THR FOLLOWING PACTS ARE _A S ROTARY OF Tit Wiilinn Res POhous AX eGed We
FROM THE PUBLIC i Ti PROPOSED C.n.i. CYLAW RO RESTRICTION COQUITLAM =~

SHORING Ik PUBLIC PLACES. (SPRING OF 1984.)
= JUN = 51985

SUMMARY OF RESPONSES 10 THE SMOKING RESTRICTION BYLAW (PROPOSED) SIMON FRASER
(Grouped by Subject Nutter ~ Updated to 15.3.8) HEALTH DISTRICT

|Arrevas/x Z|

Recognized Health Hazard:

Fifty-seven of the respondents rscognized a health hazard in general, to themselves, or their
chifdeen (1,4,5,8, 9,11, 13,14, 16,23, 24 ,25,26,26a,27,33,37,40,66,67,48,50,51,52,55, 58, 61,62, 66,~
58,70, 71,73, 7! 75,79, 84,85, 86,90, 94,96, 98, 100,103,205, 107,110,211,112,114,119, 126,129,130, 137, -
138,139): ers eininizes it (45).

Contributing to Discoafort:

Fifty=thres ; considered it contributed to discoefort, (1,2,9,6,20,12,17,24,25,27,28,29,33, 36,-

40,66,47,50,51,52,61,63,66,66,67,68, 74,75, 78,79,82,83,06,86,92, 93,98, 102,163, 106,105, 108, 107,~
120,126,117,118,128,129,140,16i); another two were concerned about dropped ashes (23,86).

Additional Areas to be Covered:

Several additional areas to be covered were suggested: These varied from the extrene of no
sagking except in own howe (70), and no suoking in any public place (34,64,68,65,92,55, 113)
to specific areas. Some of these suggestions aight already be included, e.g: lunch counters
(S0}, bars and other alcoholic outlets (7), corridors ($8) and schools, colleges, universities
etc., (31,48,53) but should be checked to aake sure. Others are not in our jurisdiction, e.g:
airlines (19, 32, 35, 79, 86) but perhaps the comments should be forwarded to the Civic
Aviation Authorities. Others included bus shelters (24,37,40,50,132,138), rest rooms, (50,
58), all restaurants (35, 70), senior citizens lounges (74), ferry tereinal (67), bowling
alley (73), work place (5,16,62,85,96,100), ferries (32), homes for seniors (79).Others
Suggested the non-smoking areas should be increased to 50% in places of public asseably
(50,62); personal service establishments (58), restaurants (58, 62).

Exclusions of those Included:

One (31) suggested recreational facilities, stores and restaurants should be excluded: two
ethars (26a and 81) also felt restaurants should be excluded. One (62) felt that presises
with good ventilation should not be excluded from the byiaw.

Increased Eaphasis:

Special esphasis was urged by nine (5,27,3],66,85,92, 106,210,113) on workplaces; by three
(31,57,72) on hospital areas; by nine on banks (31,46,67,89,96,103,109, 129,138), three on
checkouts (77,85,316); thirteen on food stores (19,40, 64,48,65,77,86,85,89,93,103,106,116));
six on elevators (68,62,69,85,96,97); three on buses (24,97,109); five on waiting rooss
(19,97,209,116,129); nine on departaent stores (86,89,96,103,134,122,129,131,138); two on
theatres (62,109); one on taxis (69); one on meetings (63); by one on Governaent Buildings
(89); and by thirty-seven on restaurants (19,26,30,32,36,35,37, 68,52, 53,62, 66,69, 70,71, 72,73, -
76, 78,79, 86,85,86,89,91,92,95,96,97, 100, 108,116,116, 122,129,136,138).

Restaurants:

In contradistinetion to the thirty-seven vanting greater emphasis on fon~sacking areas in
restaurants, four (26a,31,01,133) felt trcy should be excluded, and three more (31,821,115)
felt it should be at the operator's discretion, One (81) felt al’ restaurants would seet the
aie chee criteria, while one (72) felt that ventilation should not be a resson for
exclusion. Five (35,70,74,77,37) falt the bylaw should apply to all restaurants, while
another three (58,62,100) felt the noesmohing area should be increased up to $0%, and one
other (34) felt saoking should only be allowed if area encissed = ' 4°... os forced
ventilation, !wo others (53,73) felt restaurants vould weacome at to prevent unfair compet-
ition, while one (91) noticed that where restaurants do have "no smoking" areas, there are
usually ore people in the "no smoking" areas than in the “smoking” areas. One (61) asked
that the smoke free area be suoke free, but another (99) felt a truly smoke free area cannot
be provided. One (108) felt the reeh would stay even if sacking stopped, while one (92) felt
that the clauses under "Restaurants" should be rewordad to confora vith eost other clauses
but retain the “contiguous clause. Aine stated thei? reluctance to dine out because of
others swoking (32,52,66,69,73,92,95, 108,179), perhaps the restauranteurs should listent

oes Cont'd: