Environmental health monitoring programs in urban areas with industrial activity require comprehensive sampling approaches that address both air quality and particulate matter fallout to accurately assess health risks for affected communities. Effective community engagement strategies are essential for understanding resident concerns and ensuring that monitoring programs address the specific health impacts that communities experience, such as soot accumulation on surfaces and potential contamination of community spaces like gardens.
Installieren Sie unsere Erweiterung an, um sofort in jedem Video zu suchen
Board of Health (Hamilton) - May 25, 2026Hinzugefügt:
Sound check. 1 2 3. Sound check. 1 2 3.
Hello and welcome to the board of health for Monday, May 25th, 2026. I'm your chair, W 2 councelor Cameron Kretch, and joining us in chambers today, W 12 councelor Craig Casar, W 13 councelor Alex Wilson, member Chelsea Kirkby, member Don Denko, member Ryan Jansen, W 11 counselor Mark Tatterson, and W four counselor Tammy Huang.
I'm going to call this meeting to order because we do have quorum, which are seven. And please have a mover and a seconder to approve the agenda for today's meeting is our second item.
Moved by member Denko, seconded by councelor Huang.
Any amendments from board members to the agenda for today.
I'm not seeing any. All those in favor of approving today's agenda as presented, raise by show of hands, please. Thanks. That's everybody. It carries. We're on to declarations of interest. Does anybody have a declaration of interest to declare today?
Not seeing raising a hand. If something should come up later, you can file the paperwork.
We're on to item number five, the approval of the minutes of the previous meeting, which was April 27th, 2026. Can I have a mover and second to adopt those minutes? Moved by councelor Chhattis, seconded by member Jansen. Any discussion on the minutes, amendments, errors? No, they're lovely. Okay. All in favor of the minutes by show of hands.
Lovely. Minutes approved. On to six which are delegations. We have one delegation for today 6.1. I'm looking around to see if Evan is here or Evan is joining us virtually. I'm not sure. Evan Euban from Environment Hamilton respecting. I see Evan coming up the stairs. Item 7.1 report BOH25026A black soot sampling and community engagement feasibility. I'm going to give Evan a few seconds by reading out the declaration about delegations despite the fact that Ellen Evan already knows. Before we begin our delegation for today, members are reminded that questions to the delegations are for clarification purposes and only and not for debate. So if you have questions, those are fine. But if you want to debate the delegate, you can do that outside in your own time. A note to our delegates, you have five minutes to complete your delegation. You'll hear a tone after the 4-minute mark and then you will have an additional minute to finish up. And so Evan, whenever you're ready, um you can begin your delegation.
If you need a couple of minutes to set your presentation up, just let me know.
Oh, it's already there.
>> There you go. You're good to go. You've got five minutes.
>> Okay. Hello, uh, board of health members and city staff. Um, I delegated last month. I will probably be delegating next month as well, so I'll see you then. Um but today I'm gonna talk about uh the report back on soot sampling and community engagement feasibility and just give a few uh comments from environment Hamilton's uh perspective sorry um so background you obviously already know this this is the original motion as it was passed last uh March to investigate how we could do uh how the city could do some soot sampling in WS 2, three, and four. So, I'm not going to touch on that too much.
And then there are some updates uh which leads to now. And then I just wanted to highlight a key reason for the motion request is that wards three and four are receiving an increasing number of complaints about the soot. So therefore um referring an increasing number of complaints to the MECP.
Um but the MECP has not been taking uh action and so this uh motion seeks to address that gap.
And then uh the b the uh Hamilton public health office highlighted some of these uh prior testing that was done in their report in 2006. Testing was done. Um samples were collected on three different days and the conclusion of that report was that much of the pollution could be attributed to uh the industrial facilities in the area. And in 2024 some more testing was done. Um 54 samples were analyzed. Uh 16 received detectable concentrations of various compounds. I I wasn't sure if this report was ever published. Um I saw there was a motion to get it published, but I honestly I was trying to find it. I don't know what the result of that was. Um in any case, in 2024 and 2025, uh University of McMaster did a study called What's the Grime? And based on some of the results they've presented, uh, they've been able to differentiate their samples from soot that's coming from industry and things like traffic.
And they found that as you move closer to the industrial area, the content of the soot is more consistent with what what you would expect to be coming from industrial emissions.
Um so what information is lacking from these this prior testing is that sit samples aren't be haven't really been investigated for specific um compounds such as polyyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and certain metals. So, that's a thing that could be improved on and what this motion could potentially address.
Um, some comments on the feasibility study that has been proposed. Um, the air quality testing, I'm not super sure how useful that would be. Um, there was a proposal in the report to sample for 3 days. If you have irregular conditions on even just one of those three days, it would heavily skew the results. Like a three-day testing period won't really tell you much. Um, also 8 hour samples were proposed, and I'm not really sure why. I know the standard in the Hamilton Air Monitoring Network is usually 24-hour period. Um, the sampling method is not very well defined. Um so for example they talk about canisters. Um usually canisters are used to sample uh volatile organic compounds or gases. Um so not really sure what exactly is being proposed to be measured and then they don't define which pollutants specifically would will be measured. So I understand the report is kind of just an overview but it would be good to know this information before moving forward.
Um and then for the soot sampling, uh some good things to know would be how are the sites selected? Um how will they be constructed and set up? Um how is the timeline chosen? Um it's honestly not clear what the timeline is.
There's a clot uh a phrase in the report saying that the integrity of the samples is dependent on pre-existing conditions that can be controlled for. Um and it's also not clear how long samplers will be left at their location. So in previous testing samples were taken from one day.
It could be better if it was left out for a longer period of time.
And then yeah there could be more details as well. So, in conclusion, uh you know, if $120,000 potentially is being spent here to help residents figure this stuff out, there might be a better way to allocate those funds between the things that are proposed in the report. Um, and it would be good to have some more details before moving forward.
That's all I have. Thank you.
Thanks very much. Any questions for Evan? Councelor Hang, go ahead.
>> Thank you. Thank you for that presentation, Evan. Just a question around um there is a all four options in today's report are very different tactics. So, in your um role as a community organizer and as a community listener, what sort of um what is missing beyond what you said in your presentation? I feel like there's a community engagement aspect that might be a little bit missing here. Uh what would you can you give us a touch more information as to what the community might say about this?
Yeah, I mean a lot of the language is pretty technical, but I think the the community wants to know what the soot is that they're experiencing, right? And so for the air quality piece, I don't know if that will really do that. um for the soot sampling piece, you know, sending samples to an accredited lab for testing and results, that could be a useful piece of information that residents have said they want to know and and could know. Um so yeah, like should more of the funds, for example, be directed to option two, that might be a better way to do it. Um the other thing I just wanted to mention quickly is is that um to actually help residents in these wards, the pollution from the industry has to be better regulated. And so I know there is also a notice of motion on the agenda. And there could be a decision made on that environmental compliance approval that the motion addresses before next meeting when when that gets discussed here to vote on that motion. Um and because residents are going to continue advocating for this regardless um you know passing stuff like that is helpful regardless of a decision is made by then or not.
>> Thank you.
My second question through your chair is a question around um what would be because you've you've been looking at a bunch of these like sort of testing sampling kind of studies. So, and because we also have the what's the grime that you also did mention, uh where do you think that we could best utilize our resources to get to that core answer of what's in the soot fallout whatever? So, what how would you what does your sort of ideal sort of study look like?
>> Um, yeah, it's hard to say. I think, you know, city staff are pretty equipped to to give recommendations and potentially work with the third party who drafted the report to um, you know, make an allocation.
um especially if you know there's discussions with the laboratory that's going to be doing the sampling, they would have good advice on you know here's here's the best way to collect the samples so that we can do our testing effectively. Um, and then also obviously community members who have been involved already doing some of this research at whatever, you know, whether it's McMaster or wherever else. I'm sure they would be able to give good input and come up with a more comprehensive thing than I can give you right now.
>> Thank you. Those are all my questions.
Thank you, Chair.
>> Thanks very much. And next up is member Tenko.
Thank you so much for the delegation and uh for the the specific questions that you're looking to have answered before a decision is made. So I just wanted to clarify um what what I think I'm hearing is that air sampling may not be the most useful thing to answer the question that that residents are looking for which is what is in the soot. Thank you for nodding. Um and I had a similar question around how might we best spend resources to answer the question that that we would like answered. So just for clarity um it's really around that gap around polyyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and doing testing for that. Um, and so you if you could just speak a little bit further around the um the need for more information about the sampling methodology and I'm wondering if uh that also then would relate to sampling in a way that helps us identify the source of the sid which we we think we know what it is um but with some kind of um identification of locations uh that are spread out in a way that we could determine uh soot density or or something of that sort. Would that be helpful uh as we look to to seek an answer to the questions?
>> Yeah. So through you chair um in the previous testing that was mentioned in 2006 and 2024 to my understanding you know uh uh workers went out on a day and took a sample from somewhere in the community and then that was sent back for analyzing.
uh it could potentially give residents a better idea of of what they're dealing with if a sample was collected over a longer period. Um especially if their main concern is what is in the sample because if you collect it over that longer period, there's more for the laboratory to analyze and measure. And so you could get actual, you know, uh, detectable measurements rather than just, you know, tra potential traces of this compound, this compound.
The other thing is that, uh, based on what I've read from the previous testing is it it looked at coal based compounds.
So coal, um, d coal dust, coke, but it didn't look at some of the more detailed compounds. So the hydro hydrocarbons and certain metals and the reason for that is the more you test the more expensive it is. So um that's that's just a gap that exists and it could be helpful for residents. Well it seems like residents in the area are interested in in knowing that.
>> Thank you very much. I don't see further speakers on the list at this time. So thank you for your delegation.
>> Okay. Thank you everyone.
>> At this time, we're going to have a mover and second to receive this delegation. It's also a chance to ask questions of staff if people wish to.
Moved by councelor Nan, seconded by councelor Hang before we move to receiving any questions of staff on this delegation specifically.
Nope, don't see any we can do on the report anyways. Just making sure in case there was something specific that was brought up on that. All those in favor of receiving the delegation by show of hands.
That's everyone. Thank you. We're now on to our items for information and we're going to put items 7.1 to 7.3 on the floor and then deal with 7.4 separately.
Can I have a mover to put 7.1 to 7.3 on the floor? Moved by councelor Tatterson, seconded by member Jansen.
And we'll now go and see if there's any questions on any of these items 7.1 through 7.3 before we receive them.
Councelor Huang, go ahead.
Can we get an overview of 7.1 uh very quickly, please?
>> If it's very quickly, absolutely. Yeah.
>> Uh good morning through the chair Matt Lawson uh acting director healthy environments division while director McDonald is away this week. Um as the report before you in includes uh technical information concerning materials identification, sampling and analysis, uh I'm pleased to provide a brief highle overview of the report at this time.
Further we are joined by Mr. Mahabu Balam from Pedo Macllum Limited. Uh he is here virtually. The um uh Mr. Alam is with Peter McCllum Limited who is the certified professional consultant that was retained by Hamilton public health to prepare the proposal detailed in the report for the board of health's consideration and approval. The report provides an information update to the board of health's consideration toward further direction in response to earlier approvals of the public health subcommittee and subsequently the semi-autonomous board of health concerning a project to sample and analyze material commonly characterized as soot in city of Hamilton wards 2, three, and four. Peter McCllum has provided proposed options within their report. two detailing environmental sampling and analysis plans and one detailing a complimentary background monitoring plan. Each of the proposed options includes project costing which is identified in appendix A of the report and a little bit further on those two points I think if if councelor Wang's question about the overview. So um option one provided by Peter McCllum speaks to monitoring air quality related to uh the wards and option two speaks to collecting 22 particulate matter samples throughout wards 2, three and four.
Option three is the background monitoring uh proposal and option four is a comprehensive option which combines option one and two. So it's doing the air monitoring and the particulate monitoring uh together and uh those are the options that were proposed with associated costing. Um, Hamilton Public Health staff, just a note as well, Hamilton public health staff has met with um, board chair uh, Cameron Cretch and vice chair Dr. Emil Joseph as well as um, ward three and four counselors Narendra Nan and Tammy Hang related to uh, trying to better understand their expectations concerning the community engagement component of the earlier motion. Uh based on the feedback and the information and expectations that were shared with staff, um Hamilton Public Health has proposed a targeted communication strategy for WS 2, three, and four should the board of health elect to pursue one of the options. Um and more detailed information concerning this can be found in the analysis section of the report. Um at this time um our team and Mr. Mahabu Balam are available to speak to any further detailed questions regarding the options provided if I haven't provided that to this point.
>> Thanks very much. Back to you councelor Wang.
>> Thank you. As all four options have been presented in this report are very different. Um, and I do recommend I do see that your recommendation is for option four, which is an amalgam of all four of those options. It's a bit of the Cadillac version of everything, right?
So, um, how, as we had that little sidebar conversation, you talked about it being almost two separate sort of ideas. One of which is an air sampling, which is different from a surface level soot sampling. Um, and so I wonder if you could just dig a little bit deeper and share some of those uh concerns that you had um particularly because um identifying that direction is going to take this particular work in several different directions. So I wonder if you can just help us with understanding some of the the challenges with what you're seeing in front of you.
>> Yes, thank you councelor through the chair. Um, I'd just like to point out that it's not necessarily a recommendation of staff to pursue option four. Um, it's it's noted as a comprehensive option in the consultants report that it will give you the most um up-to-date information about what is being identified when that sampling if it were to happen. So doing the air air monitoring and soot sampling is the most information gathering option that is um presented in that report. The speaking to the point about the differentiation is it's a point in time collection. So if any sampling were to be approved and directed it would be done here in 2026.
And when we think of the samples that have previously been collected by the Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks that was collected in 2024 between the months of March and September, October. Um and at that time there were some media reports related to a sticky greasy type of film that was collecting uh and had been observed and reported um in in wards uh three and four mainly uh one episode being St. Christopher's Park where um our staff on our team had followed up with the park staff as well to uh request you know sentinel surveillance on their behalf like if if this happens again please notify our team and how frequently it's happening because we'd like to notify the ministry to go out and collect some samples. So those events also resulted in a very timecompressed number of complaints to the ministry's office which they responded to by collecting those 54 samples and uh I think mainly in May and October of or late September of 2024 is when most of those uh reports were were identified.
That is slightly different I believe than the the constant fallout that happens in the uh lower wards of 2, three and four due to the proximity to industrial activity.
um combined with all of the uh modes of transportation that the the wards are subjected to in that uh the 400 series highways, the marine terminals, the rail rail yards, all of and the heavy industry, all of those sources will create a fallout of pollution that over time we've heard community um express their concerns about those uh those particles and how they create a um a visual den and a dirty surface ever accumulates. So one is a constant fallout of particle. But I think that in 2024 there were episodes where it was a little bit more unique where this sticky film substance was falling out. So to me the and the staff we've discussed this uh many times is the goal to try and find source of porchment for that sticky smeary really dark substance that was identified mainly in 2024.
uh and you know there have been previous instances of it as well um in in in prior times but um or is it to really analyze what is the constant fallout uh because they the two things the two projects could be looked at separately but they're both related to air quality and they both are um they both will deposit down so that's the distinction between those two those two matters that I see in the the challenges of what exactly are we trying to find out the most about. Um in the end taking particle samples will um will provide additional information. Um so we we can take the direction from the board of health about which uh what to the extent that you would like to pursue further sampling in those areas.
>> Thank you for that. Um, I have comments later, but um, I think that my question is, um, do we need to make this decision today? Could we potentially push to the June 22nd Board of Health to, um, have this matter be raised again to I feel like I need a little more time to explore these options with with um, public health staff. uh because this agenda item was released to us on the 19th. We are seeing it now on the 25th.
I wonder if there is an opportunity to just perhaps just share with me the time frame or the timeline of how we have to make this decision today. Uh through you, chair.
>> Yeah, procedurally speaking, we can defer whatever we want, but I'll ask staff if that's going to cause some kind of problem.
um through the chair uh not not to our um identification. We'll take the direction of the board uh as you as directed. We can we can go on the timeline that uh the board wants.
>> Okay. Thank you. And I'm going to go now to the next speaker if that's okay.
Councelor Hank on to just as a procedural note right if we do decide or the vibe in the room is we want to defer this. The only people that can defer it are people who have not spoken to the item. So just going to put that out there. Uh next up is councelor Nan. Take it away.
>> Thank you through you chair uh to staff.
Thank you for the report. Um just a few few questions and followup. Um and definitely have ideas on um to councelor Hang's point about deferral which I'm not sure meets our community's needs.
Um, could staff comment to which recommendation would enable us to have the most accurate picture of the impact of the fallout as it relates to human health through the chair.
Yeah, I believe that the comprehensive option to councelor Nan would be the most comprehensive. You would be getting air quality results. Um, again, it's a point in time. It's only a 3-day sample collection for that and it's a timed average for 8 hours. Um there are continuous air monitors in the north end as well that that information if done uh could be you know uh looked at and assessed for uh coral areas to see if it was similar. When you're looking at that data and you're also collecting the particulate you're going to expect to see the same things. So what is in the air will come down and settle eventually. So it would be option one and two would be the most comprehensive of what is uh potentially impacting the health of uh the community.
>> Thank you. So recommendation four. Um and then could you comment on the point in time data and the potential for a longer period as mentioned by the delegate >> through the chair? Um the point in time data is limited in that it is just a point in time. It does it won't be continuous air monitoring um to see if something were to change after the 3-day of air sampling then uh it would not be captured within that canister. However, we do have a network of air monitors within the Hamilton air monitoring network that uh both the ministry as well as the staff within the uh health hazards and vectorbor disease program do review to identify uh concerns. So, um the the usefulness of it is just what you're what you're collecting during the time. You may see something, you may not see something. And so, um, I'm not sure if this is getting to exactly to your question, councelor Nan, about the limitation that, uh, uh, the delegate spoke to, but it is limited by time. And so, if more time were to be requested, uh, it's, it's the assumption that the cost would definitely drive up um, for more monitoring.
>> Yeah. Yeah. And I guess through you, chair, what I'm trying to get at is connecting the most comprehensive recommendation with the ability to have the most comprehensive data to give us the results that would actually give us the ability to meet the community's expectation here. Right? So if there's a perception that 3 days of data collection at point of time may not be sufficient or there's an ability perhaps yes with more resources to have a more comprehensive um sampling period would that in turn then correlate to the ability to provide more comprehensive data and outcomes to our community >> through the chair to counselor the the information that we do get from the current air monitoring capac or capabilities within the the Hamilton air monitoring network as well as the three Ministry of Environment Air Monitors. Um does provide quite a bit of information about concentrations of um the main chemicals that will impact the health of the community things like PM2.5 and polyaromatic hydrocarbons. If we were to go the the benefit of doing this type of modeling or monitoring rather would be to take the actual monitoring devices to a specific location within Hamilton. And so you where you're monitoring through the Hamilton air monitoring network, those are fixed stations. So the the the air monitoring that would be done as part of this proposal would be collected at different locations where monitoring is not typically done. However, uh once something is in the air, it becomes an externality and it becomes um subject to meteorologic conditions where wind will blow it about. And so that's where a lot of what's done in environmental compliance approvals and um the way that the ministry reviews, you know, permits to be issued for emissions is to do modeling. And so, you know, we look at the average amount of exposure that somebody usually gets uh to certain chemicals through modeling.
this monitoring would potentially support what we might already know. It's almost a validation exercise um if you will.
>> Thank you. And then through you, chair, like appreciating the con the component that's dealing with air monitoring. I think the area where we've heard the most concern is about the fallout and fall down uh not only on people's private properties, but specifically within city properties recently. the report and communication that we've had to close Powell Park Community Garden as a result of the fallout that has landed into the soil that is tested at agricultural rates and out of an abundance of caution we've closed that facility and said to residents don't grow your food in the soil and that has actually kind of heightened the fears in the community that existed previously.
It also served as validation to our community that they are subjected to unknown toxins in their environment in community and they're turning to councelor hang and myself and councelor crutch and saying how can this work of this motion or this recommendation help us alleviate our concerns and fears. Um so from that perspective, could you talk about the fallout sampling locations limited to three um and how we might get a better comprehensive picture as a municipality of the prolonged impact of this fallout?
Would community gardens make sense to be something that public health monitors going forward from this perspective given that benzo benzoid a pyrene I can never say the right one right chemical composition but the one most linked to cancer-causing diseases is now in the soil of community gardens in the city of Hamilton >> through the chair to the counselor um with respect to the community garden issue. Um there is given the legacy of uh industrial activity as well as transportation within the city of Hamilton.
Um I would say that it would not be surprising to have many soils in parks and and areas of the city that would have elevated levels of certain contaminants.
um specifically with reference to lead in Powell Park. Um that's a very old neighborhood where the streets in that neighborhood have been around for decades. And uh one of the the main um contributors to environmental lead in that neighborhood would likely be due to exhaust deposition too from leaded gasoline even back from the 1920s all the way through to the 1970s. So you're going to have high levels of lead in much of the soil. Um what might be different given today's context is how deep is it in the soil and is it accessible to exposure to individuals who may be harmed by it. So with respect to the garden, I know that that garden was 2012, I think it was established as a community garden and at the time there was a um a barrier put in place and top soil was put onto it. Um built up over time that mixing would have happened. Um, so, uh, as the gardeners are using the garden, they might be digging deeper, um, not aware of how much new soil they're putting into it, but the mixing will occur. Um and within the realm of making sure that community gardening is safe, um many proponents of urban agriculture will propose that raised garden beds will if you if you start to adopt a practice of let's assume almost a universal precaution related to uh contamination of soil is let's assume that there's some contamination here and let's just be safe about our gardening and put in clean soil.
with a barrier in between the rest of the the garden. Um over time perhaps what you're speaking to councelor Nan is over time and I'm not sure what that time frame should be there there could be information within the literature I'm not aware of of how often would you want to check the soil after say you establish a new garden and you've got your clean soil and you got a clean bill of health. How long after that should we be checking what's in the soil given deposition and fallout over time? So to that end, um we we certainly could help look into that uh to try and find an answer for those practices. But I think that if um uh community gardens were to adopt a healthy policy of um raised beds and making sure that uh the soil is um is healthy and usable at the outset, um there is a way to manage these. There are excellent resources as well from the National Collaborating Center on Environmental Health about urban agriculture and how to how to grow um fruits and vegetables in urban industrialized areas that will still be healthy for the individuals to eat.
>> I appreciate the comprehensiveness of that response. chair also appreciating that I'm out of time. I do need to come on for a second time only because um the the question that I have as a response to the thorough answer is so in context of this report in context of residents concerns in the context that this new information came forward as it relates to the community gardens. Um, sure.
Happy to move a second motion or another motion entirely about uh a proposed schedule for soil testing on city property for community gardens given the unique impact. Right? So, appreciating the global standards and the conversation among the associations that are looking at urban impact to community gardens. We're coming back to Hamilton, right? And we're coming back to the context that this report is about, which is some communities are disproportionately impacted due to proximity to industry. And so with that knowledge then happy to table that discussion for a further motion chair, but I'd like to come down come on for a second time to talk about the community engagement portion of the recommendations. Thanks.
>> Okay. On to member Krookby.
>> Thanks so much for the information that you've shared so far. Um I just have a couple questions. Um one's a bit more specific. So you mentioned that when the air comes down like all the air will come down and then they'll be we'll be able to sample on the ground or on objects. Um is there anything that wouldn't be able to be sampled there just in terms of analyzing whether the air quality component is an important component? Is there anything that wouldn't come down that you would need to test in in the air?
>> Uh through the chair to member Kirkby.
Um the sampling being proposed to by Peter Macllum is mirroring the same type of analysis that was performed by the Ministry of Environment Conservation and Parks with the addition of certain parameters uh polyaromatic hydrocarbon benzo pyrene as well as uh lead and nickel and some other metals. Um I may ask upon Mr. Mahab Balam to provide comment to member Kirkb's question if uh Mahaboo are you there?
Okay. Not I think Mahaboo I saw his name earlier on the uh the agenda there but or on the screen but with the if you can clarify again please. member Kirkby, are you looking for what metals or what are you asking?
>> Yeah. No, just if anything would be missing from the sampling of like you mentioned that everything would come down. So maybe all you would need is to sample the um do like the samples on objects or on the ground, but is there anything that we'd miss if we didn't do the air quality testing?
No, the particulate would also be uh sampled for those same um chemicals of concern that would be sampled in the air qualities like the the polyaromatic hydrocarbon, the the nickel, the lead.
>> They'd all land on the ground. Nothing would evaporate or not be available in the sample.
>> Yeah, they're solid materials. So, yeah, they would what goes up must come down.
And so the gravity and over time these would deposit in places if they have enough weight. So this is where it gets into something like PM2.5 as a uh a chemical of concern. It is very light. It is very small. It is a byproduct of combustion and it can travel great distances >> because it is so light. the heavier you get like particulates that are 10 micron in size or tsp as it's also known total suspended particullet those are heavier and those will fall quicker to the ground u PM2.5 from a health consideration is much more injurious to health given that it can get deeper into the lungs and can cause more um uh more concerns within body systems as opposed to PM10 10 which is a larger particle uh will get high high percentage of PM10 is thankfully captured by our body's immune systems and uh mucosal membranes that trap it and uh doesn't enter our body into the bloodstream uh like smaller particulates do. So um if things have a molecular size we will see them on the ground from coming from the air. You will not see things like gases on the ground. So sulfur dioxide and I oxides of nitrogen things of those that can still impact health. They cannot be sampled from the ground. But the um what I was hoping for Mahaboo to uh uh reinforce is the notion that the the air quality sample or the air quality sampling is being performed to say if we saw it here, we should be seeing it also there. And they're only looking for things that they know would deposit over time. they wouldn't be looking for gases.
>> Okay. Um and then yeah, I just also wanted to say that um I do also agree with you know needing a comprehensive review of the impacts of health as well.
Um so whether that's included like ensuring that the data that we're collecting draws those links to the health impacts. Um and you mentioned that this is a bit of like validation exercise. So just want to if it's a question but um to uh ensure that the report would include or can you like would the report include um recommended actions that you know both that are kind of outside the control of the municipality but also ones that you know we could take on as a city as public health in terms of addressing this issue um in once we have the results and know what's what needs to be addressed specifically >> through the chair to U member Kirkby, could you could you please rephrase the question in terms of like the impacts of you're looking for information about the impacts of the containments?
>> Well, I just think if we're going to do this report, we need to ensure that it includes what the health impacts are from what we're seeing, what's being identified in the results, and then from that, will we have recommendations that are very clear around what we can actually do about this um to address the health impacts. So there's going to be things that are likely outside of our control, but perhaps it's advocacy or other ways that we can influence. Um, and then what can we actually do, you know, what can public health do, what can the municipality do to address these issues as they're impacting health. So just drawing the links between the results we know once we know exactly what's landing, then what do we do from there?
>> Through the chair to member Kirkby. Um yes the whatever contaminants may be found in any type of sampling there can be information provided about its potential to impact health. What is very challenging to to do is is to understand how much anyone is at any given time is being dosed with it. So a contaminant in its presence is not it's it's it's not beneficial to our health to have lead exposure to people. But without understanding the exact dose that somebody is being exposed at uh it's very hard to predict whether or not they are going to have um their health impacted or if they will be able to uh if their body will be able to accommodate it if it's a lower dose.
Dosage is important in terms of toxicological um assessment, but theoretically all of these contaminants present a risk. If they are in the environment, they could be exposed to to an individual.
>> Thanks very much, Member Kirkby. And now to membero.
>> Thank you and through the chair. Uh just sort of following some of the line of questioning. Um given we already have this network of air quality testing uh and we we have information that that correlates with what we'd be looking to collect here uh and the the focus seems to be on understanding what is the fallout as as mentioned.
Is it possible to just correlate our existing data with the new particulate fallout sampling and analysis so that we could you know um allocate resources to extend the length of the sampling time.
Um, we could do more robust sampling, perhaps more robust analysis, uh, perhaps further locations in addition to what were proposed. What would it uh take to perhaps uh consider an adjustment to where funds are are allocated for testing >> through the chair to member Denko. Um, if I'm understanding your question properly, you are asking where the I'm sorry, member Denko, could you please repeat the question?
>> Sure. I'm just wondering if we what what information would we need and um what would need to happen to understand if we wanted to use our own air quality sampling and allocate additional funding um towards the particulate sampling over a longer period of time perhaps more locations um what what would we need to do to understand what that option might look like >> um through the chair to the member um I think what I'm hearing you're you're saying if we don't do the air monitoring and we do additional particulate sampling.
>> Um the consultant has proposed in their report that additional sites above the 22 sites that are identified at a cost of $34,750.
Um additional sites can be done um at an average cost. I believe it's just around $1,500 per site, but uh I will verify that. So, additional sites could be provided. Um, it would be the board's discretion of how many sites in total.
Um, and I'm sure that working with uh Peter Mcllum, we could get a sampling plan for those. Uh, in terms of the timeline it would take that could also be adjusted to be either faster or drawn out over time to to show seasonality, if you will, uh, different times of the year. Um I I guess the bottom line is it's all possible. We could we could do additional particulate sampling.
There are some caveats there though to just point out that because we go to a site or because the the the the third party consultant would go to a site to perform sampling. It does not guarantee that any information will come back that will be of use to our understanding. So just to recall 54 samples the Ministry of the Environment collected most of those samples returned trace or non-detectable limits of certain things.
uh and of the 54 16 did come back with detectable concentrations where uh the laboratory was able to actually determine a concentration on the ground of a of a sample. So even though we would be collecting additional samples if more were to be chosen of the 22, it doesn't guarantee that the result would come back with any analytes identified in it.
Thank you and through the chair. Um the the other part of the question is around extending the length of the sampling time to increase the likelihood that we would have a sample that but would demonstrate um more than a trace amount of of particular um materials that that we are looking to to find. Uh, can you help me understand, you know, with with the current proposal, what would it look like to increase sampling time, not doing three samples at different times, but actually collecting the soot uh or or having the the collection um apparatus out for a longer period of time. Thank you.
>> Um, so through the chair to member Denko, if it's particulate matter sampling, there's no apparatus. It's a it's an on-site collection. Um using a brush. Uh you're you're trying to actually find um small particles. You're you're scooping them into a collected area.
You're using uh a razor blade to scrape a surface to collect those uh small particles and then they're placed in a petri dish uh for transportation to a laboratory. So there is no for the particles themselves, the sampling, there is no monitoring device that sits out there. Um I will point out what you're speaking to there um is an is an element of a research study that is ongoing in the city of Hamilton um by Dr. Sarah Styler from McMaster University, the what's the grime study.
So those uh those methodologies uh involve using substrates where fallout continues to deposit. So if you just picture over time particles coming down coming down and settling they're settling on media glass plates and glass beads typically was the first um the first round of the what's the grime study and then the after a time those media are taken to a laboratory and uh using microscopy looking for uh densities and concentrations and I think the second phase of the what's the grime study is going to get into analyzing um various analytes like metals and actually doing lab testing to see how much concentration of those chemicals exist on the media. Um I think unless you have a further question um member Denko related to the air quality staying out there longer like if we had air monitors that could be put out there longer uh it is possible but I'm not sure that the cost of that would uh be favorable. uh the the 8 hour uh sampling periods are done so because it is costefficient for moving it to an uh a very specific location versus having it electrically powered sitting there all the time continuously monitoring which is what we have as part of the Hamilton Air Monitoring Network.
>> Thank you. I appear to be out of time.
>> Thanks now to member Jansen. Go ahead.
>> Thank you so much. Uh very quick question through the chair. So, I would support the most comprehensive option here, option four. I'm just wondering if staff might be able to speak to any possible efforts towards cost recovery from some of the uh key industrial emitters um in the area. Thank you.
>> Through the chair to the member, I'm not exactly sure how we would go about that cost recovery for that purpose. um happy to take any direction from the board related to that work, but I'm I'm not aware of how we could go about that.
>> So, just to clarify, there's no historical precedent for um cost recovery for some of these um assessment options. Um that's never been done in the past.
through the chair to the member. Um not through my time uh in my over 23 years here have we cost recovered any of that type of work. There has been uh in the past certain partnerships related to airhed modeling that has occurred. um where industrial the Hamilton Environmental Industrial Association has come forward with $125,000 and the city matched that price to have a an airhed model developed in 2016.
Um however, cost recovery um has not happened um on any type of project like that.
>> Okay. Thanks.
>> Thanks very much. And now we're on to member Safy who's next on the list. And I don't see you up there, member Safy, but if you want to go ahead.
>> I'm curious.
>> Not seeing you or hearing you.
>> Yeah. Hi. Uh yeah, just just uh a comment on on the fact that uh uh the pollution impact on Hamilton residents and uh especially maybe the area down and uh uh we as a pharmacist I purchased data about different diseases around and their index related uh to other Ontario areas and uh I'm sure that many of us are not surprised we have double index Ontario average when it comes to COPD and asthma as an example and I think involving uh clinics like Firestorm the one that deals with um cases of COPD as well as uh asthma would give us more ideas about the real cost uh of um pollution and how it impacts uh our uh residents in the city and how we can correlate it with the cost of like monitoring and screening this all the time. So, it's more of a comment than a suggestion. And uh if there's anybody who wants to comment on this, that's uh that's fantastic. Thank you very much.
>> If you want to ask a very specific question um member Safi, that would be helpful. But >> I think I can ask staff to comment if you don't have a question.
>> Yeah, no problem. It's all good. Okay.
Thanks. And moving to member Chong.
hear me?
>> Yes.
>> Oh, thanks. Uh question through the chair. I just um I I kind of understand that you know certainly the first objective would be to understand the composition of the particulate matter and air quality. Um question in terms of uh the sampling data that would come from this. I, you know, hypothetically, you know, with the Ministry of Environment and the City of New Hamilton already having these monitors uh in several locations through the city, what additional utility would us setting these monitors in other locations bring in terms of convincing the ministry that there's truly a problem? So, hypothetically, you know, if all of our detection does come back positive, would that be convincing for the ministry to enact change in some way? for example, bring further monitoring to those areas or or just kind trying to get a sense of how convincing this data would be if it were to be hypothetically positive.
>> Yeah. Notwithstanding the fact that the ministry is not in the room, if staff have a sense of whether there's been any historical practices where this has encouraged the ministry to set up monitoring. Um would be useful to know if you know >> through the chair to member Chung. Um it's a good question. Um I think that the ministry is definitely interested to understand if any work were to be done here they were they would be interested in what the results are showing. Um and if there is an exceedence of any of thresholds or values that are identified through air monitoring um I think it would motivate the ministry potentially to look further into it. Um as um thinking back to some other examples in different wards of the city, if we go back to the GFL uh third party air monitoring example, uh it was when the ministry decided to do some um uh an air qual a mobile air quality survey in September of that year. uh that they identified certain uh exceedences of thresholds and so that warranted further exploration. That was their own monitoring program that found evidence of elevated thresholds. But because that information was um observed and disclosed, then it warrants further investigation. So I would like to hope that if any decision made by this board to approve any air monitoring identified that there were exceedences of above a value of concern or a threshold that the ministry would take some action to additionally investigate.
>> Thanks. Did you have any other questions member Chung?
>> No that's helpful. I think um yeah, I think part of it was just understanding, you know, certainly there are limitations in comprehensive in testing which are obviously directly related to costing, but um helpful to understand that if if there were positive or red flags that arose that it would kind of trigger potentially further action from the ministry.
>> Thank you very much. And now we're on before we go to second time speakers, just going to pass the chair to I guess I have my choice today. I'll pick councelor Hang and uh just for a couple of comments before we go to second time speakers and my understanding here I'm listening to what you're saying technically and I understand what you're saying technically and what you're saying sounds technically proficient to me at the heart of the matter for residents that I speak to is really wanting to understand just in a more basic way how this is going to impact their health if we're going to be able to get results back that are going to going to help us to help them understand things. I think one thing you said earlier kind of underscores where I'm at with this, which is residents should expect that there's going to be contaminants in their soil in the lower city essentially, right? Um residents should expect that there's going to be contaminants in their air in the lower city. And um that's a really unfortunate expectation people should have to have, right? They shouldn't have to have an expectation that the community they're living in has contaminants in it and they don't understand what those contaminants are. And so I think we have some historical information, some of it's anecdotal, some of the information is point in time. I think what we're trying to get at here is it's clear and obvious, and again, I'll say this, just drive down Burlington Street and look at the condition of the homes on Burlington Street, and you'll see um just from the appearance of their homes that they're certainly dealing with more fallout than other areas in the city. So I guess the question we're having is a bunch of things. Yes, it's about the grime, I think, that people saw. Sure, it's about that. Yes, it's about particulate matter that fell in the community garden. Yes, it's about particulate matter that people are just casually picking up on their children's play equipment. It's also about the air quality. And it's also about all these things are about how industry is impacting these communities. I think everyone just wants a clearer answer about how what the impact looks like, right? So, I guess what I'm asking is after this is done, are we going to have any clearer of an answer? Are we going to be able to provide information to residents that says, you know what, based on some modeling and studies we've done in 2026 as a benchmark? We can now use this benchmarking to move forward and continue to evaluate this on an annual basis and then perhaps produce a community report saying here's where industry is impacting. Here's where it's not. Actually, this is safe over here.
This isn't safer over here. I would avoid this activity. Um how how are we going to end up with something like that at the end of And if not, I think none of the options make sense because I think we need to get to that um and get to that place where confidently, right, as a public health organization, we can just tell the public things like it's safe for you to do things here or it's not um and then to sort of deal with that. We've got an ability to advocate right now to the province. So, can you help me with that because that seems to be the thing that's missing from the conversation at a simple level.
Complicated, technical, proficient answers are helpful. I'm looking to be able to speak to residents So through the chair, the question that was just asked which is you know are we going to be able to do a comprehensive analysis of Hamilton and say based on this study or on a piece of Hamilton based on this study an area of Hamilton you know what the baseline pieces are what the health impacts are and then measure that repeatedly over time is a different question than we were initially asked to look at And so the question was about validating the results of what was happening in that area from what MOECP had produced previously. And so when we talk about then taking this and looking at this over time as a baseline and whether you know what happens over time could we find transmission sources when I hear that as the question I think of a much bigger um project than we have before us now. I'm turning to Matt just to to verify in terms of of thoughts. I think this get is a good start to that question and I think that's what I was hearing as and and I'm sorry but I'm seeing the look of dismay on the chair's face and so I I need to stop and ask is there is there some question you have for me?
>> Well, no, I'm going to let let you finish then I'll make my comments. Go right ahead. Finish, please.
>> And so back through the chair. Um the um this is a good start to look at what does the Hammond air quality network already provide us and what would additional samples provide us from an air standpoint. you know how representative can we find people who want to have you know be the sites to host um this kind of sampling because that in other studies has been a challenge and you know how much could we look at you know will they want to be a sample site over time and give us that information and then when we look at soil versus you know deposition I'm also aware of there's a difference between soil and what's depositing at the moment because we have historical contamination from infill that has happened as well into those areas. And so when we look at soil, some of it is through, you know, what's deposited there, some of it is through what was infilled there. And so as we if we really want to look at a comprehensive analysis of that over time, for me that looks like something bigger ultimately than that what this starts with. It is a start, but that to me is a much bigger project ultimately.
And I'm just going to turn to Matt and ask him uh or to Bart, Dr. Harvey and see if there's anything want they want to add >> through the chair um to the counselor to the point I I agree with the comments uh that made by Dr. Richardson that um if it's if the effort is to do a comprehensive health type of analysis from what's coming out of the industrial stacks that is a much different project than the original work that was motioned here about the black soot investigation.
Um but to answer to or to comment uh and provide an answer to uh councelor Cretch regarding the question we live in an industrialized community and there are emissions in the air they will deposit into the soil and the closer we live to those emissions the greater the chance of being exposed to those contaminants are. The reality is is yes, we would like to have it cleaner. That would be the regulator, the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation, and Parks. In terms of understanding what the the actual cumulative outcome of all of this is, some of the best information that we have available to us would be to look at the community health status report that public health uh had published back in 2024 where there is a modeled number of premature deaths due to air quality.
The bottom line is that we can't tell an individual what their individual risk is, but if there's community concern about contaminants by and large, um the the airhed is being is attempted to be managed by the ministry office. uh and that it is not the level of hazard where it's constantly constantly above where you would say it's a high level risk that you need to shelter in place. But is it um is it potentially impacting your health? It depends again on your dose and how much you're getting exposed to it. If you never if you never leave the north end and you don't venture out anywhere over time and you get exposed to that air quality, yes, it's going to give you a greater uh exposure to certain contaminants that may impact your health.
>> Thanks. I think that answers my question. Yeah, part of it is dismay.
Some of it's just a concentration phase.
Dr. Richardson, not to worry. Um, so I think that what I'm a little bit concerned about is that when we were having these conversations, I mentioned these things previously. So I also want to say I did say all these things when we were having the conversation around this motion. I did say these things in our meeting and conversation and this isn't me just bringing it up for the first time. So that's why I'm asking because I didn't when I looked at this and looked at the outcome, I was missing that piece. If you're if we do need to measure more broadly or have a greater project and this is a good start, that's just helpful information to have. Like that's the way I want to understand how to approach what's in front of us. If what I'm approaching in front of us is this is a start, right? Right. Then I can at least set residents expectations that this is a start. We're measuring the specific thing and that if in order to do this something greater, we need more resources. I'm hoping also that will happen is we'll get some more information to be able to make that decision because right now the Ministry of the Environment is doing some part of a job, right? And legislation tells them you must do this job. They're doing the job they're legislated to do. There are many gaps in the job. And so the questions residents have can't be confidently answered is the problem.
When we have these conversations, everyone uses extremely potential language when they're talking about this. There's not certainty around this kind of thing. We can't provide answers to residents. And when you talk to residents that way, they just say to you, "Look, I just want to know if my kids are going to get sick. I just want to know if you know this this is changing, right? Because I understand that we have an industrial legacy, but that industry changes. Someone could move in their house in 2010. Um, understand a certain thing to be going on. Things could get worse in 20 years for them that they don't know. So these are the kinds of concerns people have is that they of course they accept a bit of risk knowingly. I think most people when they move to an area where there's industry right next door and I think everyone cognitively understands there's industry next door that may have an impact but as it changes over time is it worse or better um when they were moving in they didn't get a report that said you know this is exactly how your your health will be impacted. So at some point in the future I'm just looking for us to get there. I understand we can't do that today. So appreciate the answer and giving the context to me about where we are and what we're trying to do. On that note, I'll take back the chair and turn it over to councelor Huang. And then we have councelor Nan.
>> Just a question around what is our process today because this this report is actually on as an item for information despite the fact that there are four different options none of which are actually recommendations. So there is no technically there is no decision point today. So what is our what is the activity that we are trying to do today?
Yeah, the activity is this is like an information report you've received at other levels and other places and council and elsewhere. This is a kind of information report that's that's sort of suggesting if you want to have a motion at least you have some language here uh to be able to put one forward. And so what staff have done is provided options for us and including language for motions. If someone here would like to put something forward also we did ask there be options provided in this report so that we could have something to look at. I think we would have come here today and it was just an information report saying what the potentially could happen without any concrete options and costs. I think all of us would have been saying what are the concrete options and costs. So they're in the information report so that people if they wish to make a motion also if people feel like look we've got a piece of the picture we need some more time to think about this might want to talk to staff might want to talk to people from uh the community who are stakeholders organizations we can defer this till the next meeting.
This is an ongoing issue. It's not something that's going to be resolved today but also I understand the need and want to move forward. So that's really before you and before us as a committee and that's my best answer to you.
>> Thank you. My second question then is should we move forward with any of these options. They are costed. So that's not necessarily included in the board of health budget. So where does the money come from?
>> Technically it comes from council at this point. I mean there's a lot to be discussed about the board of health budget in general and how legislation works and what financial powers we have and so on, but we've set our budget regardless for the calendar year. So asking for more money would have to come from the place where the money comes from. Got it. Okay. So, um, board of health committee members, my hope is that we will consider an a deferral because I feel like there's still a lot of outstanding questions, but I know I've already sp spoken twice on this matter, so I'm not able to move that deferral, but that's and I also recognize that councelor Nan also has a couple more questions before we ask, but my hope is that I will um leave it in the hands of committee as to how we might want to move this forward. Thank you.
>> Okay. And now we'll turn to councelor Nan. take it away.
>> Thank you. Um so circling back on community engagement as uh indicated chair. So through you to staff um appreciating the outline that's there.
Um, I guess I'm just so much more of a like I I function hearing outcomes like what is the outcome you're aiming to achieve by doing community engagement cuz what I read here sounds and looks and structured like a community or I would say a communication strategy period. Um, so if I could just get a little bit more clarity, there's reference to seeking contribution and input from community members. there's um indication of looking for um or providing an online forum for questions.
I guess I'm just looking for a little bit more detail here or that is that an open-ended process that you're just looking for residents to share anything.
Um, how might we be able to use this as an opportunity to um articulate our residents experiences to date and also um have meaningful engagement >> through the chair to the counselor.
happy to have meaningful engagement if understanding accurately what that entails. what the discussion that has uh occurred to this point through uh with Joselyn Strut through the uh Engage Hamilton group uh as well as her staff and um with with the counselors who have originally moved the motion as well as member Joseph um and this this communication strategy that's detailed in the report um would be a forum of sorts where voices and um experiences could be shared should the community like to do that. In terms of what the meaningful engagement part is, I would like more um clarity perhaps from the counselor about what she sees to that to be because we're happy to work that into and even incorporate that in potentially uh about what type of engagement is being sought.
So that form would be people could provide their their details about lived experience. They could provide details about where they've seen blacks over the years. Uh they could voice questions if they have it about, you know, I would like to know what is what potentially could this do to my health? That's that same question. The the the troubling part of answering that for anybody is that um we can't give them any guarantee about how it will impact their health.
We don't know. Um but based upon certain chemicals that we've identified or any of the objective evidence, we can give a summary of its toxicological profile and it all depends on how much you get uh exposed to. But from a point where what do we do about it after we've uh done the sampling and they've shared their stories? What's the next step? Uh that would be a matter of um sharing information with the Ministry of the Environment, Climate Change and Parks and to continue to advocate to say that uh residents in the city would like to see some um tighter controls on pollution and perhaps related to the notice of motion aspect that uh councelor Hang is bringing forward about sight specific standards locally. If uh if the if the desire is to try to have greater regulation around environmental compliance approval in the city uh through you chair just to clarify the phase one kickoff project announcement bullet two says encourage community contribution and inputs. Um the bullet three says provide access to online form for questions and project updates. And then it goes on to say, you know, being able to respond to questions as they emerge and and concerns. Guess I'm just looking for more detail. Um it sounds very open-ended. Is there something that public health is seeking from our community through this engagement? What outcome are you aiming for in this process? Are you seeking to document people's lived experiences? You mentioned storytelling. Are you seeking to document um specific kinds of contributions and inputs? Therefore, what are they? And then the third one being um appreciating online openness is actually really important because we don't know until we receive and that is part of the narrative that I think can be beneficial for public health to be able to articulate as a result of some of this compon the components in this strategy. So just looking for a little more detail. Thank you.
>> Through the chair to the councelor. The the portal uh was an idea that came up in our discussion with member Joseph that gave an ability for people in the community to provide information. Um and in terms of us seeking like public health seeking um what we're seeking through engagement, we are just trying to take the direction of the board. So um it was it was the board that requested that engagement occur. So to what level engagement occurs is still the board's discretion and additional information about expectations related to engagement can be provided to us uh to help us in our understanding to work toward that. I don't know if that helps clarify that. Counselor, >> thanks. Councelor Hernand indicated that she has no further questions at this time and we'll now turn to first time speaker councelor Tatson.
I'm just going to move that we defer the report to the next meeting and um let the counselors do their homework with staff.
Okay. Move a motion to defer is on the table and that's to the next meeting. We need a secondary. Councelor Huang is seconding the motion. The only debate on this is about the instructions and the only instructions are that it happens at the next meeting. If you have a feeling about the timing, I'm happy to hear from you. Otherwise, we will go to electronic vote on the subject of deferring this to the next meeting.
I'll let you know when that vote is up.
That means everyone should be logged into their shiny escribe. And sometimes the first vote can take a little longer.
And if it doesn't work out perfectly or your escribe is malfunctioning, you may indicate manually and I'll announce it to everyone.
And the vote is now up.
Member Safi, are you in favor?
Member Safy, I need your vote, please.
Think we'll just mark member Safi as absent at this time.
>> So, it'll be carried 10 to zero.
>> Okay. Thank you very much. We indicated that member Safi's vote was a thumbs up.
>> And one moment.
>> I'll turn your microphone on for you if you don't mind.
>> Just a moment.
>> Go ahead.
>> I've been waiting for the vote to show up on my computer for escribe. I haven't been able to digitally vote and it also doesn't indicate my vote on the screen.
So, I'm in favor. Thank you.
>> Okay. Councelor Nan's also in favor. So, that's 11 to zero, I believe. Yep. I'm seeing that that's true. So, I know councelor Wang is out of the room to hear, not to hear this, but at our next meeting, we'll have this come back at that time. And I would ask if people have motions or amendments that those are made public and circulated. I know sometimes we don't always do that. What happens is if it's an amendment, then you just bring it forward on the floor.
You put it on the screen. I'm asking actually not to do that this time around. If you have an amendment or you want to make a motion, make sure that that's circulated well in advance and it's actually going to put be put on the agenda properly so we all have time to look at it. So, thanks for that. We'll now move on to the next part of our agenda. Just a moment here. 7.2 and 7.3.
Are there any questions on those two items that are also being received at this time?
I don't see questions on those. So, we're going to we already have a mover in a second or two to receive 7.1, 7.2, and 7.3. And since there are items to be received and one's being deferred, we are just going to do a motion by hand for 72 and 73. All those in favor of receiving them? That's everyone. Thank you. On a 7.4 4 program update series healthy babies healthy children bo26019 I'm going to call upon Michelle Bersma manager for healthy babies and healthy children program to provide the board of health with a presentation on this item if anyone wants to introduce the presentation or introduce Michelle go ahead otherwise Michelle you can take it away it's up to you over there >> okay uh good morning everyone just uh very quickly so my name is Julie Predo I'm the director of the healthy families division and chief nursing officer uh so just noting this is the second program update in a series and I know Dr. Richardson gave you a bit of an explanation at the last board of health around the the program update series.
So, yep, just going to hand it over to Michelle Borisma who is our healthy growth and development manager. Uh she'll provide the presentation and certainly open to uh answering any questions afterwards. Thank you.
>> Wonderful. And thank you, Julie. And um good morning through the chair, to the board of health, and those tuning in today. As Julie noted, my name is Michelle Borsma. I'm the manager for healthy growth and development with Hamilton Public Health, and I'm pleased to be here today to share with you some information regarding our Healthy Babies Healthy Children program. Over the next 10 minutes or so, I will share with you information regarding the program's mandate and need, as well as some key activity highlights and outcomes, and some ways that the program continues to improve to serve its clients.
Next slide, please.
The Healthy Babies Healthy Children Program is a mandatory program for all boards of health in Ontario and operates under the guidance of the Healthy Babies Healthy Children Protocol. This is published by the Ministry of Children, Community and Social Services and is also referenced within our Ontario public health standards. I will also note that there are no anticipated changes to this protocol. um with the draft standards that are yet to be released. The purpose of the program is to optimize healthy growth and development for newborns and children in the early years and also to reduce health inequities for families receiving services. Research shows that early child health and development influences long-term health outcomes over the life course. And therefore, programs that support families during these critical early years is key for achieving optimal newborn, child, youth, parental, and family health. Next slide, please.
This is important in Hamilton as community health indicators do identify some possible vulnerabilities related to the health of pregnant individuals, infants, and children in the early years. On this slide, we can see that in Hamilton in 2023, nearly 30% of pregnant individuals reported concerns with their mental health. This is an increasing trend and higher than the rate in Ontario. The mental health of parents is important as it can influence the health of their babies through possible impa impacts to attachment and the development of early parent child relationships.
In addition, we can see that the birth weight of newborns is also important as it can be an indicator of future health outcomes. And in 2023, there was an observed increase in babies born with a low birth weight compared to the previous 5-year average. And this is an indicator that is currently being monitored.
And lastly, in 2023, it was also observed that 31% of kindergarten students in Hamilton were identified as vulnerable in at least one domain of early development. This could be vulnerabilities in areas such as social and emotional development, physical health, as well as language and cognition. These potential health risks and vulnerabilities point to the importance of programs and services for pregnant individuals and families with children in the early years to support the best possible start in life.
Next slide, please.
The Healthy Babies Healthy Children program works with community partners to identify individuals and families that could potentially benefit from the program. Clients that are connected and supported through the program are supported to achieve health and development goals through various home visiting services. Some examples of these services include ongoing ability to identify possible health or developmental risks and then supporting clients with getting connected to the most appropriate resource or service in a timely way. Clients are also supported in areas such as infant feeding such as breast or chest feeding as well as with building parental knowledge and skills and the sharing of evidence-based information and resources.
Next slide, please.
The Healthy Babies Healthy Children program focuses on supporting clients who could benefit the most from additional supports and services. These clients often face similar challenges and barriers. Some of these could include being identified as having a health risk during pregnancy, whether that be for the pregnant individual or the baby, being identified as having health or developmental concerns of the infant or child once the baby is born.
As well as families who may be experiencing challenges with accessing health or social services or other s other essential needs such as housing, food, etc. Next slide.
Over the next two slides, I will share with you a few of the program's activity highlights from 2025.
A key feature of the Healthy Babies Healthy Children program is universal postpartum screening. This consists of the use of a standardized tool and process for all individuals who give birth in Hamilton and Ontario for that matter to have the opportunity to answer questions that could identify possible possible risk factors for the health of the parent or infant. hear about the program and potentially be offered further follow-up if risk factors are identified. The provincial target for universal postpartum screening is 80% and in 2025 92% of individuals who lived and gave birth in Hamilton were screened. Of those individuals that were screened and consented for further follow-up, 557 then went on to be offered and receive long-term home visiting services through the program in 2025.
These clients were supported through over 5,300 home visits. I would also like to highlight that 87 of these clients were supported through the nurse family partnership team. This team exists within the healthy babies healthy children program and provides service to firsttime parents aged 24 and younger experiencing socioeconomic challenges.
This team also supported their clients through over 900 visits.
Next slide, please.
A key component of visits with a public health nurse includes ongoing assessment to identify early any new or emerging risks and ensuring that clients are connected to resources and services in a timely way. This includes connecting both the infant or child to services to support healthy development and also connecting the parent to services to support their health and well-being, including their mental health.
Next slide, please.
Fulfilling the mandates and achieving the goals of the healthy babies healthy children program could not be possible without the collaboration and support of various partners from partnerships with Hamilton's birthing hospitals primary care and midwives to the various health and social service agencies that support clients including Wesley who provides critical support through family home visitors as a key program component.
Through working together, clients are supported with the various resources and services needed to meet their goals and achieve desired health outcomes.
Next slide, please.
In 2025, the Healthy Babies Healthy Children program made up 7% of the gross expenditures of Hamilton Public Health.
Mo most of this budget was allocated to employee and employee related expenses.
The team is comprised of 27.5 FTE with the majority of this FTE being the public health nurses that provide the services directly and the remaining allocation to critical program support and leadership positions.
In addition, H in addition to Hamilton public health staff and through contractual funding, Wesley, as noted, provides nine FTE that are allocated to the family home visitor role. Family home visitors work in collaboration with public health nurses and their services focus on reinforcing health education and skill building and providing hands-on role modeling, coaching, and mentoring strategies with clients.
Next slide, please.
In 2025, the Healthy Babies Healthy Children program had some important outcomes, a few of which I will share today. Within the program, families create a service plan to identify client- centered goals and strategies to meet these goals. A key feature of these plans is a focus on building healthy and secure parent child attachment and relationships to set the foundation for healthy growth and development. In 2025, 97% of lone parent clients achieved their attachment goals, indicating important client outcomes such as parental responsiveness and sensitivity to their child's cues and behaviors, parental ability to meet the emotional and physical needs of their child, and the development of close and secure relationships to support child development and learning.
As noted as well, babies born with a healthy birth weight are associated with the ability to meet important developmental milestones.
In 2025, 81% of babies born to clients within the nurse family partnership team were born at a healthy birth weight, indicating a healthy start to their growth and development.
And lastly, the Healthy Babies Healthy Children program also acts as a central point of access to services for children aged 0 to 3.8 who may have an identified concern with their growth and development. In 2025, 100% of children who were referred to the program for these reasons were connected with the services required to support their growth and development.
Next slide, please.
The Healthy Babies Healthy Children program continually monitors program outputs and outcomes and identifies opportunities to improve services for clients. One example is showcased on this slide and is related to the healthy baby's healthy children screening that is completed during the prenatal period.
Unlike the universal postpartum screening, prenatal screening is completed before the baby is born and is focused on identifying and connecting clients that are most at risk for adverse health outcomes. The goal is to connect these clients with the program and any additional services as early as possible to support optimal birth outcomes for both the pregnant individual, infant, and family.
In 2016, there was an identified need to improve prenatal healthy babies healthy children screening practices in Hamilton as at that time 6% of prenatal clients were being screened for the program.
There was a desire among partners to increase this targeted screening to approximately 18% of the birth cohort.
From 2017 to 2022, a committee of various community partners was formed and worked to together to build capacity across the system for partners to identify, screen, and refer clients to the Healthy Babies Healthy Children program. By 2022, the community was meeting the locally identified target of 18% and since then this target has been met or exceeded, including in 2025 when 21% of prenatal clients were screened.
This example of continuous improvement demonstrates the importance of partnerships and working together to achieve collective impact goals. And while the workg group has since disbanded, all partners continue to work together with the program to achieve identifi to achieve program goals of identifying and connecting clients to services early.
Next slide, please.
To end, I wanted to share an excerpt from a quote that we received with permission from a program client. This client identified that working with the public health nurse was an absolute de delight. That she was experienced, thoughtful, and incredibly kind. From the very beginning, the nurse made them feel safe and supported, providing them with the resources and options needed without ever imposing a single right way to parent. The nurse's approach gave the family the freedom to find their own path, and with her guidance, were able to make significant strides during this time. I wanted to thank you all for your time this morning and we're happy to take any questions you may have.
>> Thank you very much for your presentation and that good news about the program. I don't see questions from folks at this time. Oh, I do see a hand raised now. I'll activate this for councelor Wilson and then we have councelor Tatison and member Kirkp.
Councelor Wilson.
>> Thank you through you chair. just on the prenatal screenings or on any other metric that makes sense to provide just wondering if the growth in kind of those KPIs that we're interested in. So seeing an increase in screenings um is that serving the same number of clients because it's a relative amount. So I just trying to understand is it that we're seeing a decrease in births for example but we're still screening the same 200 people every year and so we've kind of reached the same just trying to understand the relative value if if the number is changing every year. I'm assuming it's not a consistent number of babies being born in Hamilton every single year. Um, and so just trying to understand if that kind of trend that looks very positive kind of keeps up um or if it kind of is worth it showing we're serving the same number of clients every year or something else >> uh through you chair to the counselor.
Appreciate the question. Um so yeah that is a challenge here. I think you're looking for uh like absolute numbers are really what is the the you know denominator essentially is what you're trying to understand. Um so just recognizing that uh absolutely the number changes over time. So when we look at the number of individuals who are pregnant in a given year um then certainly that is not a consistent number. Um but when we look at these numbers that is sort of factored in um and so it's more watching sort of the trend over time of you know where are these numbers going and are they trending in the in the right direction.
Um but certainly recognizing to your point that is a limitation when we don't have the year-over-year absolute number.
>> Thank you. And maybe just another way of framing the question I think it's it's less trying to understand oh is the trend still the trend but also just like is the limiting region resource capacity. So, for example, if we can serve 550 families right now or whatever whatever the right number is, that was the pre-screening number, but whatever the metric is, um, if more families were interested in participating, do we run out of the nine? Does that set now hit a capacity limit with the nine workers?
Um, versus do we still have expanded capacity with the resources we have and, you know, making goals to continue expanding every year makes sense versus are we kind of we can serve the population we're serving and the numbers are changing based on the denominator as you said. So just trying to understand what the cap if there's capacity for growth with the current resources or if we're kind of using the resources and they're all being allocated >> uh through you chair to the council again uh thank you and appreciating the clarification around the question and so um I'm going to start and if you need some more information around the screening piece then I'll hand it over to Michelle to talk about that. Um so there is uh it is universal screening.
So there's a screening tool we use or the community essentially uses to identify risk. Um and so at this point in time with our existing staff, we're able to sort of see individuals that we would consider at higher risk. Um and that's how we determine sort of who enters into the program. Um we certainly recognize that um the program itself has value uh across the board. Um but given our existing or current resources, uh we really are at this point essentially screening and seeing the most high-risk individuals.
>> And so we're able to provide that number consistently, but it is a screen number.
There's a eligibility requirement to get on the list, but there are no concerns about the folks who are meeting that eligibility requirement. We have the services available for them, but it's not a service available to everyone.
There's a screening element to it. Thank you.
>> A screening element. Yeah, absolutely.
>> Thank you. Now to councelor Tennyson.
>> Thank you chair. Just for my own understanding when we say a nurse partnership team. So I'm thinking that means that we have a public health nurse that leads coordination with all the other partnerships. That could be like midwives, Wesley, children protection agencies, um food banks, even researchers. So is that saying that each family might have a different look of the team that's supporting them through the chair to the counselor. Um so in terms of the nurse family partnership team specifically um that name references the partnership between the public health nurse and the client um but to provide a bit more detail um more broadly in terms of the healthy babies healthy children program I think you're correct in that each family is supported to identify their own client centered goals and work with the nurse um and family home visitor to identify what strategies ies may need to be put in place to support them in meeting their goals which may therefore result in different resources and partners being involved in their in their care plan. Um so it very much is client- centered.
>> Okay. Thank you. And then the public health nurse actually acts as a facilitator to those other agencies.
It's not left up to the mother to go and get that. Is it >> through the chair to the counselor? That is correct. We work very hard um with our families and partners where possible to try to ease access and reduce barriers and and take on some of that case management role when working with our clients.
>> Okay. Thank you. I'm going to be writing a little bit of a report in my next eblast on your healthy babies uh program. So that's appreciated. Thank you.
>> Questions or eblast research available?
Member Kirkby.
Um you mentioned in the report, thanks so much for the presentation, it was really great. Um that 92% of individuals completed the healthy babies uh healthy children screen and 557 were screened into the program. I'm just curious just to get a sense of the scope of the issue in Hamilton. Can you convert that for me in terms of like what was the total number of people screened or the percentage of of the the base or the you know everyone who was screened that were actually screened in just to get a sense of I just don't know what the the denominator was so can't tell how like what the percentage would be overall you don't need to do the math right now fast if you don't >> sorry give us one second >> no through the chair to the member. I'm just um hearing that we are able to support approximately 10% of the birth cohort. So those that live and give birth in Hamilton um are supported through our program.
>> Okay. And do we know if that reflects the need then? like if we're able to support that but is that of all the of the number of people screened everyone who is screened in gets supported and that's 10% of the everyone who gave birth in the year through the chair to the member correct. So those individuals that screen with risk will go on to further do followup and assessment and those that are deemed eligible and consenting and wanted to be supported by the program are offered the ability to engage in the program and service and we have capacity to do that.
>> Perfect. So in general around 10% of individuals who give birth in Hamilton might have a need for this program or Yeah. Okay. Great. Um and then um you know we know these programs are so important in terms of um leading to positive health outcomes and well-being later in life. I'm just wondering if we are tracking or um have any indicators more long term like are we following any of the um the the infants or the families from this program later in life? Have we done any of that work?
Because obviously it's over time that we're going to see the results of this um these programs.
through the chair to the member. That's a really great question. Um what I do know is that the program tracks different indicators for clients that are within our service. Um and so for example, the nurse family partnership team um is able to support clients until their child is up to the age of two and they monitor different health outcomes during the course of our programming. um once a client is no longer with our program, we no longer um monitor those health outcomes. Um but I do know that there is ongoing research with different academic institutions such as McMaster University for instance has a close partnership with the nurse family partnership team um and engages in some of that kind of research.
>> Great. Thanks.
>> Thanks very much. Now on to membero.
Thank you and through the chair. I appreciate the the overview of the program. Uh you know it's it's excellent. It clearly has very positive outcomes. Um my question is around whether there are any gaps in in specific populations that either are not uh doing the prenatal screening or maybe that don't consent to participate in the program. And do we have strategies to ensure they're supported in in different ways perhaps through uh specific partners?
through the chair to the member. That's a great question. Um and I would just highlight again the success story of our universal postpartum screening in that um 97% so nearly all individuals who live and give birth in Hamilton are participating in the screen um which is really fantastic. So all of those individuals are shared with um and provided with information regarding the healthy babies healthy children program.
So should they um decide to not engage in further followup at that time they are all given information about the program how to contact public health but they're also provided with information around other critical services and supports that are available. Um so one example is um Hamilton has a pregnancy and new parent guide which provides a lot of information around critical resources for new families. Um so nearly everybody is provided with all of that information when they give birth in Hamilton.
>> Okay. Thank you.
>> Thanks. And we'll now turn to member Safi.
Thank you for this. Uh I I looked at the uh partnership. Uh is there a partnership with the West Fifth uh Dr. Fry uh the ongoing uh project of uh their um perinatal uh depression and uh anxiety disorders? Uh I'm not sure if that's part of your partnership too.
>> Through the chair to the member. Um certainly perinatal mental health is a priority within the program and public health nurses support clients with various um screening and further assessment and will refer to different resources and supports as needed based on identified um risk factors and would would refer in the community. Um St. Joe's is one partner that we work with in that regard.
>> Thank you.
Thanks very much. I don't see any further speakers on this item and so we have a mover and secondary already who put it on the floor or we don't. No, we don't. I lied. Uh, can I have a mover and secondary? Member councelor Alex Wilson, member Kirkby, and a show of hands to receive this information. All those in favor? That's everyone. Thank you so much. We're now on to our only item of consideration, which is amendments to the outstanding business list. Everyone's favorite part of the meeting. Can I move her in second to do so? Members, I've seen them. Councelor Huang and Councelor Casar. All those in favor of this will have an electronic vote. I believe it's up.
Member Safi is in favor. Okay.
And that carries 10 to zero. We have no motions for today's meeting. The notice of motion on today's agenda will remain a notice of motion moved by councelor Huang and it's there for your review should you be interested to read it.
It'll come forward formally at our next meeting as a motion. And I think I'm the seconder.
On that note, we have the bylaws. So I need someone to move and second the proceedings of the bylaw, which will take as electronic vote as well. Moved by councelor Casar, seconded by councelor Huang. And that'll be on your screen momentarily to confirm the proceedings of today's meeting.
>> Member Safy, are you in favor?
>> Yes. Member Safy's in favor. Thank you.
And that carries 10-0. There being no further business at today's meeting, it is adjourned at 11:17. Have a good day everyone.
Ähnliche Videos
Taking $10,000 Cash To Green the Driest Barrio in Bolivia
LeafofLifeEarth
528 views•2026-05-29
They Laughed When She Let the Weeds Grow Between the Fences — Then Her Cattle Outweighed Every Herd
BackroadHarvest
117 views•2026-05-28
Mozambique RELEASES AFRICA'S MOST DANGEROUS ANIMAL - After 2 Months, The Results Shock Scientists
SimpleDiscovery24
541 views•2026-05-29
The Bay Poisoned by Mercury #shorts
harmedino
289 views•2026-06-01
Calgary Flood Watch Day 4 🚨 Bow River Not Expected to Peak Until Tomorrow
RealtorDhirYYC
103 views•2026-06-01
Cute Seals Spotted On Remote UK Island | Our Tiny Islands
Channel4OnTour
141 views•2026-05-29
This Jamaican Pond Has A Deadly Reputation
MyEyesAreYours-i3s
656 views•2026-05-28
Glowing Blue Powder Turned Brazilian City Into Radioactive Wasteland
Adnan-Sandhu976
637 views•2026-05-31
