Skip to content

Council eyes tighter smoking restrictions

An updated smoking bylaw in St. Albert could make it more difficult to have a cigarette in public spaces, and could include certain prohibitions on electronic smoking devices.
LIGHTING UP – A new smoking bylaw coming to council Feb. 27 could make it more difficult for residents to smoke or vape in public spaces.
LIGHTING UP – A new smoking bylaw coming to council Feb. 27 could make it more difficult for residents to smoke or vape in public spaces.

An updated smoking bylaw in St. Albert could make it more difficult to have a cigarette in public spaces, and could include certain prohibitions on electronic smoking devices.

Gene Klenke and Jessy Inkpen, solicitors with the city’s legal department, presented council with an interim update Jan. 9 about updates being considered to the city’s smoking bylaw.

Although some councillors expressed concerns about some of the proposed restrictions, they unanimously approved having the bylaw come to council next month for debate.

There are six broad changes being proposed, including adding prohibitions for electronic smoking devices, which are used for vaping; and prohibiting smoking within five metres of any public outdoor recreation facilities.

Coun. Cathy Heron said she has read mixed reports on the health implications of second-hand vapour from electronic cigarettes, and questioned whether it was appropriate to restrict their use.

Inkpen said the city is essentially following the lead of larger municipalities like Edmonton, Calgary and Red Deer, which have all restricted the use of electronic cigarettes.

“We seem to kind of be taking the path that it’s easier to prevent any issues that may happen as opposed to chasing it down after the fact, especially since we’re not the trailblazers in this instance,” she said.

Other councillors expressed concern about how increasing restrictions would impact residents who want to smoke in public places. Coun. Sheena Hughes said while she’s not a smoker, she’s concerned about the rights of those residents to light up in the city.

“It’s not about my rights, it’s just about general rights and whether or not we’re pushing the bar too far,” she said.

Coun. Cam MacKay said prohibiting smoking on trails and parks might be overly restrictive, as the same reasoning could apply to prohibiting smoking on sidewalks, roads or any public space.

“I don’t want to get to a place in time where you can’t smoke outside,” he said. “I think it would be difficult for us to enforce, and difficult for residents to accept.”

He said while he knows it’s not socially acceptable, he’s cautious about the idea of council imposing morality on residents as that shouldn’t be council’s role.

“When it comes back (to council) I’m going to do some real hard thinking of this idea of park space, and whether you can smoke in there,” MacKay said.

Other changes being proposed would bring the municipal bylaw in line with provincial legislation.

Inkpen explained the city’s smoking bylaw came into effect in 2004, and hasn’t been updated since then. In reviewing how to modernize the bylaw, she said administration considered the provincial legislation as well as what other municipalities have been doing.

There are some cases in which the city’s bylaw is in disagreement with provincial legislation, although the provincial legislation does state that in such a case the more restrictive legislation would apply.

“There are a couple of sections in our current bylaw that are offside of provincial legislation,” she said. “It would be nice to bring our bylaw into the current state of affairs.”

Councillors voted 6-0 to direct administration to bring the bylaw before council for first reading Feb. 27, and to hold a public hearing on the issue prior to second reading of the bylaw.

Coun. Tim Osborne recused himself from the discussion and vote, saying he had begun working with Alberta Health Addictions and Mental Health Services in December.

He explained to the Gazette that department works on smoking legislation, and while it may be “overly cautious” he wanted to ensure there was no perception of a conflict or pecuniary interest.

push icon
Be the first to read breaking stories. Enable push notifications on your device. Disable anytime.
No thanks