggested.
	In an 8-3 vote, councillors rejected last week’s recommendation from its finance and administration committee to support a 75-per-cent non-smoking area in all bars, restaurants, banquet halls and bingo parlors.
	Instead, they called for smoking to be phased-out by 2001, and only in restaurants and bars where food is a major focus.
	Smoking in bars where food is only "incidental" would be regulated by the bar owner, while renters of public banquet halls would decide how smoking would be handled at their events.
	Bingo halls would have to set aside at least 10 per cent of their seating for non-smokers.
	The city will pass its recommendation along to Waterloo Region, which is trying to come up with a smoking bylaw for the whole region.
	Cambridge, Waterloo and the region’s four rural townships are also making recommendations.
	Kitchener is recommending a five-year plan, starting in 1996, when food-oriented resfaurants and bars would devote 50 per cent of their seating to non-smokers. That would increase to 60 per cent in 1998, 75 per cent in 2000, and 100 percent in 2001.
	In the meantime, the region should lobby the Ontario governmenmt to impose a province-wide smoking ban to eliminate regional variations in the rules.
	The rules and timeline were suggested by Coun. Berry Vrbanovic as a way to nudge, rather than push restaurateurs and smokers towards a complete ban.
	Some councillors, particularly Mike Wagner, had been calling for a complete smoking ban to protect the health of non-smokers and people who work in these facilities.
	But after hearing the concerns of the restaurant industry, others felt it would be too risky to impose the toughest anti-smoking rules in the province.
	"I too am concerned about health impacts, but it wouldn’t be appropriate for us to ignore the economic impacts," Vrbanovic said.
	Coun. Geoff Lorentz agreed, saying, "It’s not illegal to smoke. It’s not a drug; it’s not contraband."
	Private business owners are "getting tired of us making all these rules for them," he added.
	But Wagner said, as a non-smoker, he should have the right to spend his money in any restaurant without having to inhale second- hand smoke.
	"Smoking is optional, breathing is not," Wagner said.
	Ontario’s 400,000 restaurant workers need protection from smoke, he continued, and "we should be providing an environment that discourages young people from smoking."
	Lee Recchia, chairman of the Ontario Restaurant Association, said it’s up to the province, not municipalities, to decide whether second-hand smoke is a workplace health issue. In the meantime, municipalities should ensure a "level playing field" by adopting gradual, moderate measures.
	Lawrence Bingeman, of Bingeman Park, said a province-wide ban would work. A similar law exists in California. But in the absence of such a ban, any municipality that goes too far could jeopardize their local restaurant industry, he said.


February 1, 1996

Smoking bylaw ignites discussion: Two years, three attempts later, tobacco committee hopes it has a region standard

By Joel Rubinoff, Record Staff



At least they're persistent. After more than two years of false starts and back and forth deliberations, members of the regional tobacco bylaw committee decided Wednesday on a final version of a no-smoking bylaw they hope will be accepted as the standard across Waterloo Region.
This third and latest version - which brings them back almost to their starting point - recommends that 50 per cent of space in all restaurants be designated non-smoking effective immediately, with a complete ban to be imposed in the year 2000. A recommended phase-in would be optional.
	Bars - defined as any establishment where liquor sales exceed sales from food - would be forced to set aside 25 per cent of their floor space for non-smokers, with an increase to 50 per cent in the year 2000. Included in this category would be bingo parlors, private clubs, legion halls, "places of amusement" and other private and rental facilities.
	Finally, all mall food courts would be subject to an immediate 100 per cent ban on smoking.
	"I'm not at all satisfied with this, but it's something that will sell politically and I think the public will help make it even stronger," said Kitchener Coun. Mike Wagner, who had earlier pushed for a 100 per cent ban on smoking in restaurants, but was overruled by several municipalities, including his own.
	Part of the problem in reaching consensus on a region-wide bylaw - which would replace the hodgepodge of smoking rules that now exist in the region's seven municipalities - is that four of seven municipalities must endorse it.
	And it's been a tough go. Originally rejected by two of the municipalities for being too soft on smokers, the beefed-up version was rejected by some of those same municipalities for the exact opposite reason.
	It is hoped this latest version - which opts for a leisurely, phased-in approach - will appease both restaurant owners worried about an exodus of smoking customers and those with legitimate concerns about public health.
	"The advantage of a phased in approach is you don't have to swallow the whole pill at once," said Kitchener Coun. Jim Ziegler. "We're not going to have smoke police showing up and saying, 'Aha, it's 61 per cent smoking!' But it lets everybody get used to the idea and they're working towards something."
	Not that a consensus was easy to reach on this committee of politicians, restaurant association representatives and public health officials - especially on the issue of how best to implement a ban.
	After several rounds of heated debate, during which restauranteur Henry Krebs argued "we have too many regulations now" and Waterloo Coun. Craig Hoddle, a smoker, called the proposed ban "communistic" and "a complete and total wimp out," public health advocates attempted to set the meeting back on course.
	"This is a health issue, first and foremost, that's the only reason it's being addressed," said Dr. Ronald Sax, the region's medical officer of health. "I would say the handwriting is on the wall."
	Wagner agreed. "There may be 97 restaurant owners who live in Cambridge, but there are 125,000 people who live there and I'd like us to have a little balance in this. It's time we started representing the people in the region and not the restaurant owners. Smoking is optional. Breathing is not."
	Krebs, representing the K-W Visitor and Convention Bureau, took a more cynical view. "You're going to have a revolution on your hands in legion halls and bingo halls. You're going to need a bodyguard."
	Still others, like Josie D'Avernas of the Council for a Tobacco-Free Waterloo Region, view the proposals as long overdue.
	"We're moving toward a recognition of the rights of non-smokers to breathe in smoke-free air," she noted of the committee's compromise solution.
	The proposed bylaw will be presented to the region's health and social services committee, likely within two weeks, then kicked over to regional council for debate. It will then either be passed with approval from the region's mayors or bounced back to the municipalities for individual votes.
	Four out of seven municipalities must approve the bylaw or it's back to square one. If passed, the bylaw isn't expected to take effect before September.




February 8, 1996

Second-hand smoke study misused, scientist says

By Philip Jalsevac, Record Staff



Opponents of a regional smoking bylaw have latched onto a U.S. report that they claim describes the risk from second-hand smoke in the workplace as "infinitesimal."
However, one of the authors of the report says the study has been widely misinterpreted or selectively referred to out of context.
	Stephen Redhead of the Congressional Research Service (CRS), an arm of the U.S. Library of Congress in Washington, said in a phone interview that the CRS report does not dispute the claim that second-hand smoke "is a known class A (human) carcinogen" that can cause lung cancer.
	The number of deaths from what scientists call environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) likely ranges anywhere from several hundred to several thousand a year in the United States, said Redhead, a CRS researcher who holds a doctorate in biology.
	What the CRS report attempts to do is point out the uncertainties of determining what level of exposure to ETS is likely to cause cancer, he said. Even at that, "we avoid any firm conclusions... we’re trying to be very analytical and boring."
	At a Waterloo council meeting earlier this week, the CRS report was cited by Coun. Craig Hoddle and Lee Recchia, chairman of the Ontario Restaurant Association, who voiced opposition to a proposed region-wide bylaw that would impose a total ban on smoking in restaurants by the year 2000.
	Dr. Ronald Sax, the region’s medical offlcarof health, said Hoddle and Recchia were actually referring to an article in a magazine called Cheers.
	Local restaurateur Henry Krebs brought the magazine back with him from a hospitality industry convention in Washington, Sax said. Krebs presented copies of the article to the regional smoking bylaw committee, which has been grappling with the issue for two years,
	"It’s not exactly a scientific journal," Sax said of the magazine.
	The article says: "Data from the flew (CRS) study indicates that the risk associated with workplace exposure to ETS is infinitesimal compared to the most casual risks of everyday life, including driving to work. Thus, the findings of the CRS study threaten to undermine the so-called scientific basis for many of today’s restaurant smoking bans."
	"Oh, geez," said Redhead when asked if that’s an accurate reflection of his 75-page report.
	"No. I don’t like that. I’m a details person and I can’t accept wild statements like that."
	For his part, Sax said: "The compounds in second-hand smoke are definitely carcinogenic."
	And David Sweanor, legal counsel for the Non-Smokers’ Rights Association, said in an interview from Ottawa that "every credible health and scientific organization" that has studied the subject has come to that same conclusion.
	That includes the World Health Organization. American Medical Association, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Canadian federal health and labor ministries.
	Waterloo council is the first area municipality to reject the final draft of the proposed smoking bylaw, which would initially prohibit smoking in 50 per cent of the space of restaurants, moving to a total ban by 2000. Bars and private facilities would have to set aside 25 per cent of their space for non-smokers, increasing that to 50 per cent by 2000.
	If four of the region's seven municipalities support the bylaw, Sax said it would become law throughout the region and supercede any local bylaw.
	Based on advice from the regional solicitor, Sax said that theoretically means it could become law even if the region’s three cities opposed it but the four townships vote in favor.


February 20, 1996

Two councillors declare conflict in smoking debate

By Philip Jalsevac, Record Staff



Two Waterloo councillors declared Monday a conflict of interest in any bylaw to control smoking in public.
	The decision by Morty Taylor and Bruce McKenty removes them from any discussion or votes on the matter.
	But the two councillors say the decision was not made because of a conviction they’re actually in a conflict of interest. Rather, it was to thwart any possible legal challenge of their earlier position to freely participate in deliberations about a smoking bylaw.
	A former owner of Morty’s Pub, Taylor recently turned the business over to his son. McKenty works part-time on weekends as a doorman at The Flying Dog night club. Both businesses are in Waterloo.
	On Feb. 5, when council rejected a proposed region-wide smoking bylaw, Coun. Dave Roeder abstained after declaring a conflict of interest because he is a part-owner of Waterloo Bowling Lanes, which allows smoking.
	The bylaw would have imposed a 50 per cent ban in bars and totally eliminated smoking in restaurants by 2000.
	Roeder said Monday in an interview he wanted to err on the side of caution.
	"When in doubt, declare."
	Dr. Terry Polevoy, a Waterloo physician and anti-smoking crusader, said in an interview that he contacted city clerk Lew Ayers to register his claim that some councillors were in a conflict of interest. Ayers said he subsequently advised McKenty and Taylor and a meeting was then convened last Friday with the city solicitor.
	In a statement to council, Taylor said he initially received legal advice "that I did not have a conflict of interest because I had an interest in common with electors generally," which lets councillors off the hook.
	On Friday, however, he was told by the city solicitor he "might" have a conflict and "therefore, I am declaring a pecuniary interest."
	McKenty, former operator of the now defunct McKenty’s Pub in Waterloo, said he reluctantly declared a conflict because of weak provincial legislation that does not carefufly define "the parameters of common Interest."


February 23, 1996

Process set for enacting smoking bylaw



Although the debate over a region-wide smoking bylaw has dragged on for years, it appears headed towards its final stage.
	Waterloo regional council agreed Thursday on the process it intends to follow in dealing with the proposed controversial bylaw.
	It will be discussed first by the region's health and social services committee at a March 6 meeting, which will not include any public delegations.
	The chance for the public to speak will be at a special meeting on Wednesday, April 3. at 7 p.m. in the regional council chamber at 150 Frederick St., Kitchener.
	That will be followed by another discussion by the health and social services committee at a meeting April 17. Its recommendations will go to the full regional council on April 25, at which time council will vote on the issue.
	If the outcome is to adopt a regional bylaw, it will then be circulated to area municipalities for comments before it comes back to regional council for final consideration.
	If four of seven area municipalities support the bylaw, it can be implemented and would take precedence over any local bylaws on smoking in public.
	Cambridge Coun. Fred Kent, meanwhile, said people are fed up with about two years of discussion of the bylaw and many public meetings, including two in Cambridge.
	"They don’t want to hear about it any more," he told regional council.
	Nevertheless, the bylaw will make the rounds again, although some of the fine points of how it will all work still have to be ironed out.
	Regional solicitor Connie Giller said in an interview that she hopes to make the procedure clear before the first meeting by the health and social services committee on March 6.
	Some regional councillors want to know whether area municipalities must vote to simply "take it or leave it" or whether they can offer amendments.
	Giller hopes to clarify that issue as well as the question of whether the bylaw automatically kicks in with the approval of four municipalities or whether regional council still has discretion to approve or reject it even if a majority of municipalities favor it.
	Theoretically, the bylaw could be adopted even if the region’s three cities oppose it but the four townships approve.
	The latest draft of the bylaw calls for an immediate ban on smoking in 50 per cent of the space of restaurants, moving to a total 100 per cent ban by the year 2000.
	Bars and private facilities would have to set aside 25 per cent of their space for non-smokers, increasing that to 50 per cent by 2000.
	In a sort of pre-emptive strike, Waterloo city council recently turned thumbs down on the most recent version of the bylaw.


Second Opinion - March 4, 1996

Waterloo protects democratic freedom on smoking bylaw



Waterloo city's rejection of a regional smoking bylaw, although unpopular, is explainable. City council realizes first-hand smoke is a health hazard and second-hand (passive) smoke has an infinitesimal risk in close quarters and is not esthetically pleasing.
This is why all Waterloo facilities (city hall, arenas, museums, etc.) are smoke-free. These are facilities we encourage all of the public to use and this is why the policy is restrictive. We should protect the health and rights of all when there is no alternative but to use these facilities.
	However, that is where our jurisdiction ends. We have no political right to ban (or to phase in a ban), to stop completely in any privately owned establishment what is a legal activity.
	Waterloo people have a choice of doughnut shops, restaurants or bars that have the restrictive measures they require. That choice should be the individual's, not the city's or region's.
	As long as smoking is a democratic right, however restricted, a person must be allowed to engage in it, especially in private establishments.
	Still, the most important issue is second-hand smoke itself. Is it really a high risk to non-smokers, or has the entire issue been driven by anti-smoking lobbyists, fuelled by the medical profession and accepted by the media?
	Over the last 30 years, consecutive U.S. surgeon generals have warned first-hand smoke is a health hazard. Not until 1993 was any real statement made about passive smoke and that finding, given to the U.S. congress by the Environmental Protection Agency, essentially states that a non-smoker married to a smoker carries a 1.19 risk factor of lung disease.
	"Epidemiological studies in general are not able realistically to identify any risk factors lower than 1.3. That is, 2.0 is considered weak compared to some other risk factors that we know cause disease," admitted Dr. Eugenia Calle, director of epidemiology at the American Cancer Society in 1994. 
	Comparative risk factors causing lung disorders are car exhaust (1.5), physical inactivity (1.6), green tea (2.7), milk (2.1), pet birds (6.0) and second-hand smoke (1.19).
	Given that, 1.19 doesn't seem very risky, poisonous or deadly. So my public claim that, "the jury is still out on second-hand smoke," is defendable on a political, legal and statistical basis.
	Esthetically, owners of private establishments could help themselves immensely by replacing old ventilation systems with more efficient air-exchange systems, similar to ones found in R-2000 homes. This would ensure that not only second-hand smoke, but dust, dirt and a myriad of other impurities are extracted. Many owners have already committed themselves to this.
	Smoking areas in restaurants and bar/clubs are increasingly smaller. This is democracy at work. Businesses must respond to public demand. This positive move requires no control or suppression from government.
	Business people are afraid, however, of the anti-smoking activists and the snowball effect of bylaws. What will be next - coffee, pork, barbecued foods, sugar or gasoline engines? Where does government authority stop?
	Restrict smoking, yes. Even highly restrict it. But, until all questions are resolved, the answer to a total, region-wide smoking ban in private establishments, should be no. Such a ban would even make it illegal to open up a venue for smokers only.
	It is always someone else who is more irresponsible or unjustified than we are, in regards to public safety and the environment. Most smokers know that they are in the minority (25 per cent) and, in most cases, do not presume their habit is inoffensive. Rightly or wrongly, they carry guilt and embarrassment daily.
	Some Kitchener and Cambridge councillors say the crux is how to create a "level playing field." That is not much of a health concern, but a political manoevre to protect their struggling restaurant/bar businesses against Waterloo businesses that are already more interesting, diversified and successful.
	In the final analysis, the issue boils down to one of choice, not health. Without choice, freedom and the ability to co-exist in spite of dislikes, quirks, idiosyncracies and unpleasantness, there is no democracy.
	Waterloo Region Chairman Ken Seiling stated the region would not force any municipality into adopting a smoking bylaw that it did not want. I applaud his judgement.
	So, is Waterloo really casting its public health to the wind? No. It is, however, allowing people the freedom of choice. If that makes Waterloo the "last great bastion of democracy in the region," as the Record commented derisively, then so be it.
	Craig Hoddle is a Waterloo city councillor.


March 7, 1996

Smoking bylaw holds buts: Region-wide legislation not automatic, even with majority vote

By Philip Jalsevac, Record Staff



A region-wide smoking bylaw will not automatically kick in if a majority of area municipalities support it.
	Getting approval of four out of seven municipalities remains a requirement before Waterloo regional council can pass such a bylaw.
	But that doesn’t mean it has to, says a staff report to regional councillors.
	The region "retains the discretion to pass or not pass a bylaw even if a majority of municipalities are in favor of the proposed bylaw," says the report tabled Wednesday at a meeting of the region’s health and social services committee.
	There has been some speculation that the bylaw could be implemented even if the three cities opposed it, but the four townships were in favor.
	But regional Chairman Ken Seiling said Wednesday he doubts the bylaw would pass under those circumstances.
	While the verdict may not be unanimous, Seiling is hoping a consensus will emerge in the ongoing discussion over the smoking bylaw.
	The public will have its chance to comment on the final draft of the bylaw at a meeting April 3 at 7 p.m. in the regional council chambers on Frederick Street in Kitchener.
	The issue will then be discussed on April 17 by the region’s health and social services committee, which will make a recommendation to council.
	On April 25, regional council will deal with the recommendation and likely vote to circulate the bylaw, amended or otherwise, to the seven area municipalities.
	They will vote to accept or reject it before the issue gets tossed back once more to regional council at an unspecified date for some final resolution of a debate that has gone on for about two years.
	If council passes a bylaw, it will override any other local smoking bylaw, regardless of whether the local bylaw is more or less restrictive.
	As the final draft now stands, smoking would be banned in at least 50 per cent of the space of restaurants in the region, with a total 100 per cent ban taking effect by 2000.
	Bars would have to set aside a minimum of 25 per cent of their space for non-smoking and 50 per cent by 2000.
	The same would apply to private clubs and facilities, bingo and Legion halls and places of amusement.
	In food courts, a total ban would take effect immediately.
	Dr. Ronald Sax, the region's medical officer of health, has faced some criticism for publicly promoting the move towards smoke-free establishments.
	However, the staff report cites the provinces Mandatory Health Programs and Services Guidelines, adopted in 1989.
	That gives the community health department a mandate which stipulates that the department "shall support and encourage regulatory efforts to prevent tobacco use and exposure to second-hand smoke."
	The staff report also notes an Ontario health survey in 1990 found that 78 per cent of Waterloo Region's population, age 12 and over, are non-smokers.


Second Opinion - March 21, 1996

Smoking in public is not a democratic right



Waterloo city council's rejection of the regional smoking bylaw is premature and, in my opinion, as indefensible as encouraging drinking and driving.
Waterloo rejected a smoking bylaw before it was drafted, before it was presented to the regional health and social services committee, before it goes to regional council and before it was sent to municipalities for comment.
	Apparently, Waterloo council has the foresight and wisdom to know the will of the majority of its residents and the final form of the bylaw under consideration, before it has been completed and citizens comment on it.
	Waterloo Coun. Craig Hoddle’s bias comes from his addiction to tobacco. My bias comes from being allergic to second-hand smoke.
	Hoddle says smoking is a democratic right. He is wrong. Democracy is the will of the majority expressed through its elected representatives, with protection of individuals and minorities through human rights categories of speech, religion, opinion, association, race, gender, sexual orientation, age or physical disability. Use of a substance that produces a health hazard is not a rights issue; it is a health issue.
	If one had to choose between breathing clean air, or smoking, as a fundamental democratic right, what reasonable people could choose smoking, unless they were addicted?
	Hoddle came to the last regional tobacco bylaw conimittee meeting on Jan. 31. He argued the same nonsense there as has been swallowed by his pro-smoking council. His submissions are easily overcome where there is the will but the will is weak on Waterloo council due to Hoddle and colleagues with ties to the bar industry.
	What will be the effect on business if we eliminate smoking? According to a study cited by our regional health staff, in New York City where smoking is banned from restaurants with more than 35 seats, non-smokers were dining out more while smokers were dining out less frequently and eating faster. Since non-smokers represent a larger consumer group with the greatest total dollar revenue, smoke-free legislation is likely to have a positive impact on restaurant revenues.
	Statistics show 75 per cent of people in Waterloo Region do not smoke. This is an untapped market for innovative, progressive and health-conscious restaurateurs.
	In his March 4 Second Opinion column, Hoddle purposefully downplays the seriousness of second-hand smoke by calling it "not esthetically pleasing" and limiting the health issue to the increased risk of lung cancer. Esthetics is a philosophy of what is pleasing or beautiful. Hoddle is trying to reduce smoking to an issue of culture or morality rather than health.
	As for statistics on lung cancer, the increased risk is arguably long-term but those statistics are used by Hoddle to hide or overlook the immediate effects of second-hand smoke on people who have asthma, emphysema and other allergies.
	Smoking is toxic. It makes the air difficult to breathe for healthy people and suffocating for people with even minor respiratory problems.
	As stated by regional health staff, smokers can choose to refrain from smoking indoors and smoke outdoors, or they can stop. Non-smokers cannot refrain from breathing.
	Smoking is an addiction attributed to the nicotine in tobacco. Addiction is the state of having yielded to a habit or practice, such that its cessation causes severe trauma.
	Can smokers assess the harm they cause others with second-hand smoke? Have addiction to nicotine and worry about severe trauma caused to a smoker who abstains for even a short period impaired the judgment of health effects on others?
	Many smokers recognize this. Eventually society will acknowledge the immediate and the long-term risks to health posed by second-hand smoke. Through provincial or mununicipal laws we will not permit smokers to assess whether their habit is more important than the health risk to others.
	Smoking is not a democratic right. When will Waterloo council be brave enough to represent the will of the majority?
	Jim Ziegler represents Fairview Ward on Kitchener council and is on regional council.


May 23, 1996

Anti-smoking bylaw moves ahead

By Priti Yelaja, Record Staff



Waterloo Region is one step closer to getting a tough new anti-smoking bylaw that would ban smoking in virtually all public places by the year 2000.
After three years of discussion and consultation, the bylaw was unanimously passed Wednesday by the region’s health and social services committee.
	However, it still has several hurdles to clear. Regional council will consider the bylaw for approval next month. As a final step, the bylaw must then be passed by four of the seven area municipalities.
	The bylaw would bring Waterloo Region in line with other Canadian cities, such as Vancouver and Toronto, which have already taken a hard line against smoking in public places.
	Under the bylaw, food courts in the region would become entirely smoke-free immediately.
	Bars, restaurants, public and private halls, video arcades, pool halls, bingo halls, bowling alleys, and other places of amusement would become completely smoke-free by Jan. 1, 2000.
	Until then, such public places would be required to designate a certain portion of their establishments as non-smoking.
	Restaurants would have to set aside 50 per cent of their seating for non-smokers. Public and private halls, bowling alleys, pool halls, video arcades, and bingo halls would be required to have 25 per cent of their space as non-smoking.
	Bars would not be required immediately to set aside space for non-smokers, but would have to comply with the full smoking ban by 2000.
	Bars are defined under the bylaw as places where alcohol constitutes the majority of sales and the sale of food is incidental.
	Outdoor eating areas would be excluded from the smoking ban.
	Exemptions would be available for special circumstances such as weddings held in private hails, and for those businesses that can show economic hardship because of the bylaw.
	Josie d'Avernas, a member of the Council for a Tobacco Free Waterloo Region, attended Wednesday’s meeting and said the bylaw is long overdue.
	"Three years is long enough to dnnce around this very important issue," she said. "Environmental tobacco smoke is a known carcinogenic. We have standards for things like water safety and smoking should be no different."
	Public opinion in the region appears to favor tougher smoking sanctions. At a public meeting in April to get input on the issue, delegations came forward to voice their concerns.
	Thirty of those groups expressed support for the proposed bylaw, with the majority calling for it to be more restrictive sooner.
	Of the 14 delegations not in agreement with the draft bylaw, 10 were owners of restaurants or pubs. They fear the ban will have severe economic repercussions for their businesses.
	"We're very against it, because our customers love to smoke," said Tina Adlys, co-owner of the Huether Hotel in Waterloo.
	"It’s not right for people to tell us how to run our business. If people don’t like the smoke, they can go somewhere else."
	As tough as it sounds, Waterloo Region’s smoking bylaw lags behind those currently in place in other Canadian cities.
	For example, Vancouver passed a bylaw in April stipulating that all restaurants be totally smoke-free and bars be 30 per cent smoke-free by the end of May.
	Toronto currently requires a minimum 50 per cent smoke-free area in restaurants. All restaUrants in that city must be smoke-free by 1997 and bars by the year 2000.
	Coun. Geoff Lorentz, a member of the health and social services committee, said he and other comittee members have been deluged with calls and letters from the public on the issue.
	Lorentz is angry with the federal government, which he says has abdicated its responsibility for anti-smoking legislation.
	"We’re sitting at the bottom taking heat from people who say we’re shucking our responsibility... while the federal government has shucked their responslbility," Lorentz said.






Wednesday, September 11, 1996

Ottawa urged to deal with smoking issue



Cambridge Coun. Greg Durocher thinks the federal government, not municipalities, should deal with smoking in public places.
	Durocher, the ward councillor for Preston (Ward 2), failed this week to convince city council to withhold support for Waterloo Region's proposed smoking bylaw, which would ban smoking in restaurants and bars by the year 2000.
	He suggested the city, through the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, press the federal government to legislate smoking out of public places.
	"If it’s really the concern that smoking is a health hazard, then don’t pit business against business, one municipality against another municipality."
	Council supported the bylaw. Among the region’s seven municipalities, only Wellesley Township council voted against it. The region sought support from at least four councils.
	Regional council takes its final vote on the issue Thursday.
	Ben Tucci, president of the Cambridge Chamber of Commerce, said the bylaw robs owners of the freedom to choose how they will run their businesses. Smokers will patronize businesses in communities where the rules aren’t so restrictive, he warned.
	The issue is being handled by the wrong level of government, Ward 3 Coun. Karl Kiefer agreed.
	"If the federal government is so intent on helping health care in this country, (it) should shut down the tobacco industry."
	Council sided with the argument that second-hand smoke in bars and restaurants is an intolerable hazard to both customers and employees.


September 13, 1996

Smoking ban passes: Phase-in to start next month

By Christian Aagaard, Record Staff



After three years of debate, the smoke will officially clear from restaurants in Waterloo Region.
	Regional council voted 22-1 Thursday to approve a regionwide smoking bylaw that makes restaurants, bars, amusement centres and community halls smoke-free by 2000.
	Wellesley Township Mayor Frank Friedmann was the lone opponent. North Dumfries Mayor Joe Martens was absent, and Waterloo Coun. Bruce McKenty declined to vote after declaring conflict of interest.
	Businesses will have to start phasing in the bylaw Oct. 1.
	"We as politicians have a duty to the public to protect their health," Kitchener Coun. Mike Wagner said.
	Three years in the making, the bylaw drew criticism from restauranteurs and chambers of commerce, who complained local bars and restaurants will lose business to communities where smoking isn't so strictly controlled.
	Rick Sword, owner operator of the Wellesley Inn, told councillors that 95 per cent of his customers either smoke or come in with smokers.
	"I'm just a little disappointed that, in this day and age, someone is telling me how to run my business and how to look after my customers," Sword said.
	But supporters of the bylaw have argued that non-smokers make up three-quarters of the region's population, and that neither patrons nor hospitality staff should have to accept the health risk of second-hand smoke.
	Councils in Waterloo Region's seven municipalities voted on the bylaw this summer. Only Wellesley Township council objected to the smoking ban, advising the region to allow smoking in restaurants in separate ventilated areas.
	And only two residents addresses council about the bylaw.
	Besides Sword, Waterloo taxpayer Stan Rektor jeered the bylaw as an infringement on individuals' freedom of choice. Residents are being "bylawed to death," he said.
	"I'm getting damned scared about the power Big Brother is starting to focus on the horizon," Rektor said, noting the year for the ban is 2000.
	Rektor, who is not a smoker, said people should be more worried about food additives and automobile exhaust.
	Under the bylaw:
	- Restaurants must set aside at least half their dining space for non-smokers and ban smoking by the year 2000.
	- Bars can carry on business as usual until 2000, when they have to abide by the ban.
	- Amusement centres and halls must designate 25 per cent of seating space for non-smokers, with a total ban in 2000.
	- Bingo halls move to a 50/50 smoker/non-smoker seating split by 2000. Until then, operators must set aside 25 per cent of their seating for non-smokers.
	- People can smoke in taxis as long as they have permission from the driver and other passengers.
	Starting next year, a committee will review issues raised by the bylaw as the region heads toward the smoking ban.


Saturday, November 2, 1996

Timing of smoke ban miffs mall operators

By Bob Burtt, Record staff



The haze of cigarette smoke has lifted at mall food courts in Waterloo Region, but operators are miffed about the way regional officials chose to clear the air.
After debating a non-smoking bylaw for three years, the region served notice to malls and food court operators Thursday afternoon telling them they had until the following morning to comply.
	"It really came as a bit of a surprise and our merchants (food court operators) were upset about the lack of notice. We don’t mind doing it, but we would have liked time to get things together," said Lynn Dowling, marketing director at Fairview Park Mall in Kitchener. Dowling said about 93 per cent of the 332 seats in the food court were already designated as non-smoking and when the orders came, signs were put up on the remaining tables.
	Joe Peladeau, general manager at Conestoga Mall in Waterloo, received his notice at about the same time as Fairvlew Park Mall.
	"We weren’t happy about it. We phoned the region and were advised that they would be understanding about any problems in implementation," he said.
	Petadeau said mall officials stuck hastily made signs up on doors and in the food court to warn smokers that the time to butt out had come.
	"But that’s not the way we would like to have done it. We have more appropriate signs and stickers ordered for next week. For us, it has all been a matter of confusion. We thought we were going to be treated the same as restaurants and it would be phased in in 2001." Under the bylaw, restaurant operators had until Friday to set aside at least 50 per cent of their seating for non-smokers.
	Public and private halls, bowling alleys, pool halls, video arcades and bingo halls have to set aside 25 per cent of space for non-smokers.
	Asked to comment on the process, the regions associate medical officer of health confirmed notice had only been mailed Wednesday.   
	"We were a little bit late on the notice, but we will be tolerant. We would like compliance sooner than later but we allow time for compliance. If after three, four or five weeks nothing happens, that would be different," said Doug Sider.
	Sider said that even though the official notice arrived late, the political process is public and "you’d think that people who were involved would be aware of the change."
	But Peladeau said he had followed the publicity about the bylaw and had researched it himself on several occasions. "The answer kept coming back that it would be the year 2000 just like the restaurants."


Editorials & Letters - Thursday, July 31, 1997

Smoking bylaw is just a joke



	Great, another drum and bugle corps smoke-a-thon.
	I sit indoors for most of the summer protecting my lungs from second-hand smoke at public functions.
	I also protect my hippocampal gyrus and gonads from pesticides sprayed by neighbors who aren’t even around to cut their lawns, but love to have their yards poisoned anyway.
	In the July 29 Record, I saw yet another smoke-filled outdoor extravaganza scheduled for our region.
	I’ve attended four outdoor events on public property parks or stadiums this summer. Every single one was a smoking event. Children and old people were in attendance.
	Why is it that the Region of Waterloo allows smoking on city property, at events where children not only attend, but are the stars of the show?
	The regional smoking by-law is a joke.
	It hasn’t protected me once from second-hand smoke. Dozens of restaurants remain smoke holes, without proper non-smoking sections.
	Children and infants are seated in the smoking areas of restaurants because the owners don’t want to anger their guests.
	Since the regional smoking bylaw has gone into effect, the smoking situation has worsened.
	There must be legal action taken against the municipal government for not enforcing the bylaw and pressure must be mounted to guarantee that, when children are involved, events will be made totally smoke free.
	The least we can do as parents is to bring the smoking house down, to sing out a fresh air and to beat the drum loudly in the name of public health, and our kids. Please join me in demanding that Centennial Stadium be made a smoke-free place for all of us.

Dr. Terry Polevoy
Waterloo