Labels

80% of People Living in MUDs Want to Live SMoke-free Affair with Smoke-free Housing Alice: Narrating the personal Anna I am not going away not by a long shot. The smoke-free housing saga continues Answers to Frequently Asked Questions including Grandfathering Anti-smoking champ honoured for PUSH Any defensive discussion indefensible April Lifting the Veil off of Quiet Enjoyment Arabian COUGHING Poster At the Core of Smoke-Free Housing Workplace violence and bullying ATTRIBUTE REQUIRED TO SUCCESSFULLY ACCOMPLISH BEING SMOKE-FREE AUTHORITIES for Smoke-free Housing BC HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL Decides Crescent Housing Societys Application To Dismiss Lacking in Substance Concreteness and Good Faith (Another Debacle) BC HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL hears first case on SHS in MUDs Monday April 2 – Wednesday April 4 2012 Cancer in non-smoker sparks legal action Australia CLEANING UP TOXIC ENVIRONMENTS COMMUNITY DISCUSSION FORM Comparing “big” and “too small to matter” crises and catastrophes Demand for non-smoking apartments next to impossible Do you struggle with the problem of drifting second-hand smoke in your home? What you can do looks like 2011 DO YOU STRUGGLE WITH THE PROBLEM OF SECONDHAND SMOKE DRIFT What Struggle Looks like Drewlo Holdings Building More Smoke-free Apartments DROs Ways to Strengthen a Bid for Smoke-free Housing Ethical Dilemma of Smoke-free Housing EX-SMOKERS ARE UNSTOPPABLE flash mob dance Fervent Wish for Smoke-free Housing Governance by Dysfunctional Boards How the Smoke-free Housing Initiative inadvertently opened up governance for public scrutiny Grandfathering How does it apply to smokers Grandfathering Smoke freely Grandfathering Smokes License to Smoke License for Abuse GROUNDHOG DAY PUSHing the Drift to Smoke-free Housing GROUNDHOG DAY 2012: Secondhand smoke from grandfathered smokers takes a wee hit How Provincial and Municipal Bylaws Apply for MUDs in BC HR DECISION ORDERS “METRO ONE” TO CEASE ITS DISCRIMINATION AND REFRAIN FROM COMMITTING A SIMILAR CONTRAVENTION IN THE FUTURE INJUNCTIVE RELIEF A court order to Do this and Stop doing that Inspiring story behind SMOKE-FREE CARS ACT 2007 knowledge exchange Krossa from Maple Ridge Dare Extend Ideation For Smoke-free Housing Lung cancer kills non-smoker McDaniels thank supporters Measuring second-hand smoke drift in non-smokers: Prove it Medical Marijuana NEWS ~ NEWS ~ NEWS London ON New Apartment Building Opts for Smoke-free and Utilizing Grants to Encourage Smoke-free Housing NICOTINE REPLACEMENT THERAPY YOUR TIME HAS COME NSRAs rebuttal of Harpers Gut of Federal Tobacco Control Program People imagining a smoke-free world Picture Worth a Thousand Words Premier Christy Clark announces Nicotine Replacement Therapies (NRT) Sense and scent-ability: Do you smell second-hand smoke in your home? SHS Is Not Simply An Issue Between Neighbours Slaying the Myth of Right-To-Smoke and In-My-Home SMOKE DAMAGE - Voices from the Front Lines of Tobacco Wars Smoke-free at Last Smoke-free housing Litany of motivations and obstructions Smoke-free Housing: An award winning direction Standardize your letters and claims: Make them all the same Steps to Designating Smoking Area in Common Areas and Avoiding Misrepresentation STORIES: Heart of the Matter Strata concedes failure to accommodate McDaniels TENANTS' FUME IN SMOKE-FEST ABOUT HUMAN RIGHTS COMPLAINT COSTING THOUSANDS The 'In-Perpetuity' of National Non-Smoking Week Thinking Petition? Draft a report instead. Trials Against Big Tobacco Reveal Internal Documents Stating Lethal Hazard Of Smoking And Environmental Tobacco Smoke TRIBUNAL GRANTS COMPLAINANTS' APPLICATION TO AMEND THEIR COMPLAINT Tribunal's Decision Reveals DEBACLE Urging Political Will VEN TI-LA-TION – exchanging stale noxious air with clean fresh air Weitzels and Willow Park Estates What has California's new smoke-free housing law to do with us Canadians? What makes normal sensible people become dysfunctional when they join a board and what turns CEOs or EDs into mini-dictators? Why Isn't Vancouver's OLYMPIC VILLAGE A Flagship for Smoke-free Housing? Why there is a PUSH for Sf Housing WOW You've come a long way baby Yukon Housing Corp’s smoke-free housing leaves smokers fuming YUKON NORTH OF ORDINARY™ TRUMPS NATURALLY BEAUTIFUL BC AGAIN Yukon's smoke-free housing comes into effect Jan 1 2012

Thursday, March 31, 2011

Urging Political Will

Instilling a Fervent Wish for Smoke-free Housing - Part XII

     This is my, our, anniversary: 3 years (sort of).
     Three years ago, a group of us stopped talking and asking for help because second-hand smoke drift made us ill, and we began writing it down and submitting complaints.
     Three weeks later, when we failed to obtain a meeting with management, we submitted a group complaint.  That complaint reported the scope of the problem, and was to serve as the basis for management to act: their paper trail.
     Something about asking a smoker to take it outside, or hint at getting help to quit, scares the heck out of people, ordinary joe to health professional to politician. They don't know how to spit it out. Even though smokers make themselves and non-smokers diseased, and 'Corporate Tobacco' gangsters rich, health professionals and politicians don't know how to do it.  So they said, we'll show housing providers how to do it.
     I think the notions of interference with privacy in your own home, and that asking smokers to take it outside might constitute discrimination, represent  a red-herring: a deliberate, though probably largely unconscious, attempt to divert attention. They are simply too easy to legally rebuttal, and have been.
     I think on one hand, non-smokers are afraid of the rancour and venom that smokers can spew out, and on the other, are trying to help smokers save face because of nicotine addiction.  As social animals, we humans have great propensity for face-saving.
     So we asked our housing provider.
     Instead of a meeting, we received a three page letter glossing over the problem, advising management was in compliance with Provincial Tobacco Control bylaws, and there was nothing more to be done.  Dismissed.
     We were advised that complaints were individual problems, inter-tenant problems to be resolved as inter-personal conflict.  If necessary, management would assist by conducting mediation between the individual parties involved.       
     The resolution in flavor was to partition smoking and non-smoking times, not on a complex wide basis, but between individual smoking and non-smoking tenants. If there was a grievance with management, then we were to file a complaint with the Residential Tenancy Branch.
     We did.  The decision directed us to work it out with  management. We tried.
      We made several more valiant attempts to meet privately as a small group, or publicly as a large group, and sought out help from independent mediators.
      In three weeks we filed the “petition” as a human rights complaint, which would take the Human Rights Tribunal seven months to serve.  At the heart of our request, public meetings  and for smokers to take the smoking outside into a designated smoking area. But that's old news, already on my blog.
     While we waited, we talked with and received letters of support from everyone except “the Pope and the Queen.” That was the lawyer's comment after going through it all.  Everyone refers to doctors, specialists, researchers, MLA's, Tobacco Control, Worksafe, BC Lung, Regional Chief Medical Officers, anyone who had a professional or health connection to the problem at hand.  In the everyday living of it, we created a paper trail of fact and evidence hundreds of pages deep. At last glance, it looks like five reams of paper.
     But it is a sterling paper trail, I'm told. A real Michael Moore project waiting to happen.
     I read that this is also political will. Small p, small w, political will.
     Back in the summer of 2007 when I first encountered the problem of drifting second-hand smoke as part of multi-unit residences, I knew less than nothing. I didn't even know how to think the way I do now.
     Six months later, at the pleadings of a neighbour similarly struggling with second-hand smoke but with no computer, we searched the internet and found four key documents which laid a knowledge foundation by which to demand accommodation and “equal rights” as non-smokers.  Initially the documents were sent to management to be part of an open, tenant, general meeting.
     Instead of management deferring to the authority of the government and its tobacco reduction strategy of smoke-free housing, instead of announcing that over the next four months the board would strike a committee, seek professional opinions, inform themselves, hold public meetings, conduct surveys, and decide how to proceed, management announced they would have to ride out the wave [of smoke-free housing] and allow it to pass over.
     I downloaded and sent two megabytes of documents.  Three years later, I have hundreds of bookmarks, and almost 40 gigabytes of documents.
     In the first Human Rights Tribunal settlement meeting March 31, 2009, we sat through while the board's lawyer read out a position statement on how the human rights process was not the appropriate process for this complaint.  The mediator led a structured problem-solving process that took us the rest of the day, and we went home with a list of short term, intermediate, and long term ideas for resolving the drifting second-hand smoke problem.  On day two, instead of prioritizing and choosing, management summarily dismissed all the brainstorming ideas.  The mediator sent them home for not participating in good faith, and acknowledged our efforts as we left.
     And so the story goes, all of it documented, all of it waiting to be read.  By a judge, and a Human Rights Tribunal. Soon.
     I wait.
     We wait.
     Everyone waits.
     For someone to do something.
     Definitive.
     About second-hand smoke drift in multi-unit residence.
     During the 90's, governments made a grand stand against tobacco and smoking through radio and television advertising, and were very successful in turning the gorgon.
     Smoking rates dropped by half, and continued to drop by half again. Today health professionals and MLA's refer to the “political will back then, to take on some of the oldest, richest, most lawyered-up corporations on the planet,” with what reads like reverence.
     I read that as “Political Will.” That's capital 'P', capital 'W' “Political Will.”
     For today's government and the next phase of tobacco reduction, the spotlight is not on lawyered-up corporate tobacco.  It's constituents. Voters.  Grumpy, with opinions.  Some, over interfering with their privacy rights. Others, as a result of drawn out legal processes. Its all unfair.
     Three years.  You can learn a lot from the Internet, and reading legislature Hansard reports.
     A request for an open tenant meeting so everyone would know the importance of smoke-free housing, especially in multi-unit residence.
     What if that meeting and subsequent meetings took place?  
     Maybe the smokers would not have demonstrated and smoked more.  Maybe the  smoker man wouldn't have lost his upper left lung.  Maybe the smoker woman wouldn't have lost her leg. Maybe the smoker woman wouldn't have had a Colonoscopy. And maybe a woman wouldn't have died from Lung cancer in six months.
     All caught up in a “Bleak House,” a Shakespearean tragedy playing itself out.
     It doesn't have to be this way.
     What would Political Will look like today in the next phase of tobacco reduction?
     Full complement of 
  • education through advertisement, 
  • environmental supports through nicotine replacement, Fund Nicotine Replacement Therapy.  There no longer exists a need to smoke. Replace Medical Marijuana similarly, through the use of inhalers (or make butter).  There no longer exists a need to smoke.
  • economic levers through taxation and for funding, and 
  • enforcement through legislation. Smoke-free housing legislated.  The laws are already in existence, and need to be used for enforcement, and not access.

      It is written.  In Hansard.

      What would political will look like today in the next phase of tobacco reduction?
       Urging governments to act...
           “... the role of ordinary individuals is merely to urge government to act."

It is written.  On the Internet.


Send your political will for Political Will to:

http://www.christyclark.ca/premier/

Minister of Health Michael de Jong  mike.dejong.mla@leg.bc.ca

Minister of Public Safety Shirley Bond   housing.policy@gov.bc.ca

Rich Coleman Minister Responsible for Housing  rich.coleman.mla@leg.bc.ca

BC's Healthy Living Alliance, Mary Collins;   mcollins@bchealthyliving.ca

Smoke-free Housing BC,  info@smokefreehousingbc.ca

and
Canadian PUSH for Smoke-free Housing, Rose Marie   socionik@yahoo.ca

Sunday, March 20, 2011

"Grandfathering" Continuing the Discussion

Instilling a Fervent Wish for Smoke-free Housing - Part XI

          Understanding “grandfathering” in the context of which it exists, remains a critical factor in the analysis of the governments' smoke-free housing initiative. It accounts  for a defining fault of implementation.   Grandfathering, as most people thought of  it, undermines implementation and enforcement of smoke-free housing. 
          “Grandfathering” serves as a 'talisman' for how one word, considered to be a stand alone concept, had falsely thought to have all encompassing protective powers. It served as nothing more than a license to smoke and a license for abuse.
          As a result, outrage and fury exists as a particular marker against the smoke-free housing movement, as exampled by rants, a transcript of one at the end of this blog.
          Examining “grandfathering” through a legal lens exposes, also, the shallow level of legal knowledge upon which governments based the smoke-free housing initiative.
          If governments had not initiated smoke-free housing, with the body of health knowledge before them, one would have to ask, why not? 
          Now with growing awareness to the legal body of knowledge supporting smoke-free housing, one needs to ask, why not? 
          There exists no comparable outrage and fury at the government for not doing something sooner, more effective, and financially more efficient. 
          Except from Big Tobacco, who coined “shared responsibility” as their defense against governments suing them for recovery of tobacco related health costs.  Governments knew and, therefore apparently, have "shared responsibility" for health costs.
          The introduction to smoke-free housing has come and gone. Without press releases and community news, will it disappear from people's top of mind awareness and slip from consciousness?  
          Left alone, will the market demand-voluntary method create more smoke-free housing?  Highly improbable given the tight connection to enforcement through Residential Tenancy Branch, Human Rights Tribunal, Civil Nuisance claims.  This connection alone makes pursuit of smoke-free housing a Gordian Knot and Mobius Land.  There exists no checklist to help one decide which process is the first line of authority, and no checklist for what would make for a more effective complaint.
          Will the extreme be necessary, will smoke-free housing need its own Heather Crowe or Barb Tarbox?
          Now, the paper trail renters and owners created from their attempts at market demand, speak to a litany of abuses along with uneven and unequal application.
          Now, are renters and owners shocked, appalled and dismayed sufficiently to send the smoke-free housing initiative back to government and demand legislative change?
          What constitutes market demand?  What does it mean?
          To find out, I requested under Freedom of Information, statistical information for requests made to MLA's, Minister of Health, Minister of Housing, BC Housing on smoke-free housing and the problems of second-hand smoke.

To the tune and rhyme of Dr. Seuss:
The time has come.
The time is now.  
Call by phone.  Write using [e]mail. 
Pay a visit on your MLA.  
If you don't know, please find out how.
But please, do so now.

Please send your requests to:

http://www.christyclark.ca/premier/

Minister of Health Michael de Jong  mike.dejong.mla@leg.bc.ca

Minister of Public Safety Shirley Bond   housing.policy@gov.bc.ca

Rich Coleman Minister Responsible for Housing  rich.coleman.mla@leg.bc.ca

BC's Healthy Living Alliance, Mary Collins;   mcollins@bchealthyliving.ca

Smoke-free Housing BC,  info@smokefreehousingbc.ca

and
Canadian PUSH for Smoke-free Housing, Rose Marie   socionik@yahoo.ca


TRANSCRIPT OF A RANT
Can you believe that anti-smoking activists are serious about banning smoke in one's own home.
Let's go through it.
No smoking indoors and public places.
No smoking within 10 feet of an entrance to a building.
No smoking in the workplace.
No Smoking in parks.
No smoking on public beaches.
They tried to ban smoking in cars, but I see so much of that these days that obviously that fell on deaf ears.
But now anti-smoking zealots are going after smoking in your home.
Who said that the state had no place in the bedrooms of the nation.
Trudeau, right.  That's was the one good thing he did say.
Too bad he didn't stop there while he was ahead.
If I was an anti-smoking activist I'd be calling for an outright ban on tobacco in this country.
But the last I looked, tobacco was still legal in Canada.
The product is locked up and hidden like soft core porno magazines but we know what is in these magazines and we know where the smokes are hidden in the corner stores.
If you want to buy a pack of cigarettes you have to take a pretty big hit to your wallet.
But heh, that's your choice. And thank you for smoking. We can all use the tax dollars.
The activists know they have lost that battle.  Tobacco sales are not going away. Try to confine smoking to ones house - if you must.
But don't try to ban it. Cause you'll lose.
If people don't want to visit the smoker in the house, then they'll make that decision.
They don't need you people making the decision for them.
Personally I don't think that any smoker is going to be lonely.
They're too polite.
They're considerate of others.
And they apologize if SHS offends you.
So lay off you anti-smoking Nazi's.
You've gone far enough.
Time to take you're campaign elsewhere.
Start with Japan.
See you in a hundred years.










Monday, March 7, 2011

Grandfathering Smokers: License to Smoke, License for Abuse

Instilling a Fervent Wish for Smoke-free Housing - Part X

          Since 2007, housing providers of various sorts implemented smoke-free housing policies, but with limited results due to incomplete understanding of grandfathering, or the grandfather clause.
          Incomplete understanding around grandfathering resulted in landlords/owners and tenants expressing disillusionment about smoke-free housing.  "What's the point if it takes several years to even become noticeable."
          With a smoke-free policy, in the absence of a smoke-free policy, landlords/owners and tenants think there is nothing that can be done about the drift of second hand smoke, or enforcement issues.  Disillusionment, apathy, and burnout set into a burst of contempt.  "And what would you like me to do about this [drifting marijuana].  We've been over this again and again.  There's nothing more to be done."
          Smokers "grandfathered" and allowed to smoke in their suites under a smoke-free housing policy think they are absolutely protected with the 'right-to-smoke-in-my-own-suite,' so much so that they smoke at will in any public and outdoor common area as well.  "What you going to do, call the smoking police?"
          New smoking tenants signing leases that their units, including balconies, are smoke-free units cope with little hardship.  They make friends with grandfathered tenants, and smoke in grandfathered units, thereby increasing the drift from that unit.  New smoking tenants in a smoke-free unit amongst grandfathered units know its highly unlikely anyone will be able to identify or prove where the smoke is coming from.  Smoke also drifts into their unit!
          Grandfathering, as understood, adds to the myriad of verbal violence, bullying, and acts as a license to smoke, and a license for abuse.
          As more non-smokers inform themselves around smoke-free housing, they create more legal complaints before they manage to create more smoke-free housing.  Most legal complaints come from people who learn how to do it themselves, or how to access legal help, or have the finances to access legal representation.
          So, this past week, another Human Rights Complaint on drifting second-hand smoke got accepted by the Human Rights Tribunal, and this week the Human Rights Tribunal held another early settlement meeting in an attempt to resolve the problem of drifting second-hand smoke. After a year of attempts to get management to address both cigarette and marijuana smoke, another non-smoker tenant drafts, and makes ready for filing another complaint.
          What is "grandfathering" all about?
          A Grandfather Clause, or grandfathering, refers to when an old rule continues to apply to some existing situations, at the same time that a new rule applies to all future situations. Grandfathering grants an exemption or exception in drafting new policies and contracts.  Grandfathering might apply in perpetuity, and might also be bound by time-lines in contracts.
          An often cited example refers to pet policies. In a situation where a pet policy exists with limits of one pet, identified as one bird, dog, or cat, further restricted to small, weighing 30 pounds or less, becomes changed to "not allowed to house pets of any sort in the building".  Existing birds, dogs, or cats will be allowed to die off, and owners not expected to get rid of them.  Sometimes, no pets of any sort are allowed, except through "Cats for Seniors." programs.
          In the situation of grandfathered pets, if a pet causes substantial and unreasonable noise or smell or health matter, and complaints continue without remedy, then a claim to the Residential Tenancy under quiet enjoyment challenges the notions of grandfathering.
          Many people think grandfathering exists in isolation, as a stand-alone clause exclusive of other points in an agreement or contract or laws. It does not. It does not grant immunity into perpetuity.
          In the situation of smoke-free housing, be it rental, strata, or co-op, grandfathering only has authority if nothing is done about the drifting second-hand smoke.  Grandfathering only has authority until someone challenges it under quiet enjoyment or nuisance.  Under nuisance, you can proceed with a claim directly against the smoker.  If you read the case law, you see that grandfathering is not even referred to.
          Common law and the Acts specific to housing charge owners/landlords with authority to ensure they provide quiet enjoyment.
          "At common law, the covenant of quiet enjoyment promises that the tenant...shall enjoy the possession and use of the premises in peace and without disturbance."   In the Residential Tenancy Act, protection of tenant's right to quiet enjoyment is listed under #28.
          At #47, the Owner/Landlord is responsible for ensuring the tenant or a person permitted on the residential property by the tenant has not
(i)  significantly interfered with or unreasonably disturbed another occupant or the landlord of the residential property, or
(ii)  seriously jeopardized the health or safety or a lawful right or interest of the landlord or another occupant.
          In the most recent decision, Lawrence v Kaveh 2010, the decision refers to owner/landlord  responsibility at three levels:
  • where a landlord/owner is aware of a problem and fails to take reasonable steps to correct it.
  • where a landlord/owner is aware of a problem and fails to consider it as a breach to quiet enjoyment.
  • where a landlord was aware of circumstances that would make the premises uninhabitable for that tenant and withheld that information in establishing the tenancy.

          Reading Lawrence v Kaveh reveals further importance, in that Lawrence was incorrectly advised by the Information Officer from the Residential Tenancy Branch on grandfathering, and that the Supreme Court judge pinpointed how both Dispute Resolution Officers and the landlord failed to consider the second-hand smoke under quiet enjoyment.  In that moment, the Supreme Court judge reveals the irrelevance of grandfathering.  Grandfathering carries no relevance.  Lawrence's persistence in lengthy litigation provided substantial benefits for others.
          At #91, the common law respecting landlords and tenants applies in British Columbia.
          What then is "common law"?
          Common law is precedent setting case law as established by judges decisions. Broad areas of the law, most notably relating to property, contracts and torts are traditionally part of the common law.
          These precedent setting cases become the test against which subsequent issues become judged.  Therefore, you will find in judges' decisions the cases they have considered and referenced, upon which they reasoned their conclusions.
          Beyond complaints filed under quiet enjoyment and nuisance law, landlords have the authority to limit grandfathering through lease dates, and by having tenants sign new leases.
          In an outstanding case of best practices, a landlord obtained new leases from tenants as a result of explaining to them, through townhall meetings, that grandfathering didn't protect the landlord from claims under residential tenancy or nuisance.  While it is now virtual unheard of, smokers might be sued directly under nuisance, and therefore, grandfathering doesn't protect tenants.
          Smoke-free housing is not, as many presume, interference of a 'right-to-smoke-in-one's-home', but rather intervention based on health hazards from drifting second-hand smoke, made substantial and unreasonable through population and housing density. In the smoke-free housing movement, grandfathering become sacrosanct, too valuable to be interfered with.  Asking smokers to take it outside to a designated area became heresy.
          As stated by the British Columbia Court of Appeal in Royal Anne Hotel Co. Ltd. v. Ashcroft et al (1979), 8 C.C.L.T. 179: "The test then is, has the defendant’s use of this land interfered with the use and enjoyment of the plaintiff’s land and is that interference unreasonable? Where . . . actual physical damage occurs it is not difficult to decide that the interference is in fact unreasonable."  Developing asthma is "actual physical damage."
          A disjuncture exists between enforcement of grandfathering as measured against enforcement through the principle of quiet enjoyment, especially where it causes a health matter.  Grandfathering becomes moot, and nothing more than a colloquial license for abuse. Smokers believe themselves untouchable.
          In my lifetime, I have lived through several social shifts or paradigm changes, all legislated.  Tobacco Control. Seat-belt laws.  Drinking and driving, and breathalyzer testing. Car seats for children. Domestic Violence and shelters. Divorces from hell. Mature students at university.  Mediation movement. Over-educated and Under-employed workers. Medical mistakes.  Workplace Violence and Psychological Harassment. Speeding and road racing.
          Paradigm shifts are marked by a script, “Who do you think you are? No one is going to tell me....”
          Smoke-free Housing is the next paradigm shift at risk of paradigm paralysis from uninformed and poorly informed stakeholders.
          Now, legislation for smoke-free housing would speak to the abuses and to reigning in the debacle from voluntary application, and further speaks to intervening - not interfering.
          With legislation, the government can expect smoke-free housing to be applied to everyone, uniformly, evenly,  equitably, consistently, and in a timely manner.
          I repeat, if governments don't amend through legislation, landlords and tenants remain caught in a Gordian Knot, and I'll add, in Mobius Land. (I'll let readers look up Mobius strip.)
          Report complaints of drifting second-hand smoke; request smoke-free housing; obtain doctors letters; file complaints with the Residential Tenancy Branch and under Nuisance for breach of quiet enjoyment. Or move.  Or suffer silenced. In addition, the issue of harassment pokes through, but I doubt that anyone has filed a claim against a landlord for harassment.
          Remember, smoke-free housing is for everyone, it's about access; not just the few who file a complaint, and receive a private settlement.

To support legislation, send your requests to
BC's Healthy Living Alliance, Mary Collins;   mcollins@bchealthyliving.ca
as well as
Rich Coleman, Minister Responsible for Housing,  Rich.Coleman.MLA@leg.bc.ca
and
Smoke-free Housing BC,  info@smokefreehousingbc.ca
and
Canadian PUSH for Smoke-free Housing, Rose Marie   socionik@yahoo.ca