AP PE CD/X 10

RESTKICTION OF SMOKING IN PUBLIC FLACES
SUMMARY OF REPLIES RECEIVED FROM 12 CITIES
M » COMPLIANCE, PROSECUTION, ETC,

The Municipalities contacted in Canada re their smoking restriction bylaws were:
Capital Regional District, Edmonton,Guelph, Halifax, Hamilton,Maple Ridge, Ottawa, Regina,
Saskatoon, Toronto,West Vancouver and Winnipeg. The following is an attempt to give

a summary of their experience with enforcement,compliance,prosecution and assorted
problems.

1. ENFORCEMENT

(A).All anticipated some difficulties with enforcement but apparently few arose,
(a). Individuals refuse to identify themselves and disappear (Toronto,Halifax)
(b). Bylaw not being enforced against smokers as much as it could be (Edmonton)
Cc). Some problems but citizen participation is active CRegina)

(d).Active enforcement not contemplated (Hamilton)

Ce). Bylaw was intended to be self regulatory (Hamilton).Some defiance

(Cf). Some criticism of lack of or difficulties with, enforcement (Winnipeg)

(g). Police place a very low priority on it (Winnipeg). an

Ch}. No real problem documented (Saskatoon, Halifax,Edmonton,CRD,West Vancouver)

(i). No bylaw changes recommended (CRD, Guelph, Halifax, Hamilton, Ottawa, Regina)
(Toronto has now included restuarants;Edmonton enlarged non smoking area
in restuarants from 15% to 35% and now includes buses ether than only
school ones)

(j). No challenge so far to the bylaw (Regina,Halifax)

(B).Different bodies enforce the bylaw in different areas.
(a). Health Department in Toronto
(b). Partly health Department,partly building inspection in Winnipeg
(c). Partly Health Department,partly police in CRD.
(d). Police morality squad in Ottawa
(e). Police in Halifax
(£). Bylaw Enforcement Officer in West Vancouver
(g). Not specifically stated in others.

(C).Method of enforcement seems similar in the different areas. On complaint a
visit is made or a courtesy call,a verbal warning is followed if necessary
by a written one. Seems to work in view of paucity of prosecutions,

2._COMPLIANCE.

All seemed to have expected difficulties with compliance but this seems to be small.
(a). Foresees difficulties if a person fails to stop (Hamilton)
(Cb). Signs are posted but merchants reluctant to call the police (Halifax)
(c). Not known how well the bylaw is being implemented (Saskatoon)
(d). Militant nonsmokers are those most com -aining (Edmonton)
(Ce). Generally well accepted, observed by most,complaints and questions are

relatively minor,positive reaction far outweighs the negative (Winnipeg).

(£). Compliance seems good,but lately seems some more defiance (Hamilton).
(g). Compliance good and bylaw observed by most (Saskatoon)
(h). Observed by most (Edmonton)
(i). Very few complaints (Guelph).
(j). Still fair number Not complying with new bylaw (CRD,West Vancouver),

|  3+PROSECUTION.

—~ Apprehension was expressed in advance over cost and difficulties of prosecutions
but few prosecutions have actualiy occurred.
(a). Ottawa has had several for signs. Numbers do not reflect total time
(bd). Toronto has had a total of six. Five in 1978, one in 1983,none since.
(c). Edmonton and Regina have each had one only each (succesful).
(d). Ottawa has had none re smokers.
(Ce). CRD.,Guelph,Halifax,Hamilton, Saskatoon, West Vancouver and Winnipeg none.

38 2/