Yukon North Of Ordinary

News archive for November 3, 2009

City could repeal its smoking bylaw

Four years after a city bylaw banned smoking in all public places,

By Stephanie Waddell on November 3, 2009 at 4:12 pm

Four years after a city bylaw banned smoking in all public places, officials are calling on council to repeal the bylaw surrounding the prohibition.

Bylaw manager John Taylor made the recommendation to council at its meeting Monday evening in light of the territory-wide 2008 Smoke Free Places Act. That legislation bans smoking in all public places throughout the territory.

As Taylor explained to council, there’s confusion among residents about whether they call territorial or municipal officials when they see someone breaching the law.

Repealing the city’s law would put it entirely in the territory’s hands.

“The only role that we might play is if someone phoned in with a complaint, we will take the information and then forward it back to the Yukon territorial government, just so that the citizens of Whitehorse aren’t going to be shuffled (around),” Taylor said.

He made that comment after Coun. Doug Graham asked whether there would be any expectation by the territory for the city to deal with complaints.

While the Yukon government hired an enforcement officer for the smoking ban last year, Taylor said he understands the various territorial departments are also working out memorandums of understanding on reporting.

There are few differences between the city bylaw and the territory-wide ban, with the exception of the Yukon legislation requiring those smoking to stand a greater distance than the city did from doorways.

Though repealing the bylaw may help prevent confusion over which government has jurisdiction, at least one councillor has his doubts about doing away with the bylaw.

“Although it’s always nice to upload something to the government and I can understand what we’re doing, but I am a little afraid that, you know; their enforcement will be very, very light,” Coun. Dave Stockdale said. The territory is responsible for many communities rather than just the city, he noted.

Coun. Florence Roberts voiced similar concerns, noting her “suspicions” the territory’s enforcement won’t be half as much as the city’s was.

Stockdale asked what role the city would play if the bylaw was repealed.

Outside of passing on the information to the territory, Taylor said, city staff could end up becoming a witness in any court cases on the matter if they were involved, but enforcement would be left up to the territory.

Coun. Ranj Pillai also argued the city should consider discussing the possibility of liquor inspectors taking on enforcement duties around the legislation, an issue Taylor said he will pass on to territorial officials.

The city’s smoking bylaw came into effect on Jan. 1, 2004, with the exception of bars, which took effect on Jan. 1, 2005.

The city’s law was met with extensive opposition from smokers in the community, along with a number of court challenges to the bylaw.

Council will vote on whether to repeal its bylaw next week.

Coun. Dave Austin was absent from Monday’s meeting.

CommentsAdd a comment

Aubin Mitchell

Nov 3, 2009 at 5:58 pm

lol dave austin absent already….

anywhoo, leave the bylaw in place, worry about bigger and better things

Thomas Laprade

Nov 4, 2009 at 7:22 pm

The right to a smokeless environment.


I believe that non-smokers, like anyone else, have this right. But how far
does that right extend?

Should it take priority over someone
else’s rights? Court houses, publicly owned
buildings and anywhere else an individual might be forced to
go should properly be included in any smoking law. What
should not be included are places located in or on private
property, providing an individual is not compelled by
necessity or law, to frequent or work at that specific location.

Thomas Laprade
480 Rupert St.
Thunder Bay, Ont.
Ph. 807 3457258

Thomas Laprade

Nov 4, 2009 at 7:47 pm

The right to a smokeless environment.


I believe that non-smokers, like anyone else, have this right. But how far
does that right extend?

Should it take priority over someone
else’s rights?  Airplanes, court houses, publicly owned
buildings and anywhere else an individual might be forced to
go should properly be included in any smoking law. What
should not be included are places located in or on private
property, providing an individual is not compelled by
necessity or law, to frequent or work at that specific location.

Thomas Laprade
480 Rupert St.
Thunder Bay, Ont.
Ph. 807 3457258

Steve Hartwell

Nov 4, 2009 at 10:15 pm

We were in Whitehorse in May 2006. We asked quite a few main street store owners and some resident shoppers where the Yukon gov’t building was, which we had to find ourselves, 3 streets over, because, Nobody knew where it was. One guy said - is that the place where a bunch of bums claim to go every day and talk and fight a lot about nothing and never get anything done…..to which others said - oh THAT place ! Whiteshorse is actually a very beautiful capital town, sorta like Collingwood, Ontario, only way WAY better. Yukon, and NWT are so bizarre to have smoking bans, where one can drive for days and never even see another person or car, especially considering that Second Hand Tobacco Smoke is NOT a Statistically Significant Health Risk to others. Whereas, politicians most definitely are. It’s politicians that need banning, not second hand tobacco smoke.

Add a comment

In order to encourage thoughtful and responsible discussion, comments will not be visible until a moderator approves them. Please add comments judiciously and refrain from maligning any individual or institution. Read about our user comment and privacy policies.

Your full name and email address are required before your comment will be posted.

Commenting is not available in this section entry.

Comment preview