Manitoba Committee Hansard — 25 May 2004 (Social and Economic Development Committee, Sitting 03, 38th Legislature, 2nd Session)

38-2-sed03

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

Second Session - Thirty-Eighth Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba Standing Committee on Social and Economic Development Chairperson Ms. Marilyn Brick Constituency of St. Norbert Vol. LV No. 3 - 6:30 p.m., Tuesday, May 25, 2004 ISSN 1708-6698

MANITOBA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Thirty-Eighth Legislature Member Constituency Political Affiliation AGLUGUB, Cris The Maples N.D.P. ALLAN, Nancy, Hon. St. Vital N.D.P. ALTEMEYER, Rob Wolseley N.D.P. ASHTON, Steve, Hon. Thom pson N.D.P. BJORNSON, Peter, Hon. Gimli N.D.P. BRICK, Marilyn St. Norbert N.D.P. CALDWELL, Drew Brandon East N.D.P. CHOMIAK, Dave, Hon. Kildonan N.D.P. CUMMINGS, Glen Ste. Rose P.C. DERKACH, Leonard Russell P.C. DEWAR, Gregory Selkirk N.D.P. DOER, Gary, Hon. Concordia N.D.P. DRIEDGER, Myrna Charleswood P.C. DYCK, Peter Pembina P.C. EICHLER, Ralph Lakeside P.C.

FAURSCHOU, David Portage la Prairie P.C. GERRARD, Jon, Hon. River Heights Lib. GOERTZEN, Kelvin Steinbach P.C. HAWRANIK, Gerald Lac du Bonnet P.C. HICKES, George, Hon. Point Douglas N.D.P. IRVIN-ROSS, Kerri Fort Garry N.D.P. JENNISSEN, Gerard Flin Flon N.D.P. JHA, Bidhu Radisson N.D.P. KORZENIOWSKI, Bonnie St. James N.D.P. LAMOUREUX, Kevin Inkster Lib. LATHLIN, Oscar, Hon. The Pas N.D.P. LEMIEUX, Ron, Hon. La Verendrye N.D.P. LOEWEN, John Fort Whyte P.C. MACKINTOSH, Gord, Hon. St. Johns N.D.P. MAGUIRE, Larry Arthur-Virden P.C. MALOWAY, Jim Elmwood N.D.P. MARTINDALE, Doug Burrows N.D.P. McGIFFORD, Diane, Hon.

Lord Roberts N.D.P. MELNICK, Christine, Hon Riel N.D.P. VACANT Minto MITCHELSON, Bonnie River East P.C. MURRAY, Stuart Kirkfield Park P.C. NEVAKSHONOFF, Tom Interlake N.D.P. OSWALD, Theresa Seine River N.D.P. PENNER, Jack Emerson P.C. REID, Daryl Transcona N.D.P. REIMER, Jack Southdale P.C. ROBINSON, Eric, Hon. Rupertsland N.D.P. ROCAN, Denis Carman P.C. RONDEAU, Jim, Hon. Assiniboia N.D.P. ROWAT, Leanne Minnedosa P.C. SALE, Tim, Hon. Fort Rouge N.D.P. SANTOS, Conrad Wellington N.D.P. SCHELLENBERG, Harry Rossmere N.D.P. SCHULER, Ron Springfield P.C. SELINGER, Greg, Hon. St. Boniface N.D.P. SMITH, Scott, Hon.

Brandon West N.D.P. STEFANSON, Heather Tuxedo P.C. STRUTHERS, Stan, Hon. Dauphin-Roblin N.D.P. TAILLIEU, Mavis Morris P.C. VACANT Turtle Mountain WOWCHUK, Rosann, Hon. Swan River N.D.P.

95 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Tuesday, May 25, 2004 TIME – 6:30 p.m. LOCATION – Winnipeg, Manitoba CHAIRPERSON – Ms. Marilyn Brick (St. Norbert) VICE-CHAIRPERSON – Mr. Bidhu Jha Radisson) ( ATTENDANCE - 11 – QUORUM - 6 Members of the Committee present: Hon. Messrs. Rondeau, Struthers Ms. Brick, Mr. Dewar, Mrs. Driedger, Messrs. Jha, Loewen, Rocan, Mrs. Rowat, Messrs. Santos, Schellenberg APPEARING: Hon. Jon Gerrard, MLA for River Heights Mr.

Leonard Derkach, MLA for Russell WITNESSES: Bill 21–The Non-Smokers Health Protection Act (Various Acts Amended) Mr. Rob Cunningham, National Cancer Institute of Canada and Canadian Cancer Society, Manitoba Division Mr. Aaron Yanofsky, Manitoba Youth for Clean Air Ms. JoAnn Douglas, Manitoba Lung Association Ms. Vhana Moldowan, Manitoba Lung Association Mr. Jay Duncan, Past President, Manitoba Medical Association Mr. Mervin Toderian, Parkland Regional Health Authority Ms. Deanne Olston, Ri vercrest Motor Hotel Mr. Walter Kuz, Rennie Hotel Ms. Sandra Burt, Univ ersity of Waterloo, Political Science Department Ms.

Heidi Howarth, Trails West Hotel Ms. Edna Milne, Fort Rouge and Imperial Veterans Mr. John Petrinka, Veterans Association Mr. Murray Gibson, Executive Director, Manitoba Tobacco Reduction Alliance Ms. Margaret Bernherdt-Lowdon, Heart and Stroke Foundation of Manitoba Mr. Dhali Dhaliwal, President and Chief Executive Officer, CancerCare Manitoba Mr. Ken Leslie, Alliance for the Prevention of Chronic Disease Ms.Sande Harlos, Winnipeg Regional Health Authority Mr. Joel Kettner, Chief Medical Officer of Health, Province of Manitoba Mr. Jim Baker, Manitoba Hotel Association Mr.

Rob Hilliard, President, Manitoba Federation of Labour Mr.Peter Walker, Manitoba Federation of Labour Ms. Sheila Babaian, Duke of Kent Legion WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS: Ms.Roslyn Cullen, Assiniboine Regional Health Authority Mr.Larry Hogue and Ms. Carmel Olson, Brandon Regional Health Authority Mr. Michael Ferrabee, Canadian Restaurant and Foodservices Association M. Ebbitt for Randy B. Lock, Regional Health Authorities of Manitoba MATTERS UNDER DISCUSSION: Bill 21–The Non-Smokers Health Protection Act (Various Acts Amended) * * * Madam Chairperson: Good evening.

Will the Standing Committee on Social and Economic Development please come to order. Bill 21–The Non-Smokers Health Protection Act (Various Acts Amended) Madam Chairperson: This evening the committee will be considering Bill 21, The Non-Smokers Health Protection Act. We do have presenters

96 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 25, 2004 registered to speak to this bill. It is the custom to hear public presentations before consideration of bills. Is it the will of the committee to hear public presentations on this bill? [Agreed] I will then read the names of the persons who have registered to make presentations this evening: John Petrinka, Veterans Association; Dr.

Jay Duncan, past president, Manitoba Medical Association; Rob Cunningham, National Cancer society and Canadian Cancer Society, Manitoba Division; Murray Gibson, Executive Director, Manitoba Tobacco Reduction Alliance; Margaret Bernherdt-Lowdon, Heart and Stroke Foundation of Manitoba; Doctor Dhaliwal, CancerCare Manitoba; JoAnn Douglas and Vhana Moldowan, Manitoba Lung Association; Ken Leslie, Alliance for Prevention of Chronic Di sease; Dr. Sande Harlos, Winnipeg Regional Health Authority; Dr.

Joel Kettner, Chief Medical Officer of Health; Aaron Yanofsky, Manitoba Youth for Clean Air; Mervin Toderian, Parkland Regional Health Authority; Deanne Olston, Rivercrest Motor Hotel; Jim Baker, Manitoba Hotel Association; Water Kuz, Rennie Hotel; Dr. Sandra Burt, University of Waterloo, Political Science Department; Heidi Howarth, Trails West Hotel; Cameron Oberton, private citizen; Rob Hilliard, president, Manitoba Federation of Labour; Eric Murphy, St. James Legion; Gert Chipka, Henderson Highway Branch Legion 215; Sheila Babaian, Duke of Kent Legion; and Edna Milne, Fort Rouge and Imperial Veterans.

Those are the persons and organizations that have registered so far. If there is anyone else in the audience who would like to register or has not yet registered and would like to make a presentation, would you please register at the back of the room. Just to remind you that 20 copies of your presentation are required. If you require assistance with photocopying, please see the Clerk of the committee. I understand that we do have some out-of-town presenters in attendance th is evening and one indi- vidual who is a teenager. These names are marked with an asterisk on the presenters' list.

Is it the will of the committee to hear from out- of-town presenters and young adults first? [Agreed] I would like to inform the committee that written submissions have been received from the following organizations: Roslyn Cullen, Assiniboine Regional Health Authority; Larry Hogue and Carmel Olson, Brandon Regional Health Authority; Michael Ferrabee, Canadian Restaurant and Foodservices Association; Randy B. Lock, Regional Health Authorities of Manitoba.

Copi es of these briefs have been made for committee members and were distributed at the start of the meeting. * (18:40) Does the committee grant its consent to have these written submissions appear in the committee transcript for this meeting? [Agreed] I would like to inform presenters that in accordance with our rules a time limit of 10 minutes has been allotted for presentations and 5 minutes for questions from committee members. As well, in accordance with our rules if a presenter is not in attendance their name will be dropped to the bottom of the list.

If the presenter is not in attendance when their name is called a second time, their name will be removed from the presenters' list. I would also like to advise all in attendance that, in accordance with our rules, if there are fewer than 20 persons registered to speak at 6:30 the committee may sit past midnight. I would like to advise that as of 6:30 p.m. there were 23 people registered to speak. Therefore, unless unanimous consent of the committee is given the committee must rise at midnight.

With agreement from the NDP and PC caucuses, arrangements have been made for staff from Information Services to be in attendance this evening in order to videotape parts of this meeting for inclusion in A Day in the Life of the House, an educational video produced by the Assembly. If there are any presenters in attendance who do not wish to be videotaped please inform our staff and arrangements will be made to turn off the camera during your presentation.

Just prior to proceeding with public presentations, I would just like to advise members of the public of the process when it comes time for questions from committee members on your presen- tation, that proceedings of our committee meetings are recorded in order to provide a verbatim

May 25, 2004 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 97 transcript. Each time someone wishes to speak, whether it be a member of the committee or a presenter, I have to first say the MLA's name or the presenter's name. This is the signal for the Hansard recorder to turn your mike on and off. Thank you for your patience. We will now proceed with public presentations. Based on the will of the committee, we will proceed with out-of-town presenters. Mr. Rob Cunningham (National Cancer Institute of Canada and the Cana dian Cancer Society, Manitoba Division): Thank you, Madam Chair, and members of the committee.

Madam Chairperson: You may proceed with your presentation, Mr. Cunningham. Thank you. Mr. Cunningham: My name is Rob Cunningham. I work as a lawyer and a senior policy analyst for the Canadian Cancer Society in Ottawa, and I very much appreciate the opportunity to testify before you today. In my testimony, let me begin by praising members of all parties in the Legislature for their non-partisan support and work in moving smoke-free legislation forward province-wide. I am aware of the extensive work, in terms of an all-party committee, that committee's report.

I am also aware of the private member's bill by the member from Carman. I am also aware of the minister introducing the bill and showing leadership in that regard, which is consistent. This is the right thing to do. We have public support in the public, as we do in other provinces, for this legislation. We have knowledge of the health effects of smoking that dates back decades in terms of exposure to second-hand smoke. It was 1986 when the U.S. Surgeon General concluded that exposure to second-hand smoke causes lung cancer in otherwise healthy non- smokers. That was 18 years ago.

The evidence in the subsequent years has accumulated. It is stronger than ever, confirms that conclusion. Second-hand smoke, in terms of exposure, causes heart disease. The warnings have been on Health Canada's package requirements for some years now. There is no debate. We have seen Brandon, Winnipeg, Thompson as examples of municipalities in this province which have adopted 100% smoke-free laws for their communities. I would submit that if they can do it, it is certainly possible for all of Manitoba to have that legislation. It is consistent with developments nationally.

We have Saskatchewan introducing the bill within the last couple of weeks, 100% smoke-free require- ment province-wide for public places, including restaurants and bars. We have regulations already in force since May 1, 2004, in the Northwest Territories and in Nunavut. You cannot smoke in restaurants and bars today in those two territories. We have, with the assistance of committee staff, just a news report from Saturday how the Minister of Health in New Brunswick is going to be introducing the bill imminently to have smoke-free legislation in that province.

In Ontario the Minister of Health has repeatedly committed to introduce a bill this fall, province-wide, 100% smoke-free workplaces and public places, all restaurants and bars, and in all of these cases, no exemptions, no private clubs, no exemptions, no designated smoking rooms. The experience in those communities that have permitted designated smoking rooms has not been good. There has been poor compliance. There has been an unlevel playing field, because small estab- lishments cannot afford the cost of implementation. There is a high cost of enforcement to government, and they do not work.

That is why we have seen municipalities begin to have sunset dates with respect to the designated smoking rooms. That is why we have seen the Premier of Nova Scotia, Doctor Hamm, announce that government's intention to do the same thing because of the problems that have developed. The tobacco industry has opposed, municipally and provincially, efforts to have laws such as the one that you are considering in Bill 21. They have funded opposition. They have given millions of dollars to fund opposition to these laws. I think we should be recognizing that we are on the right track when the tobacco industry is opposed.

Smoking goes down as a result of these laws. I would welcome your questions, Madam Chair, but let me put forward three possible amendments

98 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 25, 2004 for your consideration that would improve a bill that is good, a bill that deserves praise, but there are improvements that I would submit could be made to make the bill better. First of all, there is a proposed provision that would have an exemption for tobacconists. I would recommend that this be deleted. It is not found in other provinces. It is a potential loophole that we should be concerned about. Now, there may only be a small number of tobacconists actually in the province.

I know that in the Winnipeg by-law this exemption is there and has not really led to a problem. But as I read this, there is a potential loophole that could be exploited, because you could have a designated smoking room in a bar suddenly become a tobacconist. You could have a cigarette girl as part of this. You could potentially have a vending machine. Or you could have a little kiosk, a little stand in what would become a designated smoking room that otherwise this bill would not allow, smoking in bars and designated rooms. So to deal with this, one option would be simply to delete the exemption.

That would be the easiest thing administratively. Another option would be to have a grandfather provision, so that it only applies to tobacconists in existence on the date of first reading of the bill. Another option would be to have a sunset clause so that this would apply for two years, and so on. There is no health benefit to this current exemption. It would be easy to delete. We do not see it in any other places in Canada.

As I comment about the national and international trends, let me just mention that in the U.S. there are now five states that have state-wide bans on smoking in restaurants and bars, New York, California, Maine, Connecticut and Delaware, and there are a whole bunch more under consideration. Massachusetts is almost finalized. Internationally, you cannot smoke in a restaurant or bar in Ireland today. As of March 29, 2004, it is smoke-free country-wide. With that country's pub culture, if it can be done in Ireland in rural and urban muni- cipalities, it can be done anywhere in the world.

June 1, Norway goes smoke-free country-wide. December 10, New Zealand goes smoke-free country-wide. Second proposed ame ndment, and that deals with the part of the bill that would give regulatory authority to Cabinet to have exemptions for classes of premises that have a liquor licence. Well, that is of concern because potentially you could drop a nuclear bomb on the bill as a whole from many parts because you could exempt all casinos, you could exempt all bars, you could exempt classes of bars. That exemption is not found in, for example, the Saskatchewan legislation.

If the intent was, for example, to deal with one particular building, Canad Inns Stadium is something that has been discussed in the health community, well then, perhaps that exemption or regulation could be limited to that specific circumstance and not open it up to every- thing. But if it was deleted altogether we certainly would not support permitting continued smoking in indoor places associated with Canad Inns Stadium. * (18:50) Finally, with respect to reserves, there is a provision, and I am familiar with the proceedings in the Legislative Assembly with respect to the proposed

Section 9.4 of the bill. I have looked at this, as a lawyer, and there is no other smoking legislation in Canada that has a similar exemption. There is no other tobacco legislation in Canada province-wide that has a similar exemption. In fact, in British Columbia they have had enforcement action with their provincial smoking laws on reserves, in hospitality facilities and so on. This is a law of general application and would be constitutionally valid for it to apply on First Nation reserves.

There is no exemption in the Saskatchewan bill that was just introduced, and the Minister of Health speaking on behalf of the government, the former Minister of Justice, gave that answer when asked by the media. What would be the options for this committee? I think there are three options. From a health perspective the best option would be to simply delete the proposed 9.4. There are other provisions in there that refer to federal unde rtakings, things within federal jurisdiction. That is not necessary; it is implied. Other laws do not have it but it is implied.

For example, banking or communications, these are regulated by the federal non-smokers health act; that is not necessary. The law is settled in this area. So, for example, there has been a Supreme Court of Canada decision, highway traffic act of a province can apply on a reserve. There is another decision of the Supreme Court of Canada recently with respect to destruction of heritage property, a 2002 decision

May 25, 2004 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 99 from British Columbia. That law could apply on reserve the same way that liquor legislation, gaming legislation, Highway Traffic Act of this province, the Workplace Health and Safety Act of this province apply on reserve. This is an example of workplace health and safety. One option is to delete it. Another option would be to have a transition period because the concern is a law suit. Would there be a law suit challenging the constitutional validity of it?

If you had a transition period of, say, three year s, two years, that would allow enough time for there to be that legal challenge. The bill, otherwise, would go in place as of October 1. A third option would be to delete

section 9.4 and then, through administrative arrangements, decide that the government would not enforce the law on those reserves where the band council asked the government not to. So there would be an opt-out provision. Madam Chairperson: Mr. Cunningham, I just want to tell you that you have 30 seconds remaining. Mr. Cunningham: Thank you. So that third option is not the preferred one from a health perspective, but it would be an improvement to the wording in the current Bill. Those are my remarks. I welcome any questions. Madam Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Cunningham. Mr.

John Loewen (Fort Whyte): Thank you for your presentation. I had indicated I had a question. I think you answered most of it with regard to the issues on reserves, but ju st for clarification, you know of no other situations in Canada where the exemptions have been granted? I know we are cutting it a little short. Do you have any other recommendations in terms of handling that issue at clause 9.4? Mr. Cunningham: There are no similar exemptions in any other provincial laws with respect to smoking or tobacco. Hon.

Jon Gerrard (River Heights): The situation in British Columbia does have designated smoking rooms allowed, but that does apply in First Nations communities. Has there been any, you know, problems with the application or challenges to the law on that basis? Mr. Cunningham: There has been some enforcement action by the provincial government. There have been no legal challenges with respect to the ability of the provincial law to apply on reserve. Hon. Jim Rondeau (Minister responsible for Healthy Living): Thank you very much, Mr. Cunningham. Madam Chairperson: We do have one individual here who is a teenager.

I would like the permission of the committee to hear from him. [Agreed] Aaron Yanofsky, from the Manitoba Youth for Clean Air. Is Aaron Yanofsky here? Thank you very much for appearing before the committee, Mr. Yanofsky. The clerks will distribute your presentation. Mr. Yano fsky, please feel free to begin your presentation at the mike. Thank you for appearing before us. Feel free to start. Mr. Aaron Yanofsky (Man itoba Youth for Clean Air): Good evening, committee members. My name is Aaron Yanofsky. I am 15 years old. I am a Grade 9 student at Sisler High School.

Today I am here on behalf of MYCA, Manitoba Youth for Clean Air, a youth advocacy group with over 3000 young people ages 6 to 17 and their families who strongly support protecting all Manitobans, kids and adults alike, from tobacco addiction and exposure to second-hand smoke. MYCA strongly advocat es for a 100% smoke- free environment in all indoor and outdoor public places in Winnipeg and Manitoba. Today MYCA strongly supports Bill 21 , The Non-Smokers Health Protection Act, and a complete province-wide smoking ban.

With a total smoking ban throughout all of Manitoba coming in October, all Manitobans and visitors, young and old alike, will soon be able to participate in all hobbies and activities that they enjoy without having to breathe in the dangerous second-hand smoke and wheeze, cough and/or feel ill.

100 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 25, 2004 MYCA is very concerned about the unhealthy messages and dangerous effects of smoking and second-hand smoke, especially on children and their families in Manitoba in all indoor and enclosed public places and also on outdoor public grounds of schools, day cares, hospitals, sporting facilities, stadiums and community centres. MYCA also believes that people should not have to smell and walk through clouds of second-hand smoke to enter and exit public places.

Not smoking outdoors right in front of entranceways and doorways in public places will prevent the drifting of smoke into the faces of pe ople inside the doorways. Families and kids sometimes have to smell and walk through drifting cigarette smoke in the inside of entranceways and hallways because of people smoking outside and right next to the doorways of important public places such as hospitals and schools. This is not healthy or right and is sending a terrible example and message to kids.

Restricting smoking on hospital, school, day care and stadium sporting grounds will help a lot in the denormalization and prevention of youth smoking behaviour. Also, outdoor public places where crowds of people ga ther in close proximity and especially where children and families are permitted to be should ban smoking there too, because this is, first and foremost, unhealthy, and, secondly, what kind of positive, healthy lifestyle message are we sending to our young people?

CanWest Global Park and the Winnipeg Goldeyes, for example, do a wonderful job at promoting sports, wellness and examples of a positive, healthy lifestyle behaviour. Their smoke-free, outdoor ballpark sends a very powerful anti-smoking message, especially to all children. * (19:00) "Tobacco-free sports. Play it clean. No ands, ifs or butts." MYCA believes that Bill 21 is critical in protecting Manitobans from second-hand smoke and denormalizing tobacco use and helping to promote smoke-free lifestyles encouraging smokers to quit.

Bill 21 will guarantee a smoke-free environment for the health and safety of all young and adult cus- tomers and workers in all towns and cities in Manitoba. The exciting fact is that Manitoba is soon going to be the first province in all of Canada to be smoke- free in all indoor and enclos ed public places. Way to go. We are taking the necessary lead in this very important public health issue and setting the healthiest of examples that no other province has ever done before.

Manitoba will be No. 1 in protecting its citizens, friends and visitors from the dangerous and harmful effects of second-hand, environmental tobacco smoke in enclosed and indoor public places. Way to go, committee members and the Province of Manitoba for making the obvious, healthiest decision in banning second-hand smoke in all workplaces and enclosed public places throughout Manitoba. After all, it is only the health and safety of Manitobans we are talking about. Having a level and safe playing field for all Manitobans is a no-brainer and certainly the right thing to do.

We will be taking the lead in Canada to protect our citizens, workers, visitors and customers from the dangerous effects of second-hand smoke. Heather Crowe was a worker who never smoked a cigarette in her life. However, as you all know, she now suffers from terminal lung cancer from inhaling the second-hand smoke in her workplace. Bill 21 will indeed prevent other future tragedies such as this one. A total provincial smoking ban in October is a great reason for everyone to celebrate. Thank you and have a nice evening. Madam Chairperson: Thank you very much for your presentation. The committee thanks you.

I know it is hard to come in front of a group of people like this. You did an excellent job. Are there questions for the presenter? Mr. Denis Rocan (Carman): Mr. Yanofsky, your enthusiasm is second to none. I appreciate you taking the time, along with your group of individuals, to come and make this presentation here this evening. You are not the first young people to come and support this piece of legislation. There have been several others before you that have taken the time also to come and make a presentation.

Yours is extremely valuable because you touch on a few other places where you believe we should ban smoking such as doorways, entranceways to public places. You say, right at doorways. Would you be recom- mending something like 5 metres, 10 metres, 15 metres from a door?

May 25, 2004 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 101 Floor Comment: Yes. Like the other day, I was– Madam Chairperson: Just a moment, we just have to recognize you first. Mr. Yanofsky, you can answer the question. Mr. Yanofsky: The other day I was at school and it was snowing. Everyone was huddled in underneath the sheltered area. There were kids my age that were smoking. That is unaccepta ble. There are a whole bunch of kids huddled up together and there are people smoking, affecting the lives of 20 or 30 other students. That is not fair, is it? Mr.

Rocan: On that same topic, would you, sir, agree with my granddaughter who tells me when she is out playing soccer she can actually smell the smoke coming from the sidelines of other parents who are smoking while their little children are playing? Mr. Yanofsky: Yes. I play baseball too for the Triple A Pirates and yes, same thing. I can smell the cigarette smoke from the plate when all the crowd is behind me. A 15 to 20 metre designated area from all doorways and sporting facilities would be another great step. Mr. Rocan: Your slogan that you have used in your presentation, sir.

I will tell you right here and now that this slogan, you will probably hear an awful lot more of it, "Tobacco-free sports–play it clean! No ands, ifs or butts!" Is that something you sat up all night thinking about? Mr. Yanofsky: Not really. Mr. Rocan: Again, your enthusiasm, sir, and if you were fortunate enough to have the opportunity to stay a little bit longer here this evening you will hear, if you will use, I will coin the terminology, the other side of the coin because there will be several other organizations or individuals making the complete, opposite argument that you are making. Madam Chairperson: Mr.

Yanofsky, did you want to respond? Mr. Yanofsky: Yes. It is the healthy thing to do. It is not healthy, so why should it be permitted. Mr. Gerrard: Thanks for your presentation, Aaron. One of the things that we have all been concerned about for a long while is helping to provide an atmosphere where young people do not start smoking and one of the measures that you mentioned was making sure that sports fields are clear.

Maybe a comment in the context of how this bill and the additional measures you have talked about would make sure or help to provide a continuing message to young people that it is not a good thing to be smoking. Mr. Yanofsky: Well, for young kids growing up now, since this Bill 21 is going to be coming into place people will not grow up with having people smoking right next to them so it will not be in their mind. So that is going to denormalize the habit of smoking and will, eventually, hopefully, prevent many young youth and minors from starting. Mrs.

Myrna Driedger (Charleswood): Aaron, you have been here before, speaking before a committee. You have grown a lot since the last time you were here. Why are you so passionate and committed to this issue? What makes you want to make a difference in this issue and, you know, come before a committee, giving up your own evening time? Why are you so passionate about this? Mr. Yanofsky: Well, in the past I have had family members who have passed away because of smoking and its harmful effects. I am also allergic and so is my family.

So it is just something that I feel passionate about, to really strike and make sure not. Thanks. Mr. Rondeau: Thank you very much, Mr. Yanofsky. I have to congratulate you for taking the time and effort to get involved in democracy. You have to care about what you want in democracy and I have to commend you for taking the time and effort to get involved. Madam Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Yanofsky. With the will of the committee, the other presentation we have from a group of young adults is JoAnn Douglas and Vhana Moldowan from the Manitoba Lung Association. If we could just reco gnize who is speaking. Ms.

JoAnn Douglas (Manitoba Lung Association): Yes. I am JoAnn Douglas from the Manitoba Lung Association, and Vhana will introduce herself. If you can stop me at eight and a half minutes, we are sharing this presentation.

102 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 25, 2004 Madam Chairperson: Stop you at eight and a half minutes? Ms. Douglas: Yes. Madam Chairperson: Yes. I can do that. Thank you. Ms. Douglas: I feel like I am cheating getting in here, but I am from out of town. Madam Chairperson: Thank you very much. You can proceed. * (19:10) Ms. Douglas: Okay, thank you. On behalf of the Lung Association, I would like to speak in favour of Bill 21. I am sure that is no surprise. The Lung Association is a non-profit health organization and a leader in respiratory care.

We represent hundreds of volunteers and 25 000 donors in this province who support our work. Second-hand smoke is by far the most dangerous air pollutant Manitobans are routinely exposed to. I think that is something we all need a reminder of. We tend to have grown up with smoke all around us and start to think that it is an innocuous substance, but just to remind you, a burning cigarette is like a little toxic waste dump on fire emitting 4000 chemicals, at least 50 of which cause cancer in humans; 30 are considered mutagens, a word that my kids like.

Those are chemicals that have the ability to actually change human cell structure. In Ontario workplace laws, there are 23 chemicals listed that empl oyees cannot be exposed to. Strangely enough, 17 of those 23 chemicals also are in tobacco smoke. I will just give one example. It is a substance called 2-aminoaphtalene. It is present in tobacco smoke, causes cancer, no safe exposure limits, so a little bit of it is not okay. Absorption occurs through inhalation and through the skin. Because it causes cancer, industrial use of this chemical is restricted.

Ontario also lists 11 chemicals that require special precautions, such as wearing a respirator when using them. Six of these also happen to be in tobacco smoke. Again, one that you may have heard of, benzene, is confirmed to cause cancer and can produce chromosomal aberrations in humans. In other words, if you worked in a factory, you would be protected from these substances. If you happen to work in an office or you are a child who goes to an arena or a social activity, tough luck. You are fair game for these chemicals.

I am sure that if someone came in this room right now and said that they were going to release a chemical cocktail in the air, and "don't worry folks, DDT, arsenic, benzene, carbon monoxide, it may irritate your system a little bit, but don't worry," I bet we would all flee from the room. We, certainly, would not say, "Let's stay in here for seven and a half hours and inhale it and let's go get our kids so they can inhale it too." So I think we need to realize how serious second-hand smoke is. It is not just a harmless substance.

No one, in order to earn a living, should have to unwittingly or unwillingly be exposed to those chemicals. As you know, we currently have a situation in Manitoba where urban Manitobans are protected because of by-laws in Brandon and Winnipeg. I am sure the government would agree that one's health should not be unfairly compromised because one lives in a small town rather than a city. Because I am from Brandon, I am speaking for people in some of the smaller centres, Brandon excluded.

Bill 21 will protect the health of all Manitobans and will ensure that people living outside of Brandon, Winnipeg and soon Thompson will have equal protection. I know even for myself, living in Brandon, many of you living and working in Winnipeg, when you are not in your constituencies you do tend to forget how it used to be, how smoke used to surround you everywhere you went. I would just like to remind you that at the Lung Association I get calls every day from people who work in small towns and are exposed to smoke. These people are scared. They are worried about their health. They are very concerned.

You may think, first thing is, well, go get another job. In a lot of small towns there are not a lot of other employment opportunities. A lot of these people are young. They do not have a big voice. They are non- unionized, lower-paying jobs. They just do not have the options that you may think that they do. So to

May 25, 2004 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 103 them earning a living means inhaling cancer-causing chemicals, something I do not think is fair. In my written presentation to you, I talk a little bit about economic concerns, but I am going to leave that to other people. I would just like to quote something that the Saskatchewan Health Minister said: "Becoming a smoke-free province is an important public health step and not an attack on businesses or communities. It is an attack on preventable death and disease." Mr.

Cunningham very thoroughly covered other jurisdictions, so I will skip that in my presentation, just to say that Manitoba has no reason to delay passage of Bill 21. It is now or later, but if it is later, please consider how many people will be exposed, will get sick and may possibly die in that lapse of time if action is not taken. Since I am from Brandon, I would just like to share the experience of our by-law. It is 21 months old now, so getting past toddler stage, that we have had this by-law, 100 percent smoke-free in workplaces and public places.

I would just like to let you know that, despite what you may hear from a few people, the by-law is meeting with great satisfaction from the people of Brandon.

Now, this may seem weird to you if you are from the city, but in a small city like Brandon they recognize our faces as bein g involved in the by-law and, truly, I know this is anecdotal, not scientific, but every time I go out, whether it is to the grocery store, to something with my kids, I get somebody coming up who I do not know, who says, "thanks, we love that by-law; it sure is great; gee, it is horrible when w e h a v e t o g o t o a s m a l l t o w n n o w a n d g o t o a restaurant." People are still talking about how happy they are.

Sure, we have had some restaurant closures in Brandon, no proof that they are by-law related. On the same hand, we have had openings, everything from fast foods to fine dining, that seem to be doing fine. On a very positive note, one of the hotel owners in Winnipeg who very publicly opposed the Winnipeg by-law is building a 13-storey hotel in Brandon complete with a restaurant, huge lounge and huge bar. It is a bad business move if you think the town is going under due to a by-law.

In Saskatchewan, because of public pressure, several towns and cities have skipped ahead because they felt the province was lagging on the issue. You have five communities in Saskatchewan, the same as we have two in Manitoba, and I do not want you to think that I am trying to say, let us just wait and have each town do it bit by bit. What I am saying is, please pass this for the province and get past this little patchwork quilt that we have in the province.

It is really unfair; if you live in one community, you are safe; you live 20 miles down the road, you are a potential victim of cancer, heart disease or lung disease. I do not think anybody wants to see that kind of unfair, inequitable system in our province. Vhana will talk more about youth, but the Province has recently put a lot of funds into discouraging youth smoking.

We have had media campaigns which have been great; effective enforcement which is working; the minister's Youth Advisory Committee; school-based programs are in development and we are involved with that; and at the Lung Association, we have been running the Not On Tobacco quit-smoking program, with many thanks to Manitoba Health for funding that. Bill 21, although its main thing will be to protect the public, this is also going to have a spin-off that it will enhance and strengthen your other programs that you are doing.

An expert that we rely on a lot through the guru of smoking cessation in Canada, Doctor McDonald from the University of Waterloo says that no-smoking legislation may save the lives of more smokers than anything else we can do. In conclusion, Bill 21 will protect the health of all the citizens of the province regardless of where they work or live. I would just like to thank you very much for your work to date and urge you to move forward with Bill 21. It is probably the opportunity to pass the most important health legislation of your political careers and save lives. Thanks, and I will pass on to my partner here.

Ms. Vhana Moldowan (Manitoba Lung Association): I have my written– Madam Chairperson: They will distribute it. Please proceed with your presentation. Ms. Moldowan: My name is Vhana Moldowan. I am a Senior 4 student from Stonewall, a community just north of Winnipeg. I became interested in

104 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 25, 2004 tobacco issues about two years ago when I was trained for the Lungs Are For Life program and began giving presentations to Grade 4 to 6 students in my area, hoping to help prevent smoking and spread awareness in the future generation. I also presented to the all-party task force when they came around. I am a member of the Youth Advisory Council for Manitoba, and I am here again to say what a huge accomplishment this will be for Manitoba. To me, smoking is a choice. You do not have to smoke.

You choose whether or not to participate in this lethal but legal activity. Second-hand smoke, on the other hand, is not optional. If it is in the room then you are breathing it in. Regardless of ventilation or open windows, you are inhaling 4000-plus chemicals. This is not right. Unfortunately, I do not live in Winnipeg or Brandon, so I do not have smoke-free buildings in m y a r e a . W h e n g o i n g o u t i n m y t o w n m y r i g h t t o breathe in clean air is taken away almost anywhere I go. At some restaurants the tables from the non- smoking

section are separated by only a table from the smoking section. Smoke obviously does not stop at this imaginary line, so you are affected no matter where you sit. Children in these restaurants are forced to inhale it, not being able to remove themselves from the situation. In our local bar, the air is so thick from smoke, not only from local residents but from people from Winnipeg venturing out to enjoy smoking indoors and adding to our air pollution. It is nice to go to a bar or restaurant in Winnipeg and not be forced to breathe in the result of someone else's addicting habit.

Now, I understand that cigarettes are addicting and that it is hard to quit and that maybe some people did not know the effects when they started or were pressured into it, but some of us have made healthy decisions and decided to stay away from it. Madam Chairperson: Ms. Moldowan, you have 30 seconds left. Ms. Moldowan: I do not want to acquire any disease related to smoking, especially after not having smoked a single cigarette in my life.

Brandon, Winnipeg have set a great example, and it is just a matter of time until our communities will have to follow suit, decrease our air pollution, and increase our overall health. Thank you. Madam Chairperson: Thank you. Are there questions for the presenters? Mrs. Driedger: I guess one of my questions would be related to youth smoking, and would ask if you have any suggestions as to how we can move forward in a more effective way so young people would stop, or not start in the first place, I guess. * (19:20) Ms.

Moldowan : The Lungs Are For Life program, which I teach to Grades 4 to 6 students, I think that is an amazing program, and I know that every single time you go to a classroom they are just willing to learn, and there are a couple of different sessions that go with it, so every time you go back they tell you m o r e s t o r i e s . T h e y t e l l y o u t h a t t h e y w e n t h o m e t o their parents, told them to quit. They talk to their older brothers, they see kids on the street and they tell them bad facts.

I think just prevention is with education to little kids is definitely a huge step in the right direction. Mrs. Driedger: Has there been any research, any follow-up research with those students in later years to see if that has stayed as effective as they become teenagers and older teenagers? Ms. Douglas: Unfortunately, we have not had funds available to do that, so basically our evaluation right now is how has the teacher felt about the classroom and what response has she got from the kids at this point. So anything we could tell you would probably be anecdotal. Mr.

Rondeau: I would like to thank you very, very, much. You guys did very well, and thank you for your work with younger kids to get them to stop smoking. Madam Chairperson: Thank you very much. We will now return to our out-of-town presenters' list. Dr. Jay Duncan, past president of the Manitoba Medical Association. Doct or Duncan, you have a presentation for us? Please proceed. Mr. Jay Duncan (Past President, Manitoba Medical Association): Thank you for the oppor-

May 25, 2004 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 105 tunity to be here tonight. It was a quick drive in from Brandon, but it was easier than the last time I drove in which was just before th e roads closed a couple of weeks ago. I am pleased to be here to present the views of the Manitoba Medical Association in support of Bill 21, The Non-Smokers Health Protection Act.

Clearly, the majority of Manitobans who believe compromise is not an option when it comes to health protection were heard and understood as a result of the consensus obtained by the all-party task force during its hearings throughout the province last year. Things have definitely moved in the right direction and we applaud the political will and leadership that have brought us to this stage.

That all indoor public places across Manitoba and Canada will one day be smoke-free I believe is inevitable, for scientific and expert panels throughout the world are very clear and consistent as well as unanimous, that there is no safe level of environ- mental tobacco smoke, and involuntary exposure should be eliminated. The issue of protecting the worker from ETS exposure, however, continues to be a lively public debate.

But even worker organizations and employer groups who have been reluctant to enter this debate are now publicly coming to the conclusion that there need to be controls which apply to all workplaces, i.e., a level playing field. The issue of fairness to the worker, business, and patron alike can only be achieved if the same rules apply to all workplaces across Manitoba. A total ban on smoking in all workplaces has been endorsed by the Canadian Auto Workers union, as well as the City of Winnipeg Labour Council, and the Manitoba Federation of Labour.

The public in Manitoba and elsewhere were strongly supportive of workplace smoking bans. In 1999 a survey of 904 Manitobans found that 80 percent felt that rest aurant and bar workers deserved to be protected from second-hand smoke. In Victoria, B.C., 81.4 percent support the total ban on indoor smoking. My hometown of Brandon reviewed its complete ban on smoking in public places last year. This by-law, by the way, is probably one of the best, if not the best, in Canada, for it covers not only all bars and restaurants but also outdoor patios as well. I think it is something we can be proud to have achieved.

Brandon City Council asked for written comments on the by-law and received 301 sub- missions; 89 percent of those who responded wanted the by-law left as it was. The City of Winnipeg has had its complete indoor ban in place since September 1, 2003. I think it is clear the sky has not fallen and that the vast majority of the population has adjusted to this new environment and are expressing a lot of pleasure about it. The methods for controlling exposure are well understood, feasible and very simple. The proposed Bill 21 would ensure that most workplaces are smoke-free. We strongly support this.

However, we would like to express our concern about the exposure of Canad Inns Stadium's employees and the public to the environmental tobacco smoke in the areas underneath the stands. The policy of allowing unrestricted smoking in these areas is not consistent with good health or good public policy. In the view of the MMA, the areas of the Canad Inns Stadium underneath the stands are enclosed areas and therefore the ban should apply to these areas. We did contact other CFL stadiums throughout the country. Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton, Regina, Hamilton, Ottawa and Toronto do not permit smoking under the stands.

Winnipeg and Montréal are the only two cities that permit this practice. It would seem to us that a very straightforward solution is available to the stadium. Smoking could be permitted in a fenced-in outdoor area at the south end of the stadium. A similar arrangement is apparently working fairly well at CanWest Global Park. In discussions with the Honourable Jim Rondeau, the Minister of Healthy Living, we asked for his assurance that the law would be enforced at the stadium. He did encourage us to contact and meet with Winnipeg Enterprises to discuss their intentions regarding compliance with the law.

I am advised that staff did speak with Winnipeg Enterprises as late as this morning. I am quoting what I have been advised, "The Province is also looking into all areas in the stadium, and we will, of course, abide by their decision." So I think they are prepared to respect the law, as I find in our own city almost everybody is respecting the law.

106 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 25, 2004 The Manitoba Medical Association urges you to do the right thing and in sist that public spaces underneath the stands be smoke-free, and, as clearly stated by Winnipeg Enterprises and the Winnipeg football club, they will abide by that decision. Another area of concern for the MMA is the potential First Nations casino exemption. We believe it essential that any law that is brought forward to treat Aboriginal communities should do so in the same manner as non-Aboriginal communities.

Any proposed law must protect the ceremonial and spiritual use of tobacco in Aboriginal cultures, but it is quite obvious that the tobacco industry has long ago misused and abused whatever element that perhaps first brought them to start distributing tobacco products to the vast majority of Canadians and in fact the world population. A simple clause, it is our understanding, can be inserted into the provincial casino rules and regulations which would eliminate the unlevel playing field among casinos across the province.

We applaud the efforts of the members of the task force committee and the tenacity of the Minister of Healthy Living in introducing Bill 21 to protect and improve the health of all Manitobans. As a long- time proponent of such legislation, the MMA is very delighted and proud to see Manitoba poised as a national leader in this regard. I certainly believe this could well be the most important health care milestone in a generation. I invite your questions. Madam Chairperson: Thank you very much, Mr. Duncan. Mr. Gerrard: Just a clarification.

I know there are a lot more than casinos in First Nations communities, restaurants, and so on, and workplaces. Your presen- tation seems to suggest that what you are asking for is exactly the same in First Nations communities as other communities. Is that correct? Mr. Duncan: Certainly, I think we have to discourage smoking in all areas. We need to get the environmental tobacco smoke legislation in all areas of Manitoba and Canada. The problem I have is I am not a lawyer and I have already been advised there are some jurisdictional issues.

However, where there is not a jurisdictional issue, I would encourage you to act and lead. We, through the Canadian Medical Association, are trying to encourage the federal government to work towards this. We have contacted Aboriginal community leaders and, certainly, have received back some positive support. We know, from the standpoint of percentages, there are more people smoking on reserves and they have a greater health burden than the average Manitoban that is off of reserve. We think that is a problem and we certainly should not set up a law that encourages that to continue to be the case. Mr.

Gerrard: You said you had contacted some Aboriginal leaders, and I presume there are a fair number of Aboriginal physicians within the MMA. What are their views with regard to this legislation and what should happen in terms of First Nations communities? * (19:30) Mr. Duncan: We do have an Aboriginal committee that is under the board of the MMA. On that is Dr. Barry Lavallee, who is the chair. He is an Aboriginal Canadian. His views, obviously I cannot speak for him except in talking with him in the past, he has said that he is certainly in favour of this type of legislation.

He feels that there is a great challenge, but great challenges are something that good laws and great leaders need to accept and work toward changing. I would not be afraid of the concern that you may alienate people within the Aboriginal com- munities by pointing out that the tobacco industry has corrupted the use of tobacco. It has addicted and poisoned millions of people worldwide and it is time for that to end. It ends with intelligent and well- thought-out public health policy. What you are doing here is all part of it. Mrs. Driedger: Mr.

Duncan, I was made aware of a study that came out, It is a two-and-a-half-year study of Canadian First Nations and Inuit. It is the first conducted by and for Aboriginals. According to the people reporting on it, they said it produced some startling information about the health of Aboriginals. A synopsis said that widespread smoking among First Nations people is going to lead to an explosive growth in lung cancer and other health problems if nothing is done about it. One of the findings was also that there is rapidly rising smoking among Aboriginal people. One of the researchers charac-

May 25, 2004 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 107 terized it as an epidemic of huge proportions and said that if it is left untreated, it will lead to an epidemic of lung cancer and other associated conditions. Is this something that the MMA is following, is encouraging the CMA to address, is looking at the scientific research as it relates to this, and moving forward with that information to Health Canada, to see where this could go? Mr. Duncan: I have heard similar things. I have heard up to 70 percent on some Aboriginal lands of people who are smoking. Th ere are so many reasons why people start smoking.

The challenge is once you start, it is extremely difficult to quit, but healthy public policy helps people quit. I heard that in my own practice. I did not lose many people from taking the stand I took in Brandon among my patients, many of whom still smoke. They respected what I was doing and also understood that I was actually trying to help them. I had one patient describe that he used to smoke every coffee break when he was out of town.

He got to the point where even though he could smoke out of town in some of the smaller places, he was forgetting his cigarettes, just because he was changing his habits and he was smoking less. This is what this type of policy does. It drives home the point that although you still see it in the movies as a socially acceptable thing, it is a very deadly and unsociable thing to do. But once the tobacco industry has hooked you, you are left dealing with it.

If we do not change, if the data is correct, if we cannot help Aboriginal communities change the direction, then there is going to be some serious, serious health problems related to tobacco that perhaps we are not seeing yet. Mr. Rondeau: I would like to thank you very, very much for your presentation and your continued advocacy. I really appreciated it when you met with me and the communications that your organizations and you have had over the life of the bill. Mr. Rocan: Thank you very much, Doctor Duncan, for making your presentation on behalf of the Manitoba Medical Association.

I am pleased that you were able to make this presentation tonight. It is unfortunate that Dr. Mark Taylor, who happens to be on call, could not be here this evening, because he has attempted to participate in all of our meetings. He and Nicola have done an admirable job of getting the public aware of the dilemma that was facing certain individuals. Your organization is to be congratulated for bringing Heather Crowe and giving us that wonder- ful opportunity to meet with this fine person to explain to us the dilemma of contacting second-hand smoke.

My question to you, and you touched on it a second ago, I guess I could have asked, are you an orthodontist or a psychologist, because of the doctor in front of you. I am assuming now that you are a general practitioner and therefore you are probably more than qualified to tell me whether or not individuals from the First Nations, if the mak-eup of their bodies is any different than mine, and, if they are, what is it that they have that gives them the luxury of not contacting cancer with regard to smoking? Madam Chairperson: Doctor Duncan, you have about 30 seconds to answer, so please proceed. Mr.

Duncan: There are a couple questions there, but I do not think fundamentally there is a large difference between Aboriginal human beings and anyone else. Their risk of developing cancer, COPD and all the other smoking-related diseases is as significant as mine or yours. Madam Chairperson: Thank you very much for your presentation. We appreciate it. Our next presenter tonight is Mervin Toderian from Parkland Regional Health Authority. Thank you very much, Mr. Toderian. Please proceed with your presentation. Mr. Mervin Toderian (Par kland Regional Health Authority): My name is Merv Toderian.

I am the board chair of the Parkland Regional Health Authority. First, I commend the government for recognizing that second-hand smoke is a very real health issue. It is important to ground our discussion in the facts about second-hand smoke and its effect on the health of Manitobans. Tobacco is the leading cause of preventable disease and death in Manitoba. It has been clearly established that tobacco smoke from any source causes cancer, heart disease and respiratory illnesses.

108 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 25, 2004 In children it causes sudden-death syndrome, bron- chitis, pneumonia, middle-ear disease and asthma flare-ups. Researchers have also made links between second-hand smoke and other illnesses such as stroke, various kinds of cancer and even behavioural problems in children. Health Canada estimates that at least a thousand Canadians die each year from second-hand-smoke- related lung cancer and heart disease alone. The evidence is clear. Second-hand smoke in workplaces in public places is a threat to the health of Manitobans.

The two populations most at risk from second-hand smoke are children and workers in bars and restaurants. Heather Crowe helped us to put a face to the statistic that restaurant and bar workers are 50 percent more likely to develop lung cancer than the general public, but we know that there is no safe level of exposure to tobacco smoke. If we are to protect the health of Manitobans, we need to eliminate all involuntary exposure to second-hand smoke. In my region, Parkland, we have high rates of exposure to second-hand smoke.

Thirty-eight percent of non-smokers in Parkland are regularly exposed in their workplace or in public places, in addition to those who are current smokers. Is this exposure affecting the health of the Parkland residents? Our rate of respiratory illness is among the highest in the province, at 16.3 percent. Parkland also has the highest crude rates of heart attack and stroke in the province, with 200 of our residents affected each and every y ear.

Although we are not able to determine what portion of these illnesses related directly to tobacco, we can be sure that smoking and second-hand smoke exposure are among the factors affecting our respiratory and cardiovascular health. As the Parkland RHA, we have taken some steps to reduce the harmful effects of tobacco use to our residents. Our own facilities are smoke-free. Our programs and services promote smoking prevention and cessation, as well as encouraging protection from second-hand smoke.

We partner with community groups throughout the region to educate people about the hazards of smoking and second- hand smoke, advocate for healthy public policy, and support those businesses and organizations that have voluntarily made their buildings smoke-free. We have done what we can, but more is needed. Parkland residents and other rural people need the protection from second-hand smoke that Bill 21 will offer. The municipal by-law option has been effective in some places, but in rural areas we have not been able to achieve the results that Brandon and Winnipeg have seen.

In our meetings with municipal councils throughout the region, we have been discussing the issue of second-hand smoke since 1997, encouraging councils to develop policy on smoking in public places and workplaces. Many councils have eliminated second-hand smoke from municipally owned buildings, including several recreation centres and other public buildings. When Brandon and Winnipeg brought in their by-law, the discussion echoed throughout our region. Rural people are largely supportive of the smoke-free legislation.

We heard this loud and clear in the Parkland, but we heard equa lly loud and clear that our municipal governments need support at the provincial level. In rural communities, where the politics are personal, the cost of controversy is very high. In one of our communities a proposed by-law failed, not because the people did not support it, but because the debate became so divisive in the community.

Our communities need legislation that applies equally to all, not a patchwork of inconsistent by-laws that creates confusion for the public, businesses and officials alike, and that value the health of one group of people more highly than another. Provincial legislation is the right way to protect Manitobans from second-hand smoke, therefore we thank the government for doing the right thing in introducing this bill.

We appreciate the all-party process that has prevented partisan division among one of the most important actions that our political leaders have taken to protect the health and the future of Manitobans. We hope to see this bill passed quickly into law, and in effect in our communities in October as planned. This is the right step toward protecting all Manitobans from the harmful effects of second-hand smoke. Thank you. * (19:40) Madam Chairperson: Thank you very much, Mr. Toderian. Do the committee members have questions?

May 25, 2004 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 109 Mr. Rondeau: Thank you very much for your presentation, and the time it took to get here. Mr. Loewen: Just a quick question, would you see any reason to provide an exemption for reserves in your area? Mr. Toderian: I do not see it. In fact, we have the highest rate of respiratory illness among children in Manitoba, also the longest stay associated with respiratory illness, and we have a fairly high Aboriginal population in our region. I think the health effects are fairly pr evalent, and I do not see any reason for an exception.

Madam Chairperson: Thank you very much, Mr. Toderian. Deanne Olston from Ri vercrest Motor Hotel. Thank you very much; we will have copies of your presentation distributed. You can proceed, Ms. Olston. Ms. Deanne Olston (Rivercrest Motor Hotel): Okay. Good evening. My name is Deanne Olston, and I am representing myself, my family, 224 of our customers, and the 26 employees of the Rivercrest hotel. I want to show you what Bill 21 means to our business, how it is going to affect our staff, and suggest an alternative.

From Thursday night of last week to Sunday morning, we offered a small questionnaire to all our beverage room customers, smokers and non- smokers, regarding the upcoming province-wide smoking ban, also known as Bill 21. The response was awesome. We had hoped to get about 50 or 60 replies to include in this evening's presentation. On Thursday night, in seven hours, we had over 90. People began requesting to fill them out, and some made a special trip to the bar to fill one out. One couple even took theirs home to photocopy so they could add in a bigger comment than the space allotted.

We collected 224 completed questionnaires in less than three full business days. Our local smokers and non-smokers want their say. I have included the sample of the questionnaire, and the work sheet I used to tabulate my numbers. Actually, the sample questionnaire was left out. Sorry. The seven questions we asked were: Do you smoke? Yes or no. Do you play VLTs? Yes or no. How often do you visit the Rivercrest hotel? Once a week or less, twice per week, three times per week or more. Do you support the proposed smoking ban? How will the ban affect your visits to the Rivercrest hotel?

Visit more often, visit less often. How will the ban affect the time you spend at the Rivercrest hotel? Longer visit, shorter visit. Would you favour a compromise like designated, ventilated, non-staff smoking rooms? Yes or no. There was room for a small comment, their signature and the date. Every one of these customers is old enough to drink, gamble, smoke, vote and make their own decisions. Out of the 224 questionnaires filled out, 83 percent smoke, 82 percent play VLTs. It was split pretty much equally between how often they visit, once a week or less, twice a week, or three times a week or more.

Madam Chairperson, 87 percent do not support the ban, which you can notice is more than the number that smoke. Five percent said they will visit more often; 4 percent said there would be no change; and 91 percent would visit less often. Seven percent intend on having longer visits; 4 percent said there would be no change; and 89 percent will have a shorter visit. I just want to read a couple of comments off of these.

This lady says," Let smokers have a place to smoke away from their kids." This one is from our reeve, Cliff Dearman, his comment was, "Every municipality should have a say." There are several references in here to Communism and democracy. Basically, the bottom line for this is people want choices. This lady puts, "This will be terrible for this little place we have come to love." This lady puts, "If I can't smoke, you won't see me." This ban is going to be detrimental to rural hotels. Our customers, whether they smoke or not, will be coming less often and not staying as long.

Out of the 37 customers that do not smoke, only 11 of them will be coming in more often, and only fifteen of them staying longer. Many non-smokers come in with a smoker. I can say from experience that this will be the case. My mom used to go about once a week to either Club Regent or McPhillips Street Station. She said that after the smoking ban, she would not go often, and she would not stay as long. Knowing how much she likes the casinos, we did not believe her. We figured she was all talk. To this day, she has only been maybe four times since

110 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 25, 2004 last September, and never stays very long. By the time she is ready for a cigarette, we just continue on to the car. When you have the urge to go out for a glass of wine and a nice dinner, you do not go somewhere that does not serve alcohol. When someone has the urge to get out of the house for a few hours, enjoy a beer, play some VLTs, and relax while smoking a couple of cigarettes, it is not likely they will go if they cannot fully enjoy what they intend to do.

I have no reason not to believe our customers when they say they will not come as often, or at all, and will not stay as long, if a smoking ban is imposed. It does not take a financial wizard to figure out that this is going to hurt our business, our employees' incomes and, on a much bigger scale, the revenue of alcohol sales, tobacco sales, and millions of dollars raised through VLTs. Now, I would like you to meet our 26 employees, myself included : 8 are students; 4 are single moms.

The Rivercrest hotel is a primary source of income for 20 of them; 81 percent are women; 25 out of the 26 are over 18; 19 of them are smokers. That is 73 percent of our staff who smoke. I am one of the 7 who does not smoke. Every one of them is worried about the ban, the inevitable decline in customers and what is going to happen to their hours and their jobs. They are scared, and with very good reason. They have heard what has happened in Winnipeg, Brandon and places like New York and Ontario.

I spent a lot of hours in the last few days on the Internet researching how smoking bans affect business, the effects of second- hand smoke on non-smokers, and whether or not there are alternatives to smoking bans. There is no doubt the ban severely hurt the hospitality industry. I have included a 10-page, actually it is a 9-page, list of business names, locations and the percentages lost to business due to smoking bans. Lost business varied from 12 percent at the lowest to 100 percent at the highest when the business closed. It is in no way comprehensive, but simply an example.

I came across a poll commissioned by the B.C. hospitality industry in 2000, their geography, demo- graphy and type of establishment. We know that Brandon VLT revenue is down 30 percent, and I understand Winnipeg is experiencing similar drops. Ontario and New York are standing open-mouthed at their losses. Some bars in New York are seeing losses of 50 percent since July 24. Recently, New York Governor Pataki announced a plan that bars can apply for waivers to exempt them from the no-smoking legislation. Pressure from losses also caused the B.C. government to amend its ban shortly after it was set in place.

Governor Pataki was warned about the imposition of a 100% no- smoking legislation and he chose to ignore it. Now, 10 months later, as a result of the financial disaster incurred, he is attempting to extricate himself from the implications of a huge mistake. I will just say what they are doing in New York, and this was dated May 22 of last week. He is putting forth a waiver for any bars that can show a decline in sales of 15 percent or more to apply for a waiver to have smoking exemptions. PUBCO, where the information came from, has estimated that one in four bars will be applying for the waiver.

Anyway, last week the Washington, D.C., smoking ban was extinguished. It failed to win support from the legislativ e branch, the executive branch and now from the judicial branch of government. It was a victory for those who argued the initiative "illegally infringed upon powers of local government officials to make decisions that affect city revenue." They knew and proved that a smoking ban would harm city revenues. They only had to look at the available data from the smoking ban failures all over North America.

The Pub and Bar Coalition of Canada estimates the province-wide smoking ban in Ontario would result in the closure of at least 900 small pubs and bars, most of which are family owned. That is why I am standing here tonight. Manitoba will suffer under Bill 21. I do not want to lose my family's livelihood. We have worked hard to get where we are and we enjoy our business too much to let government legislation destroy it, especially when there are viable alternatives and compromises. I am sure you are aware of the study printed in the British Medical Journal .

It could not be concluded that people suffered ill health due to second-hand smoke. The study was initially funded by anti-tobacco groups and, when they realized the study was not going to help their argument, they

May 25, 2004 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 111 dropped the funding. Some time later, the tobacco industry funded the completion of the study. * (19:50) Another study compared air quality in a non- smoking restaurant with that of filtered air in a smoking restaurant. The study was commissioned by the Hotel Association of Canada and carried out by the United States Department of Energy's Oak Ridge National Laboratory. It concluded that proper ventilation could provide comparable air quality for non-smokers in smoking establishments as that in non-smoking establishments.

At the moment, two New York lawmakers are finalizing identical bills that would permit smoking where specific air filters are installed. One particular model is the Airistar 1000. It costs about $3,500 U.S. and cleans 1000 cubit feet of air per minute. It can eliminate 99 percent of cigarette smoke in minutes. They can make room air cleaner than the outside air; 78 percent of our customer s indicated that they would be satisfied with a compromise. Of the 22 percent who said they would not, many were smokers who do not want to compromise at all. They want to be able to smoke.

Even some who indicated they do not smoke and do support the ban indicated they would be receptive to designated ventilated non- staff smoking rooms. It is interesting to note that the B.C. poll found 79 percent believe ventilation solutions should be considered by the government, and a poll in Toronto by the Pub and Bar Coalition of Canada found that 75 percent of everyone surveyed felt ventilation should be used in pubs and bars, as opposed to an outright ban. You have already made exceptions to Bill 21 for group living facilities and motel rooms.

The common thread in those exceptions is highlighted below, which on my sheet it is. First of all, in group living facilities exemption is designated as a smoking room. It is fully enclosed by floor to ceiling walls, a ceiling, and doors that separate it physically from any adjacent area in which smoking is prohibited by this act, and has a separate ventilation system. Ventilation appears to be important and accepted by the Manitoba Legislativ e Assembly members that prepared and submitted the bill and its exceptions.

Through the use of proper signage, construction regulation and a state of the art ventilation, there is no reason why exceptions cannot be made for adult- oriented establishments. Madam Chairperson: Ms. Olston, you have 30 seconds left. Sorry to interrupt. Ms. Olston: Well, I am not going to finish. My bottom line is there is an overwhelming amount of information that shows smoking bans are detrimental to the economy. However, you cannot use the California smoking ban as an example. We see temperatures below minus-40 and wind chill factors. We have maybe 16 weeks of T-shirt weather a year.

Ventilation is an option that needs more consideration. If the toxic air in a mine shaft a kilometre deep can be properly ventilated, the air in a smoking room can be filtered to meet specific air quality standards. If ketchup caused cancer, it would not be on the shelves in various types of packaging under numerous brand names. Until you completely remove cigarettes from the store shelves, there is no reason not to provide a safe place for people to smoke out of their homes, away from their children, either during work or recreation hours. Madam Chairperson: Thank you, Ms. Olston.

Does the committee have questions for Ms. Olston? Any questions? Mr. Rondeau: Thank you very much. Good presentation and good work as far as the survey results. I am just wondering whether you could think of any incentives there might be to assist your business in bringing non-smokers into your business and helping out your business to grow and not experience the decline. Ms. Olston: We are always working on things to bring people into the bar, whether or not it revolves around bringing smokers versus non-smokers. No. We work on things to bring people in, as a general rule. We have terrific customers.

We like them all. Madam Chairperson: Seeing no other questions, I thank you very much for your presentation.

112 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 25, 2004 Mr. Walter Kuz from the Rennie Hotel. Mr. Kuz, do you have a written presentation for the committee? Mr. Walter Kuz (Rennie Hotel): Unfortunately, I was told very late to appear here, and I do not have one available. So I will be ad libbing. Madam Chairperson: That is fine. You can proceed. Mr. Kuz: I do have some footnotes in my pocket, if I can refer to them as I go along. Madam Chairperson: Sure, absolutely. Mr. Kuz: I have to change glasses for the reading. Madam Chairperson: Okay, we will wait for you. Mr.

Kuz: My name is Walter Kuz, and I am the 50% owner and operator of the Rennie Hotel in Rennie, Manitoba, with my youngest son. You have to forgive me, because I am a little bit nervous appearing before such an outstanding committee as this. This is my first time ever doing this. So I hope you bear with me. I am here to appear and talk against Bill 21. It is because of concern that it goes against the freedom of choice of my customers.

It is not so much the health, because talking with my late doctor and other doctors, et cetera–and there are so many surveys and you can just about make graphs to whatever you want them to come out with. If you feed them the right information, they can be positive, or they can be negative. You tell me how you want the graph to turn out and I can make it that way, and it will look terrific. But, anyway, my youngest son decided to get into this vocation. He is 26 years old, has a university degree, knows of all the ramifications of this type of business, what it is all about, including the smoking.

He is a non-smoker, and has not smoked all of his life. I am a non-smoker as well, but I do like to go ahead and have my customers have that privilege of deciding whether they want to come into my place or not. They have to be of a legal age to walk in through that door; they cannot be minors. I have heard comments here today that there are 15- year-olds smoking cigarettes outside the doorways of high schools, or junior schools. Well, the law in Manitoba says you have to be 18 to buy a package of cigarettes. Why are these minors smoking cigarettes on school grounds? There is no law against it.

There is no law of them possessing the cigarettes, yet they can do it. In my place you have to be 18 to walk through that door. You have to be able to decide for yourself whether you want to come in or not. You should know, with the age of majority, what is going on in that room. There is drinki ng, there is smoking, there is gambling, there is loud noise, there is even some colourful language every once in awhile. You still have that choice whether you want to come in or not. Nobody is forcing you, nobody is dragging you off the street to bring you in.

This is why I am here to talk against Bill 21 and implore you, the committee, for some type of an exemption. One thing it will not do, in imposing this in a public ban, if anything, it will not improve the health situation. Thinking that it is going to improve the health of Manitobans is a fallacy. It will not happen because people will still get cancer even if they do not smoke a day of their life. They will have heart attacks. My late sister passed away with a heart attack. She did not smoke one cigarette in her life. Now let me ask a doctor how this happened.

It happens because maybe you eat the wrong things, maybe you drink the wrong things, we do not know. There are so many laws and regulations stifling private business. Again, I am going to go ahead and emphasis the word "private". My hotel is a private business. It is owned by myself and my son. All of a sudden I am getting a public ban on it. How does that apply? Because I have a licence from the liquor commission, all of a sudden it is a public ban? This is a private place. I have the right and the privilege to refuse anyone any service in my place for no reason. That is the way the law states.

So, how can it be a public place? A public place is because anyone can come in, so now that makes it a public place, but I still have the right to say you cannot come in, or you cannot come in, so why is it a public place? Why is there a public ban on there? * (20:00) In my dining room, b ecause of a mixture of customers and mixture of ages, I will enforce a no- smoking policy, because I believe myself being a non-smoker, when you are enjoying a meal and maybe a fine glass of wine, that, yes, you can do without a cigarette for two hours, everybody can.

May 25, 2004 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 113 But, anyway, with all these rules and regulations and wondering just what we can do about it and looking for an exemption, maybe what we should be doing is, just like they have on the highways, et cetera, have a warning sign saying, "Look, do not come in because they are smoking inside. You know, it is up to you if you want to come in or not come in." Secondly, with all the rules and regulations that are in place, they are slowly stifling private business. This leads me to believe that maybe, just maybe, we are entering an era of statism.

Are we entering an era of statism? I am going to go ahead and just make one comment by Senator Nurgitz, I believe, and I think it went something like this, "That I hope that all the good-willed people that are against us smokers would just leave us alone, because we probably know what we are going to die from and surely to goodness they will probably die as well from some other mysterious causes." Again, I am going to go ahead and read a little quote that I got from a publication which I did not have time because I got a call Friday late afternoon to see if I could get into this committee.

I mean, I am all, as you can tell, just really riled up about this Bill 21, but I read this little excerpt from a little publication where a judge, I believe, some place ordered the removal of a four-year-old child from a mother because she smoked at home. Now that smells of statism, and it says here that people who applaud the court's decision because the issue happens to be smoking should pause to think.

The next child to be removed from a mother's home will be on account of th e carbohydrates in her cooking or for the violent computer games in the home, or she lets a child ride a horse or a bicycle which her estranged husband and his hired experts consider too dangerous. I say to you that now the judge has opened the door and it does smell of statism. Another legal fact that I just found out about this weekend, the health authority of Kenora, Ontario, the City of Kenora, Ontario, has imposed a public ban on cigarette smoking in pubs and restaurants.

They had a lengthy court battle and without too much public knowledge, the courts overturned that ruling and they now can smoke. It is now going to the Attorney General of Ontario, who is going to have to order a judicial review and, of course, there is going to be a lengthy court battle again. But this has happened to date. So, in closing, I respectfully ask this committee to seriously look at entering some type of exemption for places that are only visited by mature adults who have the freedom of choice whether they want to come in or not. I thank you.

Madam Chairperson: Thank you very much for your presentation, Mr. Kuz. Do the committee members have questions for Mr. Kuz? Mr. Rondeau: Thank you very much for your time to come here and make the presentation, and thank you for working hard at your business. Madam Chairperson: Thank you. Our next presenter is Dr. Sandra Burt from the University of Waterloo, Political Science Department. Ms. Sandra Burt (University of Waterloo, Political Science Department): Thank you very much. I am very pleased to be here. Madam Chairperson: Do you have copies? Ms. Burt: I have copies of an

article that I would like to use as a support for the comments that I have to make. The comments I have to make are here. Madam Chairperson: Okay, just, all right, just one moment. The presentation will be distributed. Please feel free to proceed, Doctor Burt. Ms. Burt: Thank you very much. I am here because I am a tobacco public policy researcher at the University of Waterloo, and am just in the final stages of a study of 10 communities in Ontario that have been grappling with the by-law issue.

Just as a follow-up to the previous presenter, I would just like to clarify the point about Kenora, because as it happens, I have just finished the analysis of the Kenora/Rainy River District, and in fact the situation that arose in Kenora was that the council agreed with the Medical Officer of Health that environmental tobacco smoke is a health hazard. The disagreement was over whether or not municipal councils should have responsibility for health, and indeed, with that note, I applaud the decision of the Manitoba Legislature to take the responsibility for introducing this very important bill.

114 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 25, 2004 One of the most powerful observations that was made by stakeholders, both proponents and oppo- nents of environmental tobacco smoke legislation at the municipal level in Ontario, was that it is a provincial responsibility. That one of the most important features of ETS law is that there must be a level playing field, and it is impossible to have that level playing field if you have a piecemeal grid of municipal by-laws that vary sometimes quite dramatically from one municipality to the other. So I begin with a note of applause.

The second point I want to make, also is, in a sense, a response to some of the observations that have been made by some of the people who have spoken just before me. It is on the second point that I ask you to refer to the copy of the

article that I have distributed by M. Scollo, et al., which was published in the 2003 December issue of Tobacco Control. Let me just begin by making the point that, when one is evaluating the economic consequences of tobacco control, it is very important to distinguish between anecdotal evidence and science. It is so compelling to listen to the stories about the mom-and-pop establishments that appear to be in danger of disappearing as opposed to the quantitative and often very remote and aggregate data that appeared to be from somewhere else and hard to rebut in the here and now. This particular

article takes a look at about 100 studies that have been published around the world. The media release that was put forward by the researchers indicates that what they found was that the studies that concluded that smoke-free policies have a negative economic impact were almost always based on anecdotal information or subjective measures, rather than on hard information, such as sales figures and employment data. The studies funded by sources clearly independent of the tobacco industry tended to be of a much higher quality and found no such negative impact. In the media release, Ms.

Scollo, the principal author, said that of the nine Australian studies included in the review only one concluded that smoke-free policies may have a negative impact, but that study, which was a survey of proprietors of Tasmanian bars and clubs, was not of much use in assessing smoke-free legislation as it was conducted just weeks after the September 11 attack on the World Trade Center, the collapse of Ansett Airlines that would bring people to Tasmania, and men- ingoccocal outbreak among nightclub patrons.

In other words, this 2003 review of the quality of the studies carried out on the economic impact of smoke-free policies on the hospitality industry found that none of the studies funded by tobacco, either directly or indirectly, used objective measures. All of the tobacco-funded studies reported negative impact; of the more objective studies that were not funded by the tobacco industry, none of those that met their stringent criteria for objective reporting of data reported a negative impact economically with ETS laws.

It is important to understand that there is a relationship between funding source and type of information and outcome. * (20:10) The third point I want to make is that I urge you very strongly to consider your initial decision to have an exemption in your legislation. If we return back to my first point about the level playing field, if not at the health stage, now, I will say something about that as well.

Certainly, in te rms of enforcement it is absolutely essential that proponents and opponents, that the stakeholders who are involved in the process of working through their lives after the law have the sense that it is fair and equitable. A level playing field is absolutely essential. There should be no exemptions.

Finally, again, along the lines of my observation about exemptions, when you recall that this legislation was introduced because you understand the significance of the he alth hazards of environ- mental tobacco smoke, I urge you to reconsider your decision to exempt the Aboriginal community, which is, after all, the group that is at most risk for health- related diseases, in view of their higher rate of smoking than the rest of the Manitoba population. Thank you. Madam Chairperson: Thank you very much, Doctor Burt. Are there questions from the committee for Doctor Burt? Mr.

Rocan: In the document that you have passed around, to compare the quality and funding source of studies concluding a negative economic impact of smoke-free policies in the hospitality industry to studies concluding no such negative impact, conclusion: all of the best-designed studies report no impact or a positive impact of smoke-free restaurants and bar laws on sales or employment. Policy makers

May 25, 2004 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 115 can act to protect workers and patrons from the toxins in second-hand smoke confident in rejecting industry claims that there will be an adverse economic impact. Now, you sat there when there were two presenters just prior to your making your pre- sentation saying the complete opposite. What have you got to say about that? Ms. Burt: Well, I think that the response is in the study. You need to know who is funding the research, and you also need to know what sorts of criteria they are using in order to arrive at the conclusions that they are making.

This group of researchers that put together this overview of the 91 studies took a look at those kinds of studies. They developed a four-part criterion that they applied. They wanted to know if the researchers had used objective data. That is to say, did they look at tax receipts or employment data? That was the first criterion. Secondly, did they include a data point from before and after the legislation was introduced and put into effect? Third, was there an appropriate use of statistical methods to control for other extraneous variables like September 11 or SARS or mad cow or changes in the dollar value?

Finally, their fourth criterion was, did the researchers control for overall economic trends in the time period of the study? In other words, were other establishments also encountering these kinds of difficulties? Of the industry-funded studies, only one was in a peer review journal. You know, that does make a difference. If you send it out to people who are doing similar work in the area, who have accreditation, it adds legitimacy to your work. Only one of the industry funded studies was in a peer review journal.

None of the industry funded studies met the four criteria that were set up by this group of researchers evaluating the research results. That is a pretty persuasive argument for me. Mrs. Driedger: Doctor Burt, when there is an indication that the studies found no-smoking policies did not hurt businesses, were they looking short term or more longer term? If they were looking longer term at the effects of the non-smoking on business, was it over half a year, a year? Were they variable in time frames? Ms. Burt: They were variable in their time frames. Mrs.

Driedger: Do you have any ballpark figures over what period of time they might have looked at these, the shortest one to the longest one? Ms. Burt: I do not actually think that they report on the time period, but given the fact that this was published in 2003, it probably was a fairly short time period because these environmental tobacco smoke laws have only been brought in relatively recently. Mr. Gerrard: Two questions and they are related.

One is that the studies would tend to look at an overall group of businesses and within that group some businesses may actually see their business going down and some would see their business going up. So your studies do not say that all businesses are necessarily going to do better. Some may do worse and some may do better would be my impression. Second, does your review of these studies suggest any approaches that businesses can take to avoid the negative impacts? Ms. Burt: Well, of course, that is correct.

You know, it is a quantitative measure of the overall success or failure of these businesses following the introduction of the legislation. Of course, that brings us back to the contrast between anecdotal evidence which focusses on a particular business that may in fact go under and the range of businesses that continue to do well following the introduction of this legislation. In terms of things that businesses can do, restaurants have a much easier time responding to this kind of legislation because even smokers prefer to eat in restaurants where there are no smoking rules.

There have been some creative responses by bars to add food into their venue, to improve their entertainment possibilities, to put part of their emphasis on attracting th e coffee club crowd in addition to the traditional bar crowd. Of course, it requires some innovative measures, but I think we also have to remember that there are certain categories of bars that tend to have a fairly high turnover rate. One of the, I think, persuasive

116 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 25, 2004 elements in this

article is that they factor the general pattern of turnover into their analysis of the impact of the legislation. So I urge you to read the report. It is very illuminating. Mr. Rondeau: I thank you very, very much for a very informative presenta tion. You said there are certain categories that do better and some that do trend worse. Can you give us a little bit of elaboration on that? Madam Chairperson: You have about a minute to answer. Ms.

Burt: Well, generally the bars that are just bars will have a more difficult time responding to the legislation because they have historically attracted a group of people who like to smoke. So those are the owners who have to look to innovative ways to work around the problem of attraction and that means they may have to change their profile, but here the level playing field is again absolutely crucial because if it is possible for their clientele to go easily 20 or 40 kilometres away to a bar where smoking is per- mitted, they have a much more difficult time.

If all of the bars are smoke free the customers will return. Mr. Chairperson: Doctor Burt, the committee wants to thank you very much. I know you came a long way, and we really do appreciate your coming here to Manitoba to present to the committee. Ms. Burt: Thank you very much for the opportunity. * (20:20) Madam Chairperson: I have been requested to ask if Mr. Jim Carr is in the room. Is Jim Carr in the room? You are wanted in the other legislative committee room. If you are in this room if you could please go to Legislative Affairs to present at Legislative Affairs.

Our next presenter is Heidi Howarth from Trails West Hotel, and you are from Brandon, right? Did you have a presentation you wanted distributed to committee members? Ms. Heidi Howarth (Trails West Hotel): No, I just have notes for myself. Madam Chairperson: Please proceed. Ms. Howarth: Hi. My name is Heidi Howarth, and I have been involved with the Trails West Motor Inn for the past 20 years. I should also say I have been involved with a hotel in Winnipeg for 17 years before this.

I have never seen any event or by-law that has impacted businesses as quickly and as drastically as this smoking by-law that we have in Brandon. This is fact, I know we had a presentation done before about studies that have been done. During the first four months, September to December, 2002, my sales dropped $96,000, an average of $24,000 a month. Now, a small operation, I do the books, actually I can log all my sales for every month for the past 20 years if you want to come to my operation. The year 2003, my bar sales $250,000, an average of $21,000 a month. The most significant is weekday trade.

Mondays were never big sales days. My average was approximately $900. Now the average is probably around $300 and, shocking also, there are many days below this. In Brandon the smoking by-law has changed our pattern of business, drastically reduced weekday trade. Most bars close early Monday to Wednesday. Weekends are reduced also, since patrons comes out later. Bars do not get busy until 11:30 or past midnight. VLT revenue we know in Brandon is still down 25 percent to 30 percent. This is 21 months past the initial by-law. Restaurants, we understand, are not impacted as much.

What I wanted to let you know is that I have been involved with the hotel industry a long, long time and I have seen, certainly in the 1980s we have had 26 percent interest rates, we have had liquor by- laws that have been really strong and stringent. In the Melita area, we have seen a flood area that has been devastated. Those have impacted us, too, but not like this by-law. What I really did not understand until I really got behind it, and I am not a smoker, I lived with a mother that smoked for 30 years and she finally has quit, is that it is different.

I did not realize only 20 percent of society goes to bars. I did not know that 10 years ago. We have a real challenge on our hands because, out of that 20 percent, 85 percent of them smoke, and that is why you are going to see a real reduction in revenue with a lot of these hotels in Manitoba.

May 25, 2004 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 117 One senior liquor inspector told me he believed 25 to 30 hotels would close with the provincial by- law. I have been told otherwise, that it could be up to 50 hotels. That is very significant. We also know that the majority of people out there do not smoke, which is great. But what about that minority? do we treat them like lepers? I have had some customers, unfortunately, that are in wheelchairs. They cannot go outside when it is snowing and 40 below weather.

I find it interesting, I just came back from Halifax and I came back from Jasper from the hotel convention and they mock Winnipeg, the airlines, because if you touch down if it is 40 below you cannot go to a smoking room, which is what I really want to push for or I hope that this committee would look into. It works in B.C. You know, we have to recognize there is a mi nority, certainly that 25 percent of society that still smoke, but they are people. They are human beings. My father-in-law was in the St.

Boniface Hospital and I saw all the people certainly outside that hospital smoking, and people with I.V. units out there. That is terrible, but why could we not build a smoking room for them? Realistically, I mean other places have done it. The airport, when I went through I saw people being allowed to smoke in Toronto. I have been to Montréal. I have seen a smoking room in Montréal. At least we have got a location. We do not have to let them walk a mile away from the doors. I am not a smoker and never will be a smoker and I really think what we should be doing is promoting not smoking.

Get to the youth and educate them. But we also have to understand that we cannot let all of these hotels close. What is significant, and which I probably did not realize is smokers do not come to the bars and, because they are not coming to the bars the non-smokers are not coming to the bars. Believe it or not, business has not come back, and I do not believe it will come back for a long time, maybe five years, ten years. So let us go the gradual route. Let us provide them with a room. You know, I am hoping that the provincial by-law will at least look like the B.C. by- law and allow a smoking room.

Certainly the unlevel playing field issue comes out all the time. It is uneven right to begin with. I would venture, if you asked every Brandon operation that would like to see some smoking, they would spend the dollars to add a smoking room. That is how I would like to conclude my presentation. Madam Chairperson: Thank you very much, Ms. Howarth. Are there questions for Ms. Howarth from the committee? Mr. Rondeau: I understand the Brandon by-law does not allow patios. Do you have a patio on your establishment? Ms. Howarth: No, I do not. Mr. Rondeau: Do you also have a restaurant in your establishment? Ms.

Howarth: Yes, I do. Mr. Rondeau: Has it experienced the same sort of drops in sales? Ms. Howarth: No, I have not seen a drop in sales. Mr. Rondeau: The other last question would be have you ever tried any promotions or things to draw new people into the bar that would have gotten the old clientele back or new clientele in. Ms. Howarth: Absolutely. I have done a lot of promotion. I do a lot of country music or concert acts. One act was Streetheart, who had not been performing in Brandon for four years. I thought it would be a great night. Believe it or not, it was not as great as I thought.

What was missing were the smokers. Mr. Rondeau: Thank you very, very much. Madam Chairperson: Thank you, Ms. Howarth. I have been requested to ask the committee permission to–we have one presenter here who has a husband at home who is not well. Can I have the will of the committee to allow this presenter to come forward? [Agreed] Edna Milne from the Fort Rouge and Imperial Veterans. Is Edna here? Thank you very much, Edna. The clerks will distribute your presentation. You can proceed. Ms.

Edna Milne (Fort Rouge and Imperial Veterans): Some may argue that what I am about to present into the record is possibly redundant. I do not

118 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 25, 2004 believe so, given that the previous machination of the past 10 years put our branch into wrongful tax closure. It may be too late for us, but the cleanup of this administrative mess now may prevent other such closures. Again, as past president of Imperial Veterans Legion Branch 84, I ask you to accept the changes proposed by Mr. Petrinka to make an equal playing field for all our branches and units. There was no confusion in Mr. Schroeder's mind as to the necessary action. I brought my husband here. He is a World War II veteran.

He fought in Dieppe and in the Mediterranean, was in Italy and all the area around there. He really missed the closure of the Imperial Veterans. He enjoyed cribbage, enjoyed darts, enjoyed his dances. Mind you, now he is getting on in years and it is a little more difficult, but he enjoyed the comradeship that he got over there. We are now part of Fort Rouge, but it is not home; it is different. Thank you. Madam Chairperson: If you could just stay at the mike. Are there questions for Ms. Milne? Ms. Milne: Mr.

Petrinka will answer any questions later. * (20:30) Madam Chairperson: Okay, you did not want to stay for questions. Is that what you are saying? Ms. Milne: That is right. Madam Chairperson: Okay. Thank you very much. Ms. Milne: Thank you. Madam Chairperson: Our next presenter on the list is Mr. Petrinka from the Veterans Association. Mr. Petrinka, the clerks will distribute your presentation. Please feel free to proceed with your oral presentation. Mr.

John Petrinka (Vet erans Association): I would appreciate waiting a minute or two until that picture is circulated, because it forms the basis of my opening statement. Please do not hog it there, Mr. Rocan. Where is the picture? Has he still got it? Madam Chairperson: Mr. Rocan. An Honourable Member: I have seen it before. Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Madam Chairperson: I understand, Mr. Petrinka, you would like us all to look at this picture before you proceed. Mr. Petrinka: Yes, just the picture, Madam Chair, because it forms the basis of my opening statement.

Madam Chairperson: Okay, we will circulate it around the table before we start. Mr. Petrinka: Okay. Thank you very much. Madam Chairperson: Before Mr. Petrinka begins his presentation, have all committee members seen the picture? Yes. Thank you, Mr. Petrinka, you can proceed with your presentation. Please proceed. Mr. Petrinka: Well, the two letters that I submitted with the picture are letters from Doctor Gerrard and from Mr. Derkach as members of the opposition who are in support of the action taken by your Premier (Mr. Doer).

On the 6th of December, that is when that picture was taken, it was taken at the Christmas party and ostensibly it was taken because we were going to be doing an

article for the Legion magazine. We were going to be reporting to the rest of Canada how Manitoba treated its veterans with fairness. The level playing field that everybody has been talking about today, the fact that we have a mishmash today in the non-profit

section of The Municipal Assessment Act and the opportunity here was available for this legislation that is being brought forward to correct all that. Now to say that we are unhappy with what has been brought forward would be an understatement. But, on the other hand, we must be thankful for small measures, and we are, to that extent, thankful, because what has been brought forward has, in essence, provided an equality factor here equal to the Dauphin exemption that we keep talking about, as Mr. Struthers' constituency. The Dauphin exemption, for those that are unaware of it, is an exemption whereby veterans and other non-profit organizations in

section 6 of The Municipal Assessment Act pay no tax–no tax, no school, no municipal tax. They have not been paying

May 25, 2004 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 119 tax since 1921, since the incorporation of the British Empire Service League. That was before your time, Stan. So what we have here is a situation where we have been after the government for the last 10 years now, since 1995, to provide this level playing field that everybody has been seeking and asking for. Pages 20 and 21 of your brief attest to that fact, that, on the 3rd of December, the Premier made comments to Mr. Derkach outside the House which granted the Dauphin exemption.

The only measure that was unavailable at that time was how it was going to be done, whether it would be done by way of legislation, or by way of regulation. Regulation would be an Order-in-Council, and it would account for the one unknown fact as to when this was going to become effective. The Order-in-Council always becomes effective on the date of registration. We only need look to a number of issues that have been dealt with in that manner, including the universities' grants exemption, which was registered in January 2002.

That registration of that particular regulation made it effective for 2002, not 2003, not 2004, or 2005, like we had with our 1995 bill that was passed. This is extremely important because we kept after the bureaucrats as to when this was going to happen. We have three outstanding facts that need resolution. One is the municipal exemption. Half of the province is done one way by of municipal exemption, including Winnipeg, Portage la Prairie, Carman and Beausejour. Then, you have the leasehold title. The Chinese Cultural Centre won a court case in '97. It resulted in legislation for '98.

We were tied at the hip with this group of non-profits by way of a bill in 1995, and, yet, we were passed over. The "whys" were added to it. We asked, "Why? Why were we passed over?” They said, "Well, we do not feel," and this seems to be the touch word of the bureaucrats today. When they cannot explain something, they revert back to "we do not feel." "We do not feel at this time it would be appropriate." Well, this went on for two or three years, from 1999 through 2001, and we finally got it on the record here. We go to page 13, I think it is. My mouth is a little dry; I could use a little water, Madam Chairman.

On page 13, just very quickly from the acting provincial assessor. He again states that we are not going to–all I can say is that such an amendment is highly unlikely in the near future, but I will make a note to discuss it when consideration of amendments is next made. And, yet, in '98 we had that bill come through on the "i's" and the 'h's" in the non-profit section. We had, in 2002, the university amendments exemption and then, again, this year. This probably would not have surfaced had the greed of the City not surfaced. They want to rent out all their community clubs.

The only way they can do it is by providing another leasehold title exemption to these so-called sponsoring non-profit associations that will be taking over these community clubs. Well, let us not get into that because it is a pretty long explanation. Enough said that we have leasehold titles all over the place. We still do not have them. We have four in town here. Four leasehold titles. What do you say to these people who are eligible for, but have not received an exemption? They are paying $20,000-plus in taxes. Imperial Vets that you just saw was paying $63,000 in taxes.

Their assessment was $1,145 ,000 before we started. We got it down to $625,000; from $62,000 down to $11,000 in taxes. In fact, if you take a look at the presentation that she gave you, we did a calculation on the tax overdraft. The amount of taxes that were wrongfully collected from 1970 through 1996 amounted to $1,105,000, and yet they were closed for a so-called $30,000 tax arrear bill. What kind of sense does that make to anybody? * (20:40) Yet we got into a problem with, at the city it was wait until Mr. Kaufman is elected. He did not get elected, so we lost there.

Wait until the Conservatives are re-elected in '99. They did not get re-elected. Okay, so we have a situation here now where we have the former minister, who is now somewhat more informed than he was when he was the minister. We have a situation where the time is right now to make this thing right. We do not pay any business tax inside the Perimeter. There are a few jurisdictions outside of the Perimeter that do–

120 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 25, 2004 it is the other way around, some that do not, but most f them do. o With the exception of the three that I just mentioned earlier, Portage, Carman and Beausejour, all the rest of them, 42 of them, are paying municipal tax. That grid that your presenters talked about earlier is exactly the same here. Unless you make it mandatory for the exemption as opposed to leaving it permissive, heck, I do not even know if once this thing gets done here and this thing gets passed what is going to prevent the City of Winnipeg from rescinding that municipal by-law.

There is absolutely nothing. So do one of two things. Either make us equal to everybody else or exclude everybody from exemptions. That includes all of the properties under the Centennial properties tax act. That includes the francophones du Manitoba, the Ukrainians, the Mennonites, the Jewish, and the list goes on and on, including the ballet and the Prairie Theatre company. Let us do away with all the exemptions. Let us make everybody equal. We do not mind that these people have these exemptions. We just want to know when you are going to treat us fairly.

When are you going to treat us the same way you have treated everybody else? When is it going to be our turn? When will I be able to give up living in the damn hallways here for the last five and a half years? Tell me, tell me that you are going to make the change. These people here want to know. This is the first time these people have come out. I have been invoked to get the people in the wheelchairs and the crutches, and so forth, and parade out in front of your building. They do not operate like that. They have a little bit more dignity than some other people that I know.

So, in closing, I would just like to say one more thing. In 1995, when we started this thing, and I would like to read this, because this forms the basis of this whole argument. This comes from the Royal Canadian Legion– Madam Chairperson: Mr. Petrinka, before you proceed–he has 30 seconds remaining in his presentation. Mr. Petrinka: I would like to ask leave for another two or three minutes or possibly you– Madam Chairperson: Is there leave from the committee for him to proceed with the understanding that his questions would be reduced. Is there leave from the committee?

The amount of time remaining for his questions would be reduced. Is there leave from the committee? [Agreed] Please proceed, Mr. Petrinka. Mr. Petrinka: This will not take long, Madam Chair. In 1994 I was approached to help the Legions, my own branch included, because we were all in dire straits back in them days. This was just at the time of VLTs and all the other stuff that happened. This is the first authorization, and I must indicate that in order for me to operate or to act on anybody's behalf, I needed an authorization. The act requires it.

The act says that, to whom it may concern, this letter will confirm that the St. James Legion, No. 4, has authorized you to act as their representative con- cerning the appeal for the removal of their school tax assessment. It does not say partial assessment. It says school tax assessment with the City of Winnipeg, To that extent I went to see the provincial assessor on the 10th of April. He indicated to me, because of the fact that there were these two previous law suits, one with the Pembina Curling Club and the other with the German Society of which I was involved with the second one.

He indicated to me that if I went to the City, he would recommend to the City that there be a grant made in lieu of the fact that this legislation was not up to par at that point and he would, in fact, during the next legislative session bring it into lock step with everybody else. Okay? I engaged a lawyer, Vic Schroeder, the former Attorney General, and that thing that we just handed in to you from Ms. Milne includes that presentation to EPC on City Council which he reviewed at the time he was the acting member of the government in transition. You had just been elected.

He was already acting in that transitional government. I asked him to make a phone call to somebody that he knew here and explain to them what was happening. He said, "John, I cannot do it in the event that they box you and you have to go to court, I may have to end up as a witness for you. So I cannot do that." So I have asked a number of people. But he said, "If they call me, I will tell them exactly what was in that report to EPC on the 27th of October, 1999."

May 25, 2004 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 121 We had money coming to us at that time. We would not be here today if that would have happened. Then there was further exacerbated by the exacerbation of circumstances that happened within the provincial government and the city assessor. Do not ask me what happened, why it happened or otherwise. But we went to the City, myself, Vic Schroeder, we talked to their legal people and their assessment people and it was agreed upon that it probably would not happen because Board of Revision was only a couple of days off.

It was also agreed that it would have to go to legislative change in order for this to become effective. Now, the one thing that bothers me here is something happened between writing the letters to Mr. Derkach and the letters that we got back. The letters that we got back make no mention of a 23(1)(

i) clawback and I will not get into that, but it means that instead of making us equal to them, which was no tax, they made them equal to us by clawing back. There was a change in policy somewhere down the road and then it just confused the issue all the way down the road because from there on in all we were doing was arguing amongst ourselves and that is, in essence, the sum and substance of my story. Madam Chairperson: Thank you very much, Mr. Petrinka. I will entertain questions for one minute. Mr. Leonard Derkach (Russell): Mr.

Petrinka, I am quite familiar with the amount of time you have spent on this file and it is one you have spent many years on, lobbying on behalf of veterans across this province I am somewhat confused in terms of whether or not the legislation that is before us today addresses all of the concerns that you had, and whether you are satisfied that even though you have to wait to January 1, 2006, I believe, whether that is acceptable to you or whether this seems to be unusual in terms of when the effective date is. Madam Chairperson: Thank you very much. Mr. Petrinka, you have 30 seconds to answer. Please proceed.

Mr. Petrinka: Very good question. That legislation that came forward in 1995, it came into force on the 1st of January, 1996. The City argued because the roles closed on the 31st of December, 1995, therefore 1996 was precluded. It could not happen until 1997, but because it was new legislation, or new methodology, it could not happen until a general reassessment year, yet, in the same breath that city lawyer argued that even the Province was not doing it until 1999. So her statement became redundant because then the province could not do it till 2002.

I mean this is the kind of stuff that we have been dealing with. I would like to say that page 22 is what we are recommending. We are recommending that this legislation be rescinded and that an Order-in- Council be drafted and we have done it for you. Madam Chairperson: Thank you very much for your presentation, Mr. Petrinka. I would like to thank you on behalf of the entire committee. I know you have worked very hard and very long, and we appreciate your appearing before us. Mr. Petrinka: Madam Chair, could I just say one more thing, because of just– Madam Chairperson: Okay, Mr. Petrinka, if you can– Mr.

Petrinka: This is extremely important, 15 seconds. * (20:50) Madam Chairperson: Yes, perfect. Mr. Petrinka: We have to consult with the AMM, okay? I can assure you that those 40-some-odd AMM members that were concerned have all replied, and this was presented to the minister in 1999, not 2001, not 2004, 1999. You have had this for four years, and they have all said the same thing, that pass the legislation and we will do it. Madam Chairperson: Okay, thank you, Mr. Petrinka. I have other people who have to present. Thank you very much.

Murray Gibson, executive director for Manitoba Tobacco Reduction Alliance, do you have a written presentation? Mr. Murray Gibson (Executive Director, Manitoba Tobacco Reduction Alliance): Yes, I do.

122 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 25, 2004 Madam Chairperson: Thank you. Mr. Gibson, you can proceed. Mr. Gibson: Madam Chair and members of the standing committee, I want to thank you for the opportunity to speak to Bill 21 at this important stage in its development. I also want to thank the all-party task force for the many opportunities that were provided to people around this province to have input into this important bill. I think the process is to be lauded.

It has been my privilege to work on a brief for dissemination by the organization I work with, MANTRA, to our partners around the province, and we hope to have it in their hands as soon as this bill goes forward. Tonight what you are going to hear is a brief of a brief. Probably, I have about nine minutes left, so I am going to make nine points. I want to quickly share with you nine reasons why this needs to move forward. First of all, to eliminate a major health risk.

The international agency for th e research on cancer lists 17 cancer-causing chemicals found in tobacco smoke to which all exposure should be avoided. A Harvard report on cancer prevention, and this puts it in perspective, shows that only 2 percent of cancer deaths can be attributed to risks posed by environmental pollution compared to 30 percent linked to tobacco. We need to understand where the priorities are. My thoughts. Smoking, and I use it in a commercial use sense, is in and of itself a major health risk causing needless death and disease, and that is fact. That is not fiction.

Environmental tobacco smoke turns clothes, workplaces and public places into veritable toxic waste dumps, and need- lessly causes disease and death in non-smokers. By proceeding with this legislation, this government will eliminate, according to the Centers for Disease Control, aver age exposure to environ- mental tobacco smoke by 60.5 percent. People in this province will be spared 60.5 percent of exposure, and I thank you for that. We must not stop here, however. We must come up with constructive ways to protect the health of all Manitobans, including those living on First Nations reserves.

I also take you to the fact that 24 percent of children in this province in 2001 were still living in homes where smoking wa

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	38-2-sed03
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	38th 2nd hansardpdf sed03.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	4e93e9f3fac5ae59669b8b8c4e70d1f534654b28

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (pdf).