June 18f Statement To Michel Goulet, Mddep 1535

TO: MICHEL GOULET AND MINISTERE BEAUCHAMP, QUEBEC MDDEP MDDEP WOOD STOVE PROJET DE CHAUFFAGE 2008 POSITION OF CITIZENS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH From Stella Haley, Founder of Citizens for Environmental Health 61 Hillside Pointe Claire Quebec, H9S 5E4 June 18, 2008

web host www.citizensfeh.com

MDDEP WOOD STOVE Projet de Chauffage 2008 The position of Stella Haley representing Citizensforenvironmentalhealth.com is clear. I as well as the enclosed members as witnessed in the attached petition with more to be forwarded state that we reject the proposal of the Projet de Chauffage and base our position and informed judgment on important valid facts.: 1.There exists no scientifically based evidence that EPA stoves are better than conventional wood heating appliances used at present. 2. Reviews condemn EPA woodstove testing and claims of reducing emissions. 3. CONCERNS - Legal Consequences : If the Impact assessment has failed to take into account the concentrations increased in areas where the density of populations is adversely affected by wood smoke exposure. This Project prevents citizens in all areas however especially in urban densely populated areas from their rightful enjoyment of life. Smoke concentrations in relation to potential contradicts the reality of what populations endure and suffer. Epidemiological studies, data sufficient assessment exists to establish the loss of health in exposure risks to populations in urban areas and densely populated rural areas where populations are affected by wood smoke.. This Project fails to adequately protect citizens and fails to ensure that vulnerable populations are not placed at critical risk. Smoke contaminated areas are proven to produce severe increase in death and disease. Avoiding life-threatening issues causing death suggests legal negligence. Failure to ensure air does constitute a violation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and

Freedoms. As such, we maintain that the Project is illegal and clearly involves negating the obligatory conditions of the Ministry, MDDEP and does constitute breech of trust in policy makers. Failure to ensure air that is safe is failure to provide essential to life. The project in its present form is evidence of failure to provide citizen’s access to smoke free air and encouraging carcinogenic dioxin and smoke life threatening air entails life threatening pollution smoke fumes EPA Source 4 - 1996 Comments on Actual-to-futureactual Emissions released.

4. Projet de Chauffage, as is proposed by Minister of Environment, MDDEP, Lyne Beauchamp, is not amended and implemented as is, Quebec and Canada will lose an opportunity to address its GHG emissions targets and reduce environmentally caused health issues. In adoption of this project as is, we, as Quebec citizens, through misguided leadership will experience a grave reversal of environmental progress. If we adopt this MDDEP Projet de Chauffage, wood burning, we will regretfully lose what could be a critical opportunity to implement a much more safe and progressive policy. We maintain that other much more efficient initiatives and safer alternatives such as gas and electricity must be taken to ensure sustainability. We believe that neglect to adequately promote better choices is a violation of the mandate of the Minister of Environment. We demand action be taken immediately to reduce emissions especially critical in urban environments, We expect and hold the Ministry responsible for adopting effective informed long and short term policy that would serve to actually decrease emissions. Effectively, we maintain that, if we adopt this Projet de Chauffage, the Minister Beauchamp,MDDEP, will prove failure to ensure public safety and as well fail to respect her mandate to ensure environmental sustainability and create positive change. In its industry based vision, the policy appears blind sighted and fails to protect the health of citizens. As such, in view of the tragic loss of life and loss of quality of life consequent to otherwise avoidable exposure to known carcinogens in smoke will be sought. Recognizing the thousands of epidemiological studies that prove the smoke causes death and disease, compensation will be pursued. 5. Legislation as proposed in Le Projet de Chauffage, which fails to protect citizens, will be challenged in a court of law. We as citizens will seek legal compensation for loss of health and legal liability for injury caused as a result from exposure to the harmful dioxins and other carcinogenic toxic emissions resulting from this smoke and potentials in the adoption of emissions resulting in the approval of this project. Clearly, we as citizens stand to suffer and to be made vulnerable to this toxic air, which we are forced to suffer and endure even inside our own homes. These are fatal consequences that could be otherwise avoided. We stand to lose our children and our health and we will not passively endure nor lose sight of the impact that this Projet would cause to our well being and the well being of future generations. 6.We acknowledge that emissions are presently endangering our lives and the lives of infants and the yet unborn. The Projet, as proposed ,will be a cause of immensely increasing exposure to emissions and impact increasing above the national standard for which provinces and utilities have indicated their support. This Projet de Chauffage, which is in Public Consultation until June 23, the eve of Quebec National Holiday, would as a result negatively impact the environment and hinder the Government of Canada's objectives of reducing CO2 emissions and avoid achieving cost savings for energy users and above all place Quebec citizens, especially children in harms way.

7.The Projet de Chauffage does nothing to assist citizens suffering from health consequences of smoke exposure. The Projet in its entirety is a proposal that supports industry profits. With all research based on no-scientific testimony, and the evidence of well-established information industry driven misguided message from the wood stove remains to be legally challenged. The implementation of the proposed amendment will prove to adversely impact global warming and will contribute adversely to the health of all citizens. The project entirely avoids the issue of smoke risks to which children are the most vulnerable. In view of the thousands of studies on health risks to children, we ask what responsible leadership would propose policy that would condemn children to steadily breathing smoke? This policy places children and all citizens in harms way and at critical unjustifiable risk. In view of the independent research on EPA stoves emitting 400% more dioxin and deadly furans along with millions of dangerous chemicals and carcinogens into the air, in view of Breast Cancer and dioxin epidemiological studies, we ask what could justify the harmful effects of such irresponsible legislation? [ Reference to be forwarded -Research to be tabled on web site www.citizensfeh.com] 8.Given the real state of no scientific proof of reduction emissions from EPA stoves, we maintain that if consumers are adequately informed of the health effects , the lack of efficiency and the pollution caused by wood stoves and facts about the equally polluting EPA Certified stoves and inserts, the market will gradually shift in favour of more efficient alternative products such as gas or electricity. We cannot afford to wait for the cultural awareness .It is our obligation to ensure public protection from emissions that result from long term and short term exposure( Se report Dr.Vincent Health Canada, 2005) 9.Amendments must be made on all wood stove appliances to reflect truthful facts on emissions and comparisonws with other alternatives.. Industry driven material and conclusions are contradicted by scientific independent studies and official reviews [ Intertec and others Attached]. The lack of verification and the jointly established conceptual will to adopt industry a consensus, within the established spokes people for the MDDEP, blind faith policy denies what reasonable minimum inspection of industry based publications and studies should be. The implementation of the proposed so called regulation, as is will provide a benefit to outdated economics of pollution.(Not comprehensible). 10.Violations of Mandatory Hazardous Waste- Point of Sale Labelling Natural Resources Canada as well as Minister of Industry and Environment in Quebec and within the Government of Canada as well as regional governments have established extensive support of industry goals and have entertained representatives with outstanding benefits of the privilege of being tax exempt as licensed charities. After decades of reporting false data and claims of reducing emissions the industry and agencies are notorious for not examining independent research. Defecting facts and scientific evidence has served to enforce false claims and fraudulent emission statements in publications made available to the public. Consultations on the data and manner in which efficiency rating information was tested and confirmed should have been more effectively given due

diligence. Inappropriately neglecting to ensure adequate oversight and failing to ensure quality in Certification and as well failing to provide to consumers factual knowledge at the point of sale, failure to reflect risks in labelling requirements for major household appliances as prescribed by Consumer Protection Laws proves that appropriate obligatory standards were ignored by the Government of Canada. 11. Lobbyists dictating Policy Allowing lobbyists or their own government employees to hold conflict of interest positions within the Quebec Government, (Cantin ) and the Federal Government (Gulland)and industry and using the emblem of the flag of Canada in distribution brochures and sales materials which stoves or fireplaces are displayed and sold even at carbon free community eco fairs is evidence of Government acting as to knowingly and intentionally deceive Canadians, promoting not health or safe environments but Government acting and performing unethically distributing millions of Canadian tax Payer dollars voluntarily to the stove industry- self regulating administered policy. Programs. The conflict of interest, bias and lack of integrity seen in independent reviews attached in Index is established proof the Government has betrayed Canadians and serves to support unprincipled motives in addressing the industry's concerns by allowing a non-science flexible approach to how the information is presented and confirmed as credible. 12. The lack of facts about the true total of emissions, the non disclosure of danger to the consumer in interior and exterior exposure of emissions and the lack of science based evidence of standardized performance information that is included product brochures and at the point of sale material is an adoption of misleading information that will only serve the economic interests and the determination and desirability of the stove industry and political imaging. The matter should be subject to the Competition Bureau, the federal consumer protection bureau. In view of the existing problem with wood stoves and the life durability of thirty years, consequently the Regulation de Chauffage is explicitly eliminating no old equally polluting stoves or products nor any toxic carbon pollution. Given that there exists a lack of assessment of any impact, with no quantitative analysis of impact of the Projet , without doubt, no proof of benefits nor economic costs can be made. Lack of any guarantees, the policy is based on what would be nice, wishes, myths, not facts. 13.Various internal and external studies have verified that EPA Stoves result in increased carcinogens or emissions and no benefits of energy-efficiency can be attributed to the change out or adoption of EPA Certified stoves.( INTERTEC AND FEDERAL REGISTERED DOCUMENTS) Will Forward Appendix. 14. Adoption of this regulation is a reversal of proposals accepted in Quebec Atmosphere 2008 Regulations, by Minister Beauchamp, MDDEP climate change progress objectives. . Adopted as is Project result will be establishing minimum energy performance and maximum pollution. Above all, it a failure to ensure safe air requirements for citizens today and as well fails our responsibility to protect present or future generations and especially crucial to note this Projet de Chauffage is negligent and

irresponsible, constitutes a series of violations specifically endangering and causing harm to citizens, placing children in critical danger, in harms way.

MDDEP WOOD STOVE PROJET DE CHAUFFAGE 2008

WITHOUT AN AMENDMENT AND WITHOUT SCIENCE-BASED UNBIASED RATINGS FOR EPA CERTIFIED WOOD STOVES, CONSUMERS WILL CONTINUE TO LACK CONSISTENT, CREDIBLE INFORMATION ON THE EMISSIONS AND EFFICIENCY OF WOOD HEATING WHEN MAKING PURCHASING DECISIONS. THE FALSE INFORMATION SANCTIONED BY GOVERNMENT OF CANADA ON EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS ATTRIBUTED TO EPA STOVES, AS WELL AS THE MESSAGE OF “CLEAN SMOKE” BEING PROMOTED BY ESTABLISHED AGENCIES, IS A FACTOR IN LOSS OF LIFE, LOSS OF QUALITY

OF LIFE AND THE DETERORIATION OF PUBLIC HEALTH. Sales of wood stoves in Canada have grown over the last decade. Their increasing popularity and use as a source of Primary or supplementary heating has given rise to questions concerning the Emissions released and heating efficiency of the products being offered for sale in Canada. The issue of in lab testing in assessing emissions without scientifically based formulas performance based on potential takes advantage of words that mislead and falsely promote using non disclosure of facts to consumers and wrongfully establishes public confidence and false unaware trust in government and belief in claims or reducing emissions and as such place people at risk in exposure to emitted EPA Stove carcinogens and

With text of the Projet apparently composed and designed by industry representatives in form and content, promoting eight year financial incentives to increase carbon, hexacholorobenzene, dioxin and place citizens at risk in a manner in which the appliance is the least energy efficient with efficiency rating far below standards and with information denied citizens we maintain that true scientific facts about total emissions should be provided to consumers at the point of sale of any wood stove, EPA or otherwise. The false promotion of “Up to 90% in emissions is misleading and constitutes a violation of consumers need to know and right to know. EPA Certified stoves prove in publications to be guilty of nondisclosure of truth and constitutes a denial of citizens to the truth about emissions, therefore are denied their right to make informed choices about purchasing a product and its life threatening facts. unsafe air.

Adoption of the proposed Projet de Chauffage au Bois will result in an avoidable increase in pollution and a failure to address the issue of the present problematic toxins in the atmosphere. Unless amended this Projet clearly fails to reduce or address life threatening pollutants at source and in its content the Projet increasingly forces all citizens to be subject to an increase in actual emissions that will unnecessarily put all citizens and our children in harms way.

POINT 1: Impact assessment has failed to take into account the concentrations increased in areas where the density of populations is adversely affected by wood smoke exposure. This Project prevents citizens in all areas however especially in urban densely populated areas from their rightful enjoyment of life. Smoke concentrations in relation to potential contradicts the reality of what populations endure and suffer. Epidemiological studies, data sufficient assessment exists to establish the loss of health in exposure risks to populations in urban areas and densely populated rural areas where populations are affected by wood smoke.. This Project fails to adequately protect citizens and fails to ensure that vulnerable populations are not placed at critical risk. Smoke contaminated areas are proven to produce severe increase in death and disease. Avoiding life-threatening issues causing death suggests legal negligence. Failure to ensure air does constitute a violation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. As such, we maintain that the Project is illegal and clearly involves negating the obligatory conditions of the Ministry, MDDEP and does constitute

breech of trust in policy makers. Failure to ensure air that is safe is failure to provide essential to life. The project in its present form is evidence of failure to provide citizen’s access to smoke free air and encouraging carcinogenic dioxin and smoke life threatening air entails life threatening pollution smoke fumes EPA Source 4 - 1996 Comments on Actual-to-future-actual Methodology

POTENTIAL Vs REALITY EPA I-4-4 [1. Reference…………….] Index 4.2.3.2 Does not allow utilization increases Several commenters (IV-D-38, 140, 143, 146, 160) opposed the actual-to-potential test because it does not exempt emission increases due to demand growth or increased utilization, which they viewed as unfair and contrary to the statute and case law. One commenter (IV-D146) stated that EPA’s analysis of the current requirements is inconsistent with both the current regulatory language, and prior court decisions. According to the commenter, the overly broad applicability described in the preamble would allow for confiscation of existing production capacity without any increase in the rate of total amount of allowable emissions, merely because a source has experienced a decline in its productivity or hours of operation due to accident, aging and/or deterioration of its production equipment. In the view of the commenter, the Agency’s proposal to further limit the long-standing exclusion for such activities is unjustified and unreasonable, and provides none of the relief sought by State program officials and industry representatives from this reform effort. One commenter (IV-D-160) stated that in many cases, the application of the actualto-potential

test is inconsistent with the CAA, as well as the existing NSR regulations. The statute requires that a source be subject to NSR if a particular PC-CMO results in an increase in actual emissions.

NOTE: THE FOLLOWING TEXT IS EXTRACTED FROM AN EPA DOCUMENT ENTITLED, RESIDENTIAL WOOD COMBUSTION TECHNOLOGY REVIEW VOLUME 1. TECHNICAL REPORT. THIS DOCUMENT WAS PREPARED IN DECEMBER 1998 FOR THE U.S.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (EPA) OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT, WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460. [ ANY INSERT BY CITIZENSFEH IS UNDERLINED AND APPEARS IN GREEN .FULL DOCUMENT IS ATTACHED. SEE LINK] A review of the current states-of-the-art of residential wood combustion (RWC) was conducted. The key environmental parameter of concern was the air emission of particles. The technological status of all major RWC categories was reviewed. These were cordwood stoves, fireplaces, masonry heaters, pellet stoves, and wood-fired central heating furnaces. Advances in technology achieved since the mid-1980's were the primary focus. These study objectives were accomplished by reviewing the published literature and by interviewing nationally recognized RWC experts. Two key issues that continue to be of concern are (1) that the emission control performance of wood stoves operated in homes does not match laboratory certification results, and (2) that in home emission control performance for some stoves becomes poorer over time. Other unresolved issues include how fuel moisture and fuel wood effect emissions, the efficacy of, and relationships between test methodologies, The key findings of the review included: (1) The NSPS certification procedure only qualitatively predicts the level of emissions from wood heaters under actual use in homes, (2) Wood stove durability varies with model and a method to assess the durability problem is controversial, (3) Nationally the overwhelming majority of RWC air emissions are from non-certified devices (primarily from older non-certified woodstoves), (4) New technology appliances and fuel can reduce emissions significantly….(See CAN as research proves in labs only NOT in home heating conditions. l [ INSERT

FROM HOST “ CAN not DO (NOTE IN LABS ONLY, Not in Home Resedential Burning SEE DOC---------------------------------------------------------------------------), (5) The ISO and EPA NSPS test procedures are quite dissimilar and data generated by the two procedures would not be comparable, and, (6) The effect of wood moisture and wood type on particulate emission appears to be real but to be less than an order of magnitude. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A review of the current states-of-the-art of residential wood combustion (RWC) was conducted. The key environmental parameter of concern was the air emission of particles. The technological status of all major RWC categories was reviewed. These were cordwood stoves, fireplaces, masonry heaters, pellet stoves, and wood-fired central heating furnaces. Advances in technology achieved since the mid-1980's were the primary focus. In addition to RWC technology, several other related topics were reviewed. These topics included: (1) The evaluation of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) test methods for wood stoves, (2) The evaluation of in-home, long-term durability and emission performance of certified wood stoves, and, (3) The assessment of the effects of fuel wood types (tree species) and moisture on particulate emission factors. These study objectives were accomplished by reviewing the published literature and by interviewing nationally recognized RWC experts. Wood stoves are designed out of necessity to pass the EPA certification test. It is generally recognized the these tests do not simulate the way that a stove is used

in the “real world.” Consequently, emission results obtained from certification tests are only roughly predictive of how a wood stove will perform under actual in-home use. However, the general perception is that stoves that show low emissions in the certification testing will also do well in homes. The current status of stove efficiencies is difficult to assess since, while there is an efficiency test method published in the Federal Register, efficiency testing is not required during the certification process. The EPA certification procedure has been described as an art. Achieving a successful low burn rate condition and coal bed preparation are particularly challenging and they are quite unlike how a stove is usually used in a home. There are two particulate test methods that can be used as part of the certification procedure, Method 5G and Method 5H. To make the results obtained from these two methods comparable a conversion equation was developed. The data available to develop the conversion equation were limited. The equation has been widely criticized and it is generally believed that after the conversion the 5G method will produce higher emission values than the 5H method. Method 5G is more precise and less difficult (and less costly) than 5H. Adoption of the proposed Projet de Chauffage au Bois will result

in an avoidable increase in pollution and a failure to address the issue of the present problematic toxins in the atmosphere. Unless amended this Projet clearly fails to reduce or address life threatening pollutants at source and in its content the Projet increasingly forces all citizens to be subject to an increase in actual emissions that will unnecessarily put all citizens and our children in harms way. 1. INTRODUCTION Air emissions from residential wood combustion (RWC) became a topical issue in the 1980's. Of most concern were particulate (PM), polycyclic organic matter (POM) and carbon monoxide (CO) emissions. The perceived need to reduce air emissions was the impetus behind the New Source Performance Standard (NSPS)1 certification requirement for wood heaters and for the considerable RWC design and emissions research conducted in that decade. Manufacturers of wood heaters made major product changes in the late 1980's to meet the July 1, 1990 NSPS deadline that required all heaters manufactured after that date to be certified to Phase II emission limits. Emissions and appliance design research has also been conducted on other RWC appliance types currently exempt from the NSPS certification requirements: i.e., cookstoves, furnaces, appliances with air to fuel ratios greater than 35:1, and appliances weighing more than 800 kilograms. Two key issues that continue to be of concern are (1) that the emission control performance of wood stoves operated in homes does not match laboratory certification results, and (2) that inhome emission control performance for some stoves becomes poorer over time. Other unresolved issues include how fuel moisture and fuel wood effect emissions, the efficacy of, and relationships between test methodologies, and the effectiveness and feasibility of routine appliance maintenance for reducing emissions. The difficulty in resolving or quantifying cause-and-effect relationships for these issues as well as for other RWC questions is due to the large number of interrelated variables associated with RWC. There are many hundreds of types and models of wood burning devices in use, many dozens of tree species are commonly used for wood fuel, draft characteristics vary (e.g., chimney and temperature conditions), household altitude is variable, there are variations in fuel wood seasoning and storage practices (i.e., wood moisture) and there are wide variations in the operation of wood burning devices (e.g., burn rate, burn duration, damper setting, kindling approach). A review of the current statesof-the-art of residential wood combustion (RWC) was conducted. The key environmental parameter of concern was the air emission of particles. The technological status of all major RWC categories was reviewed. These were cordwood stoves, fireplaces, masonry heaters, pellet stoves, and wood-fired central heating furnaces. Advances in technology achieved since the mid-

1980's were the primary focus. These study objectives were accomplished by reviewing the published literature and by interviewing nationally recognized RWC experts. The key findings of the review included: (1) The NSPS certification procedure only qualitatively predicts the level of emissions from wood heaters under actual use in homes, (2) Wood stove durability varies with model and a method to assess the durability problem is controversial, (3) Nationally the overwhelming majority of RWC air emissions are from non-certified devices (primarily from older non-certified woodstoves), (4) New technology appliances and fuels can reduce emissions significantly. (NOTE IN LABS ONLY, Not in Home Resedential Burning SEE DOC---------------------------------------------------------------------------), (5) The ISO and EPA NSPS test procedures are quite dissimilar and data generated by the two procedures would not be comparable, and, (6) The effect of wood moisture and wood type on particulate emission appears to be real but to be less than an order of magnitude QUOTATION “In most cases the repair of a catalyst bypass system needs to be performed at the manufacturer’s facility. Another minor problem common to both catalytic and non-catalytic stoves, is the deterioration of the fuel loading door gasket material causing leaks and commensurate excess combustion air.”

National Risk Management , EPA –600/R-98-174a, December 1998 May 31, 2008 Michael Goulet Chef de L'Environnement et des Parcs Edifice Marie-Guyart, 675 Boulevard Rene Levesque Est 6e etage, Boite 30 Quebec, Quebec, G1R 5V7 RE: Attached Communique Agreement of StatementRE: Proposed Quebec law-Projet de Chauffage Where there is wood smoke, there is grave danger to our health and our life. Wood smoke emissions affect the air we all have to breathe, our quality of life, our health, and our constitutional right to be able to enjoy our property without the noxious and deadly emissions from a neighbor's wood smoke. Outdoor wood boilers (OWB), chimneys, outdoor wood burning fire pits and fireplaces, and indoor wood burning fireplaces caused residents, neighbors, visitors, and families to involuntarily breathe wood smoke emissions. Any burning of wood is harmful and deadly to all us.

If Quebec formally adopts Projet de Chauffage, it will greatly expand the deadly effects of wood smoke emissions in all Quebec communities and throughout Canada. Residents will be assaulted with tons of wood smoke emissions. In addition to the devastating air and environmental negative effects, children/people will suffer because they will be involuntarily breathing wood smoke emissions. Communities probably already have existing ordinances that should stop/prevent the use of all wood burning. The ordinance/local law is typically something to the effect that: “Any business or premises which emits or causes the emission of offensive odors which taint the air, render it unwholesome or make the air unsafe to the surrounding environment is hereby declared to be a nuisance and shall be unlawful for any person to permit any such nuisance to remain or exist upon the property under his control". Wood smoke emissions are definitely a public and private nuisance by preventing people from breathing fresh, unpolluted air in their yard and home. Exposure to wood smoke emission particulates can trigger or aggravate respiratory and cardiovascular problems. Symptoms include eye and nose irritation, breathing difficulty, wheezing, coughing, and headaches. People with asthma, emphysema, chronic bronchitis, and other respiratory diseases are vulnerable. Wood smoke is especially harmful to pregnant women, babies, children, and the elderly. Chronic exposure to wood smoke can cause longterm health effects such as asthma, heart and lung disease, and cancer. In the United States of America, over 30,000 Americans die each year from wood smoke. Canadian deaths are probably even more. Wood smoke emissions are a worldwide health issue. Quebec and Canadian residents-just like Americans-want their air to be free of the unneeded and unnecessary wood smoke emissions. People shouldn't have to pray for a breath of air-unpolluted by wood smoke. The proposed Quebec law-Projet de Chauffage-will gravely harm and cause premature death to thousands of Quebec residents due to the wood smoke emissions. Exposure to wood smoke emissions cause short-term health problems such as eye, nose, throat and lung irritation, coughing, shortness of breath, and may trigger asthma attacks. Long-term effects from chronic exposure can include the development of asthma, heart and lung disease and cancer." The Breathe Healthy Air Coalition is against the proposed Quebec law-Projet de Chauffage-because it will: pollute the air, land, and water, negatively affect the quality of life and health of those who involuntarily breathe the deadly wood smoke emissions, violate private and public nuisance laws, and wood smoke breaks the unwritten, but understood "good neighbor policy" where one does no harm to another neighbor by their actions.

Recently, I read a “letter to the editor” that appeared in a Canadian newspaper written by a resident who said, “…the stench of (wood) smoke fills my home. It seeps through windows and vents, and my family suffers from respiratory symptoms due to the constant exposure to airborne particles emanating from the burning wood. No government regulations seem to protect urban citizens from the smoke pollution caused by a neighbour. No one should be forced to inhale smoke. Provisions against smoke exposure are provided for public areas and workplaces, so why not residential areas?” It is our sincere hope that the people and elected officials of Quebec will stand up and say..."NO” to the proposed Quebec law-Projet de Chauffage. The Breathe Healthy Air Coalition cares about the lives of Quebec residents that will be gravely affected by this proposed law—Projet de Chauffage. Sincerely, Kenneth D. Dubinski, Founder Breathe Healthy Air Coalition PO Box 861 Elk Grove Village, IL. 60009 U.S.A. [email protected]

I ,Stella Haley and in support of the citizens who have signed these two petitions, { See Petitions: Attached} state that we at Citizens for Environmental Health www.citizens foreEnvironmental Health.com refuse to accept the Projet de Chauffage au Bois as is proposed by the Minister of Environment of Quebec, Lyne Beauchamp, Ministere de L’Environnement de Quebec, MDDEP, as was referred to in the document here in Projet de Chauffage. We sincerely hope that this proposed project would be rejected. We demand that the MDDEP pass a law that bans ALL wood burning in urban areas immediately. We demand that the MDDEP establish a program with incentives to adopt better more efficient and less harmful than wood heating, alternative heating throughout the province of Quebec. This will save the environment and especially serve to promote healthy smoke free environments and above all to protect the lives of thousand of Quebec residents. It is a matter of Breath or Death.

We must do better! We must stand up and say NO to the Projet de Chauffage, Say No to the false claims of the HEARTH, HPBAC APC WETT Big Wood Stove, a Licensed Charity Industry. We deserve the right to truth and the right to life. Air is essential to life. We deserve the right to breathe smoke free air! We Say NO! We say No to MORE SMOKE! No SMOKE! We cannot accept children breathing smoke. Reject this proposal, for the sake of our well being, especially for Quebec children. Sincerely, Stella Haley, Founder Citizensforenvironmentalhealth.com www.citizensfeh.com [email protected] tel: 514-699 SAVE (7283) June 18, 2008 61 Hillside, Pointe Claire, H9S5E4 Quebec,

C.

[email protected]