Leveling
the Playing Field - Protection For All
We are encouraged by Bill 125 and see it as a significant
step forward, however we are concerned that this legislation
does not create a level playing field, nor does it provide
protection for all from environmental tobacco smoke (Section
6).
The proposed
legislation would result in unequal restrictions between municipalities,
businesses and organizations. For example, different restrictions
apply to bars than cabarets and while smoking will not be
permitted on school grounds (Section 5), the legislation does
not restrict smoking around all other public buildings such
as near hospital entrances, windows, air intakes and other
parts of their grounds.
As well,
the legislation will do little to protect those most at risk
from environmental tobacco smoke. A recent report commissioned
by your Department found restaurant, bar and casino workers
are at the greatest risk from workplace exposure to second
hand smoke. Exemptions in the proposed legislation mean these
individuals and others will continue to be exposed to these
toxins and should be removed. These workers deserve the same
degree of protection from known carcinogens in the workplace
as those in any other industry.
Smoking
Rooms No Solution
Research data compiled on your Department's behalf indicated
that the ventilation system capable of removing tobacco smoke
from the air does not exit. Not only would the costs associated
with the boxes you propose (Section 8) be prohibitive for
many organizations, particularly small businesses, but there
would also be significant challenges associated with regulating
smoking boxes and preventing toxins from escaping into non-smoking
areas.
In addition,
the toxins found in tobacco smoke linger in the air, on curtains,
on upholstery etc… therefore you are creating a false
sense of security by allowing smoking throughout certain facilities
when children are no longer present. Children and others will
continue to be exposed to these toxins long after cigarettes
are extinguished. A 100 per cent ban remains the only viable
and fair solution.
The
Wrong Message to Youth
Your government has stated its commitment to reduce smoking
rates among our youth on numerous occasions. We applaud your
conviction to grapple with this extremely serious problem,
however are concerned by the approach you have chosen. There
is no convincing evidence of the effectiveness of youth possession
laws such as the one set forth in Section 9. In fact this
approach may only serve to harm relationships between youth
and authority figures such as law enforcement officers. There
are many more proven and positive ways we can help our youth
make the choice not to smoke.
In addition,
it has long been accepted that the best ways to teach our
children is by example. If your government insists on sheltering
youth from tobacco and exposure to environmental tobacco smoke,
without offering the same protection to adults, you risk undermining
the extremely negative impact tobacco is having on our society.
An opportunity to promote good health and healthy practices
is also lost. Clearly this is the wrong message to send our
youth.
The
Business Case
Representatives of the hospitality industry have argued that
a complete ban on smoking in public places would significantly
reduce business. Evidence compiled by your Department reveals
that this has not been the case in other jurisdictions that
have proceeded with tobacco legislation.
We ask
you to consider the fact that most Nova Scotians do not smoke
and are therefore reluctant to give their business to facilities
that do not provide a smoke-free environment. Also, because
many tourists are visiting from areas where smoking is prohibited
in public places they often expect and demand smoke-free settings.
To summarize,
the legislation as proposed may actually be damaging to some
businesses as it: 1) does not create a level playing field
between various municipalities and businesses 2) does not
provide safe smoke free environments for those who seek this
and 3) requires the installation of expensive smoking boxes
that many businesses may not be able to afford.
The Need for Clarity
The proposed legislation requires clarification to avoid open
interpretation and abuse. It states that smoking will be permitted
at private functions (Section 7) where children are not present.
This leaves the door open for facilities to define what a
private function is at their own discretion. We ask that this
language be removed from the legislation. As well, the definitions
with respect to lounges, bars, cabarets are unclear and may
provide a loophole for businesses that wish to avoid the requirement
for smoking rooms. Facilities may opt to change their status
in order to avoid restrictions. At the very least, clarification
is needed with respect to the different types of licenses.
However, this requirement could be avoided altogether with
a 100 per cent ban on smoking in public places.
Enforcement
As with any new legislation or bylaw, enforcement is key.
Language in the proposed legislation indicates that the Minister
may appoint and designate inspectors, we suggest that Section
10 be changed to read: "The Minister shall appoint and
designate inspectors for the purpose of this act."
Experience
has also shown that the more exemptions that exist within
an act, the more difficult it becomes to enforce. Removing
exemptions, such as those referenced above, will ease enforcement
and provide more strength to the proposed legislation.
Timeframe
In Nova Scotia, the number of tobacco-related deaths on an
annual basis have risen since the previous government began
discussing smoke-free public places legislation. Knowing this
truth we are alarmed by a recent media report that suggests
government may be considering a different timeframe for implementation
of this legislation. We can benefit from the experiences of
other jurisdictions that have shown phased-in legislation
does not work. A firm implementation date must be maintained
and enforced.
