4,

(2)
ASSORTED -PROBLEMS

These were indeed “assorted” reflecting practical experience with similar type
by-laws :- : ae - a
(a). Saskatoon had problems. with ndn ‘designated areas,difficulty in obtaining
the signs,lack of information to the public of -information and detail

on the bylaw,lack of a ‘specific agency in charge ‘of the enforcement
and lack of an educational progran.

(b). Winnipeg identified more specific problems to do with just what should
or should not be included. After discussion they excluded such things
as the Legion,the wal through in Shopping Malls,reception areas if
there was only one clerk and the foyers of apartment from the non-smoking
ban. They found that some restuarants objected to the gaudiness of
non~smoking signs and in ten cases non-smoking was relegated to the
more undesirable area of the restuarant.

(ce). Ottawa at the outset was inundated with 250 complaints from non-smokers
associations but this abated.

Cd). Edmonton identified problems with the "summons" and also the scattering
of non-smoking tables throughout the smoking area.

(e). Edmonton also find the non-smoking advocates are still asking for further
enforcement but all in all the bylaw appears to be doing well.

5. RESTUARANTS

Since restuarants were commented upon so often in the citizen's comments on
the CRD bylaw it is possibly worth giving them a Paragraph of their own,

(a). Applicability: Six areas (CRD, Halifax,Marle Ridge, Ottawa,Regina and
West Vancouver)give them a choice but in three (CRD,Maple Ridge and
West Vancouver) notice as to whether or not there is a non-smoking
area must be posted at the entrance. Four areas (Edmonton, Saskatoon,
Toronto[recently] and Winnipeg) give no choice although in an accompanying
letter Saskatoon seemed to euggest there was a choice and it was working
with the Saskatchewan's Restuarant Association to implement it.)
One area (Hamilton) has no smoking but the owner can designate not
more than 80% as smoking. One area (Guelph) does not include cestuarants

. ain the bylaw.

(b). Ottawa has set up a task force to inform the public as to the benefits,
to convince the restuarant operators to implément a non-smoking
area voluntarily,to post a sign indicating that there is a non-
Smoking area,to increase by 50% the number of dining establishments
that provide non=smoking ateas,to encourage 100% to post signs,

——~ and to update their pamphlet.

Ceramic Yr NOTICES «

i .s the benefit if the practical experience of greas that have already

had the bylaw in effect up to 7 years and should be heeded.

The

Gyelph passed/ 77/02/21; Toronto passed (7
passes (80/06/267 Hamilton passed @1Y01/
passed \8))/02/23; Saskatoon passed (81

(a). The importance of informing the public both beferehand (Winnipeg)

and currently (Winnipeg, Saskatoon) by as many means as possible

including such things as phone in lines,advertising,copies of the
bylaw etc.

(b). The importance of making sure signs are available and easily obtainable,
(Saskatoon).

ce). The importance of Clearly es: rblishing whe is responsible for enforcing
the Bylaw (Saskatoon),

(d). The importance of establishing 2 system to monitor the bylaw(Saskatoon)
Ce). Allow sufficient time between passage of the bylaw and implementation.

dates when the bylaws came into effe t in the various places is as follows:
s)o5/14; Ottawa (79Y06/06; Halifax
; Edmonton passed 81/01/13; Regina

06/29; Winnipeg passed (83/09/28; West
Ss West

Vancouver passed 84/03/19; GRD passed 84/07/24; Maple Ridge passed 82

.

{08/20
although some were not enforced immediately but gave a breathing speti, 9