Board of Health – September 23, 2019 – Part 2 of 2

Board of Health – September 23, 2019 – Part 2 of 2


THIS.
I KNOW CONVERSATION AND FOCUS IN AND AROUND BOTH THIS YEAR’S
FINANCIAL SITUATION AND PREPARING FOR 2020 HAS ACTUALLY
RELATED TO PROVINCIAL ANNOUNCEMENTS AROUND CALL
SHARING AND THE TERM I BELIEVE IS MODERNIZATION OF PUBLIC
HEALTH. >>THESE ARE CERTAINLY IMPORTANT
ISSUES WHICH WE’LL GET TO TOWARDS TEND BUT I WOULD LIKE TO
TAKE YOU THROUGH SOME OTHER PARTS OF THE BUDGET. GOING TO THE NEXT SLIDE.
WE’RE HAVING TECHNICAL DIFFICULTIES.
THE NEXT SLIDE I THINK YOU HAVE HARD COPIES IN FRONT OF YOU.
THERE WE GO. AS THIS RELATES TO THE STUDENT
NUTRITION PROGRAM AND THE COST OF NUTRITIOUS FOOD
SURVEY A SURVEY THAT WE ACTUALLY DO ON AN ANNUAL BASIS.
TO UNDERSTAND HOW MUCH IT ACTUALLY COSTS TO PROVIDE A
NUTRITIOUS BASKET OF FOOD YEAR OVER YEAR. AN THIS IS IMPORTANT TO US AS WE
SEEK TO FIX THE BUDGET AND ADJUST THE BANALITY IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE REAL LIFE CIRCUMSTANCES BEFORE US FOR THE
STUDENT NUTRITION PROGRAM. AND THROUGH THE WORK THAT HAS
BEEN DONE BY TORONTO PUBLIC HEALTH STAFF I CAN TELL YOU THAT
FOR 2020, THE ESTIMATED YEAR OVER YEAR
INCREASE FOR FOOD BASED ON THAT WORK IS 7.5%.
AND AS THE RESULT WITH THAT IN MIND WE HAVE A REQUEST OF 1.1
MILLION TO ADDRESS THE INCREASED COST OF FOOD IN ORDER TO
CONTINUE TO OPERATE THE STUDENT NUTRITION PROGRAM. TURNING TO THE NEXT SLIDE.
WE’RE NOW TALKING ABOUT PROGRAMS THAT ARE FUNDED BY THE MINISTRY
OF CHILDREN, COMMUNITY, AND SOCIAL SERVICES AND FUNDING
PRESSURES RELATED TO THOSE PROGRAMS. AS I ELABORATED TO THE BOARD OF
HEALTH BUDGET COMMITTEE EARLIER THIS MONTH, THE FUNDING, THE
BUDGET FOR THESE SERVICES AND PROGRAMS HAVE REMAINED LARNLLY
UNCHANGED FOR THE LAST 12 YEARS AND WE ANTICIPATE THAT THE 2020
BUDGET WILL REMAIN AT THE SAME LEVEL AS THE 2019 FUNDING THAT
WAS PROVIDED BY THE MCCSS. LOOKING TOWARDS WHAT OUR
INFLATIONARY COSTS AND COST OF FE LIVING INCREASES ARE FOR THESE
PROGRAMS, YOU’LL SEE OUR ESTIMATE IS AT ABOUT $48,500 AND
I CAN ALSO TELL YOU THAT HISTORICALLY, THESE FUNDING
PRESSURES AGAIN KEEPING IN MIND THAT THE FUNDING LEVELS PROVIDED
BY MCCSS HAVE BASICALLY BEEN HELD STEADY FOR THE LAST 12
YEARS WHAT HAS BEEN THE PRACTICE AT TPH IS TO ABSORB THOSE
FUNDING PRESSURES EITHER THROUGH SERVICE EFFICIENCIES, ATTRITION, OR A COMBINATION.
AND AT THIS STAGE OF THE GAUGE GIVEN OUR CURRENT SITUATION THE
RECOMMENDATION THAT’S IN FRONT OF YOU AND ELABORATED IN THE
REPORT IS THAT WE CONTINUE TO ABSORB THOSE PRESSURES IN 2020. NOW MOVING ON AND IT’S A BIT OF
A RECAP HERE. A REMINDER AS TO THE PROP VISUAL
FUNDING ANNOUNCEMENTS — PROVINCIAL ANNOUNCEMENTS — ON
THE SLIDE IN FRONT OF YOU IS A HIGH LEVEL RECAP OF
THAT CONTAINED IN THE APRIL PROVINCIAL ANNOUNCEMENT TALKED
ABOUT A NEW DENTAL PROGRAM FOR LOW INCOME SENIORS, COST SHARING
AND CHANGES TO THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE PROVINCES AND MUNICIPALITIES, HOW BOARDS OF
HEALTH WOULD BE OPERATING AND ALL THIS TO COME WITH A
PROJECTED ANNUAL SAVINGS OF $200 MILLION BY 2021-22 THROUGH REGIONALIZATION AND GOVERNANCE
CHANGES TO PUBLIC HEALTH UNITS. HOWEVER, MORE RECENTLY, TOWARDS
MID TO LATE AUGUST TO BE PRECISE, THERE WAS ANNOUNCEMENT
THAT CAME FORWARD FROM OUR PROVINCIAL COUNTERPARTS ABOUT
THE 2020 BUDGET AND THOSE ARE ELABORATED ON IN THE REPORT AND
THE NEXT SLIDES START TO TELL US A LITTLE BIT OF A HIGH LEVEL
OVERVIEW AS TO WHAT WAS ACTUALLY ANNOUNCED IN AUGUST BY OUR
[INDISCERNIBLE AUDIO]. FIRST, DETAILS ON THE MINISTRY
OF HEALTH, ONTARIO SENIORS DENTAL
CARE BATHROOM. WHAT WE HEARD FROM OUR MINISTRY
COUNTERPARTS IS THAT THE MINISTRY IS — AT THIS STAGE OF THE GAME
WE’RE STILL AWAITING FROM OUR COLLEAGUES AT THE MINISTRY WHAT
EXACTLY THAT BASKET OF SERVICES ENTAILS.
WHAT IS COVERED IN THIS ONTARIO SENIORS TEST TEST >>>SO THE 5.9 MILLION IS THE
OUTSTANDING?>>THAT IS CORRECT.
>>AND THE RECOMMENDATION HERE IN THE BUDGET THAT THE BOARD OF
HEALTH IS CONSIDERING IS FOR US TO ASK THE CITY OF TORONTO TO
MAKE UP THAT DIFFERENCE UNLESS THE PROVINCE REVERSES ITS CUT.
>>CORRECT. >>AND THERE’S A RECOMMENDATION
IN HERE THAT CONTINUES TO CALL ON THE PROVINCE TO REVERSE IT
CORRECT?>>I BELIEVE THAT’S THERE.
>>THAT WAS THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD OF HEALTH BUDGET
COMMITTEE. I BELIEVE I HAVE TO MOVE IT
AGAIN JUST TO MAKE SURE IT’S CAPTURE.
>> THAT IS CORRECT. >>OKAY. OKAY. AND THEN
RELATED TO THE SAVINGS THAT WERE HERE.
THE BOARD OF HEALTH IN BUDGET COMMITTEE AND THE BOARD OF
HEALTH OUR PREVIOUS SDREKS WAS TO REQUEST STAFF TO LOOK FOR
OPTIONS FOR SAVINGS THAT DO NOT NEGATIVELY IMPACT POPULATION
HEALTH STATUS. SO THE SAVING OPTIONS HERE DO
THEY HAVE A NEGATIVE IMPACT?>>WE SPECIFICALLY PROPOSED
THOSE BECAUSE THEY DON’T. >>SO THESE ARE SAVINGS THAT WE
MIGHT LOOK REGARDLESS OF THE PROVINCIAL PRESSURES IMPOSED
UPON US. >>SOME OF THEM CERTAINLY.
I WOULD SUGGEST THAT THE PRESSURES AND THE PROVINCIAL
ANNOUNCEMENTS WAS TO LOOK AT THEM MORE SERIOUSLY.
>>OKAY. THOSE ARE ALL MY QUESTIONS.
THANK YOU. >>>>.
>>THIS IS TO TEN HANDED PROGRAMS THAT ARE THE REDUCTION
PROPOSALS. CAN YOU JUST EXPLAIN THEM?
NOT THE ONES ON THE PURPLE PAPER BUT THE ONES THAT ARE LISTED,
THE SAFE WATER INITIATIVE AND FOOD SAFETY INITIATIVE.
>>SURE. SO WHAT WE WERE — WHAT I
MENTIONED EARLIER IN THE PRESENTATION SO THAT THE THREE
PUBLIC BUDGET REDUCTION OPTIONS RELATE TO THE ONTARIO SENIORS
DENTAL CARE PROGRAM. CERTAIN SERVICE EFFICIENCIES
WITH RESPECT TO SAFE WATER AND FOOD SAFETY.
THOSE ARE THE THREE THAT WE HAVE IN FRONT OF US THAT ARE
MENTIONED IN THE REPORT OUTSIDE OF THE CONFIDENTIAL ATTACHMENT.
I MENTIONED EARLIER THAT WE’RE ANTICIPATING A SAVINGS AS A
RESULT OF THE OVERLAP BETWEEN THE CRITERIA FOR THE ONTARIO
SENIORS DENTAL CARE PROGRAM AND THE PREEXISTING MUNICIPAL DENTAL
PROGRAM. AND THAT THE OVERLAP WE FELT
WOULD PROVIDE A SAVINGS OF $2.2 MILLION ON AN ANNUALIZE BASIS.
WE’VE RECOMMENDED THAT WE TAKE THIS INTO CONSIDERATION
PARTIALLY IN 2019 AND PARTIALLY IN 2020.
AND THE 1.4 MILLION OF IT BE ACCOUNTED FOR.
>>I’M MORE CONCERNED — I THINK I GET THAT ONE.
I’M MORE CONCERNED WITH THE OTHER TWO.
WHY WOULD WE HAVE THEM ON THE BOOKS AS PROGRAMS WE THOUGHT
WERE WORTH WHILE EIGHT MONTHS AGO AND NOW RECOMMEND THAT THEY
NOT BE INCLUDED?>>COMPLETELY APPRECIATE YOUR
QUESTION. THROUGH THE CHAIR, THOSE ARE TWO
PARTICULAR SERVICE EFFICIENCIES THAT WE’RE RECOMMENDING.
THOSE WERE PROGRAMS PREVIOUSLY 100% FUNDED BY THE PROVINCE AND
ARE NOW CAUGHT UP IN THIS 730/30 SHIFT.
I CAN TELL YOU THAT — IF THEY WERE ON OUR BOOKS — AND ALLOWED US TO DO CERTAIN
INCREASED SIGNAGE AND PUBLIC EDUCATION AND RESPECT — I’M LOOKING — I WONDER —
>>ENHANCE PRESIDENT OF THE DIFFERENT DISCLOSURE WEBSITES
THAT WE HAVE. TRAINING.
STAFF TO ATTEND DIFFERENT MEETINGS THAT WOULD BE OUTSIDE
OF THE CITY OF TORONTO. THINGS LIKE THAT.
>>OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. >>OTHER QUESTIONS? YES. >>SCHISMLY BECAUSE I KNOW THAT
OUR SPEAKER IS NOT HERE BUT WHAT SHE WAS GOING TO SPEAK ABOUT WAS
AROUND FUNDING FOR SEXUAL HEALTH CLINICS.
IS THERE ANYTHING IN THE REPORT BASED ON THE RECOMMENDATIONS
BEFORE US THAT WILL PUT FUNDING AT RISK FOR FOR SEXUAL HEALTH
CLINICS. >>THROUGH THE CHAIR THERE IS
NOTHING SPECIFIC IN THE REPORT AROUND FUNDING FOR SEXUAL HEALTH
CLINICS. WE HAVE PLANNED TO CONTINUE TO
PROVIDE THE EXISTING RESOURCES ACROSS THE VARIOUS SERVICES.
KEEPING IN MIND THAT WE JUST RELEASED AS DISCUSSED EARLIER
THIS MORNING THE HEALTH STATUS REPORT.
AND TRYING TO MAKE SURE THAT WE’RE PUTTING OUR RESOURCES
TOWARDS THOSE AREAS THAT CAN GIVE THE MOST IMPACT IN TERMS OF
IMPROVING HEALTH STATUS BUT THERE’S NOTHING SPECIFIC
CONTEMPLATED WITH SEXUAL HEALTH CLINICS.
>>AT THIS POINT IN TIME. >>AT THIS POINT IN TIME.
>>AND IF THE PROVINCE CONTINUES TO INSIST ON THE CHANGE TO THE
FORMULA 100 TO 70/30 AND WE DO HAVE TO DO SOME OF THAT BELT
TIGHTENING WITHIN THE CITY COULD HAVERS — COFFERS, WILL SEXUAL
HEALTH CLINICS BE PUT FORGOTS ONE OF THE — FORTH AS A SERVICE
YOU WOULD IN TERMS OF PUTTING RESOURCES
THAT GIVE US THE MOST IMPACT. HEALTH STATUS, IMPROVED HEALTH
STATUS, AND REDUCED DISPARITIES. I WOULD SAY THAT WE’D LOOK AT
EVERYTHING AND THAT’S WHAT OUR SENIOR LEADERSHIP TEAM IS DOING.
>>AND BECAUSE THE SPEAKER WAS NOT ABLE TO SAY,
WHEN SHE AND HER COLLEAGUES COME BACK TO CITY COUNCIL BY WAY OF
COMMITTEE, WOULD IT BE RECOMMENDED THAT SHE BE DEPUTING
AT THE BUDGET COMMITTEE THEN TO MAKE HER CASE TO SAVE AND
SUPPORT THE FUNDING FOR SEXUAL HEALTH CLINICS.
>>THROUGH THE CHAIR I DON’T KNOW IF THERE IS A SPECIFIC
ITEM. I CERTAINLY WOULD NOT TELL
ANYONE NOT TO COME TO THE BUDGET COMMITTEE.
I THINK THAT’S A REASONABLE THING TO DO.
IF THERE’S A PARTICULAR AREA OF FUNDING THAT ONE IS CONCERNED
ABOUT. I DON’T KNOW THAT THERE IS A
SPECIFIC ITEM TO SPEAK TO BUT I WOULD CERTAINLY NOT TELL ANYBODY
NOT TO DE-PUTE IF THEY HAVE CONCERNS AROUND BUDGET.
>>JUST ONE QUESTION. I KNOW THAT FOR SEVERAL OF THE
SERVICES DIRECTLY DELIVERED WE’RE ABSORBING AND FINDING
EFFICIENCIES. IS THAT THE CASE FOR WHEN WE
PROVIDE FUNDING TO PARTNER AGENCIES TO DELIVER SERVICES
LIKE THE SEXUAL HEALTH CLINICS. ARE WE SAYING FLAT LINE OR ARE
THEY GETTING INFLATIONARY INCREASES>>>>THROUGH THE
CHAIR I BELIEVE THERE WAS COUNCIL DIRECTION SPECIFICALLY
AROUND OUR CONTRACTED AGENCIES AND REFLECT AGO CHANGES THAT WE
MAKE WITHIN OUR OWN CITY ORGANIZATION.
YOU MAY BE ABLE TO SPEAK MORE SPECIFICALLY TO THAT.
>>THAT IS CORRECT. IT HAS TO DO REALLY AROUND THEst
COST OF WAGES SO IF THE DIRECTION THAT WE HAVE IS THAT
IF WE HAVE CONTRACTED OUT WE HAVE A SERVICE PROVIDER OR
THROUGH THE CHAIR OR THE SERVICE PROVIDER WHO PROVIDES A
PARTICULAR WAGE THAT THE STAY HAS ALSO HAS ANY SORT OF CHANGES
THAT THAT CHANGE IS APPLIED TO OUR SERVICE PROVIDERS.
THAT HAS BEEN IN THE $3.463 MILLION FOR 2020.
WE HAVE INCLUDED A PORTION AROUND THAT. >>AND THAT’S GOOD AND USEFUL
INFORMATION BOUGHT THE QUESTION I ASKED WAS MORE GENERAL.
BECAUSE THE SERVICE PROVIDER EXTERNAL PARTNERS ARE GOING TO
HAVE COSTS OUTSIDE OF STAFF. I’M JUST WONDERING OTHER THAN
THE REQUIREMENT AROUND WORKFORCE, IS THERE A FLAT
LINING EXTERNAL PARTNERS FOR SERVICES THAT THEY PROVIDE?
>>THROUGH THE CHAIR, I BELIEVE THOSE ARE ACTUALLY ACCOUNTED FOR
WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF THE CONTRACTS WE NEGOTIATE.
I DON’T KNOW IF THERE’S A SPECIFIC FLAT FEE APPLIED TO
ALL. EACH CONTRACT IS NEGOTIATED
SEPARATELY AND I THINK THAT THOSE TERMS ARE COVERED IN EACH
OF THOSE CONTRACTS. SO I DON’T KNOW THAT THERE IS A
UNIFORM ARRANGEMENT OUTSIDE OF WAGE.
>>FAIR. I DO KNOW THAT IN PAST YEARS
AROUND SEXUAL HEALTH CLINICS IN PREVIOUS YEARS THERE HAVE BEEN
TIMES WHEN DURING OUR BUDGET PROCESS WE’VE SIMPLY SAID NO
THIS IS WHAT YOU’RE GETTING. WE MAY HAVE AN AGREEMENT WITH
YOU BUT THIS IS WHAT YOU’RE GETTING BECAUSE WE HAVE OUR OWN
INTERNAL BUDGET PROCESS. SO JUST ASKING.
IN THE BUDGET YOU’RE PUTTING IN FRONT OF US, IS THERE ANYTHING
WHERE THERE WAS AN EXPECTATION OF AN INFLATIONARY INCREASE FOR
ANY PARTNER OF ANY SERVICE WE DELIVER WHERE WE’RE SAYING NO
BECAUSE WE’RE ABSORBING COSTS AND PASSING ALONG THAT COST
ABSORPGS TO YOU. >>THROUGH THE CHAIR, WE HAVE
NOT — I HAVE NOT BEEN PRIVY TO THOSE CONVERSATIONS.
WE HAVE NOT SAID TO ANYBODY WE ARE PASSING COSTS ALONG TO YOU.
WE HAVE REQUESTS. I JUST RECEIVED A REQUEST
RECENTLY BUT NO DECISION HAS BEEN TAKEN YET AROUND HOW BEST
TO MANAGE THAT. SO WE’RE ACTUALLY LOOKING AT ALL
OF OUR PROGRAMS TO UNDERSTAND ALL OF OUR CONTRACTS AND ANYONE
WHO COMES FORWARD ASKING FOR A PARTICULAR INCREASE WILL BE
MANAGED AS AN INDIVIDUAL SITUATION IN AND OF ITSELF.
THERE IS NOT A FLAT RULE THAT GOES ACROSS ALL OF THOSE
ORGANIZATIONS. >>I’M GOING TO HAVE TO TAKE
THIS OFF LINE. >>OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS IN
PUBLIC? OKAY. THERE IS A REQUEST TO GO
IN CAMERA. SO LET ME DO THAT TO DEAL WITH
THE PURPLE PAPER. SO I HAVE A MOTION THAT THE
BOARD OF HEALTH WILL RECESS THE PUBLIC SESSION TO DISCUSS THIS
IN PRIVATE AS RELATED TO PERSONAL MATTERS. AND THEN THERE’S ANOTHER MOTION
HERE AND IT IS TO PERMIT AS WE’RE GOING IN CAMERA TO PERMIT
MY CHIEF OF STAFF AND I ALSO HAVE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE
MAYOR’S OFFICE THAT THEY’RE PERPETRATORED TO ATTEND THE IN
CAMERA PORTION AS WELL.>>ON POINT OF ORDER DO YOU WANT
TO ASK YOUR CHIEF OF STAFF IF SHE WANTS TO STAY? [LAUGHTER] >>ALL THOSE — ALL THOSE IN
FAVOR. WE’LL WAIT INTO THE DOORS ARE
CLOSED. POINT OF LEFFTY. — POINT OF LEVITY.
>>POINT OF LEVITY. >>>SO WE’RE BACK IN PUBLIC.
JUST GOING TO SEE IF THERE ARE ANY SPEAKERS IN PUBLIC. OKAY.
SPEAKERS IN PUBLIC. I WILL BE PUTTING MYSELF ON THE
LIST. I’M HAPPY TO CAN I BE THINGS OFF.
FIRST ON THE FLOOR ALL, I’LL MOVE THE STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS.
AND I WILL ALSO — SORRY.
ONE SECOND. OKAY. SORRY.
THAT’S BEEN SORTED. SO I WILL BE MOVING THE STAFF
RECOMMENDATIONS IN FRONT OF US. I WILL ALSO AND I HAVE AN
AMENDMENT IF IT CAN BE PUT ON THE SCREEN.
THIS IS I’M MOVING THE RECOMMENDATION FROM THE BOARD OF
HEALTH BUDGET COMMITTEE AS WELL. THIS IS FORMALLY REQUESTING
ONTARIO TO REVERSE THE NEW CUTS. THIS –>>IN APRIL WE FOUND OUT THAT
OUR SHARE WAS GOING DOWN TO 5050. THAT WAS REVERSED IN RESPONSE TO
THE WAVE OF OPPOSITION. WE WERE ALL PART OF THAT.
THEN IN AUGUST OF THIS YEAR WITHOUT WARNING OR NOTICE
ANOTHER ANNOUNCEMENT WAS MADE. THIS WAS THAT THE COST SHARE WAS
GOING DOWN TO 70-50. THAT WAS THE SECOND CHANGE.
I FULLY EXPECT WE’RE GOING TO SEE A THIRD CHANGE.
I FULLY EXPECT THE COST SHARE MODEL WILL BE REVERSED BACK TO
WHAT IT WAS. BUT WE CANNOT SIMPLY SIT AND
WAIT FOR THAT. WE HAVE A JOB TO DO.
AND WE HAVE WORK THAT NEEDS TO CARRY ON AND, THUS, AS WE
CONTINUE TO ADVOCATE FOR THAT COST SHARE REDUCTION WE NEED TO
CARRY ON WITH OUR BUDGET PROCESS.
SO THE BUDGET IN FRONT OF US TODAY IS ONE WHERE WE HAVE DONE
THE HARD WORK AS THE BOARD OF HEALTH AND THE BOARD OF HEALTH
BUDGET COMMITTEE AND STAFF ARE ROLLING UP OUR SLEEVES AND BING
LOOKING FOR OPPORTUNITIES WHERE WE CAN IMPROVE PUBLIC HEALTH
SERVICES WHILE AT THE SAME TIME REDUCING COSTS. WE’VE DONE THAT HARD WORK AND
HAVE IDENTIFIED SAVINGS. BUT THERE IS A GAP DUE DIRECTLY
TO THE PROVINCE AND THEIR CUTS. A GAP OF $5.9 MILLION.
SO WHILE WE’RE GOING TO CONTINUE TO CALL ON THE PROVINCE TO
REVERSE THE CUTS ON US, WE’RE ASKING THE CITY OF TORONTO TO
STEP UP AND COVER OUR GAP. SO THAT WE DON’T GO BACKWARDS.
MAYBE I’LL JUST CLOSE ON THAT BY SAYING THAT WE TRULY AT THIS
TIME SHOULD BE TALKING ABOUT HOW WE SCALE UP OUR INVESTMENTS IN
PUBLIC HEALTH. WHEN WE LOOK AT THE
COMPREHENSIVE POPULATION HEALTH STATUS THAT WE STARTED WITH THIS
MORNING, WE SAW INCREASING POVERTY AND THE IMPACT IT’S
HAVING ON HEALTH AND HOW THAT’S HIGHLY CONCENTRATED IN CERTAIN
NEIGHBORHOODS AND THAT TREND LINES ARE GETTING WORSE NOT
BETTER. AND THIS YEAR WE SHOULD BE
THINKING ABOUT HOW WE DO A BETTER JOB DELIVERING.
AND IMPROVING POLICY TO HELP SHAPE THOSE OUTCOMES AS OPPOSED
TO HOW DO WE SAVE WHAT WE’VE GOT.
THAT’S THE SITUATION WE’RE IN AND WE’RE DOING OUR BEST TO SAVE
IT AND I’LL LEAVE IT THERE. THANK YOU. OKAY. NEXT SPEAKER. >>NEVER GET USED TO THAT.
SO I HAVE A MOTION THAT I’LL EXPLAIN BECAUSE IT MEANS WE HAVE
TO CHANGE ALL THE NUMBERS AND THE RECOMMENDATIONS.
ESSENTIALLY, I’M GOING TO BE MOVING A MOTION THAT WILL HAVE
DEFECT OF INCREASING THE CONTRIBUTION WE MAKE TO CREATING
HEALTH PLUS BY $55,000 BOTH GROSS AND NET WHICH MEANS THE
CLERK HAS TO CHANGE ALL THE NUMBERS AND IN RECOMMENDATION
ONE AND I’M SORRY ABOUT THAT. I’M A TERRIBLE MAN.
FRSZ SOME OF YOU MAY REMEMBER DURING
LAST YEAR’S WORK TO DEVELOP THE BUDGET WE WERE APPROACHED BY
THIS ORGANIZATION THAT DELIVERS A POLICEMAN CALLED HEALTH PLUS
WHICH IS A COALITION OF ORGANIZATIONS VERY SMALL THAT
PROVIDE NUTRITIOUS FOOD TO PEOPLE WHO ARE HOMELESS AND
GOING TO VARIOUS FOOD DROP INS OR GETTING FOOD AS PART OF SOME
KIND OF PROGRAM. THE PROGRAM WAS ESTABLISHED
SEVERAL YEARS AGO. THE AMOUNT OF MONEY FOR THE
FOOD. THE AMOUNT OF SUPPORT FOR THE
ORGANIZATION AND THE NUMBER OF DROP INS THAT ARE ELIGIBLE TO
PARTICIPATE HAS NEVER GROWN. SO WHILE THE DEMAND HAS BEEN
GROWING, AND CERTAINLY THE HOMELESSNESS POPULATION HAS BEEN
GROWING OR THE PEOPLE STRUGGLING TO BE IN HOMELESS IS GROWING WE
CONTINUE TO PROVIDE THE SAME SERVICE LEVEL.
YOU PROBABLY WILL ALL KNOW AND IF NOT IT’S EASY TO INTUIT THAT
A SIMPLE INTERVENTION CAN DEAL WITH ONE OF THE POP CLUE
CONGRATULATIONS WHOSE LIFE EXPECTANCY IS TREMENDOUSLY
IMPACTED BY THE FACT THAT THEY DON’T GET TO EAT FRUITS AND
VEGETABLES AND OTHER NUTRITIOUS FOOD AS PART OF THEIR DAILY
LIVES. IT’S A VERY SMALL AMOUNT OF
MONEY THAT THEY’VE ASKED FOR BUT IT WILL ALLOW THEM TO KEEP UP
WITH SOME OF THE INCREASING DEMAND THAT WE’RE EXPERIENCING
ON THE FRONT LINES WHERE THESE VITAL PROGRAMS TAKE PLACE. THERE’S A PIECE THAT I’M ALSO
GOING TO ADVOCATE FOR ON THE SHELTER HOUSING AND SUPPORT SIDE
WHERE THEY PARTICIPATE IN DELIVERING IT AS WELL BUT
THERE’S A PIECE WE HAVE TO DO HERE. >>ANY QUESTIONS OF THE MOVER? OKAY. WE’RE STILL WAITING ON THAT.
ANY OTHER SPEAKERS WHILE WE’RE — WHILE THE CLERKS ARE
FINALIZING THAT? OKAY. PLAY AMONGST YOURSELVES.
WE’RE JUST GOING TO HOLD TIGHT UNTIL IT’S READY AND THEN WE’LL
VOTE ON THE AMENDMENTS. AND JUST AS A HEADS UP, WE HAVE
EIGHT OF US IN THE ROOM. QUORUM IS SEVEN AND WE HAVE ONE
ITEM AFTER THIS WITH NO DEPUTANTS ON IT JUST SO PEOPLE
KNOW WHAT’S COMING NEXT. SO JUST HOLD TIGHT. OKAY. WE CAN PUT THAT ON THE SCREEN,
PLEASE. THIS IS WITH THE ADJUSTMENT OF
THE 55,000. ADJUSTMENT.
OKAY. SO THE AMENDMENT BY COUNSELOR PERKS ALL THOSE IN
FAVOR. OPPOSED. THAT CARRIES.
OKAY. SO THE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT I’M MOVING COMING FROM THE
BOARD OF HEALTH BUDGET SUBCOMMITTEE ALL THOSE IN FAVOR.
OPPOSED IF ANY. THAT CARRIES.
AND THEN DO I VIDEO AS AMENDED? ADOPT AS AMENDED.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR. WE HAVE OFFICIALLY SUBMITTED A
BUDGET. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. OKAY. WE’LL NOW MOVE TO — WE
HAVE TWO NEW BUSINESS ITEMS IF THE ITEM 9.10 IS HEALTH CONCERNS
ASSOCIATED WITH VAPOUR PRODUCTS. WE’RE GOING TO HAVE A QUICK —
BECAUSE I KNOW PEOPLE HAVE — PERHAPS I’LL HOLD THAT DOWN FOR
A SECOND BECAUSE I SUSPECT THE OTHER WILL BE QUICK.
SO THE OTHER ITEM WHICH IS 9.11 CANADIAN INSTITUTE OF RESEARCH
PLANNING GRANT. THIS WAS BROUGHT DIRECTLY FROM
STAFF AND HAS A ZERO NET IMPACT ON US.
IS THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF ON THIS ONE? OKAY. ALL IN FAVOR.
OPPOSED. IF ANY.
WE’RE ON TO OUR FINAL ITEM. IT’S A NEW BUSINESS ITEM
SUBMITTED TO HEALTH CONCERNS RELATED TO VAPOUR COMMENTS.
AND YOU HAVE A BRIEF PRESENTATION FOR US.
>>JUST TO LET YOU KNOW AT. REQUEST OF THE CHAIR I’M GIVING
YOU A BRIEF UPDATE ABOUT THE ISSUE WITH RESPECT TO VAPOUR
PRODUCTS AND SEVERE PULMONARY DISEASE.
CALMING I’M SURE YOU’VE HEARD ABOUT AS IT’S BEEN ACTIVE ON
MEDIA OVER THE LAST SEVERAL WEEKS. AS OF SEPTEMBER 17TH, OUR
COLLEAGUES IN THE UNITED STATES HAVE REPORTED 380 CONFIRMED AND
PROBABLE CASES OF SEVERE LUNG DISEASE AND SEVEN DEATHS
ASSOCIATED WITH THE USE OF VAPOUR PRODUCTS.
ALSO KNOWN AS E-CIGARETTES. THE NUMBER OF CASES FLUCTUATES
AS INVESTIGATIONS ARE CONTINUING AND AS DATA INVOLVES OVER TIME.
WHAT WE CAN TELL YOU PREMISED ON THE INFORMATION FROM OUR
COLLEAGUES FROM THE U.S. IS THAT MOST OF THE AFFECTED INDIVIDUALS
HAVE ACTUALLY REPORTED USE OF VAPOUR PRODUCTS OR E-CIGARETTES
RES CONTAINING CANNABIS-RELATED PRODUCTS BUT WE DON’T ACTUALLY
YET KNOW WHAT THE ULTIMATE CAUSE OF THE SEVERE PULMONARY
ILLNESSES ARE. WE STILL DON’T UNDERSTAND FULLY
WHAT THIS MEANS. INVESTIGATIONS ARE CONTINUING.
THERE IS SOME SUGGESTION I’M SURE YOU’LL HAVE SEEN THEM IN
THE IMMEDIATE WHY AROUND AN OIL CONTAINED IN E SUB TANSES THAT
MAY BE LINKED TO PNEUMONIA.
VERY MUCH AN EVOLVING SITUATION. STILL NOT UNDERSTOOD BY
AUTHORITIES. MIDDLE OF LAST WEEK WHAT WAS
BELIEVED TO BE THE FIRST CANADIAN CASE OF THIS VAPOUR
RELATED PULMONARY ILLNESS WAS REPORTED HERE IN ONTARIO.
FOUND BY OUR COLLEAGUES AT THE MIDDLESEX LONDON HEALTH UNIT.
PHYSICIANS THERE ESSENTIALLY SAW THE CASE.
FOUND THAT THERE WERE NO OTHER CAUSES OR POTENTIAL CAUSES FOR
THE SYMPTOMS THAT WERE SEEN IN THAT YOUNG INDIVIDUAL.
SO MOVING TO THE NEXT SLIDE, ON SEPTEMBER 4TH, HEALTH CANADA
ISSUED AN INFORMATION UPDATE ADVISING CANADIANS TO MONITOR
THEMSELVES FOR SYMPTOMS.
IF YOU HAVE THESE SYMPTOMS, CANADIANS WERE ADVISED TO SEEK
MEDICAL ATTENTION PROMPTLY. PARTICULARLY IF THEY HAD
CONCERNS THAT THERE WERE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS ON THEIR
HEALTH AND MAY BE DIFFERENT THAN OTHERWISE.
HEALTH CANADA HAS ALSO STATED THAT THOSE WHO ARE CONCERNED
ABOUT THESE SPECIFIC HEALTH RISKS SHOULD REFRAIN FROM USING
VAPOUR PRODUCTS. SO WHAT WITH HAVE WE DEPEND
BOEING? WHAT ARE WE DOING AS TORONTO
PUBLIC HEALTH IN RESPECT OF THIS ISSUE?
WELL, WE HAVE A NUMBER OF ROLES TO PLAY AS PART OF THE SYSTEM IN
PLACE TO IDENTIFY EMERGING HEALTH RISKS.
WITH RESPECT TO ACUTE VAPING RELATED SEVERE PULMONARY
ILLNESSES, WE’RE ACTIVELY MONITORING THE ISSUE LOCALLY AND
ENGAGING WITH OUR COUNTERPARTS PARTICULARLY PUBLIC HEALTH
ONTARIO AND THE OFFICE OF THE CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER OF HEALTH.
YOU LIKELY WILL HAVE HEARD THROUGH MEDIA REPORTS AS WELL
THAT THE MINISTER OF HEALTH LAST WEEK ISSUED AN ORDER REQUIRING
PUBLIC HOSPITALS TO PROVIDE THE PROVINCIAL CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER
OF HEALTH WITH INFORMATION ON VAPING RELATED SEVERE PULMONARY
DISEASE SO AS TO FACILITATE DATA COLLECTION AND AN UNDERSTAND OF
THE SITUATION HERE IN ONTARIO. BEYOND THAT, WHAT WE’RE DOING AT
TORONTO PUBLIC HEALTH IS THAT WE’RE LIAISING WITH HEALTHCARE
PROVIDERS TO ENSURE THEY HAVE UP TO DATE INFORMATION WITH RESPECT
TO WHAT’S HAPPENING ON THE GROUND AND WHAT WE’RE HEARING
FROM OUR FEDERAL AND PROVINCIAL PARTNERS WHO ARE ACTUALLY THE
LEAD AGENCIES RIGHT NOW IN RESPECT OF THIS SITUATION. >>ON GENERAL VAPOUR PRODUCT USE
AND PROMOTION, WE HAVE THIS TO PLAY AND WE’LL CONTINUE TO PLAY
THOSE ROLES. WE HAVE A PROVINCIAL MANDATE TO
ENFORCE THE SMOKE FREE OWE OWE ACT INCLUDING REGULATIONS WITH
RESPECT TO THE SALE AND USE OF VAPOUR PRODUCTS AND WE’RE OF
COURSE WORKING WITH OUR PUBLIC PARTICULARLY PARENTS, CHILDREN,
AND YOUTH, SO ENSURE THAT THEY’RE AWARE OF AND FULLY
APPRECIATE THE RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH THE USE OF THESE VAPOUR
PRODUCTS. AGAIN, THE RISKS ARE HEIGHTENED
RIGHT NOW. IN ARE PARTICULAR CONCERNS.
THIS IS A GOOD MOMENT FOR EDUCATION.
BUT THAT WILL CONTINUE I THINK FOR THE FORESEEABLE FUTURE.
OUR ROLE IN THESE VARIOUS MANDATES.
SO WITH THAT, I’LL WRAP UP THE PRESENTATION.
HAPPY TO TAKE QUESTIONS AND I KNOW THAT MY COLLEAGUES ARE HERE
AS WELL TO HELP ANSWER SOME QUESTIONS. >>ALL RIGHT.
>>THANK YOU. SO AT WHAT POINT IS THIS DEEMED
SO DANGEROUS THAT A PRODUCT WOULD BE TAKEN OFF THE MARKET? >>SO THROUGH THE CHAIR, YOU
KNOW, THAT’S SOMETHING THAT IS NOT WITHIN OUR PURVIEW.
IT IS SOMETHING THAT WOULD HAPPEN AT HEALTH CANADA.
I HAVE NOT BEEN PRIVY TO THOSE CONVERSATIONS.
I DON’T KNOW WHETHER LAUREN IS THERE ANYTHING IN PARTICULAR
THAT YOU’VE HEARD THROUGH YOUR CIRCLES CLOSER TO THE GROUND?
>>NO BUT I THINK THE FEELING IS THAT ON THE BASIS OF THESE ACUTE
CASES IT’S NOT REALLY ENOUGH INFORMATION TO CALL FOR A BAN.
THAT THERE NEEDS TO BE MORE INFORMATION TO UNDERSTAND
EXACTLY WHY THE CASES ARE HAPPENING SUDDENLY BECAUSE WE’VE
HAD E-CIGARETTES RES IN CANADA FOR OVER TEN YEARS.
>>ARE WE AWARE OF WHETHER OR NOT THE TECHNOLOGY HAS CHANGED
RECENTLY? THAT WOULD ATTRIBUTE TO THE
CHANGE?>>THROUGH THE CHAIR TO MY
KNOWLEDGE, NO. BUT I WOULD EXPECT THAT THAT
MUST BE PART OF THE CONVERSATION TO TRY TO UNDERSTAND WHAT HAS
PRECIPITATED THIS NOW.>>RIGHT. >>I’LL JUST SHARE I’VE BEEN
TALKING TO MANY STUDENTS AT THE SECONDARY LEVEL IN PARTICULAR
ABOUT THIS ISSUE. AND I THINK PART OF THE PROBLEM
IS THAT THE VAPE SMOKE OR THE VAPOUR IS COMPLETELY
UNDETECTABLE SO I KNOW IN SCHOOLS WE DON’T HAVE ANY OF
THESE VAPE ALARMS THAT EXIST IN SOME BOARDS.
THEY DO EXIST IN THE THAMES VALLEY AND EDUCATORS ARE
SPENDING TIME POLICING THIS. SOME OF THE KIDS I TALKED TO
SAID THEY DON’T EVEN CALL IT THE CHANGE ROOM ANYMORE.
THEY CALL IT THE VAPE ROOM. ANYBODY YOU TALK TO IS SAYING
IT’S JUST OFF THE CHARTS. IT’S DRAMATIC, THE AMOUNT OF
VAPING THAT’S HAPPENING IN OUR SCHOOLS RIGHT NOW.
SO I WANT TO THANK EVERYONE FOR BRINGING FORWARD THIS REPORT AND
IT’S SOMETHING THAT WE TAKE VERY SERIOUSLY AND WE’LL BE TAKING
ACTION. >>SO IF I MAY, THROUGH THE
CHAIR, JUST IN RESPONSE TO THE RAPID INCREASE.
I THINK IT MAY BE WORTH THOSE AROUND THE BOARD TABLE TO KNOW
AND APPRECIATE THAT THE MOST CURRENTLY AVAILABLE DATA ON THIS
ISSUE SUGGESTS THAT THERE IS A RAPID — THERE HAS BEEN A RAPID
INCREASE IN VAPING RATES AMONGST OUR YOUNG PEOPLE.
SO THE MOST CURRENTLY AVAILABLE INFORMATION THAT I COULD FIND
COURTESY OF OUR COLLEAGUES AT UNIVERSITY OF WATERLOO, 74%
INCREASE OF VAPING RATES AMONGST THOSE 16 TO 19 YEARS OF AGE FROM
2017 TO 2018.>>AND I WOULD ADD IT’S NOT JUST
OUR SECONDARY SCHOOLS. IT’S STUDENTS GRADE 6, 7, 8.
TO ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS. SO IT’S ACROSS THE BOARD.
>>OKAY. THANK YOU. DIRECTOR —
>>THANK YOU. MY QUESTIONS ARE ON A SIMILAR
LENS BUT MORE HOW DID THESE GET ON THE MARKET?
LIKE IT SEEMS LIKE DRUGS REQUIRE INFLICT TEXT AND HAD HOW DID
THIS GET ON THE MARKET SO QUICKLY AND THE WHAT WAS THAT
PATH?>>SO THROUGH THE CHAIR, YOU
KNOW, I’M NOT SURE THAT IT WAS PARTICULARLY QUICK.
AGAIN, YOU’VE HEARD FROM ONE OF MY COLLEAGUES WHO’S A LITTLE
CLOSER TO THE GROUND ON THIS ISSUE THAT THESE PRODUCTS HAVE
BEEN AVAILABLE IN THIS COUNTRY FOR AROUND TEN YEARS NOW.
IT’S — BECAUSE THE INVESTIGATION IS STILL UNDERWAY
I’M NOT SURE THAT WE ACTUALLY KNOW WHAT IT IS, YOU KNOW,
WHETHER THESE ARE IN FACT GNAWER PRODUCTS.
I THINK WE HAVE TO CONTINUE MONITORING AND UNDERSTANDING
WITH OUR PARTNERS SO WHAT SEEMS TO BE AT THE PART, WHAT ARE THE
STRONG ASSOCIATIONS WHAT DO WE SEE, WHAT ARE THE SIMILARITIES
AMONGST THE MANY DIFFERENT KAYS SO THAT WE CAN THEN — CASES SO
THAT WE CAN THEN APPRECIATE THE CAUSES AND HAVE VERY SPECIFIC
DIRECTED INTERVENTIONS. >>AND I APPRECIATE THAT
E-CIGARETTES HAVE BEEN AROUND FOR TEN YEARS BUT PARTICULARLY
THE CANNABIS [INDISCERNIBLE AUDIO]. >>SO THROUGH THE CHAIR, I THINK
YOU KNOW IF THERE’S ONE THING I CAN SAY WE’VE HAD MANY
CONVERSATIONS AT THIS TABLE AROUND THE ELICIT DRUG MARKET.
AND YOU KNOW IT IS — THERE ARE MANY, MANY CHANNELS BY WHICH
DRUGS GET INTO THE MARKETPLACE. I DON’T KNOW THAT WE’RE
PARTICULARLY EXPERT IN UNDERSTANDING ALL OF THE MANY
CHANNELS WITH RESPECT TO — >>JUST THE LAST QUESTION ON
THAT LIKE FOR THE E-CIGARETTES THEN, FOR EXAMPLE, THERE’S NO —
CANNABIS ISN’T [INDISCERNIBLE AUDIO]. SO PRODUCTS THAT ARE PERMITTED,
IS THERE A STRINGENT PROCESS AFFILIATED WITH THAT, REPORTING
TO — IF THE PRODUCT CHANGES OVER TIME THAT HAS TO BE
REPORTED? >>SO LAUREN, I MAY ASK IF YOU
HAVE ANY PARTICULAR INSIGHTS AROUND THE QUALITY ASSURANCE AND
QUALITY CONTROL. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I
UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION. IN RESPECT OF THOSE PRODUCTS
THAT ARE LICENSED AND AVAILABLE FOR SALE IN CANADA. >>WELL, THE TECHNOLOGY HAS
EVOLVED OVER TIME AND IT’S HEALTH CANADA’S ROLE TO OVERSEE
PRODUCT SAFETY ASSURANCES AND I THINK IT’S THE ACUTE CASES ARE
REALLY PROFILING THE FACT THAT THERE ARE REGULATED USES AND ILLICIT
UNREGULARED USES WHICH 2G CAN ONLY DO SO MUCH ABOUT THE
LATTER. THAT I RECALL ROLE IS ABOUT THE
FORMER, TRYING TO ENSURE PRODUCT SAFETY WHEN YOU USE IT AS THE
MANUFACTURER INTENDS. >>ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? >>I HAVE JUST A COUPLE.
IN 2014 BEFORE I WASN’T A COUNSELOR AT THE TIME BUT THE A
NUMBER OF YOU WERE. DID THE BOARD OF HEALTH NOT
CONSIDER E-CIGARETTES AND VAPING AT THE TIME?
WHAT WAS THE POSITION PUT FORWARD FROM THE BOARD OF HEALTH
TO THE PROVINCE IN 2014. >>WE’RE GOING TO TAG TEAM
THROUGH A GROUP EFFORT HERE. THROUGH THE CHAIR, THE MATCHING
REGULATION FOR TOBACCO IS WHAT WE WERE LOOKING FOR SO WE ASKED
THAT IN RETAIL OUTLETS THAT CHILDREN OR YOUTH ACCESS,
CONVENIENCE STORES, GAS STATIONS, NOT HAVE THE PROMOTION
OF VAPING PRODUCTS. THEY DO NOW.
THAT’S PROVINCIALLY. FEDERALLY, WE ASKED FOR STRICTER
LIMITATIONS ON FLAVORS THAT WOULD APPEAL TO YOUTH AS WELL AS
LIMITED WHAT’S BROAD MEDIA PROMOTIONS.
BILLBOARDS AND RADIO TV, ET CETERA.
THOSE THINGS THAT I MENTIONED HAVE NOT HAPPENED BUT HEALTH
CANADA CONTINUES TO LOOK AT HOW THEY CAN REGULATE SO ONGOING
WORK WILL BE DONE BY US TO CONTINUE TO MAKE THE CASE FOR
THOSE THINGS THAT HELP LIMIT — IN RETAIL OUTLETS.
THE FLAVORS AND LIMITED PROMOTION IN THE BROAD SCALE
MEDIA. >>SO CAN I JUST —
>>DID I MISS ANYTHING?>>THAT’S GOOD.
>>I WANT TO MAKE SURE. IN 2014 THE BOARD OF HEALTH
REQUESTED THE PROVINCE TO NOT ALLOW PROMOTION IN SPACES —
WHAT KIND — I JUST WANT TO — >>OUTLETS THAT CHILDREN ACCESS.>>THEY WANTED TO LIMIT IT TO
SPECIALTY STORES ONLY ACCESSED BY ADULTS.
>>OKAY. SO IN 2014 THE BOARD OF HEALTH REQUESTED THE PROVINCE
TO LIMIT PROMOTION TO VENUES WHERE ONLY ADULTS COULD ACCESS
IN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO LIMIT FLAVORS NOT APPEALING TO
CHILDREN AND TO HAVE SOME LIMITS ON ADVERTISING.
DO I HAVE THAT LIGHT? >>CORRECT.
>>2014? >>YEAH.
>>OKAY. FOR THE PROVES THAT HE DID NOT
LIMIT THE PROMOTION AND RETAIL OUTLETS.
>>LET’S SEE IF THEY DO IT IN 2019.
OKAY. THOSE ARE ALL MY QUESTION’. THANK YOU.
>>JUST GOING TO ADD A LITTLE BIT OF AN ANSWER BECAUSE I WAS
IN THE ROOM. I ALSO — STAFF SAID PROBABLY
THE SMARTEST THING I’VE EVER HEARD ABOUT VAPING WHICH IS IF
YOU COULD GO BACK IN TIME WHEN THEY INTRODUCED CIGARETTES,
WOULDN’T YOU WANT TO ACT. >>EDITORIAL SPECIAL.
COUNSELOR PERSONS. SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM?
>>YES. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
I WANT TO THANK STAFF FOR RAISING THE ISSUE ONCE AGAIN AT
THE BOARD OF HEALTH. I WAS ALSO DURING MY SHORT TIME
AT THE BOARD OF HEALTH THERE FOR THAT PARTICULAR MEETING.
I THINK MUCH OF WHAT WAS RAISED YEARS AGO BY THIS PARTICULAR
BODY HAS NOT BEEN ADEQUATELY ADDRESSED BY EITHER ORDERS OF
GOVERNMENT. THIS WAS SORT OF THE FRONT LINE
OF DEFENSE IN SOME WAYS AND AS SOME OTHER ITEMS, WITH OTHER
PARTICULAR SUBJECT MATTERS THAT AFFECT PUBLIC HEALTH FOR OUR
CIVILIAN POPULATION ONCE AGAIN WE’RE IN A POSITION OF ASKING
OTHER ORDERS TO COME IN AND STEP UP AND DO THEIR WORK AS QUICKLY
AS POSSIBLE AND WE HAVE NOW LEARNED ONCE AGAIN THAT THEY
HAVE NOT NECESSARILY STEPPED IN WITH THE TYPE OF ACTIVE AND
EFFECTIVE LEADERSHIP THAT WE REQUIRE THEM TO.
THE CHALLENGE THAT I SEE WITH RESPECT TO VAPING NOW IS THAT IT
IS ENTIRELY OUT OF THE GATE. AND BECAUSE THIS IS A SUBJECT
MATERIAL THAT SEEMS TO BE RATHER HARMLESS THAT IS TARGETING
SPECIFICALLY AT YOUTH AND —
THAT WE SAW EARLY ON WITH THE TOBACCO INDUSTRY IT SHOULD BE NO
SURPRISE TO ANYBODY IN THE ROOM THAT MANY OF THE BIG ACTORS
WITHIN THE VAPING COMMERCIAL SIDE OF THE WORLD IS ACTUALLY
HEAVILY INVESTED IN BIG TOBACCO. THEY KNOW WHO TO LOBBY AND HOW
TO POSITION THEIR PRODUCT AND GET IT OUT INTO THE OPEN MARKET.
IF OTHER ORDERS OF GOVERNMENT INCLUDING THOSE SO IF WE SAW THAT TOBACCO
CREATED A LOT OF HARM AMONGST USERS, I THINK WHAT WE’RE GOING
TO SEE HERE IS THAT THIS IS GOING TO BE EVEN WORSE BECAUSE
WE’RE TALKING ABOUT CHEMICAL CONSUMPTION WITH INSTRUMENTS
THAT ARE UNTESTED. THERE’S NO STANDARD WHAT SO
EVER. IT’S NOT JUST A ROLLING PAPER.
THERE’S NOT JUST A PIPE FILTER. IT IS LITERALLY ALL OVER THE PLACE.
ANYTHING THAT WE CAN DO THROUGH THIS BODY AND THROUGH THE
LEADERSHIP OF OUR PUBLIC HEALTH STAFF TO RAISE THE ALARM BELL AS
QUICKLY AND LOUDLY AND WIDELY AS POSSIBLE I THINK WE SHOULD DO
AND DO IT WITH THE SAME LEVEL OF URGENCY AND MORE SO NOW THAN IN
2014. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>>THANK YOU. >>PUBLIC SPEAKERS? >>OKAY. I WILL SIMPLY MOVE THE
RECOMMENDATIONS IN MY LETTER WHICH IS TO ENSURE WE HAVE A
PRESENTATION AT OUR DECEMBER #th MEETING AND A REPORT BACK FROM
OUR TEAM AT THAT POINT ON THE HEALTH IMPACTS ON VAPINGING.
BUILDING ON THAT WHICH WE RECOMMENDED IN 2014 FOR ANYTHING
ELSE BOTH FOR THE CITY AND ALSO OTHER LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT BUT I
WON’T SAY ANYTHING MORE THAN THAT BECAUSE SHE GOT IT ALL.
ALL RIGHT. OKAY. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR.
CARRIED. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, THAT
CONCLUDES WHAT HAS BEEN A LONG MEETING OF THE BOARD OF HEALTH.
THANK YOU, EVERYBODY FOR THE PATIENCE AND YOUR ATTENTION ON
THIS. THANK YOU.

Daniel Yohans

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *