Bordering on contempt

Dear sir:
I read with interest the article, “Ruling on smoking issue not expected until new year,” which appeared in the Dec. 17 edition of the Fort Frances Times.
Dr Sarsfield’s comments were particularly intriguing. He is quoted as saying that “The review board has neither the experience nor the expertise to say it [second-hand smoke] is not a health hazard.”
I understood that the review board was established to determine exactly this, and for the good doctor to now question the credibility of a legally-established body because it has not yet seen fit to agree with his point of view surely borders on contempt?
It also should be made clear that the $150,000 legal costs incurred by the Northwestern Health Unit were largely public funds paid for by the taxpayer. It is a pity that bar owners have had to incur similar legal costs paid for out of their own pockets to defend themselves against an action they consider unwarranted, unnecessary, and certainly undemocratic.
In Ottawa, we have seen more than 60 small bars forced into closure because of the smoking ban. PUBCO is confident that given the potential for a similar financial meltdown in the Kenora area, the review board will consider the major economic impact of Dr Sarsfield’s proposal before arriving at a decision.
Barry F. McKay
General Manager
Pub and Bar Coalition
of Canada (PUBCO)
Ottawa, Ont.