Breaking News

PUBCO Survey Fails Scrutiny

November 14, 2001

OCSH - Facts & Arguments

Ottawa enters a new era

This past April, the City of Ottawa set a proud new standard for our region, and the entire country, when City Council unanimously approved a bylaw making public places and workplaces 100% smoke-free.

Twenty-two members of Council heard the evidence and made a choice based on an overwhelming scientific consensus and compelling moral arguments. Secondhand smoke causes harm to virtually everyone exposed to it, with many suffering life-threatening consequences for the behaviour of others. No one should be a second-class citizen, and Council realized we all deserve protection from the real and considerable risks posed by secondhand smoke.

Since the bylaw came into force August 1st, the strong, continuing public support for this progressive measure has been, at times, overshadowed by negative comments in the press and by noisy protests from PUBCO, the Pub and Bar Coalition of Ontario.

PUBCO and the Tobacco Industry

When PUBCO was formed last May, a phone number initially provided by the group belonged to the now-defunct Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers Council. PUBCO has denied being directly funded by the tobacco industry, but what cannot be denied is that this Coalition employs strategies that are the hallmark of a discredited and disreputable industry. PUBCO has also refused to make its updated membership list public. What does this group fear if it believes it's acting for the common good?

Opinion polls taken prior to the ban have noted overwhelming support for smoke-free public places and workplaces, and a new poll, just issued by Decima Research, shows that the ban "enjoys strong public support by a two-to-one margin". Another major new report, by the firm GPI Atlantic, and just released in Nova Scotia, confirms what has long been known: "Smoke-free Policy Has No Adverse Impact on Business and May be Good for Business".

Despite this strong, heartening approval of the city's bylaw, PUBCO and some newspaper writers have taken the City of Ottawa Public Health Department to task for not reporting all the findings of the Opinion Search survey conducted last November. The rationale for this criticism is that City Councillors and the public were denied the information required to make an informed decision.

We agree that full disclosure of the facts is important. We're pleased to take this opportunity to more closely explore the City of Ottawa's survey findings and to review the statements and motives of PUBCO and some of the bylaw's more inflamed and inflammatory critics.

PUBCO's Mission Statement

In its Mission Statement, PUBCO claims there was "no meaningful consultation with business owners in the city." In fact, on April 5th, the Health, Recreation and Social Services Committee heard 111 public presentations over a 13-hour session, before voting 7-to-2 in favour of the measure put to the full Council two weeks later. And the city held no less than 11 public consultations before the by-law even went to committee.

PUBCO admits that the Ontario Restaurant, Hotel and Motel Association (ORHMA) and the Canadian Food and Restaurant Association (CFRA) rebuffed PUBCO's efforts to resist the bylaw, summarizing the ORHMA and CFRA response as "Go away, this non smoking by-law is good for Most of our membership". So, following strong majority support by the Health Committee, a unanimous vote by the full Council and strong approval from fellow publicans and restaurateurs, PUBCO's members are still not satisfied there has been "meaningful consultation". Presumably, the only measure that would be deemed meaningful by PUBCO is reversal of the bylaw, but that's not how democracy works.

PUBCO and the Public

PUBCO adopts a derisive tone concerning restaurants that are already smoke-free, sneering that "this is what "their clientele" wanted." As if "their clientele" were somehow deluded. But PUBCO does admit why other establishments prohibit smoking: "WHY? Well smoking demands more efficient ventilation, it costs money for ashtrays, it causes burns in carpets, table cloths, clothing, it costs more in cleaning , etc..." PUBCO claims to worry about the financial health of its members, but can't deny that a totally smoke-free policy costs almost nothing to introduce, while continued smoking leads to enormous cleaning expenses; money wasted on inefficient ventilation "solutions" and, above all, tremendous risks to the health of patrons and employees.

PUBCO also decries the efforts of what it calls the "anti-tobacco industry". What PUBCO is really doing is showing bald contempt for the efforts of the public health community, the duly-elected City Council and a majority of their fellow Ottawa citizens. An industry generally sells products and tries to generate profits. Most who worked for passage of Ottawa's bylaw, a measure that is the envy of communities across the country, volunteered their services. And most restaurant and bar owners know that the pattern is clear. Business bounces back - quickly in most cases - and customers and employees enjoy immediate benefits from eating, drinking and working in smoke-free premises. Yet PUBCO resists progress and works against the common good.

In issuing its clarion call to resistance, PUBCO defiantly claims: "We do not need an army of bureaucrats telling us how to run our businesses." Will PUBCO members refuse to obtain liquor licenses? Will they deny public health inspectors access to their kitchens? Would you feel safe going to a bar or restaurant that claimed to be a law unto itself? Presumably, PUBCO members are all trained in epidemiology and know how to determine what's best for the health of their patrons. No, they don't want cockroaches in their kitchens, and don't plan to serve moldy sandwiches with year-old beer, but they're willing to deny the heavily-documented risks posed by secondhand smoke.

PUBCO's Newsletter

In a recent newsletter, PUBCO's Interim President, Jill Scott, admits that, following the tragic attacks of September 11th, she "cannot help but feel how insignificant a smoking by-law must seem in light of these events". Well, she's right and she's wrong. Day-to-day concerns do seem to pale as sadness and anxiety linger in the wake of September 11th. But the unspeakably horrid acts in New York City and Washington, like others elsewhere, past and future, should only cause us to redouble our efforts to do what's right. And Ottawa's smoking bylaw is right. This is a measure that, without doubt, will save lives. We may feel powerless to directly combat terrorists, but we can act in ways that help our fellow citizens to longer, healthier lives. Jill Scott argues that PUBCO members "must persevere" in their fight but, in fact, it's the City's bylaw that needs preserving, not the interests of a few renegade businesses.

The newsletter also claims that "City Council was totally duped" because not all the November poll responses were made public. It is true that the survey included questions asking whether "you support or oppose allowing smoking only in a section that is completely enclosed and separately ventilated to the exterior" or a designated smoking room (DSR) for a number of settings. It is also true that larger numbers of respondents were more favourable to this ventilation option than to the "100% smoke-free" one. But the Council would only have been truly duped had it bought what has rightly been termed "the ventilation lie". The tobacco industry would like nothing more than to have people believe that pushing the air around will solve the problem. The industry, not surprisingly, is just blowing smoke. The scientific record is clear. It would take hurricane-force winds to bring smoke exposure down to even arguably acceptable levels. Members of OCSH sat through the 13 hours of debate at Committtee of Council and it was clear that the hospitality sector was very divided on wanting DSRs in the no-smoking bylaw.

PUBCO and Scientific Evidence

PUBCO chides the City of Ottawa Public Health Department for not publicizing certain survey answers but the Department communicated truthful information, only ignoring questions based on a false premise. However, PUBCO makes statements that are patently false when it claims that "much of the scientific "evidence" on the supposed hazards of second Hand Smoke used by the Health department to justify the imposition of the ban was based on a US report by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The US Federal Court struck down this EPA report in 1998 as it contained totally falsified data!"

William L. Osteen, a former lobbyist for tobacco farmers, and a jurist from the tobacco-growing state of North Carolina did vacate the EPA's classification of secondhand smoke as a Known Human (Group A) Carcinogen with respect to lung cancer in adults. The judge is not an epidemiologist and his ruling has been hotly challenged. More importantly, "Judge Osteen did not invalidate the EPA's extensive findings regarding secondhand smoke and respiratory disorders other than lung cancer. The EPA's findings, thus, remain intact regarding secondhand smoke and its effects on the following conditions: Acute respiratory illnesses in children; Acute and chronic middle ear diseases; Cough, phlegm and wheezing; Asthma; Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS); Lung function in children; and Respiratory symptoms and lung function in adults.

ETS is a Known Human Carcinogen

There is nothing "supposed" about the hazards of secondhand smoke, and the scientific documentation of its risks has only strengthened in the years since the 1992 EPA report. From Australia to the UK and the USA, the reports in the late 90's were consistent, and consistently shocking. Secondhand smoke kills, and in ways still not fully understood by the public. Earlier this year, the authoritative 9th Report on Carcinogens, published by the U.S. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) concluded: "Environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) is known to be a human carcinogen based on sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity from studies in humans that indicate a causal relationship between passive exposure to tobacco smoke and human lung cancer."

The NIEHS report found specifically that: "Food-servers, who spend more time in restaurants, are exposed even more to ETS, though they may work in nonsmoking sections... Levels of ETS in bars were found to be approximately 3.9-6.1 times higher than in office workplaces and 4.4-4.5 times higher than in residences." No tribunal or judge, in North Carolina or anywhere else, has challenged these findings.

For Ottawa's population, of those polled by the City of Ottawa's November 2000 poll, 60% strongly agreed that second-hand smoke can cause lung cancer in a non-smoker, but only 49% strongly agreed with respect to the risks of heart disease or heart problems. Just 27% gave "strong" agreement to the concept of a link between secondhand smoke and stroke. So, while 89% may have a general understanding that second-hand smoke can cause health problems in a non-smoker, a lot of education is still needed. And a lot more protection as well. As severe as its effects on pulmonary health may be, secondhand smoke has proved far more devastating to coronary and cardiovascular health.

Newspaper commentary

The Ottawa dailies have been openly contemptuous of the bylaw, both before its passage and since it came into force. In a recent editorial, the Ottawa Citizen disparages "council's belief that it not only has a right to regulate the otherwise legal behaviour of citizens, given the wider health concerns, a duty" and argues this was done "at the expense of individual liberty". Smokers have long understood they can't smoke in elevators and movie theatres, and are now adapting to fair restrictions in the workplace. Reasonable restaurant and bar owners welcome health inspectors, knowing that good sanitary practices are in the interests of all. Similarly, drivers acknowledge the need for speed limits and seatbelt laws. How does recognition of the principles of law become submission to a loss of individual liberties? Smoking bylaws give patrons and employees alike the freedom to breathe, without being forced to inhale unwelcome and unhealthy smoke.

One Citizen article highlighted a PUBCO official's chilling accusation of 'Gestapo-like tactics'. Don Taite, who runs a ventilation business, asks: "Is this the Gestapo?... What kind of society are we living in? Now they are using Gestapo-like tactics to crucify the small businessman," Mr. Taite said. "It infringes on my freedom without question." Not the least bit ashamed of his grotesque hyperbole, Mr. Taite pursued his outrageous line of reasoning in a letter to the editor in the Citizen, speaking of "intimidation" and "threats". Must one interview a victim of the Gestapo to understand the shameless perversity of this comparison? Mr. Taite's ventilation business cannot provide a valid alternative to smoke-free bars, and his judgment is equally lacking.

Decency & Shame

One persistently vitriolic Ottawa Sun writer mocks those who support enforcement of a legally-constituted bylaw and adds: "Zieg Heil -- the goose-stepping Nazis would have loved you." The Nazi regime and ideology were at the root of a global conflict that took some 50 million lives. Yet, somehow, in this column proudly preserved on the PUBCO website, Earl McRae manages to find moral equivalency between the Third Reich's murderous ideology and a broadly-debated public health measure. One can ask of Mr. McRae what one would ask of Mr. Taite. Where is the critic's decency? Where is his sense of shame?

Ottawa has passed a bylaw that has make the city proud. The bylaw's critics can adapt their products to the needs of the marketplace or they write on other topics, but one constant remains: We need clean air to breathe. Ottawa City Council has made an informed choice and an enlightened choice. We can now enjoy our city's restaurants, bars and pubs, free of fear for our health. And the right to breathe freely, and to feel free from any fear, is something to savour, now more than ever.

October 2001

back to Breaking News! »