POLICY REPORT
HEALTH
Date: September 6, 1995
File No. CC1895
TO: Vancouver City Council
FROM: Medical Health Officer
SUBJECT: Smoke-Free Indoor Air By-law
RECOMMENDATION
A. THAT the Vancouver Health By-law #6580 be amended to
effectively prohibit smoking in all indoor public places
effective May 31, 1996, consistent with the key elements
contained in Appendix A to this report.
B. THAT the Director of Legal Services be instructed to bring
forward the necessary by-law amendments.
C. THAT the Medical Health Officer be directed to not carry out
active enforcement of the by-law until September 30, 1996,
to allow for a phased imple-mentation and communication of
its provisions.
GENERAL MANAGER'S COMMENTS
The General Manager of Community Services RECOMMENDS approval of
A, B and C.
COUNCIL POLICY
Health By-law #6580, as amended from time to time, sets controls and
limits on where individuals can smoke in indoor public places and the
workplace.
On December 8, 1994, Council passed the following motions:
A. THAT Council endorse, in principle, strategies to
achieve smoke-free indoor environments, subject to a
report back on public consulta-tion.
B. THAT the Medical Health Officer carry out a public
consultation process through the spring of 1995 toward
the establishment of an implementation schedule for
smoke-free indoor environments.
SUMMARY
This report brings Council up-to-date on the results of the
stakeholder consultation process and the concerns raised chiefly by
the hospitality industry group. The Strategic Action Group's report
on the stakeholder meetings highlights a broad range of issues and
concerns surrounding the implementa-tion of a smoke-free by-law.
Nevertheless, concerns about the consultation process being flawed or
rushed continue to be expressed by the industry group despite the fact
that industry associations were aware of the initiative last November
and have had nine months to formulate their response. Staff have
attempted to address or respond to these and other concerns and have
met recently with the Lower Mainland Hospitality Industry Group to
conclude the consultation process. With a better understanding of the
industry's position, staff have refined a list of options to address
the issue of Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) and have provided
Council with an analysis of these options against public health and
other public policy objectives. Staff are recommending that the
Health By-law be amended to prohibit smoking in all indoor public
environments effective May 31, 1996, with a moratorium on active
enforcement until September 30, 1996, to allow for public and operator
education. Staff have also indicated a second option which meets the
public health objective, albeit over a slightly longer time frame,
phasing in smoke-free restrictions over two years for hospitality
industry establishments other than restaurants. The report concludes
that the public is ready for this shift in public policy and that the
proposals contained in the report form a reasonable and workable
approach to achieving clean indoor air, while considering other public
policy imperatives such as a healthy economy,continued employment and
social equity.
PURPOSE
This report provides Council with the results of the processes carried
out in the first half of 1995 to gauge public opinion and solicit
stakeholder input into the construction of a smoke-free indoor air by-
law, pursuant to Council direction in December, 1994. It proposes
significant amendments to the Health By-law #6580 to incorporate
provisions to achieve smoke-free indoor public environments beginning
May 31, 1996.
BACKGROUND
On December 8, 1994, Council considered a report from the Medical
Health Officer on moving towards an objective of 100% Smoke-free
Public Indoor Environments. Council endorsed, in principle, the
objective of smoke-free indoor environments while leaving the
effective date open for further discussion. In addition, Council
directed the Medical Health Officer to carry out a public consultation
process "toward the establish-ment of an implementation schedule for
smoke-free indoor environments".
Since staff last reported to Council, two major pieces of work have
been completed. The Angus Reid poll (summary attached as Appendix B)
was completed in early May and the results released on May 16. The
results indicated strong support for the by-law initiative covering
all public indoor environments. In addition, the majority of frequent
and occasional customers of most categories of establishment (with the
exception of bars and nightclubs) reported that by-laws would make no
difference or would slightly increase their patronage. In addition,
the minority of patrons who reported less interest in frequenting no
smoking establishments indicate that they would travel outside their
community, but two-thirds would not be willing to travel more than
thirty minutes to reach a place where smoking is allowed. In response
to concerns expressed by the hospitality industry group, a further
analysis of "marketplace" behaviour was carried out by Angus Reid and
is attached as Appendix C. It further reinforced the conclusions
found in the main report that an overall improvement in patronage
across all categories of establishments would be expected from the
implementation of a smoke-free indoor air by-law.
While on the topic of opinion polls, the Lower Mainland Hospitality
Industry Group sponsored a poll conducted by Insight Canada (results
were included as part of the Strategic Action Group's report).
Although the publicized report contained captions such as "Vancouver
Patrons Satisfied with Current Smoking Rules" and "Vancouver Residents
Support Freedom of Choice in Public Places", a closer look at the
results indicate that nearly 60% of respondents to this industry poll
believe that government should prohibit smoking in all public places.
These results are not statistically at odds with the support indicated
in the Angus Reid poll. The results reported in the Insight Canada
poll appear to be somewhat contradictory and internally inconsistent
and are confusing to interpret, since they mix results from the whole
sample with results from questions asked only of patrons (those who
had patronized an establishment in the hospitality industry within the
past six months). Exclusively reporting responses from existing
patrons
ignores a huge potential market, i.e., the people who don't currently
patronize these establishments, in part because of the existence of
ETS. Staff would have appreciated the opportunity to further analyze
the Insight Canada results, but have been repeatedly denied access by
the Lower Mainland Hospitality Industry Group to the polling protocol
or the raw results.
Finally, a recently released poll of Chinese Restaurant operators was
conducted by the Chinese Info-Media Group for the Lower Mainland
Hospitality Industry Group. The poll brought to light some
perceptions and fears among some Chinese restaurant owners that need
to be addressed. Of interest is the fact that only 50% of those
owners polled expressed opposition to the by-law.
Stakeholder Meetings:
The stakeholder consultation process consisted of a series of 10 focus
group meetings facilitated by the Strategic Action Group. The
document recording the results of those meetings has been previously
provided to Council (on file in the City Clerk's Office) - the
Executive Summary is appended as Appendix D.
A few words of explanation about the process are necessary at this
time. Despite the concerns expressed by industry stake-holders about
tight timelines and short notice and the process itself, the scope and
breadth of the comments recorded speak to the comprehensiveness of the
process. The comments recorded are illustrative of the concerns of the
stakeholders and, staff believe, would not likely have been improved
upon through a longer or slower process. The overall theme of the
transcripts indicates strong opposition to the by-law, based on the
fact that most of the participants were industry representatives (some
who attended as many as four separate meetings). Never-theless the
supportive comments should not be lost in the shuffle, as they are a
significant reflection of public attitudes on ETS.
DISCUSSION
Based on the direction provided by Council, the Medical Health Officer
entered the stakeholder consultation process with the stated objective
of consulting on the "When" and "How" of achieving smoke-free indoor
environments, not necessarily the "If". The overwhelming message from
the hospitality industry
stakeholders was "We don't want a by-law." Some
industry stakeholders, including the Vancouver Hotels Association and
B.O.M.A. (letter attached as Appendix E), and most of the public and
health advocacy stakeholders support the initiative. Council has been
copied on most correspondence on this issue over the last six months,
both supportive and opposed.
ISSUES IDENTIFIED BY STAKEHOLDERS
Industry stakeholders generated a significant list of concerns which
staff have since attempted to respond to. Some were around the
process itself, which was characterized as flawed, while the majority
were around "content" and "information". The 11 themes raised by
opponents are captured on Page ii of Appendix D while those raised by
supporters are summarized on page i of the same Appendix.
A. Process Issues
1. Time-lines and short notice:
Staff acknowledge that the notice periods and time lines around the
stakeholder consultation process were tight, based on an original
objective of getting back to Council before the summer recess. Based
on early feedback, adjustments were made to meeting dates and every
reasonable opportunity was provided for stakeholders to attend either
a regional or a local session. Staff also extended an invitation to
anyone who felt they had not been heard during the formal consultation
to provide written briefs, phone them or sit down with them and
discuss their concerns.
The Industry Group continues to indicate concerns about the speed of
the process, but staff have hastened to point out that the initiative
has been underway since last November providing associations and
individuals with nine months to prepare their positions on the matter.
2. Absence of MHOs/"decision-makers":
The industry representatives expressed concerns about the absence of
decision-makers at the focus group meetings. Based on advice from the
consultant, who wished to avoid an adversarial atmosphere at the focus
groups, the Medical Health Officers agreed to not be in attendance.
The reasons for the by-law initiative, as well as background
information in a question and answer format, were provided to
participants as a means of stimulating discussion. Upon reflection,
it is clear that some of the negative reactions to the process might
have been minimized by staff's attendance at the focus sessions. The
September 5th meeting with the Lower Mainland Hospitality Industry
Group provided the forum to listen and respond to the major concerns.
B. Content Issues
1. Experience in other jurisdictions:
Currently, over 160 cities in the U.S. have banned smoking in
restaurants; over 20 have banned smoking in bars. California has been
at the forefront of smoke-free ordinances, with many local ordinances
being enacted in the early 1990s. The state of California enacted a
smoke-free workplace regulation in January, 1995, which restricts
smoking in all enclosed workplaces with a few exceptions. These
exceptions include 65% of motel/hotel guest rooms, small business,
hotel meeting rooms (when no food is being served) and warehouses.
Gaming clubs, bars (including bars located within restaurants) and
taverns are exempt from the regulation until January 1, 1997, unless a
new ventilation standard is adopted by the state earlier than 1997, in
which case that standard will apply. As of the writing of this report
there has been no move to draft a ventilation standard.
A number of cities on the Eastern seaboard (including New York City
most recently) have also prohibited smoking in indoor public places.
The New York City ban applies to restaurants with over 35 seats.
Several states have banned smoking in all indoor workplaces. Most
significantly, due to its proximity to Vancouver, Washington State is
actively considering introduc-tion of state-wide smoke-free
regulations. This should help to ensure a level playing field, even
across the international boundary.
To our knowledge, no Canadian municipality has enacted smoke-free
indoor air regulations although a number are on the verge of doing so.
A number of Ontario municipalities are currently considering smoke-
free regulations including a co-ordinated effort by Metro Toronto
municipalities along the lines of the Lower Mainland initiative.
Guelph has recently passed a by-law which phases in restaurant
prohibitions between now and the year 2000. The City of Lethbridge is
actively considering adoption of a prohibition of smoking in
restaurants. Newfound-land banned smoking in all workplaces in June,
1994, taking the position that ETS is a health issue, not a choice or
rights issue.
The industry has voiced concerns and put forward arguments about the
applicability of experiences in California and other jurisdictions in
a Vancouver setting. Although staff agree that one jurisdiction's
experience cannot be directly transferable to another, there are many
commonalities between California communities and Vancouver as there
are between Vancouver and northern U.S. or southern Ontario cities.
2. Inequities in application:
Staff have approached this initiative from its inception with an
objective of having it adopted on a consistent basis throughout the
Lower Mainland and Capital Regional District. Although there is no
way of absolutely ensuring this, it still remains our objective. To
further that end, we have chosen to recommend fairly restrictive
exemptions mechanisms. Any exemption granted by Council should take
into consideration the paramount goal of protecting worker and public
health. Although the by-law would have no effect on aboriginal land,
we could approach operators of public establishments on First Nations
land to adopt parallel smoking restrictions. It is also gratifying to
note that Washington State may not be far behind in enacting similar
legislation. We also feel we need to strive for equity of
application, without distinctions based on size of establishment,
location or the ability to have outdoor seating.
3. The role of ventilation/air cleaning:
The industry has raised the issue of whether or not ventilation can be
relied on to address the ETS issue. Staff's research into the
efficacy of ventilation to reduce ETS to "acceptable" levels has
clearly indicated that ventilation and air cleaning can achieve an
adequate "comfort" level, but current technology cannot be relied upon
to provide a safe "health" level. Given that ETS has been classified
as a Class A carcinogen, virtually no exposure is deemed acceptable.
Given this classification it is not surprising that currently no
universally accepted indoor air ETS health standard exists.
Comparisons to outdoor levels of carbon monoxide or respirable
particulates are misleading since the constituents of ETS are uniquely
dangerous. Staff's assessment of the performance of best available
air cleaning technology against proposed health standards indicates
that it would be unable to reduce ETS to acceptable levels in smoking-
permitted establishments.
4. Reliance on technology to achieve
an indoor air quality standard:
Even if technology were improved to the point that the worker health
standard could be met, most technology relies on the human factor to
change filters, maintain the equipment and repair it when it becomes
necessary. This is the weakness in a reliance on technology,
especially when a more obvious and cost effective solution is to deal
with the source of the emissions. In addition, acceptance of an
expensive techno-logical solution will tend to create an uneven
playing field, with smaller establishments unable to implement such
solutions. The capital costs of upgrading ventilation/air cleaning
equip-ment in large establishments can exceed $100,000 accompanied by
increased operating costs to provide more heated/cooled outdoor air.
From an enforcement perspective, reliance on technology would make
monitoring and enforcement time-consuming and costly. The high costs
of modern measurement technology, its inherent complexity and the
extra time required to evaluate compliance would translate into
increased costs largely borne by local taxpayers. For these reasons,
among others, most jurisdictions have refrained from adopting
technology-based standards.
5. Economic harm and employment loss:
The spectre of economic disaster is often raised when smoke-free
ordinances have been proposed. In all instances where an objective,
independent analysis of data has been carried out a year or two after
implementation, the results have indicated either no effect or even a
small increase in business. These results are fairly strong and
consistent for restaurants, and, where local ordinances have banned
smoking in bars, similar results have been recorded. Clearly the
breadth of experience has been greater in the restaurant sector.
The hospitality industry has circulated information on the New York
City ordinance, implying that its implementation has created economic
disaster in the city's restaurant sector. This is a typical reaction,
especially when the evidence is based on perceptions and anecdotal
evidence alone. There is usually a 1 to 2 year lag between the
implementation of a smoke-free ordinance and the release of sales tax
data which can be relied upon for objective conclusions, taking into
account seasonal and business cycle variations in receipts.
6. Impact on tourism/ethnic establishments:
The issue of tourism impacts has been raised, most directly by the
Chinese restaurant group. This fear was raised in the 1980s when
smoking restrictions were placed on restaurants, but tourism kept
increasing. The fear of tourism loss has been studied in Australia
where the assumption that Japanese tourists have a strong preference
for smoking restaurants and smoking rooms in hotels was debunked by a
survey which indicated that 56% of Japanese tourists preferred non-
smoking sections and rooms. Both California and New York City
continue to have a thriving tourism sector under smoke-free
ordinances.
7. Enforcement problems:
A major concern within the hospitality industry has been the issue of
enforcement. Staff's proposal would make it an offence for an
individual to smoke in a smoke-free establish-ment and for an
owner/operator of a smoke-free establishment to allow someone to
continue smoking within that establishment. Enforcement concerns were
voiced by the industry in the mid-1980's when designated smoking areas
were introduced. Ten years of experience with the current by-law
proves that enforcement was a non-issue. We do not expect a move to
100% smoke-free establishments to be any more of an issue - in fact
enforcement should, in the long term, be simpler since the counting of
seats and designation of smoking/non-smoking areas will not be
necessary. These conclusions are based on enforcement experience in
other jurisdictions where 100% by-laws have been in place for some
time.
Having said that, staff recognize that there will be some
establishments where enforcement may be challenging. We do not expect
any owner or employee to put themselves at risk in trying to have a
patron comply with the by-law. We intend on dealing with these rare
instances tactfully but effectively. We also intend on providing an
educational and grace period for the public and operators to allow
them to become familiar with the by-law requirements.
8. Worker Health not our jurisdiction:
From the beginning, this initiative has been intended to address both
public health and worker health risks associated with ETS. In large
part, this is because, in most establish-ments, the two are very hard
to deal with separately. By reducing the public's exposure to ETS we
also reduce worker exposure and vice versa. It has also been a long-
standing
provision of the current smoking by-law, and of other smoking by-laws
across the country, that smoking in workplaces is tightly controlled
or prohibited. This jurisdiction has, to our knowledge, never been
challenged.
The city's action in controlling workplace exposure to ETS does not
preclude the W.C.B. or provincial government from adopting province-
wide workplace provisions. In fact the W.C.B. is in the process of
considering Indoor Air Quality regulations, including the eventual
elimination of ETS. It appears unlikely that the Board of Governors
will be considering the proposal from their Hygiene Subcommittee until
late 1996, at which time the public health community will put its
weight behind the elimination of workplace exposure to ETS.
Many public health initiatives in this century have been incubated in
urban settings, largely in response to crowded living conditions,
higher demand for services and the different nature of urban life. As
with the example in California, state governments may ultimately
become involved to ensure state-wide application of public health
legislation. This eventuality should not, however, deter City
Councils from taking action at the local level.
9. Smokers rights, right to choose:
The proposed by-law does not infringe on any recognized rights of
smokers, except where the exercise of these "rights" impacts on the
rights of others (e.g., to breathe clean air). This is clearly not a
"rights" issue but a health issue. The target of this initiative is
not the poor, beleaguered smoker - the target is ETS and its impacts
on workers and the public.
One might even reverse the argument and suggest that the access rights
of "breathing-disabled" individuals who are either allergic to ETS or
who suffer from asthma or other breathing difficulties are affected by
the absence of smoke-free ordinances.
Council should be aware that many of the issues discussed above have
been brought up consistently in every other jurisdiction where similar
smoke-free initiatives have been considered (and passed).
In response to these concerns, the Medical Health Officers and Chief
Environmental Health Officers met on August 9th to formulate a
response and plan for a follow-up consultation meeting with
stakeholders. In an effort to ensure that staff clearly understood
the concerns of the hospitality industry and
were able to clarify areas where
conflicting information existed, a meeting was held with the Lower
Mainland Hospitality Industry Group on Sept. 5th. Staff reiterated to
the Group what the public health position is and what would be
recommended to the respective City Councils. The Group reiterated
their basic opposition to any by-law initiative and elaborated on
their concerns about the process itself, feared economic impacts on
their businesses and charities, damage to the tourism industry,
failure to consider alternative methods such as ventilation and the
problems associated with enforce-ment. Staff attempted to get a
better understanding of what the Group perceived was lacking in the
Strategic Action Group's consultation report but no additional
issues/concerns/solutions were volunteered. Nevertheless, staff came
away with a better understanding of the concerns held by the industry
group and responded with refinements to the draft Council report.
Staff also met with health advocacy stakeholders to address concerns
they raised in the stakeholder meetings. As a group they maintain
that ETS should be eliminated from indoor public environments. The
health advocacy and health professions' groups have played a
significant role in bringing this issue to the public's attention and
to Council's attention. Their contribution to this initiative and
their advocacy for a healthy public policy should not be overshadowed
by the vocal concerns of the industry groups.
REVIEW OF OPTIONS
In formulating a final recommendation to the respective city councils,
the Medical Health Officers and Chief Environmental Health Officers
considered a wide range of options, and evaluated them against the
public health objective of clean indoor air and reduced illness and
mortality, as well as other criteria such as social impacts, economic
impacts, equity (level playing field) and enforceability. The
following options were generated:
1. Prohibit smoking in all indoor public establishments but allow
smoking in physically separated, separately heated, cooled and
ventilated rooms into which workers are not required to enter.
This approach provides the optimal protection of public and
worker health, while providing an option for the provision of
"smoking rooms". Some may be view this approach as highhanded
and a recipe for economic disaster. Staff are confident,
however, that the general public will support this approach as
reasonable and workable.
2. Prohibit smoking in restaurants immediately and phase in a ban in
other establishments.
Following up on the previous option, the argument for this
approach might be that the non-restaurant establishments should
receive the same phase-in treatment that restaurants received in
the 1980's. Given staff's comments in the 1994 report about the
ineffectiveness of artificially distinguishing between smoking
and non-smoking areas, such an approach would tend to foster the
myth about designated smoking areas. Nevertheless, combined with
modest improvements in ventilation/air cleaning and a modest
phase in period, the public health objective would be achieved
while acknowledging some industry concerns.
3. Phase in prohibitions over the next two to four years with
increasingly lower percentages of smoking seats.
This "go slow" approach would tend to ease restrictions into
establishments that currently are required to provide non-smoking
sections as well as those that have not previously experienced
restrictions. Again, given what we know about ETS exposure,
staff feel that the City would be remiss in taking a gradualism
approach when more decisive action is required. Since some
jurisdictions already limit restaurant smoking to 20% of seating,
incremental jumps to 100% in the foodservice area don't appear to
be justified.
4. Prohibit smoking in restaurants only, leaving other
establishments unregulated.
There may be an argument that the restaurant sector has
progressively been moved toward 100% prohibition, in that some
jurisdictions currently require 80% smoke-free seating. Other
sectors have been virtually unrestricted. Nevertheless, this
option continues to allow an uneven playing field, especially
with the blurring of distinc-tions between establishments that
serve meals and those that serve drinks. It also fails to
address worker exposure in the categories of establishments
(bars, pubs, cabarets, casinos, bingo halls) where the exposure
to ETS is highest.
5. Hold off on prohibitions until ventilation is proven/ disproved
as a viable alternative.
This option would see a delay of a number of years until the
verdict is in on ventilation as a solution. It assumes that
there is still some potential for ventilation to provide the
answer. Given the high costs, the potential unreliability and
the creation of a uneven playing field, staff believe this
option is only an excuse to delay.
6. Prohibit smoking in all establishments that admit minors.
This approach would protect our youth but provide no protection
for adults (workers or public). The argument in favour of this
approach might be that adults enter these establishments on their
own accord. Again an uneven playing field develops and the
public health objectives are not achieved.
7. Prohibit smoking in all establishments that predominantly serve
food.
Again the ETS exposure and its effects do not distinguish between
whether the exposed individual is eating a meal or drinking.
This would be an artificial distinction at best and would retain
some features of an uneven playing field.
On the plus side, it would address concerns about inequit-able
application raised by the restaurant sector who view many liquor
establishments as competition in the food-service industry.
8. Do Nothing (i.e., let the marketplace decide)
As best as we can tell, this is the preferred position of the
hospitality industry. Effectively this would mean no
restrictions on where people can smoke; over a longer period of
time more restaurants would likely become smoke-free in response
to "market" pressures. Staff feel strongly that this option is
unsupportable, since it continues to place workers and the public
at risk. Many public policies exist to address "market
failures", situations where the free market does not properly
address externalities such as air pollution, poor logging
practices or environmental tobacco smoke.
The Medical Health Officer recommends that Option 1 be adopted and
notes that similar recommendations are being made by the Medical
Health Officers of the Lower Mainland and CRD to their respective
Councils over the next month or so. Adoption of Option 1 attains the
public health objective in a full and timely way.
The Medical Health Officer also recommends that the by-law come into
effect on May 31, 1996 (appropriately, World No Tobacco Day) and that
active enforcement not take place until September 30, 1996. The
reasons for this phased implementation are discussed in the following
section on Implementation.
The Medical Health Officer, cognizant of the concerns expressed by the
hospitality industry and of Council's need to weigh many other
considerations alongside the public health objective, notes that
Option 2 will also meet the public health objective but over a
slightly longer time period. If Council is inclined to adopt Option 2
in place of Option 1, staff would propose that restaurants become 100%
smoke-free on May 31, 1996, and all other hospitality-related
establishments be required to maintain 50% of their floor area/seating
area smoke-free effective May 31, 1996. Further this smoke-free
requirement would move to 100% effective May 31, 1998. These
establish-ments would also be encouraged to upgrade ventilation/air
cleaning to reduce risks to workers and the public in the interim.
Finally, staff recommend that exemptions be kept to an absolute
minimum and be provided for in the following situations:
- smoking will be allowed within a smoke-free establishment only in
a room that is physically separated and separately ventilated,
heated and cooled, with air exhausted to the outside (not
recirculated) and into which no worker is required to enter.
- Council may grant specific exemptions for special circumstances
(e.g., when the distinctions between a workplace/public
place/private place are difficult to make), keeping in mind the
objectives of protecting public/worker health.
- Where establishments can provide evidence, to the satisfaction of
the medical health officer, that the installation and operation
of ventilation/air cleaning equipment will reduce ETS levels on a
consistent basis to an accepted "health" standard (when adopted),
Council may grant establishment-specific exemptions. This
suggested exemption is intended to address possible future
scenarios where a broadly accepted indoor air quality standard
for ETS exists. No standard currently exists and is not likely
to for a few years, if at all. Nevertheless a mechanism to deal
with this possibility is proposed.
IMPLEMENTATION/COMMUNICATION PLAN
Staff are recommending a phased implementation approach whereby the
by-law is approved in principle at this meeting but does not become
effective until May 31, 1996. The intervening period will be used to
communicate the new requirements to the business community, as well as
to the general public, and to carry out further education about the
effects of ETS. Once the by-law comes into effect, phase 2 of the
implementation plan commences with environmental health officers
educating the affected businesses on compliance with the by-law.
Staff propose that a moratorium period of 4 months be provided
during which no active enforcement (i.e., tickets, by-law charges)
takes place, but where violations are brought to the operator's
attention. Staff would work closely with the business community to
address implementation problems that might arise.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
The most obvious environmental impact will be evident inside public
buildings where the air will be significantly cleaner. One potential
problem exists with the disposal of cigarette butts outside of
buildings. The provision of ashtrays may be necessitated at major
entrances but a decision on this should await implementation of the
by-law.
SOCIAL IMPACTS/IMPACTS ON CHILDREN AND YOUTH
One "side-effect" of a 100% smoke-free requirement experienced in
other jurisdictions is a slight reduction in smoking prevalence. Any
reduction in smoking prevalence amongst youth would be welcomed. In
the long term, any reduced expenditures in health care for individuals
affected by ETS, may free up resources for other social programs.
FINANCIAL IMPACTS
Staff have already addressed the issue of economic impacts (or lack
thereof) from a smoking prohibition. Experience in other
jurisdictions also indicates cost savings for operators from lower
maintenance, cleaning and health insurance costs as well as the
avoidance of lawsuits. The U.S. EPA estimates that housekeeping and
maintenance costs related to ETS costs businesses $5-10 billion a
year.
Financial impacts on the City should be minor; initial efforts at
education and enforcement may require a minor reprioritiza-tion of
environmental health officer resources, but no additional staff
resources will be required. Over time, the need for enforcement is
expected to decrease, reducing the drain on health department
resources.
CONCLUSION
This report recommends an historic shift in public policy for the City
of Vancouver, one that ultimately provides the citizens, visitors and
workers in the City with an appropriate level of protection from
exposure to environmental tobacco smoke. The adoption of the
recommendations contained in this report will provide the City with
the next generation of clean indoor air regulations. It would be an
understatement to say that there are strong feelings and concerns on
both sides of this issue. Staff have attempted to respond to these
concerns without sacrificing the basic principle of protecting public
and worker health. We believe that the proposals contained in this
report form a reasonable and workable approach to achieving clean
indoor air while taking into account some of the other public policy
imperatives such as a healthy economy and continued employment. For
these reasons, Council should adopt the recommendations.
* * * * *
APPENDIX A
KEY ELEMENTS OF A SMOKE-FREE BY-LAW
1. Smoking prohibited in all indoor public places.
2. Public places include any establishment for which a business
license is required and into which the public is invited.
3. An exemption exists for totally separate smoking rooms, which are
separately heated, cooled and ventilated (i.e., not part of the
buildings HVAC system) and into which workers need not enter.
4. Other exceptions may be made by Council on a limited basis to
address special circumstances such as establishments where the
distinction between private/public and workplace is unclear.
5. Council may provide for the exemption of individual
establishments which can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the
Medical Health Officer that the installation and use of
technological solutions will consistently result in the
attainment of health-based ETS criteria for indoor air. Since
such criteria do not yet exist or have not been adopted in any
other jurisdiction, the exercise of this clause will have to
await their adoption in other jurisdictions.
6. For purposes of enforcement, a person smoking in a smoke-free
establishment would be in violation of the by-law; an
owner/operator/person-in-charge of a smoke-free establishment
would be in violation if they allowed the individual to continue
to smoke in a smoke-free establishment.
* * * * *