Matt Todd's Pursuit of Idyll Minds

The stats presented last week by Clyde Hertzman show that children living in White Rock (proper) entering kindergarten are not nearly as healthy and school-ready as they were a few years ago. The change is so dramatic that it is among the biggest declines in the province. At the workshop following, I could hear surprise at each of the many tables reviewing maps for the whole school district that White Rock children were doing so poorly — an anomaly on the peninsula.

On the Human Early Learning Partnership (HELP) website there is a pdf that shows how children’s development has changed over the past few years for the worse.

I’m not as familiar with this one, but the BC Atlas looks like it offers suggestions on how to improve a community’s environment for children.

This pdf shows the difference between the two “cycles” – data collected in (I think) 2002 and 2005. The colour coding indicates province-wide standing.

I’m hoping to get some time to review this stuff closer. When I do, I’ll share what I find.

Having now collected a second ‘cycle’ of data, they are able to gauge change by comparing stats collected a few years ago to numbers from last year. The differences are interesting enough in themselves, but Dr. Hertzman explained that the first set of children have now completed their grade 4 standard test, so their development can be tracked.

Unfortunately, it has proven what academics have long theorized –- that a child’s readiness for kindergarten is an indicator of how successful they will be through their school career. This appears to be a bullet-proof argument for early childhood education.

Dr. Hertzman compared Canada to other developed countries. A chart of GDP:debt shows that we have gone from a critical point a decade ago to having by far the lowest ratio.

He described this as an “addiction” to debt reduction. Clearly, making sacrifices to further pay down the national debt is no longer necessary. It may be politically satisfying, but neglects investments that would make the country stronger.

This is likely not helped by the social sector’s tendency to “cry wolf” non-stop. For example, advocates for the health care system are constantly protesting that they need more money, but evidence shows that more money won’t make a significant difference. Canada, when compared to other countries, gets good value for a high standard of health care.

However, Canada is an absentee parent when it comes to early childhood education. Our level of investment in our children is embarrassing. And now that there is irrefutable evidence that their start in life is a powerful determinant of their health and success in later years, the current government’s failure to establish national childcare standards seems incredibly myopic. It underscores a fear that the Conservatives do not understand that early childhood education is not babysitting, and that their priorities for investing in our future are based on obsolete assumptions.

In contrast, Dr. Hertzman described Finland. It has some of the highest quality of life indicators and their economy is robust. Years ago, with the Soviet collapse, they were suffering 20% unemployment. Yet, their commitment to health care and early childhood education wasn’t slashed. And it paid off.

While Canada may brag of a lower national debt, Finland has higher literacy rates and other enviable strengths that bolster their economy now, and hold good promise for long-term continued success. On the other hand, Canada’s strategy for the future seems to be clinging to a delusional hope that having an exceptionally low national debt will offset an embarrassingly high illiteracy rate and mediocre workforce.

Dr. Hertzman’s HELP is world-renowned, pioneering research that is generating strong conclusions that are sobering and motivating, for White Rock and Canada.

To assist with drafting an amendment to White Rock’s Smoking Regulation Bylaw, I have compiled information and examples from these jurisdictions with regulations on smoking within close proximity to building entrances: Delta, BC; Airdrie, AB; Beaumont, AB; Camrose, AB; St. Albert, AB; Stettler, AB; Strathcona, AB; Huron Shores, ON; Sioux Lookout, ON; State of California; Philadelphia, PA; Santa Fe, NM; Normal, IL.

I have no doubt that this list is not exhaustive. There are likely many other examples throughout North America. However, these are those I have found to date which have their legislation available on the Internet. Unless it would be of further assistance, I do not plan on researching further precedent legislation as I presume these form a sufficient body of reference.

Considering the material I have found and am presenting here, I suggest that the distance for White Rock’s amendment be a minimum of 6m(19.7ft). This would not be unusual in the context of the examples cited below (including the entire State of California) and is supported by scientific evidence currently available.

SIGNAGE

Regulations in each of these jurisdictions have sections regarding signage. However, none require anything more than a sign posted at the entrance. Most had criteria for the size, but not distance of placement from the entrance. Most stipulated certain text and a standard symbol.

ASHTRAYS

Most regulations included sections on ashtrays. It appears standard, not that ashtrays be required, but that they simply not be located (or that they be removed from) within the area designated smoke-free.

DISTANCE FROM ENTRANCEWAYS

Outdoor environmental tobacco smoke has not been extensively studied, as has indoor smoke. A report titled Environmental Tobacco Smoke in Indoor and Outdoor Public Places from the Provincial Health Services Authority in Vancouver BC, June 8 2006, references two studies. This is an excerpt from the conclusion of an unpublished study by James Repace, MSc.

Smoke levels do not approach background levels for fine particles or carcinogens until about 7 meters or 23 feet from the source. Therefore it makes sense to post signs warning smokers not to smoke closer than about 20 feet from building entrances, and to place ashtrays at that distance and no closer. Moreover, because some persons suffer from severe asthma, and secondhand smoke is a known asthmatic trigger, this is another good reason to keep smokers from congregating closer to building entrances than 20 feet.

In the following examples, the radius from an entranceway designated smoke-free ranges from 2m(6.6ft) to 10m(32.8ft) — the shortest distance being in Sioux Lookout ON and the greatest in Delta BC. Most simply state that smoking is prohibited from within a certain distance from an entrance or exit. Delta BC, Santa Fe NM, and the State of California treat the area outside of vents and windows the same as they do doors. The intention seems to be, not just to prevent unwanted exposure to tobacco smoke for people accessing the buildings, but also to prevent smoke from entering the building.

Delta, BC — 2006
There have been media reports of outdoor smoke-free zones being established in Delta. But it seems the only information available is a report to Council from the Chairs of the Parks and Fields Committee, and Civic Properties and Buildings Committee dated August 25, 2006. My understanding is that their recommendation was adopted but I was unable to find any resulting regulation or bylaw at this time. These are the paragraphs that seem most relevant to White Rock’s requested bylaw amendment:

RECOMMENDATION: That establishment of smoke-free zones for exterior areas of municipal facilities and parks, where the public must pass to enter a building, a ventilation system draws air into the building, or where the public tend to congregate to participate or view regularly scheduled events.

Establishment of smoke-free zones would mean that employees who smoke would also be asked to follow the same practice. Relocation of ashtrays to areas further away from the building entries may be necessary. It is suggested smoke-free zones be established at recreation centres, park facilities, and the front entrance to municipal hall, as they are locations where public use is most concentrated.

LEGISLATION TEXT

Airdrie, AB — 2004, 2006
3.1 …the following are Designated Public Places for the purposes of this bylaw:
a) Public Buildings and those areas within 3m of an entrance or exit to a Public Building;
b) City Buildings and those areas within 3m of an entrance or exit to a City Building;
d) Workplaces and those areas within 3m of an entrance or exit to a Workplace.
3.2 No person shall Smoke in a Designated Public Place, whether or not a ‘No Smoking’ sign in posted or visible.

Beaumont, AB — 2003
2.14 “Public Building” means any enclosed building or structure to which the public can and does have access by right or by invitation
2.19 “Town Building” means any building owned, leased, operated or occupied by the Town;
4.1 …the following are Designated Public Places for the purposes of this bylaw:
a) Public Buildings and those areas within 6m of an entrance or exit to a Public Building;
b) Town Buildings and those areas within 6m of an entrance or exit to a Town Building;
c) Public Transportation Vehicle Shelters; and,
d) Workplaces and those areas within 6m of an entrance or exit to a Workplace.
4.3 No person shall smoke in a Designated Public Place, whether or not a “No Smoking” sign is posted or visible.

Camrose, AB — 2003
201 (2) Except when on a public sidewalk, no person shall carry or possess a lit cigarette, cigar or pipe, or burn tobacco in any manner within three (3) metres of an entrance or exit to a public premises.
(4) No person shall provide services or allow services to be provided to any person who is carrying or possesses a lit cigarette, cigar or pipe in an area or premises in which smoking is provided by this By-Law.

St. Albert, AB — 2004
2. (a) “Building” means a fully or substantially enclosed structure constructed such that it may accommodate human occupation. A bus shelter shall be considered a building for the purposes of this Bylaw;
3. (1) Unless an exception applies under this Bylaw, no person may engage in Smoking activity:
(a) at or in any City-owned structural facility;
(b) within a Building;
(c) within 3 metres of any Building entrance or exit, except on a public sidewalk adjacent to a roadway;
(d) on the grounds of an Outdoor Public Event, except in an area reserved for motor vehicle parking;
(e) on a Patio

Stettler, AB — 2004
3.1 Subject to Section 3.2, the following are Designated Public Places for the purposes of this bylaw:
a) Public Buildings and those areas within 6m of an entrance or exit to a Public Building;
b) Town Buildings and those areas within 6m of an entrance or exit to a Town Building;
c) Public Transportation Vehicles and Public Transportation Vehicle Shelters; and
d) Workplaces and those areas within 6m of an entrance or exit to a Workplace.
3.2 No person shall Smoke in a Designated Public Place, whether or not a “No Smoking” sign is posted or visible
4.1 The proprietor and employer of every Designated Public Place shall ensure that no ashtrays are placed or allowed to remain in any Designated Public Place.
4.2 The proprietor and employer of every Designated Public Place shall, if employees or members of the public from time to time gather to smoke at a location outside the Designated Public Place, ensure that ashtrays are placed more than 6m from the entrance or exit of the Designated Public Place.

Strathcona, AB — 2006
2.2 (t) “Public Place” means all or any part of a building, structure or other enclosed area to which member of the public have access… including, …
(iii) within 3m of the main entrance or exit to a Public Place;
4.1 no Person shall smoke;
(a) in a Public Place

Huron Shores, ON — 2004
1.3 “entranceway” means the area within a 4 metre radius surrounding any public entrance to a public building or workplace, but does not include a street, road or highway;
2.1 No person shall smoke in any workplace or entranceway to any workplace within the Municipality, whether or not a No Smoking sign is posted.
3.1 No person shall smoke in any public place or entranceway to any public place within the Municipality, whether or not a No Smoking sign is posted.

Sioux Lookout, ON — 2003
2. (2) The outside area not forming part of the street, road or highway that is within two metres of an entrance to any public place as designated pursuant to Subsection 2(1) hereof is also designated as a public place for the purposes of this By-Law.
3. (1) No person shall smoke in a public place.

California (State of) — 2005
7596. (a) “Public building” means a building owned and occupied, or leased and occupied, by the state, a county, a city, a city and county, or a California Community College district.
7597. (a) No public employee or member of the public shall smoke any tobacco product inside a public building, or in an outdoor area within 20 feet of a main exit, entrance, or operable window of a public building

Philadelphia, PA — 2005
(3)(a) No person shall smoke in any of the following places
(xiii) (.7) Outdoors within ten (10) feet of any entrance to any Enclosed Area in which smoking is prohibited under this Section.

Santa Fe, NM — 2006
10-6.2 E. the city council finds and declares that the purposes of this section are
(1) to protect the public health and welfare by prohibiting smoking in public places of employment;
(2) to guarantee the right of nonsmokers to breathe smoke-free air; and
(3) to recognize that the need to breathe smoke-free air shall have priority over the desire to smoke.
10-6.7 (1) Smoking shall occur only at a distance of twenty-five (25′) feet in radius from the entrance to any enclosed area where smoking is prohibited to insure that tobacco smoke does not enter the area through entrances, windows, ventilation systems or any other means.

Normal, IL — 2006
17.6-7 Smoking is prohibited within fifteen feet of any public entrance to an area in which smoking is prohibited.
17.6-8 … the following areas shall be exempt from the provisions of Section 17.6-7.
5. Outdoor patios, except for that area of an outdoor patio within fifteen feet (15’) of a primary public entrance to an area where smoking is prohibited.

REFERENCES

• Provincial Health Services Authority, Vancouver BC: Environmental Tobacco Smoke in Indoor and Outdoor Public Places, June 8 2006
• Repace Associates, Bowie MD: Measurements Of Outdoor Air Pollution From Secondhand Smoke On The UMBC Campus, June 1 2005
• Airdrie, AB
• Beaumont, AB
• Camrose, AB
• St. Albert, AB
• Stettler, AB
• Strathcona, AB
• Huron Shores, ON
• Sioux Lookout, ON
• Berkeley, CA
• Calabasas, CA
• State of California
• Philadelphia, PA
• Santa Fe, NM
• Normal, IL

I got a call last week from a lady who said she had been the first female School Trustee in Abbotsford 40 years ago. She had to deal with the prevailing attitude at the time that a board room was no place for a lady. Sure enough, she introduced some novel and apparently disturbing ideas. She argued that, in order to be good role models, there should be no smoking at the meeting table. She was ridiculed.

What seems ridiculous to me is that it was only one generation ago that women were believed subserviant and the convenience of a nicotine addict was more important than a school trustee being a good role model or the health of the people around them.

Thank you, Ms. Henson, for pioneering women’s civil rights and the promotion of health responsibility. 40 years later, we’re still battling the same selfish attitudes. Hopefully my grandchildren will be just as surprised with my story about how, back in 2006, people felt entitled to smoke tobacco on restaurant patios despite all the obvious risks and discomfort to everyone around them.

Should our residential taxpayers be paying for ads and brochures to promote local businesses?

At least 90% of White Rock’s tax base are people’s homes. In the tax pie, everything other than residential is a very thin slice. And that small proportion is shrinking due to the construction of new homes rising much faster than new commercial spaces.

So what do our home owners gain from helping to pay for White Rock advertising?

I don’t know the answer to that question, which is why I think it’s a waste of your money. We should leave the marketing campaigns to our business community. Our BIA and Chamber of Commerce should be tasked with promoting local business. That’s what they are there for.

I think our residents have higher priorities for the property taxes we collect from their homes before helping businesses promote themselves.

It is now 2050. I wrote this letter in 2006, before I even met your grandmother, to apologize for the mess that my generation has left for you.

The government of Canada, 44 years ago, proposed a plan to deal with pollution. They seemed to believe that it was best for the economy if we didn’t make difficult choices too quickly for reducing pollution. Instead, for decades, we continued to pump more and more toxins into the air. The government figured you should clean it up.

I am very sorry for all the health problems and environmental challenges you’re now having to deal with. It was thought that someone would probably have eventually invented new technologies for fixing our messes. But they didn’t see irony in the fact that it was technology that was creating the pollution in the first place. Now you’re having to make the hard choices and challenging changes that we didn’t have the guts to do. You’re having to do it now because it has an immediate and obvious impact on your quality of life.

As unbelievable as it may sound, back in 2006, there were still a lot of people who were fiercely resistant to sustainable land-use planning. In their choices as consumers, they were reluctant to buy things like efficient light bulbs because they were more expensive. Also, most people wouldn’t buy diesel or hybrid cars, which was the cleanest technology available on the market at the time. There wasn’t much sense to their reasons. I think it was just a cultural resistance, like the Greenland Norse and other societies that refused to accept that their cultural identity or consumer preferences were suicidal.

I am so sorry you are now having to live with the consequences of my generation’s stubborn refusal to risk our quality of life in order to protect yours. We made a big mess and left it for you to clean up. I agree, it was very selfish and ignorant.

Sincerely,
Matt Todd
Your Grandfather

Yesterday’s Province had an editorial by John Martin titled “Anti-smoking bullies have gone far enough in their regulatory jihad”

This is my reply.

As instigator of the proposed smoking ban in White Rock, Mr. Martin implies that I am a “righteous bully in a regulatory jihad”. He is correct.

I believe very strongly that every person should have the maximum degree of freedom possible. But what if one person exercising their personal freedoms impairs the freedoms of someone else?

What happens when a person who chooses to feed a nicotine addiction in public causes someone else discomfort or bodily harm? Is it righteous to choose health as a priority over drug addiction? If it is, then I am.

It sounds like the underlying assumption supporting Mr. Martin’s opinion is that smoke outdoors simply disappears: no harm, no foul. He doesn’t believe outdoor smoking is a problem. So, since a jihad is a holy war against unbelievers, then maybe that’s what this is.

As a smoking diner indulges their nicotine addiction on a patio, indeed the breeze takes their smoke away. But en route, it is carried past the faces of others and often blown into the restaurant’s open windows, doors and air vents. Perhaps Mr. Martin’s opinions would be different if he had asthma, a heart condition, or appreciated the risk to children and expectant mothers?

It is becoming better known that tobacco smoke kills over five times as many people as the sum of all car accidents, suicides, murders, and illegal drugs every year in Canada. Though historical tolerance makes us blind to it, nicotine addiction has a very serious and significant negative impact on our quality of life. Research proves smoking bans as the most effective tool for preventing exposure to smoke, and the second best for reducing smoking rates.

And so, if a bully is a person who uses power to intimidate those who are weaker, and if knowledge is power, and if confusion or lack of knowledge constitutes a weakness, then I suppose I am an unintended bully since I apparently have a greater understanding of nicotine addiction issues than Mr. Martin, who appears to be confused as to why I would want to restrict someone’s freedom to poison the air that others have to breathe.

These are the points I’m hoping I will get across clearly at tomorrow’s City Council meeting.

There are three main arguments people seem to make when resisting smoking bans:
• I have the right to do whatever I want with my body;
• it’s a legal product in Canada so the city has no business telling me I can’t smoke it; and
• if people can’t smoke on White Rock patios, they’ll just go to Surrey, which will put White Rock restaurants at a competitive disadvantage.

rights of one person should not diminish another’s
Scientific research suggests that 90% of people who smoke are addicted to nicotine. Considering that trace amount of second hand smoke has immediate health impacts on asthmatics, children, and people with heart disease, the freedoms of those people and their right to health should take precedence over appeasing a drug addiction.

legal purchase and possession does not impart unfettered legal use
Just because tobacco is legal to purchase and possess does not mean you should be able to use it in any and all places. Legal purchase does not give a right to smoke in public. It does not override others’ right to clean air.

marketing clean air should be a competitive advantage
I keep hearing that if White Rock bans smoking on patios, restaurants will lose business to Surrey patios, which will still allow smoking. My question is, which patios in Surrey would get an advantage? There are very few patios in Surrey. The only ones I can think of that are ever used are Sawbuck’s (which is essentially a smoke pit) and the two places in Crescent Beach.

I think White Rock patios are successful because of their views and location. That is their competitive advantage. Are nicotine addicts really the market that White Rock wants to cater to as a city that has a stated goal of becoming a city of health excellence? Being smoke-free should be seen as a competitive advantage, as supported by market research. Statistically valid phone polls prove that a small percentage of people will go out to restaurants less often if they can’t smoke, but more people will go out more often if they know they won’t have to breathe smoke. That means it is more likely that a ban on patio smoking would actually be good for business.

purpose of it all
The point of a patio smoking ban in White Rock should be to protect the health of the people who work in restaurants (many of whom are youth) and people who are especially sensitive to tobacco smoke – children, asthmatics, and people with heart problems. Let’s make their health a priority.

I will be a panelist on channel 10 Omni’s The Standard this week. Topics are the Afghan war, same-sex marriage, and MacKay & Stronach. These are the points I’m hoping to get across clearly.

Afghan war
The only morality we have any business promoting in other countries is basic human rights. And we should first and foremost be modeling those tenets. Our only role should be to support the people of their country defend their human rights. It’s hard to see how aggressive armed combat fits into those principles. Does Canada have the appetite to be an aggressor? At what point does our presence do more harm than good?

Same-sex marriage
What we see here is a conflict between our principles of personal freedoms as defined in the Charter of Rights and our cultural heritage that defines a family as a man, woman and children. But that definition has been long obsolete. As long as you aren’t harming anyone and it involves consenting adults, I have no business telling you what you can or can’t do with your penis.

The challenge is that our definition of family has such deep roots in our cultural identity that this conflict with our (relatively) new principles is threatening to our fundamental beliefs about our life’s purpose. What we are witnessing is an awkward evolution of our culture. We have fought for and embraced principles that value personal freedom, now we are trying to figure out how they fit in our values. We are wrestling with our own identity.

Peter McKay & Belinda Stronach
This has nothing to do with Stronach and McKay, it’s an illustration of why our elected representatives are seen as ineffective at resolving issues on our behalf. This type of behaviour is part of what feeds citizens’ distrust and cynicism of politicians. I think we should expect a much higher degree of respect and decorum in how MPs treat each other. They should be role models for children. If they are, in fact, representatives of our society, then we have some soul searching to do of our own. Should name-calling, assumptions, personal attacks and judgments be tolerated? Is this how we solve problems in our communities? Is this how we should treat each other?

The way this controversy unfolded also highlights another problem in public life – being physically attractive is an advantage for getting elected, but a disadvantage in public life. If Stronach were ugly and unfriendly, would anyone care who she is dating? And is the preoccupation with her sex-life distracting people from the issues that actually impact on our lives?

On the Opinions page of today’s Peace Arch News, It is truly sad to read the petulance of a few veterans on the issue of pay parking.

This is exactly the reason governments are reluctant to give a special benefit. If you do it once, it seems people get a sense of entitlement.

Instead of being thankful that they got over a year of complimentary car storage, some veterans are indignant that the Year of the Veteran has passed and the rules will soon revert to normal.

Squabbling over fees for car storage diminishes the sanctity of the valiant efforts made in defence of democracy and human rights.

It is dishonorable of veterans to claim that the risks they took on our behalf entitles them to park their car for free.

Building height is not the linchpin of White Rock’s Official Community Plan.

To suggest, as many have over the past couple years, that the entire OCP is now null and void because council has allowed increased building height in a select area, is to admit that they don’t know what an OCP is and the purpose it serves. It also demonstrates an inflexibility and closed-mindedness that is most unfortunate. I’m not suggesting that everyone should accept the taller buildings. I’m not suggesting that everyone should be happy with them because I said so. I’m just disappointed when people write letters to the editor worrying of one thing (impact of building height on the character of the city) yet complain about something else (claiming that the OCP is now invalid). Such melodrama actually distracts from their concerns.

The shrapnel from those claims might do more harm than intended. It would be counter-productive to declare the OCP nullified. Building heights in the Town Centre are only one small piece of a very comprehensive document. Don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater.