April 6, 1999
To:North York Community Council
From:Secretary, Board of Health
Subject:A Harmonized Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) By-law for
the City of Toronto: Community Input Process
Recommendation:
The Board of Health at its meeting on April 6, 1999:
(1)adopted the report dated March 26, 1999, from the Medical Officer of Health with respect to the community input
process for a harmonized Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) By-law for the City of Toronto; and
(2)forwards such report to the Community Councils for staff presentation and deputations on the policy options and
recommendations paper attached thereto, at the Community Council meetings scheduled to be held on May 26 and 27,
1999, with recommendations from the Community Councils to be referred to the Medical Officer of Health and the City
Solicitor for consideration and recommendations back to the Board of Health at its meeting on June28 and 29, 1999.
The Board of Health reports, for the information of the Community Councils, having requested the Medical Officer of
Health to include in the information being forwarded for discussion:
(i)comment on the "economic hardship" clause in use in some U.S. jurisdictions; and
(ii)a summary of the various economic analyses that have been undertaken.
Background:
The Board of Health at its meeting on April 6, 1999, had before it a report (March 26, 1999) from the Medical Officer of
Health respecting a harmonized Environmental Tobacco Smoke By-law for the City of Toronto; and recommending that the
Board of Health:
(1)adopt the process outlined in this report to seek public input on the proposed ETS by-law for the City of Toronto; and
(2)forward the attached policy options and recommendations paper to Community Councils for staff presentation and
deputations.
The Board of Health also had before it a copy of a petition addressed to Councillors Case Ootes, Jane Pitfield and Michael
Prue, for Ward 1, submitted by approximately 35 students at Leaside High School seeking support in creating a smoke-free
environment in all Toronto restaurants.
Secretary,
Board of Health
Trudy Perrin/lv.001nycc
Attachments
Sent to:East York Community Council
Etobicoke Community Council
North York Community Council
Scarborough Community Council
Toronto Community Council
York Community Council
c:Councillors Case Ootes, East York
Councillor Jane Pitfield, East York
Councillor Michael Prue, East York
Medical Officer of Health
March 26, 1999
To:Board of Health
From:Dr. Sheela Basrur, Medical Officer of Health
Subject:A Harmonized Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) By-law for City of Toronto: Community Input Process
Purpose:
The purpose of this report is to outline a process to obtain community input on proposed options for a harmonized ETS
by-law and strategies to achieve smoke-free public places in the City of Toronto as set out in the attached document dated
March 26, 1999 from the Medical Officer of Health, entitled "A Harmonized Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) By-law
for the City of Toronto".
Financial Implications:
None, for the public consultation process prior to Council approval. Additional one-time funding will be required in 1999
and 2000 for public communication, for which provincial funding will be sought.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the Board of Health:
1) Adopt the process outlined in this report to seek public input on the proposed ETS by-law for the City of Toronto, and
2) Forward the attached policy options and recommendations paper to community councils for staff presentation and
deputations.
Background and Discussion:
Historically, public consultation has played an important part in the development of Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS)
by-laws in all of the former municipalities. Public and stakeholder input towards the policy options has been obtained
through a variety of means, including community meetings, focus groups and public opinion surveys. Public input to the
proposed by-law has been formally sought through deputations at boards of health and at city councils.
During the past year, Toronto Public Health has consulted with the health and hospitality sectors as well as the public, on
an Environmental Tobacco Smoke by-law that is protective of health for the new City of Toronto. The attached document
from the Medical Officer of Health provides a comprehensive review of issues related to Environmental Tobacco Smoke,
along with policy options and recommendations for a new by-law.
Public and stakeholder input on the recommendations can be obtained through a deputation process similar to that followed
in the past, with the addition of deputations at community councils to ensure local input. The following process and
time-line is recommended:
|
Process |
Meeting Date(s) |
Board of Health |
Board of Health to refer the Medical Officer of
Health's public consultation document to Community
Councils for staff presentation and deputations. |
April 6, 1999 |
Community Councils |
Public deputations with recommendations from
Community Councils referred to the Medical Officer
of Health and the City Solicitor for consideration and
recommendations back to the Board of Health. |
May 26 and 27, 1999 |
Board of Health |
The Medical Officer of Health and the City Solicitor
to report back to Board of Health on June 28, 1999 at
which time the Board will hear deputations on the
original public consultation document and any
follow-up staff reports, including the solicitor's draft
by-law. The Board of Health will debate the issue at
a special meeting on June 29, 1999 and forward its
recommendations to City Council for consideration. |
June 28 and 29, 1999 |
Conclusion:
The public consultation process outlined in this report will ensure input from a variety of interests prior to the by-law's
enactment by Council.
Contact Name:
Liz Janzen
Regional Director, South Region
Tel:392-7458
Fax:392-0713
Dr. Sheela V. Basrur
Medical Officer of Health
A Harmonized Environmental Tobacco Smoke
(ETS) By-law for the City of Toronto
Policy Options and Recommendations
For Public Discussion
Toronto Public Health
April 6, 1999
Introduction:
The purpose of this report is to describe the outcome of stakeholder consultations and to outline policy options with
recommendations from Toronto Public Health for a harmonized Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) by-law and
strategies to achieve smoke-free workplaces and public places.
Recommendations:
(1)That workplaces in the City of Toronto be smoke-free, except in fully enclosed, separately ventilated designated
smoking rooms (DSRs) that make up no more than 25% of the work space, and which no employee is required to enter;
(2)That the six existing municipal by-laws respecting smoking in public places be replaced with one ETS by-law from
one of the two following options:
(i)That public places be smoke-free, except for restaurants, bars, bowling centres, casinos and bingo and billiard halls,
which may have unenclosed smoking in 25% of space until April 30, 2001 when they become smoke-free;
OR
(ii)That public places be smoke-free, except for restaurants, bars, bowling centres, casinos, billiard and bingo halls, which
may have 25% of their space for unenclosed smoking for a time limited period, such that:
(a)Restaurants and bowling centres become smoke-free April 30, 2001, and
(b)Casinos, bars, billiard and bingo halls become smoke-free May 3, 2004, with the distinction between bars and
restaurants being that a bar is where alcohol is served and where admittance is restricted to persons 19 years of age and
older at all times.
(3)That one of the following options be selected regarding designated smoking rooms (DSRs) in public places:
(i)No DSRs, except where permitted in the Tobacco Control Act, 1994, (e.g. Homes for the Aged);
(ii)DSRs up to 25% of space; OR
(iii)DSRs up to 50% of space.
(4)That the Corporation of the City of Toronto develop a corporate policy to prohibit smoking in all municipal facilities
including workplaces, whether located in municipal or commercial buildings, except in such cases where this space is
reserved for a private function such as a wedding. Where exemptions apply, they should be time limited until April 30,
2001.
(5)That the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services be requested to consult with the Medical Officer
of Health regarding revisions to the Licensing By-law to ensure these revisions have regard for the ETS By-law.
(6)That the new harmonized by-law be implemented three months following its enactment by City Council.
Background:
At its meeting January 26, 1998, the Board of Health requested the then Acting Medical Officer of Health to report back on
the status of ETS by-laws in the new City along with suggestions for next steps towards reaching smoke-free workplaces
and public places in the amalgamated City of Toronto.
At its meeting February 4 to 6, 1998, City Council referred a motion to the Board of Health for recommendations and
public hearings on phasing in a harmonized smoke-free by-law for the entire City which would be protective of health.
The Medical Officer of Health reported to the Board of Health at the April 21, 1998 meeting on the status of ETS by-laws
and recommended that stakeholders be consulted regarding the components of a uniform by-law and strategies to achieve
the goal of smoke-free public places.
Upon the request of the Board of Health, the Medical Officer of Health made a presentation on a Stakeholder Consultation
Plan for an ETS by-law at the June 23, 1998 Board meeting.
The changes proposed by Toronto Public Health for a harmonized ETS by-law and the eventual attainment of smoke-free
public places are highlighted in Section 8. The rationale for the proposed changes is summarized below.
Discussion:
(1)GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO ENVIRONMENTAL TOBACCO SMOKE (ETS)
During the past 20 years, governments across North America have moved steadily toward ensuring that residents, workers
and visitors are fully protected from ETS by implementing legislation that prohibits smoking in the workplace and in public
places. Currently 76 per cent of Toronto residents do not smoke tobacco, but are exposed to ETS in a variety of public
places, such as restaurants, bars, bowling centres, billiard and bingo halls and other entertainment centres, or at work if they
are employed in the hospitality industry. Each of the six former municipalities has a by-law requiring employees to be
protected from ETS, with the exception of employees in the hospitality industry. This report focuses on harmonizing the six
ETS by-laws as a first step to providing full protection for all employees, as well as for the non-smokers who visit these
public places.
The omission of restaurants, bars and other entertainment facilities from ETS by-laws is being addressed in jurisdictions
across North America. In the State of California all public places and workplaces, including restaurants and bars, are
smoke-free. The Capital Region of British Columbia introduced smoke-free restaurants and bars Jan 1, 1999. The City of
Vancouver prohibits smoking in restaurants that allow children. Closer to home, municipalities that have passed
progressive ETS by-laws include Vaughan, Guelph, Windsor, London and Waterloo. (See Appendix V for a detailed
outline).
(2)HEALTH HAZARDS OF ENVIRONMENTAL TOBACCO SMOKE (ETS)
The move to full employee and public protection is a direct result of increasing scientific evidence that links regular
exposure to ETS to a variety of illnesses in non-smokers, including lung and heart disease, asthma, and numerous
childhood conditions. The full impact of ETS on health is not yet known, but the direct link to ill health is not surprising
given that ETS contains 4,000 chemicals; among them benzene, formaldehyde and arsenic. More than 43 of these
chemicals are known to cause cancer in humans.
The most immediate effects of exposure to ETS occur in children and in people with chronic lung and heart conditions.
They range from itchy eyes, runny nose, coughing, wheezing and sore throat to exacerbated asthma attacks. Children,
whose developing bodies are especially susceptible to poisonous fumes inhaled at home, in restaurants, and in other places
with open smoking (Glantz, 1995), because they breathe in more air compared to their body weight than an adult and
absorb more harmful chemicals than an adult. With 11% of children affected by asthma, any exposure to ETS is of
significant concern. Other common childhood illnesses linked to ETS include ear infections and pneumonia. The more
insidious long term effects of ETS can emerge later in life as full blown cancers or heart disease. It is estimated, for
example, that 3000 non-smokers die each year in Canada from preventable heart disease attributed to exposure to ETS.
Another 330 die from preventable lung cancer. The health effects experienced by individuals depend upon such factors as
personal sensitivity and frequency of exposure. As with some other cancer causing agents, such as asbestos, health experts
generally agree that there is no safe level of exposure to ETS.
As the scientific evidence on ETS has increased so has public awareness of its dangers. More than 90 per cent of Toronto
residents now believe ETS harms health (Smaller World Communications, 1998, Appendix VIII), and one third of all
Ontario residents avoid certain bars and restaurants because they are too smoky (OTRU, 1997/1998). Given that
non-smokers are protected from ETS at work and in many public places, there is public demand for smoke-free places,
including restaurants and entertainment facilities, such as bowling centres, casinos, billiard and bingo halls and bars. It
should be noted that the provision of separate but unenclosed spaces for smoking in public places is not health protective to
non-smokers, or to employees, since ETS travels freely through the air. Full protection is achieved only in a smoke-free
environment, or where there is a fully enclosed and separately ventilated DSR.
(a)Exposure to ETS in Restaurants, Bars and Entertainment Facilities
It is troubling that the least protected employees in the new City of Toronto, are those working in places with the highest
levels of ETS (See Appendix I). A 1994 review of many studies on indoor air quality concluded that, on average, ETS
levels in restaurants were 1.6 to 2.0 times higher than in other workplaces that permit smoking, and 1.5 times higher than in
homes where at least one person smokes (Siegel, 1993). ETS levels in bars were found to be 3.9 to 6.1 times higher than in
workplaces that allow smoking, and 4.4 to 4.5 times higher than in homes where at least one person smokes (Siegel, 1993).
The same review concluded that the increased risk of lung cancer among food service workers may be as high as 50%
compared with the general population. In a recent study, San Francisco bartenders reported a substantial reduction in ETS
exposure after the State of California made bars smoke-free. The study concluded that implementation of smoke-free
legislation has an immediate beneficial effect on the respiratory health of employees (Eisner et al, 1998). The exposure of
employees, children and susceptible adults to the high levels of ETS in restaurants, bars, bowling centres and bingo and
billiard halls is a serious health concern. It is important to note in this regard that youth are exposed to ETS not only as
patrons of these places, but also as workers since youth make up a significant percentage of food service workers.
(3)STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION
Not surprisingly, moves to protect non-smoking employees and the non-smoking public from exposure to ETS in the
workplace have been welcomed by the majority of non-smokers and health experts, and resisted by those who believe such
laws are unworkable, or will have a negative impact on business. The introduction of the workplace by-law in 1979 in the
former City of Toronto, for example, engendered many complaints in its initial stages, including some from individuals
who felt it was an unnecessary infringement of their "right" to smoke.
To guide development of the by-law, Public Health consulted with the public and with stakeholders from the hospitality
and health sectors, including health agencies, hospitality organizations and operators of food premises, bowling centres and
bingo and billiard halls. The hospitality industry was asked for advice on the development of a consultation plan that would
be used to gather information from interested parties in the hospitality/entertainment sector on the components of a uniform
by-law for the city, as well as on strategies to achieve smoke free public places. The consultation included a public opinion
survey, focus group discussions, and meetings. As well, stakeholders were invited to provide written submissions to the
Board of Health, or to depute to the Board during future public hearings on the proposed by-law. Results from the
community consultation were similar to those found during extensive consultations carried out by the six former
municipalities of Toronto in past years. The following is a summary of the results.
(a)Public opinion survey
An independent research firm was contracted to conduct a public opinion survey to gauge the level of support regarding
details of a harmonized ETS by-law for the city, and to provide ideas on how to move forward to smoke-free public places.
The survey of a random selection of 1,000 Toronto residents was done by telephone in October 1998. Survey results show
that more than 90% of people believe ETS is harmful to non-smokers. This is in line with Health Canada's National
Population Health (Cycle 2, 1996/97) which found that 77% of current smokers and 88% of non-smokers believe ETS can
cause health problems in non-smokers. The majority of respondents in the public opinion survey believe the best way to
reach smoke-free status is by increasing the percentage of non-smoking space each year and that fully enclosed and
separately ventilated designated smoking rooms should be permitted. Support for non-smoking space was higher among
non-smokers and among individuals who believe ETS is harmful to non-smokers. These individuals support a significantly
greater percentage of space for non-smoking patrons across all public places. (See Appendix VIII for detailed results). This
highlights the need for comprehensive education campaigns with regard to the health risks of ETS With respect to the
harmonized by-law, the survey showed that 78% of residents believe restaurants should be at least 75% non-smoking.
(b)Health agencies
Health agencies were consulted by phone and/or invited to meetings. Not surprisingly there is a high level of support among
agencies for achieving smoke-free public places as soon as possible, particularly given the increased smoking rates in
young people and the epidemic of lung cancer in women. While ETS by-laws are primarily aimed at protecting
non-smokers and children from ETS they also help reduce direct smoking rates by reducing the number of places where
people can smoke. Health agencies are particularly cognizant of studies that show that youth who do not take up smoking in
their early and mid teens are much less likely to become regular smokers later in life. Some agencies believe that although
DSRs with separate ventilation may be a necessary step for restaurants, bars and entertainment facilities to become
completely smoke free, no worker should be required to enter a DSR as part of their job. The majority of agencies said that
where public places are not already smoke-free, a harmonized by-law should require a minimum non-smoking area of 75%
as a step towards becoming smoke-free.
(c)Hospitality organizations and food premise operators
During the past decade public health departments in the six former municipalities have worked with representatives of the
hospitality industry and owner/operators to obtain input on various public health issues, including ETS by-laws. In past
consultations with staff, the Ontario Restaurant Association (ORA) has suggested: allowing smoking in bars and bar areas,
in "smoke rooms"; increasing non-smoking areas incrementally, rather than going directly to smoke-free; and allowing
individual operators to designate their establishments a "smoke house". Since the beginning of this current consultation and
research process, various approaches have been used to solicit input on a harmonized by-law, including letters, telephone
conversations and meetings. Staff met with the ORA and the Ontario Hotel and Motel Association (OHMA) to plan the
consultation process. Both organizations recommended focus groups as the best way to get direct input from operators of
food premises. A total of 38 operators from six former municipalities attended the focus group discussions. The executive
summary of the report is attached as Appendix VII. In March 1998, Ryerson Polytechnic University conducted a random
survey of 200 food premise operators on ETS by-laws in the former city of Toronto. (Sly, 1998). The survey found that
about half of the respondents wanted either no change in current by-laws, or a more restrictive by-law. The other half
preferred a less restrictive by-law. The survey found that operator attitudes towards ETS by-laws are highly associated with
whether smoking is allowed in their premises (i.e. operators of a smoke-free premises are more likely to call for a more
restricted by-law than operators of premises which allow smoking).
In general, hospitality organizations and food premise operators are sympathetic to health concerns related to ETS with
some operators preferring a smoke-free environment for themselves and their families. However they are more concerned
about any potential for lost business. They believe that the cost of providing fully enclosed and separately ventilated DSRs
is prohibitive and not structurally feasible for many establishments. They believe the level of non-smoking seating should
be market driven. The ORA suggested a multi-faceted approach to a by-law amendment should be considered to address the
uniqueness of establishments within the food-service industry. There is strong advocacy for ventilation systems as a way to
deal with ETS.
(d)Bowling centre operators and bingo hall operators
Telephone consultations were conducted with a random sample of bowling centre and bingo hall operators; 17 of 34
bowling centres and 12 of 22 bingo halls were included for consultation. Because of the similarity in responses, the results
have been combined. In general, these operators believe they attract a larger percentage of smokers than found in the
general population and have strong concerns about the economic impact of ETS by-laws. The majority of operators support
a harmonized standard of 60% non-smoking space, reflective of the current average across the former municipalities. There
is mixed support for DSRs and the eventual achievement of smoke-free. Responses ranged from no support for smoke-free,
to support if required province-wide. Some operators did identify an interest in ideally operating smoke-free establishments.
(e)Billiard hall operators
Telephone consultations were conducted with a systematic sample of 21 billiard hall operators. Respondents recommended
a harmonized smoking standard ranging from completely open smoking to 50% non-smoking, less than the current average
of 60%. There was no general support for smoke-free and only five operators indicated the years 2001-2005 as a target for
being smoke-free. Economic concerns were most commonly stated as the reason for the low level of support. There was
general support for DSRs. The majority of operators said their clientele is largely composed of smokers.
(4)ISSUES RELATED TO BY-LAW DEVELOPMENT
(a)Economic hardship
There is considerable concern about any possible economic loss resulting from ETS by-laws. During this consultation,
many members of the hospitality industry said they would prefer to be smoke-free but fear they will lose business if a
smoke-free by-law is implemented. A review of many studies indicates that over the long term there is no overall negative
impact on business and that the effects of such by-laws are either neutral or result in positive economic gain as non-smokers
replace smokers. It should be noted that 700 Toronto restaurants are voluntarily smoke-free. However, there may be an
initial negative impact in some establishments where the majority of patrons are smokers. Some jurisdictions in the United
States have included a hardship clause in smoke-free legislation, also known as a variance or waiver, which exempts
restaurants from smoke-free by-laws if they can demonstrate financial hardship in complying with the law. The burden of
proof is placed on the applicant to demonstrate both a loss of business, and that the law is the cause of that loss. (See
Appendix II for detailed information)
(b)Differentiating between restaurants and bars
There are more than 6,000 restaurants in the City, about half of which are in the former city of Toronto. They vary from
family type establishments serving no alcohol, to cafes, pubs and establishments which cater mainly to adults and offer a
variety of food and entertainment, including dancing, billiards and live music. For some of these establishments, the sale of
food is incidental to the sale of alcohol and provision of entertainment. During past public consultation on smoke-free
public places, some industry advocates have requested that bars be treated differently than restaurants, as is the case in
some other municipalities, especially outside Ontario. As well, recent surveys (Appendix VII and VIII) suggest somewhat
lower levels of public support for smoke-free bars. The concept of differentiating between restaurants and bars has been
extensively researched by City staff now and in the former municipalities, and has been found to contain numerous
problems. These problems arise primarily because the Ontario Liquor Licence Act does not distinguish between restaurants
and bars for licensing purposes. Instead it provides a single class of liquor licence for all establishments that serve alcohol
and, in an attempt to reduce public harm associated with alcohol use, establishments that serve alcohol must also serve
food.
Without this distinction, the City must develop its own method of deciding what is a restaurant and what is a bar. There is
no easy way to do this because restaurants often change their services and primary mode of business depending on the time
of day, or day of the week, so that an establishment may function primarily as a restaurant during the day and as a bar at
night. City staff have considered distinctions based on an establishment's percentage of alcohol sales and the age of its
patrons; e.g. exclusion of children and youth under 19 years of age, from premises that allow unenclosed smoking.
Recommendation 2 (ii), which contains an age exclusion, is designed to help protect children from the effects of ETS and is
in keeping with other health protective provincial legislation aimed at youth that prohibits the sale of cigarettes to those
under 19.
Only the former city of Scarborough ETS by-law defines restaurants separately from bars, essentially categorizing bars as
establishments that derive at least 75% of revenues from the sale of alcohol. Although the by-law exempts bars from any
smoking restrictions, it also permits any eating establishment to have smoking in up to 100% of the premises, based on
customer demand. In practice therefore it has not been necessary for an establishment to identify itself as a bar to be exempt
from smoking restrictions. Therefore it is recommended that in the by-law for the new City of Toronto, bars be
distinguished from restaurants based on the existence of a liquor licence combined with a restriction on the age of patrons
to 19 years and over. Nineteen is selected as the age limit as this is the minimum legal age for purchasing tobacco products
and the minimum age for legal alcohol consumption. However, it should be noted that youth age 18 would remain eligible
to work in bars.
Although some jurisdictions have differentiated between bars and restaurants, the fact that there is an increased ETS
exposure risk in bars (Siegel, 1993) should be considered sufficient health grounds to make all such premises smoke-free.
However, should the City wish to phase in the elimination of smoking in bars, Recommendation 2, Option (ii) is
recommended. The administrative procedures for implementation must clearly differentiate these establishments and
minimize any burden placed on the City and the hospitality industry.
(c)Ventilation
Ventilation technology is often proposed as an alternative to smoke-free by-laws by the hospitality industry. While some
ventilation systems have been utilized to improve air quality, the improvement is purely aesthetic. The concept that ETS
could be reduced to "acceptable levels" is also flawed as there is no safe level of ETS. Studies conducted in the former city
of Toronto and elsewhere clearly indicate that non-smoking areas in restaurants that are not physically separated from the
smoking area and not separately ventilated offer little or no protection from exposure to ETS (Abernathy & O'Grady, 1996;
see Appendix II for descriptions of ventilation systems currently available.) Decreasing the concentration of ETS through
exhaust or dilution offers less protection than restricting smoking to a percentage of the premises.
In order for a ventilation system to be considered effective it must be capable of removing ETS in both the gas and the
particulate phase. According to ventilation experts such a system does not exist. In order to achieve a de-minimus risk (1
death/million) for lung cancer the ventilation rate in a hospitality establishment with unenclosed smoking would have to be
increased 40,000 times, creating wind speed similar to that of a severe tornado. Accordingly, many experts advise that the
most appropriate use for ventilation is to remove ETS from fully enclosed designated smoking rooms.
At a meeting Nov. 24, 1998 to discuss ventilation technology, one expert in ventilation engineering proposed a scenario in
which an establishment could have an open passage way between the smoking and non-smoking rooms, provided that the
opening was constructed with a tunnel that protruded at least eight feet into the non-smoking area. However, other experts
at the meeting were skeptical of this theory, feeling that complete structural separation of smoking from non-smoking areas
is essential. A recent article in a hospitality industry publication also concluded that "in the majority of conventional forced
air heating/ventilation/air-conditioning systems, air is typically recirculated with generally only 10 to 15 percent fresh air
added per hour. Therefore, even when the best efforts are made to physically isolate smokers from non-smokers, a single
ventilation system will distribute some smoky air throughout a restaurant." (LaRiviere, Feb. 98)
If an effective ventilation system becomes available, there are still practical issues to consider. Ventilation systems can be
expensive to design and install and there are physical limitations as to the type of buildings that can be retrofitted. As well,
heating and cooling costs would rise with the required increase of air flow. Without regular maintenance the effectiveness
of these systems declines very quickly, which presents particular difficulties for enforcement. While the system design and
installation would require approval from the building department, the responsibility to monitor the operation, maintenance
and overall effectiveness would be passed on to other enforcement staff. Even if one assumed the system was on and
operating, the task of checking the filters, measuring air flow and grading effectiveness could be onerous.
Without the possibility of removing ETS from the air, the most logical option is to remove the source of the ETS. If at some
point in the future a ventilation system is developed that could provide air quality equivalent in health terms to that in a
smoke-free environment it could be considered as an alternative to a ban on smoking.
The ASHRAE standard:
In 1989, the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) developed a
ventilation standard applicable to all indoor or enclosed spaces that people may occupy. The current edition is entitled
ANSI/ASHRAE 62-1989 Ventilation for Acceptable Indoor Air Quality. This standard is the basis for almost all ventilation
requirements contained in North American building codes. The purpose of the standard is to specify minimum ventilation
rates and indoor air quality that will be acceptable to human occupants with the intent of minimizing the potential for
adverse health effects. However, the standard does not ensure protection from ETS.
(d)Designated Smoking Rooms (DSRs)
Most of the existing ETS by-laws in the city permit DSRs in workplaces. This is because employees are not required to
enter these rooms as part of their work duties. DSRs are not recommended for public places on health grounds because
employees in public places should be provided with the same protection from ETS, and it would be impractical to expect
them not to have to enter DSRs in the course of their work. (See Appendix IV for discussion of DSRs). Nonetheless, DSRs
may be considered as a means of easing the impact of the by-law on smoking patrons. In the former city of Toronto, DSRs
have been approved for fewer than 20 restaurants. The Board of Health/City Council will have to decide what to do about
these existing DSRs. The Provincial Tobacco Control Act currently permits DSR's in certain public places, including
homes for the aged and hospitals. For consistency, this policy should remain in effect for the present time.
(e)Enforcement
As with many municipal by-laws, ETS by-laws are largely self-regulating through voluntary compliance by
owners/operators, employers, staff, and public over an introductory period of 6-12 months. Public Health staff will be
responsible for enforcing the ETS by-law, primarily through education of operators and ticketing, if necessary. To make a
new ETS by-law as understandable and as easily enforceable as possible, it must apply equally across the city and have
clear standards for the size and location of smoking and non-smoking space. Education of all parties, including the public,
employers, owners, operators and staff, is essential prior to and during implementation to ensure everyone understands the
reason for the by-law, and their responsibilities under it. The hospitality industry feels strongly that the public must receive
clear information about where they can and can't smoke. In general, the greater and more restrictive the change, the greater
the need for education and enforcement. As with other by-laws to protect health, the owner/operator should be responsible
for complying with the by-law, removing ashtrays from non-smoking areas, posting No Smoking and Health Warning signs
to ensure patrons are aware of the by-law and the health risks of ETS, providing legal seating space and operating a
smoke-free establishment where applicable. Penalties for non-compliance range from $205 for a ticket to a maximum
$5,000 for a prosecution and conviction in Court.
(5)BY-LAW INTERPRETATIONS
The by-law will set out classes of establishment by which to define public places. These will include public places that
serve food whether or not they serve alcohol, bowling centres, billiard halls, and gaming halls (e.g. bingo). By-law
requirements will be interpreted and applied to these and other public places as outlined below.
ESTABLISHMENT |
BY-LAW INTERPRETATION |
Mixed Use Establishments:
- an establishment which could fit the
criteria for more than one class of
premises
|
- by-law interpretation will depend upon the primary use of the
establishment and the degree of physical separation among its different
uses
- enclosed spaces within public places which are used for a separate
purpose (e.g. a restaurant within a theatre) will comply with the section of
the by-law which pertains to that type of facility
|
Private Establishments
|
- will be exempt from by-law
- criteria to define a private establishment will include the presence of:
-objective rules to approve or reject members
-use of the facility being limited to members and bona-fide guests
-mechanisms that give members some control of the facility
-records documenting fees and/or annual membership dues
-evidence that the facility is operated not for profit and solely for the
benefit and pleasure of its members
-evidence that the establishment directs its publicity and advertisements
exclusively to members (or potential members) for their information and
guidance |
Private Functions |
- a time limited period that any public place is being leased or rented for a
function that is not open to the general public e.g. a wedding; private
functions will be exempt from by-law restrictions for that time limited
period
|
Public Places Not Specifically
Mentioned in By-law or Other
Legislation including:
- theatres and entertainment centres
- sports facilities, recreations and sports
arenas
- hotels (common areas)
- financial institutions
- retail stores
- video or amusement arcades
- laundromats
- hairdressing salons and barber shops
- day nurseries
- elevators and escalators
- lobbies and reception areas
- stairwells, corridors & hallways
- public washrooms
- etc
|
- the general definition of public places will apply, making them 100%
smoke-free
|
(6)PUBLIC PLACES COVERED BY OTHER LEGISLATION
In Ontario, the Tobacco Control Act, 1994 (TCA) regulates smoking in some public places as well as the sale of tobacco to
minors. The TCA also gives municipalities the authority to pass more restrictive no-smoking legislation. The TCA also
states that where a more restrictive law exists, that law will prevail. The public places that will be covered under the TCA
for Toronto are outlined in the following table.
ESTABLISHMENT |
SMOKING RESTRICTION |
- hospitals
- psychiatric facilities
- nursing homes
- homes for special care
- charitable homes for the aged
|
- 100% smoke-free
- DSR permitted
|
(7)GUIDING PRINCIPLES FOR A HARMONIZED BY-LAW
At the beginning of this process Public Health developed guiding principles for the development of an ETS by-law for the
new City of Toronto. These principles are that a new by-law should:
(a)achieve a maximum level of protection from ETS exposure;
(b)continue to make progress overall towards smoke-free status;
(c)be implemented three months after it is passed by Council;
(d)include future dates upon which public places become smoke-free;
(e)be supported by continuing city initiatives that encourage restaurants to go smoke-free voluntarily; and
(f)be accompanied by a comprehensive education campaign.
(8)OPTIONS FOR A HARMONIZED ETS BY-LAW
To protect health, a new ETS by-law should prohibit smoking in all workplaces and public places as soon as possible. Four
of the six former municipalities (the exceptions being York and Scarborough) have by-laws committing to smoke-free
workplaces and public places by 2000. To make the transition to a smoke-free standard for Toronto and to provide the most
health protective environment possible, it is recommended that the City adopt Recommendation 1 and 2 (i).
Recommendation 2 (ii) is provided for consideration, in the event the City decides to increase the amount of time operators
and the public have to adjust to smoke-free premises. Appendix III describes other possible options along with their pros
and cons. Once fully implemented, the by-law would protect the public and workers from ETS in all public places. If the
Board of Health and/or Council decide to adopt a by-law that reduces current restrictions in some former municipalities in
order to have a single standard across the city, it should encourage owners/operators to maintain their existing higher
standard as a natural progression to being fully smoke-free (see Appendix I for current standards). A chart outlining these
recommendations follows.
OPTION 1: Recommendation 2(i)
ESTABLISHMENT
RECOMMENDATION |
|
Workplaces |
- maintain 100% smoke-free
- permit designated smoking rooms to be used for no other purpose
than smoking
|
Public Places Not Already
Smoke-free:
- restaurants
- bars
- banquet halls
- bowling centres
- bingo halls
- billiard halls
- casinos
|
- public places not already smoke-free become 75% non-smoking
three months after by-law is passed by City Council
|
- 100% smoke-free April 30, 2001
|
OPTION 2: Recommendation 2 (ii)
ESTABLISHMENT |
RECOMMENDATION |
Workplaces |
- maintain 100% smoke-free
- permit designated smoking rooms to be used for no other purpose
than smoking
|
All Public Places Not Already
Smoke-free:
- restaurants
- banquet halls
- bars
- bowling centres
- bingo halls
- casinos
- billiard halls
|
- public places not already smoke-free become 75% non-smoking
three months after by-law is passed by City Council
|
Transition of Public Places to
Smoke-free:
- restaurants
- bowling centres
- banquet halls
|
- 100% smoke-free April 30, 2001
|
- bars
- bingo halls
- billiard halls
- casinos
|
- 100% smoke-free May 3, 2004
|
(9)PUBLIC COMMUNICATION PLAN
To successfully implement a harmonized ETS by-law for the City of Toronto and prepare for smoke-free public places, it is
necessary to implement a communications plan (Appendix VI) that will inform and assist owners, operators and employees
in the hospitality and entertainment industry, as well as the patrons of these establishments. All parties need clear, effective
targeted information on the reasons for the by-law and their obligations under it. A subsequent campaign is needed to
implement smoke-free public places when the time-limited exemption for certain establishments ends. The campaign
should include up-to-date information on the health risks associated with ETS as well as a continuation of the successful
Go for the Green smoke-free dining campaign, which encourages restaurants to go smoke free voluntarily. Past experience
in the former municipalities and elsewhere has shown that ETS by-laws engender significant debate as employers, the
public and media try to come to terms with restrictions on the places in which this addictive and harmful substance may be
used.
(10)CITY OF TORONTO CORPORATE SMOKING POLICY
At the current time there are inconsistencies with regard to workplace corporate smoking policies across the amalgamated
City. City workplace policies are consistent with the current smoking by-laws for the respective former municipality. That
is, smoking is prohibited in the areas of municipal facilities considered workplaces. There are inconsistencies in areas such
as workplace cafeterias and underground garages. The City should set a positive example and adopt the most restrictive
policy possible to protect all City employees and the public visiting City facilities: to prohibit smoking in all municipal
facilities whether located in municipal or commercial buildings. In cases where space is rented or leased for a private
function such as a wedding, the City could permit smoking for the time limited period of that function. Should the City
choose to allow this exception, it should be time limited until April 30, 2001.
Conclusion:
The majority of employees in the City of Toronto are protected from ETS at work. The continued exposure of workers and
the visiting public in restaurants, bars and entertainment facilities is an unacceptable health risk given the current
knowledge of the effects of ETS. The Board of Health must address the significant risk to public health in these
establishments. A new ETS by-law is required for the city and there is a need to develop and implement a communications
strategy to make the transition toward the goal of smoke-free public places.
Appendix I
COMPARISON OF SMOKING BY-LAWS IN THE
SIX FORMER MUNICIPALITIES IN THE NEW CITY OF TORONTO * (February 1999)
Type of
Establishment |
East York |
Etobicoke |
North York |
Scarborough |
Toronto |
York |
Workplaces |
Smoke-free.
DSRs permitted up to
25%. |
Smoke-free.
DSRs permitted up
to 25%. |
Smoke-free.
DSRs permitted.
No maximum
stated. |
Smoke-free, DSR option (fully
enclosed ventilation system, at
a minimum ventilation rate of
15 litres/sec.pp., exhausted to
exterior at a rate of 110% of
supply). Room used only for
smoking. (No room size
requirement). Includes
vehicles, and eating areas (may
include cafeterias), lounge and
lunch rooms. |
Smoke-free.
DSR permitted up to
25%. |
Smoke-free. |
Food Courts |
Smoke-free. |
Smoke-free. |
Smoke-free. |
Smoke-free (included in the
definition of "Common Area"). |
Smoke-free. |
Smoke-free. |
Restaurants,
including Bars |
As of December 2, 1996,
new establishments
smoke-free. Existing
establishments 65%
non-smoking. |
75% non-smoking. |
75% non-smoking. |
Restaurants with more than 40
seats - 20% smoke-free
seating. Restaurants with less
than 40 seats are exempt. May
be increased or decreased
based on customer demand.
Bars exempt. |
Establishments
larger than 100
square metres - 90%
non-smoking.
Establishment less
than 100 square
metres - 75%
non-smoking (or a
10 square metres
smoking section,
whichever is less).
DSR permitted up to
50%. |
40%
non-smoking if
over 40 seats. |
Bingo Hall,
Gaming
Facilities &
Casinos |
Bingo Halls & Casinos (in
banquet halls) smoke-free. |
75% non-smoking
in bingo halls,
gaming facilities
and casinos. |
60% non-smoking
in bingo halls. |
60% of the total floor areas
must be a non-smoking area. |
50% non-smoking
in bingo halls. |
40%
non-smoking. |
Bowling
Centres &
Billiard Halls |
65% non-smoking. |
Bowling centres:
Smoke- free in
playing areas
which include
bowling lanes and
scoring tables, and
in service
counters, food
take-out and
line-up areas.
Spectator Areas:
75% non-smoking.
Billiard Halls:
75% non-smoking. |
60% non-smoking. |
60% of the total floor area
must be a non-smoking area. |
These
establishments are
not specifically
included in the
by-law, but are
subject to the
restaurant
requirements if food
is served. |
40%
non-smoking. |
Multiple
Residential/
Commercial &
Public Building |
All common areas are
smoke-free. |
All common areas
are smoke-free. |
All common areas
are smoke-free. |
Defined as "common area" and
"public place" - smoke-free.
Senior citizen residential
facility may allow up to 25%
of the recreational room space
for smoking. |
Public washrooms,
stairwells, lobbies,
reception areas,
elevators &
escalators are
smoke-free. |
All common
areas are
smoke-free. |
Public Places &
Places of
Public
Assembly |
Smoke-free. |
75% non-smoking. |
Smoke-free; DSRs
permitted. |
Smoke-free (definition does
not include restaurants, bars,
gaming premises, billiard halls,
bowling alleys or health care
facilities, places rented or
leased or otherwise used for
private functions). Includes
transit shelters, and public
transit vehicles (including
taxis). |
Smoke-free, DSRs
permitted up to 25%
(definition includes
shopping malls,
cinemas, theatres,
public washrooms
and sports facilities,
whether covered by
a roof or not). |
Smoke-free |
Others |
Common areas in banquet
halls are smoke-free. |
Woodbine
Racetrack - 75%
non-smoking in
indoor spectator
areas - 50%
non-smoking in
outdoor spectator
areas. |
|
|
School bus,
escalators, elevators
smoke-free. |
|
Commitment to
be Smoke-free
by 2000 |
Jan.1, 2000
Smoking will only be
permitted in workplace
DSRs. |
Yes. |
Yes. |
Support for all remaining sites
going smoke-free contingent
upon surrounding
municipalities becoming
smoke-free at the same time. |
Yes. |
No. |
Notes:DSR - Designated Smoking Room
*This chart represents a summary of the by-laws. For details and definitions please refer to original by-laws.
COMPARISON OF BY-LAWS IN NEIGHBOURING MUNICIPALITIES (February, 1999)