CABR rattling just a smoke screen

The Sudbury Star
Mon 31 May 2004

To the Editor:

Re: Smoke Gets in Our Eyes -- May 10.

The claims made by the Sudbury group Citizens Advocating for Bylaw Reform (CABR) on the economic impact of the city's smoke-free bylaw is not new and obscures the reason why the bylaw was passed in the first place.

As a veteran of smoke-free bylaw debates in dozens of municipalities everywhere in Ontario, I can attest to the fact that in no municipal debate has any bar owner or group of hospitality owners brought forward any objective sales tax data or audited financial statements which prove that smoke-free bylaws have been the direct cause of business losses.

In the only lawsuit for compensation launched by the hospitality industry (in the Region of Waterloo in 2000), dozens of hospitality owners came forward claiming economic damage and compensation from the region's 100-per-cent smoke-free bar and restaurant bylaw, but not one was able to produce any such data.

Studies of Ottawa's smoke-free bar and restaurant bylaw by KPMG and the Ontario Tobacco Research Unit at the University of Toronto (2003) confirmed the same conclusions -- there is no net negative economic impact for smoke-free policies.

In fact, in the two years following Ottawa's implementation, over 180 new bars, restaurants and fast food outlets opened in Ottawa.

Any honest proprietor will tell you there are openings and closings for a variety of reasons: poor management, poor location, external factors such as changing consumer behaviour, larger business competition, decreased tourism traffic due to unanticipated events such as the SARS outbreak, fear over 9/11-type terrorism, job losses and strikes in other industries (such as the Inco Ltd. strike), etc.

It cannot be assumed that people who smoke organize their entire social lives around their ability to smoke. While there may be some patrons who decide to stay home, many will come back because the local bar or pub is the centre of a social life which involves a lot more than smoking.

Perhaps the most important issue in all this is that those who support smoking as the foundation of their business are placing their future prospects in the hands of a declining client base: daily smoking rates in Ontario adults were 27 per cent in 1995, versus 18 per cent today.

A business plan predicated on a client population which is rapidly shrinking, would seem to be a poor business plan indeed.

Michael Perley
Toronto

Michael Perley is the director of the Ontario Campaign for Action on Tobacco.