Understanding the Policy Process at the Local Level: The Role of Issue Framing in
Environmental Tobacco Smoke Bylaw Development in the Region of Waterloo
H..Sharon Campbell(1,3) ,Sandra Burt(2), Candace Nykiforuk(3), Linda Mayhew(1), and Beth
Kawash(1) Departments: (1)Centre for Behavioural Research and Program Evaluation,(2)Political
Science, (3)Health Studies and Gerontology, University of Waterloo
May 2003
paper prepared for presentation at the Annual Meetings of the Canadian Political Science
Association, Halifax, Nova Scotia, June 2003
Note: This study was supported with a research grant from the National Cancer Institute of
Canada with funds from Canadian Cancer Society
1
INTRODUCTION
In 1996 the Region of Waterloo enacted a two-staged bylaw to control environmental tobacco
smoke (ETS) in public places. The first stage was implemented immediately, and imposed a 50%
non-smoking rule for restaurants and eating establishments, and a 25% rule for places of
amusement, public facilities and bingo halls. In that first stage, bars were exempt from the nonsmoking requirements. The second stage came into effect on January 1, 2000. Following some
amendments to the original bylaw, this second stage required that all public places within the
region must be smoke free, with no exemptions.
These events in Waterloo were observed closely by a multidisciplinary group1 of
researchers interested in analysing the Canadian process of tobacco control policy development.
The group was seeking to build on an earlier analysis of tobacco control policy in Alberta
(Gibbins et al. 1999) and develop an explanatory model of tobacco control policies in Ontario.
The Region of Waterloo was selected as the pilot study, and as the focus for this case analysis.
1
The grant applicants included Sharon Campbell, Roger Gibbins, Roberta Ferrence,
Joanna Cohen, Sandra Burt, and Candace Nykiforuk
2
Our aims in this case study are threefold. In the first instance, we want to describe the
Region of Waterloo process as accurately as possible, so that the story of ETS bylaw development
in Ontario can become part of the collective knowledge on tobacco control2. In addition we hope
to develop an explanatory model that can be applied to other communities. In our larger study we
are visiting an additional nine communities in Ontario that are in the process of considering or
have just adopted ETS bylaws. Thirdly, we hope to contribute to the policy literature by applying
it to an analysis of policy-making at the municipal level. To date, most policy analysis in Canada
has been focussed on the national or provincial levels.
ANALYSIS FRAMEWORKS
Policy analysis has become much more sophisticated since researchers first presented what
become known as the policy cycle or stagist model in the 1960's (Rose 1973; Mack 1971). The
policy cycle model divides the policy process into phases or cycles, beginning with agenda-setting
and ending with evaluation. Critics of this model (Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith 1993) have argued
that such a model is much too simplistic, that the real world of policy-making is rarely as rational
as this model suggests. In addition, they suggest that it is atheoretical, ignoring for example the
forces that move a problem onto the political agenda, in the first place, and then from one stage to
another once it has become a matter of policy debate. Perhaps the strongest criticism, however, is
that the stagist model fails to take into account the activities and influence of non-governmental
actors, who usually continue to exert an influence on a problem after it has moved on to a
government=s agenda.
2
Other summaries of the process are now available. Health Canada has prepared a
document, ASmoke-Free Public Places: You Can Get There@, which can be ordered through
3
www.gosmokefree.ca.
4
Nevertheless, the concept of a policy cycle continues to inform analysis, at least at the
general level of serving as an organizing tool. There are some good reasons why it should be used,
at least in the preliminary stages of a policy study. The concept of a cycle is inclusive to the extent
that it reminds researchers to look at both the front and back ends of the policy process. And as
long as researchers recognize that movement on the cycle can be in both directions, and that the
cycle is not closed to advocates who are not themselves policy-makers, it has heuristic value. For
this analysis of the ETS bylaw in the Region of Waterloo, we use the concept of the policy cycle
as an organizing tool, and as a stepping off ground for developing an explanatory model of
municipal decision-making. In particular, we turn to the agenda-setting stage of the cycle, and
investigate ways in which the definition of the issue or the problem has an impact on the later
stages.
Indeed, it was an interest in the relationship between problem framing and policy
outcomes that first informed the larger research undertaking of which the Waterloo Region case
study reported here is the pilot project. There is growing evidence in the policy literature that
policy framing is an important predictor of policy outcome (Bacchi 1999). In their Alberta
comparative study of ETS bylaw development of two towns in rural Alberta (Gibbins et al 1999)
Sharon Campbell and Roger Gibbins observed that issue framing explained some of the difference
in how ETS bylaws were handled by two town councils, in the communities of Innisfail and Olds.
In Innisfail, ETS was framed as a health issue, but Council defeated a proposed bylaw on the
grounds that health is a provincial rather than municipal responsibility. In Olds, ETS was framed
as a youth issue, and the council was quick to pass a bylaw to make the local recreation facility
smoke free. Framing has been noted as significant by other tobacco researchers as well (Sato
5
1999; Nathanson 1999; Klink et al. 1999). With a view to this extensive literature, our initial
research question focussed on how the framing of tobacco control policy initiatives affects
decision-making at the local level. We wanted to understand the relationship between problem
framing and problem solving in the area of environmental tobacco smoke.
However, in spite of its explanatory power, issue framing has more to do with the shape
of the outcome than with the decision to take action. As Carol Bacchi notes, Awe need to realize
that interpretations are interventions since they have programmatic outcomes; that the
interpretation offered will line up with particular policy recommendations@(1999, p.1) In other
words, framing ETS as a youth issue may limit the policy discourse to public spaces frequented by
young people. But we still need to understand why one particular frame becomes dominant in a
community, as well as why a local council might feel the need to take any action on the issue. For
help on these questions we turned to the policy network literature.
The concept of the policy network is based on the proposition that some but not all
stakeholders may become part of the decision-making process, in a more direct way than
predicted by pressure pluralists, who assume that stakeholders are more or less equal in terms of
resources and access. In contrast, the policy network approach is based on the proposition that the
patterns of interaction and resource exchange among interests (both inside and outside of
government) involved in any issue or cluster of issues must become part of the research agenda.
These patterns cannot simply be taken for granted (as they are in the pluralist model of decisionmaking). The expectation is that these patterns will have some explanatory value; i.e., that they
will be key independent variables that can be used to explain policy outcomes. The expectation is
that differences in policy networks will affect outcomes. As Wayne Parsons (1995) notes, Athe
6
metaphor of a network or community seeks to focus on the pattern of formal and informal
contacts and relationships which shape policy agendas and decision-making as opposed to the
interplay within and between the formal policy-making organizations and institutions@ (p. 185).
Those who have used the network approach note the significance of both structures and
agents. In their early work David Marsh and Rod Rhodes (1992) focus on the structural links
among actors, and conclude that Athe existence of a tight policy network constrains the policy
agenda and tends to result in policy continuity@ (Marsh 1998, p. 11). A competing view is based
on the observation that the patterns of resource exchange are at least as important as the structural
relationships among policy actors. In their work, S. Wilks and M. Wright (1988) stress the
significance of the inter-personal dimensions of networks. In this view, it is the patterns of
interaction and resource exchange among actors that affect outcomes.
The most developed network frameworks are those that focus on structural arrangements.
Marsh and Rhodes (1992) propose that there is a network continuum ranging from issue networks
to policy communities. Issue networks are loosely structured, with many members and lots of
movement in and out. In addition, they have little continuity in membership, values and
outcomes. Policy communities, at the other end of the continuum, are tight networks with few
members. They are characterized by continuity in membership, shared values, and outcomes.
Leslie Pal (1992) builds on this distinction to develop a typology of policy networks (see Figure
One)
Figure One
pressure pluralist network
State agency is autonomous; associational system is
dispersed and weak. Many groups compete for state
agency=s attention. Groups advocate policies rather
7
than participate in decision-making
clientele pluralist network
State agencies are both weak and dispersed, as are
associational systems. Agencies rely on associations
for information and support and allow them to
participate in policy-making.
corporatist network
State agency is strong and autonomous; associational
system comprises a few large and powerful groups,
usually representing consumer and producer
interests. Groups and agency both participate in
policy formulation and implementation.
concertation network
State agency is strong and autonomous; associational
system is dominated by one organization that
represents it. Agency and organization are equal
partners in long-term planning and policy-making.
state-directed network
State agency is strong and autonomous; associational system
is weak and dispersed. State dominates policy sector
and associational system.
Source: Pal 1992, p. 112
_________________________________________________________________
We recognize the limitations of the network approach. It is most frequently criticized for
failing to explain policy (Dowding 1995). In addition, for the most part it has been used at the
national and sub-national levels of analysis, while our project is focussed at the municipal level.
In Canada, this means that policy-makers are working outside formal party lines. As a result,
locally there is more opportunity for individual or group interests to have an impact on individual
decision makers than is possible at the federal or provincial levels of government, where party
discipline predominates. At the local level, the normal rules of parliamentary behaviour do not
apply, and councillors are free to make decisions Aon the basis of their conscience.@
In addition, in network theorizing, the conflict between the structural and the interpersonal
8
aspects of analysis has not yet been resolved. And in the context of this research project, current
network theory does not take sufficient notice of the ideological and policy implications of the
framing of the problem at the agenda-setting stage. In this case study we attempt to address these
limitations and propose a more textured framework for network analysis. We propose that the
analysis we undertake case in the Region of Waterloo can offer some suggestions for improving
the explanatory potential of network analysis. Specifically, we argue for integrating network
analysis with a consideration of the structural and cultural context of the case, as well as the
emergence of dominant issue frames. With these modifications, the explanatory potential of
network analysis is greatly enhanced.
METHOD OF ANALYSIS
In 1999 we began the project by carrying out a document analysis (that continued until early 2001)
of the Region of Waterloo case study. On the basis of the information we collected from the
documents, as well as on the recommendations of the interviewees, we selected the names of 18
key actors in the bylaw development process. Between December 2001 and June 2002 we
conducted semi-structured interviews with these stakeholders and policy makers. We interviewed
5 councillors, 4 members of the Community Health Department, 4 proponents, and 5 opponents
(two of whom were interviewed together in one session). Each of these interviews was taped and
then transcribed. We set three objectives for the analysis of the material collected:
$ identify types of frames introduced during the ETS process
$ determine how different frames affect policy-maker decisions
$ explore the interplay of variables that may affect the bylaw process; i.e., issue network; social
and political environments; as well as the strategies and resources used by stakeholders
We recognized early on in the process that issue framing interacts with at least four other
9
variables:
$the strategies used by opponents and proponents
$the resources available to all involved
$the social and political environment
$networking among stakeholders and decision-makers
In the summer of 2002 we hired two researchers to carry out the analysis of the interviews.
In addition, we hired a student researcher to coordinate the collection of data and to set up the
interviews, most of which have been carried out by one interviewer.
THE WATERLOO REGION CONTEXT
The development of a policy network takes place within the specific context of the issue being
examined. The local culture of the area may be significant, since local customs often affect local
behaviours. Context may be of additional importance in the local government arena, where policymakers may change every two years, and where the rules of council behaviour are much less rigid
than at provincial or federal policy-making arenas.
Waterloo Region has a population of more than 450,000, including three cities and four
rural municipalities. There are two universities in Waterloo, and at one of the two universities
there is a research institute that focuses on health issues, including tobacco use. In the interviews,
several respondents (on both sides of the issue) noted the easy access of proponents to research
data and analysis on ETS at the University of Waterloo. One respondent suggested that the
academic links of one of the leading proponents of a bylaw added some credibility to that side.
At the same time, there was a history in the Region of business-government interaction.
Some of the councillors were running establishments that would be affected by an ETS bylaw.
One of the most vocal opponents of a bylaw was a councillor who also owned a bar. On his
10
initiative, several councillors attended a catering exhibition where ventilation systems were on
display. One member of the Health Department discussed the close relationship between
businesses and councillors in the seven townships.
Some respondents noted that the time was right for an ETS initiative in the Region, given
its socioeconomic makeup. One councillor remarked:
At the end of the day, what it came down to is, I think, that there is a substantial enough
proportion of the middle class who hate smoking, don=t want to smoke, who are reformed
smokers and just want to get rid of this scourge in society.
Others put the fortuitous timing in a somewhat different context. One member of the Health
Department referred to the early 1990s as a time of health activism. It was the era of the Anew
public health@, and Afor some of us who entered [the health field] in that era, it became much
more of a call to activism than a professional job.@ It was particularly clear as well, from the
document review, that some of the councillors who were proponents of a tough ETS bylaw were
thinking about Waterloo Region=s role as a groundbreaker in this area.
Certainly the provincial government was pushing for some local action. Each health unit
in the province was required to carry out a minimum level of activities related to tobacco (what
was known as the Atobacco standard@). Those activities included policy work around tobacco.
At about the same time, the provincial government passed enabling legislation, to permit regions
to pass bylaws. So there were several developments in the early 1990s that worked in the favour
of an ETS bylaw.
The Region of Waterloo includes seven municipalities, three of which are cities
(Kitchener, Waterloo and Cambridge), and four of which are rural townships. When the bylaw
process began, the regional council was elected indirectly, from the lower tier levels. Since 2000
11
the regional council (with 21 councillors) has been elected directly. The Regional Council is also
the Board of Health in Waterloo Region, and that proved to be significant in the development of
the ETS bylaw. As one councillor noted, A in some municipalities where the public health board
is separate, the council doesn=t feel quite the degree of obligation to public health issues as this
council may have. So in some municipalities I have watched, I have seen that divide and although
they may be sympathetic, they are not quite as strong because they aren=t the board of health and
so they see themselves as the arbiter between the board of health here and the other position over
here.@
Throughout the bylaw development process (from 1994 to 2000) the same person sat as
regional chair, a person who supported in principle the idea of a bylaw restricting ETS. One
proponent noted that Athere was a lot of support [for an ETS bylaw] and it went all the way up
through the layers of the region. The regional chairman said he was strongly in support of this.@
The Region=s Health Unit was well structured to participate in the bylaw development
process. The Community Health Department of the Health Unit includes a Heart Health and
Cancer program. There is as well a Director of Environmental Health. While the Medical Officer
of Health changed between 1993 and 2000, both incumbents were active supporters of an ETS
bylaw. There were provisions within the terms of reference of the Community Health Department
for personnel to devote much of their time to the development of an ETS bylaw. The first Chair
of the regional Bylaw Development Committee was a Community Health Department staff
member and her duties as Chair were seen to be part of her responsibilities within the Health Unit.
THE EVENTS
12
In the early stages of the bylaw development process, there was a multi-pronged process on the
proponent side of the issue at work. In 1989 the provincial Ministry of Health had mandated that
all community health departments should provide tobacco programming as part of their Health
Promotion Standards. According to at least one respondent, the province wanted to enact
restrictions on smoking in workplaces (although this legislation has not yet been developed).
At about the same time a lobby initiative was gaining force. Michael Perley, director of
the Ontario Campaign for Action on Tobacco, was actively promoting the idea that municipalities
should develop bylaws to restrict smoking indoor places. Within Waterloo Region, the Council for
a Tobacco Free Waterloo(CTFWR) was in place in the early 1990s, but not yet capable of
mounting an effective lobbying strategy. It was a fairly small group, and according to one
respondent, seemed to be at a standstill. Then in 1990, a representative of the region=s Health
Unit attended a Committee for a Tobacco Free Waterloo Region meeting. Although there were
only four or five people present at that meeting, it was nevertheless the starting point for a
growing alliance between the Health Unit and the Council for a Tobacco-Free Waterloo Region.
The Council for a Tobacco-Free Waterloo Region and the Community Health Department
decided to promote the idea of municipal ETS bylaws. Since the Community Health Department
is a department of the Regional government, and the entire region is included in its jurisdiction,
the Community Health Department wanted all municipalities to pass the same bylaw. The
Community Health Department saw its role as facilitating the development of municipal bylaws,
and approached one of the Kitchener councillors who was aware of the health concerns around
ETS to present a motion at Kitchener City Council for a bylaw review committee. A second
Kitchener councillor, who was supportive but not as vocal reported that personal experience with
13
tobacco illness led him to vote for the motion. He was attributed by other participants with raising
the tobacco bylaw issue to the higher political level.
Kitchener Council Aacted on this@ motion, and began the process of developing a smoking
bylaw. From the outset, Kitchener consulted with Cambridge and Waterloo because of its concern
with maintaining a Alevel playing field@ for local businesses. It feared that there would be serious
economic consequences for Kitchener businesses if the bylaw was restricted to the city. Regional
Council also became involved at this point. But when Regional Council determined that, as an
upper tier municipality, it did not have the jurisdiction to pass such a bylaw, it began to consider
ways to facilitate the development of common bylaws at the local level. On April 15, 1993,
Waterloo Regional Council established the Bylaw Advisory Committee as an ad hoc committee of
the Health and Social Service Committee of Waterloo Regional Council to investigate this
possibility.
i)The Bylaw Development Process
We have prepared a flow chart that summarizes the developments following the 1993 decision to
create the advisory committee (see Figure Two).The Bylaw Advisory Committee had broad
representation - from the hospitality industry, the Community Health Department, the Council for
a Tobacco-Free Waterloo Region, as well as all municipal councils that were willing to participate
Abecause it is in our political culture to listen to everyone@ (regional councillor). However, three
of the four rural municipalities did not send representatives, in spite of a CTFWR-organized
educational campaign to convince them of the importance of ETS bylaws in addressing health
concerns and youth smoking. A member of the Community Health Department chaired the
committee.
14
The Bylaw Advisory Committee considered other draft bylaws and through the CTFWR,
collected information on other jurisdictions and approaches. It also sought public input through
consultation, surveys and presentations to the Health and Social Services Committee. In most
cases those presentations focused on the health effects of ETS and the possible business impact of
an ETS bylaw. The Committee was working with a phased-in bylaw proposal, and this may have
worked in favour of the proponents. One councillor observed that there wasn=t a lot of public
input at this early stage, because Apeople don=t pay attention when [ the bylaw] Ais in the future@.
The hospitality representative on the Bylaw Advisory Committee agreed, arguing that a phased-in
approach was acceptable because it would give the industry time to assess developments in other
Figure Two here.
15
communities.
The consensus process worked well, up to the time when the Bylaw Advisory Committee
tried to draft a bylaw .In April 1994 a draft was prepared, but without the support of all the
members. This initial draft recommended a phased-in approach, beginning with 50% smoke-free
for restaurants, and then moving to 100% by 2000. Bars would move from 25% to 50%, and other
public places such as bingo halls would remain at 25%. However, the municipalities couldn=t
agree on this proposal. By this point, the Municipal Act had been changed (in 1994) to allow
Regional Councils to pass bylaws.
Consequently, the Region assumed leadership on the issue, in
an effort to avoid uneven smoking rules throughout the region. Between 1994 and 1996 additional
consultations and meeting were held.
ii) January 1996 to October 1996: The Public Consultation and Regional Council Process
The Bylaw Review Committee held its final meeting on January 31 1996. Then in April 1996, the
Health and Social Services Committee of the Region held a public meeting to discuss the draft
bylaw. The discussion at that meeting prompted them to discuss further strengthening the bylaw.
Subsequently, some bar owners were upset, and argued that they would lose their business. Many
opponents appeared to view proponents as the Apublic enemy@. Nevertheless, the level playing field
argument was used against the opponents by the Regional Chair to strengthen the bylaw, arguing
that all public places, including bars, should be 100% smoke free by 2000.
In May and June 1996 respectively, the draft bylaw was changed slightly to permit
exemptions for hardship and cultural events. The bylaw was then sent to the municipalities for
review over the summer, with the cities of Cambridge, Waterloo and Kitchener and the
municipalities of North Dumphries, Wilmot, and Woolwich all indicating their support. Only the
16
municipality of Wellesley rejected the bylaw, recommending that changes be made to allow
designated smoking rooms. Regional council met in September, and voted 22 to 1 in favour of the
bylaw without further changes.
iii) Implementation of Stage One
In the subsequent years of the process, the bylaw became even tougher than in its early iteration. In
April 1997, the first bylaw exemption was granted to a food court operator by Regional Council.
Then in July 1997, the Regional Chair sponsored a successful motion that food courts should not be
eligible for exemptions. In April 1998, the Community Health Department submitted a 5 page list
of recommended changes to the bylaw, mainly concerning definitions and signage, Included in the
list was the recommendation that bingo halls be required to go 100% smoke free. Council accepted
these recommendations.
In preparation for upcoming implementation of 100%, proponents directed education
campaigns at food establishments and the public and carried out spot checks on bars and restaurants
for compliance. When they learned that the province was mounting a grant program , they prepared
a grant application to obtain funds for implementation.
iv) Summer 1999 to December 31, 1999: Preparation for 100% Implementation
Once they realized that the bylaw would be enacted, the opponents began to come forward to
Regional Council, voicing their concerns. By then, the proponents had received a $250,000
provincial grant, and used this money to keep the focus on health.
v) January 1, 2000 to Present: Implementation of the 100% Ban
The opponents argued that the economic impact of the bylaw would be crippling. They decided to
17
try to convince Regional Council to rewrite or remove the bylaw. The opponents hired a lawyer from
Hamilton to launch a law suit against the Region. That lawsuit was unsuccessful, and also led to
disagreements among some opponents who were now facing additional legals costs, and undecided
about effective strategies. The proponents remained committed to the bylaw, and focused their
energies of implementation. They checked bars and restaurants for compliance. In response to
intimidation tactics by some opponents, the bylaw enforcement officers had police protection.
Regional Council amended the bylaw, to give Council the power to charge bar owners who did not
comply. In other words, owners became responsible for enforcement. In this same period, a major
annual entertainment event in the Region, Oktoberfest, voluntarily agreed to be smoke-free,
although it could have applied for an exemption. This served to strengthen the argument for a
tough ETS bylaw.
ANALYSIS OF THE OUTCOME
The Waterloo Region ETS bylaw, as it evolved, became an increasingly tough one that set a new
standard for the control of environmental tobacco smoke in the province. On the basis of our
document analysis and interview results, we concluded that the explanation for this pro-ETS
control outcome is multi-pronged. In particular, the three explanatory variables we identified from
the literature: issue initiation; issue framing; and networking, stood out as significant. But it is also
important to note that, woven into the explanatory capabilities of these three variables are
additional variables that are not always noted in the policy literature, and that may be specific to
municipal policy development. These additional variables include the local political culture,
structural factors, availability of resources, the strategies used by both sides in the conflict, as well
as the role of significant individuals on both sides of the issue.
18
i) Issue Initiation
In Waterloo Region, the decision by Council to pass a tough ETS bylaw was due in part to the fact
that, from the outset, councillors retained ownership of the issue. The proposal for a bylaw was
initiated at several levels, but always within the council framework. The decision of a Kitchener
councillor to introduce the issue at a Kitchener council meeting had long-term significance, for it
allowed that and other councils to identify the issue of ETS control as a council initiative. Some
councillors reported that they had been exposed to information about ETS for years. And while
some believed that the figures could be used to support either side on the issue, they voted for a
bylaw because Ait was better to have one than not have one.@ Although the lobby group, the
Council for a Tobacco-Free Waterloo Region was clearly involved in the issue in these early days,
the group was small, and working in the background.
At the next stage, when the issue was introduced at Regional Council, it remained an insider
initiative, since it was in response to the developments within Kitchener council. Key individuals
were significant at this point. The Chair of Regional Council supported a 100% ban, and his
involvement helped Regional Council to remain in control of the issue throughout the subsequent
proceedings. The Medical Officer of Health at the time was well liked by most councillors, and he
too was a proponent of a 100% ban. His role brought him into the insider circle of policy-making
within the Region. In addition, his department was seen to be credible, and his Health Promotion
Officer was providing both encouragement and information in support of an ETS bylaw.
Since structurally the Regional Council of Waterloo is also the Board of Health, the
enthusiastic support of key people within the Community Health Department was reinforcing, and
fit within the context of a council with the structural right as well the administrative responsibility
19
to develop a policy on ETS in public places within the region. From both the document review and
the interviews we were able to conclude that, at this early stage, the ETS bylaw was constructed as
a Kitchener/Regional Council initiative. As the issue moved through the policy cycle at the regional
level, the Community Health Department continued to act as a key resource for councillors
involved in the issue. Health Department employees made sure that councillors always had the
latest information on the health risks of ETS, as well as of the economic impact of ETS bylaws.
They attached information to Regional Council reports, so that councillors were able to maintain
their ownership of the issue, and provide information to their constituents. One respondent stressed
that the Community Health Department made sure that councillors could feel that they were Ain the
know@ about tobacco.
ii) Framing the Issue
The Aproblem@ or issue of environmental tobacco smoke can be framed in many different ways.
Generally, those who support a tough bylaw that restricts ETS in public places see the issue as one
of protecting non-smokers and promoting healthy lifestyles. There are several variations on the
theme. For some proponents of a tough ETS bylaw, their first concern is for young children who
are in a very weak position to defend themselves from ETS, and who, they argue, may be exposed
to unhealthy role models in public spaces. For other proponents, it is more generally an issue of
worker safety.
Opponents tend to frame the issue as one of rights or individual freedoms. Some opponents
suggest that since smoking is legal, restricting smoking in public spaces is both inconsistent with
the legal framework, and also unreasonable. Other opponents focus on the economic rights of
business owners who rely on smokers for their livelihood and who, it is feared, would go out of
20
business in a community where smoking in public places is not permitted. They talk as well about
the need for a level playing field. They argue that since smoking in public may be permitted in
neighbouring communities, it is unfair to make it illegal in others. Another variation on the rights
theme sees the issue as one of infringing on individual choice.
In Waterloo Region, the health frame predominated from the very beginning. In addition,
as noted above, this health frame was introduced early on in the process by the policy-makers
themselves, an important variable in the policy-making process. The Community Health
Department also highlighted the health frame in its work. It focussed on individual health issues,
as well as the protection of children. It also tried to use the economic argument as part of its
campaign, noting the economic benefits of a no-smoking bylaw for the community While the
Community Health Department, by virtue of its position within the local administrative structure,
could not be seen to be lobbying Regional Council, it was within its mandate to provide
information to councillors about the health hazards of ETS. Members of the department linked the
issues of ETS and children=s health, and argued that Aunless [we] restrict smoking where children
are@ the bylaw won=t have the desired health impact.
The significance of the health frame was reinforced by the structuring of the Bylaw
Advisory Committee, which reported to the Regional Health and Social Services Committee. The
Bylaw Advisory Committee worked by consensus, and health was the predominant frame for all
participants. Even the level playing field frame, which has sometimes been used by opponents to
support their economic rights argument, was subsumed under the health umbrella, and used to
promote a region-wide bylaw. According to one committee member, Aacross the board the Bylaw
Advisory Committee wanted to do right thing and be fair, protect people=s health, children and
21
adults as well. We wanted to do something that was going to level the playing field from a
business standpoint.@ Even the hospitality industry representative recognized that smoking was
not a healthy thing, and rather than argue against a bylaw, emphasized the need to educate people to
do the right thing, as well as the need for everyone to have some input in the process. The
restaurant owner who came to the first meeting of the Bylaw Advisory Committee conceded that
ALook, restaurants in Ontario know this is the thin edge of the wedge and we know this is where
it=s going and the smart ones are anticipating it and we are going to come out ahead.@.
Since health was the predominant frame, it was relatively easy for the members of the
Bylaw Advisory Committee to argue for a tough bylaw, and to reject the option of separate
ventilation areas, or giving restaurants and bars the right to opt out. But other factors also
contributed to the shape of the bylaw. The Community Health Department was able to produce
research reports that indicated that separate ventilation areas are inefficient. The argument was also
raised that staff would still be required to go into the smoking area (and this was acknowledged by
all as a legitimate argument). There was bylaw momentum on the committee, so that even the
representative from the Ontario Hotel and Restaurant Association was looking for ways to leave
with the bylaw, rather than defeat it outright. She too argued against separately ventilated areas,
since not all owner could afford to instal them, and they would contribute to an unlevel playing
field.
Throughout the process, the proponents were never adversarial, kept their message consistent
and strong and clear and were always where they needed to be when it came to decision making.
They made sure that they had solid evidence to maintain credibility, and remained polite and
considerate. Some councillors indicated that this was consistent with the general culture of council
22
proceedings.
The access to resources was important for the framing process. Over time (1992 - 2000) the
proponents were able to put forward to council a convincing number of peer-reviewed studies that
supported the connection between ETS and health. In January 1996, provincial funding for Project
Air Control, a Council for a Tobacco-Free Waterloo Region initiative, was announced. This funding
made it possible for the allowing the Council to bring young proponents of a bylaw to municipal and
regional council meetings to advocate for the bylaw . As the issue evolved, the increase in the
amount and quality of this evidence made it easier for Regional Council to support a 100% ban on
ETS. One Health Department member reported for example that the American Environmental
Protection Agency report on ventilation contributed to a major change in health Department
thinking, in favour of a Aclean sweep@ [100% ban].
In addition, there was mounting evidence
that the economic impact on business was minimal. The CTFWR was very successful in collecting
information and providing solid research. It had some support from the local universities. But
even more important was its approach. The Council attended all council meetings where the bylaw
was discussed, presented information in a professional manner, and spoke as a coalition rather than
as individual members.
The opponents were therefore in the difficult position (from a policy-making perspective) of
responding to the health frame, rather than setting the tone of the bylaw debates. In addition, their
involvement was sporadic. Between 1992 and 1995 the opponents tried to shift the debate to that
of a level playing field. But as noted above, proponents were able to turn this frame on end, and
add it to their list of positive themes.
They tried to stall the bylaw process, and to turn the focus away from healthcare. They
23
argued that the bylaw would bring economic hardship to the community, and some even brought
staff to council meetings, to complain that they could lose their jobs. But they were always in the
response mode, and even resorted to arguing for a modified bylaw that would provide for separately
ventilated areas. However, their efforts to shift the dominant frame were never successful. This was
due in part to their argument strategy. They were sometimes perceived as became rude and
threatening, calling people names and attempting to intimidate the proponents.
Councillors reported that they were impressed by the persistence and Adogged
determination@ of the proponents, and thought the proponents were better organized and more
skillful than the opponents. Proponents were commended for their professionalism and decorum,
They were informative, respectful, and able to support their claims with evidence, something that the
councillors believed was very important. Opponents on the other hand were not seen to be as well
educated or articulate as the proponents, and did not know how to present their argument in a way
that really made an impact B their message was lost in their strategies. In the end, council took the
position that they were the Board of Health, so they had to make decisions based on what was good
for the health of the community.
iii) Networking
From the outset, health interests were closely linked through formal and informal networks. The
Waterloo Regional Community Health Department was a member of the Council for Tobacco-Free
Waterloo Region - one of several Tobacco Free Councils in the province that were active in public
education and programs to promote non-smoking. In 1990, a representative of the region=s Health
Department first attended a CTFWR meeting, and the alliance between the two organizations
strengthened over the years. The Community Health Department houses both the Heart Health and
24
Cancer Prevention Programmes, and there were connections between the people in these
Programmes and the CTFWR. Beyond the Region, the Central West Tobacco Free Councils met as
a group to share information and strategies, and were also part of the larger Council for Tobacco
Free Ontario. This latter group developed a handbook to provide community groups (and
politicians) with an easy source of information for promoting development of ETS bylaws. The
book covered health issues, the provincial Tobacco Control Act, industry strategies, liability, and
the effects of tobacco control on business. Some of the people who were later influential in the
Waterloo Region Bylaw were involved in developing this resource and according to one
respondent, a Waterloo Region politician was involved in the creation of this booklet. Strongest
connections were among some members of both local and regional councils, the Community Health
Department, and the Committee for a Tobacco Free Waterloo. One Health Department member
was the Director of Planning and Healthy Lifestyles, and also chaired the first committee formed by
Regional Council to consider a draft ETS bylaw. The Health Promotion Officer with the Region
co-chaired the bylaw review committee, and also co-chaired the CTFWR. This three-way
connection was strong and lasting throughout the bylaw development process, and helps to explain
why the health frame remained predominant.
The Community Health Department served as a key resource to Regional Council
throughout the bylaw process, ensuring that council always had the latest information on studies,
resources, economic impact, and attaching information right to council reports so that councillors
received them regularly and were prepared to talk to their constituents. The Community Health
Department gave council members information in a manner that made them feel that they were Ain
the know@ about tobacco.
25
According to the decision-makers interviewed for this study, Regional Councillors believed
the Community Health Department, the Medical Officer of Health, and the Council for a TobaccoFree Waterloo were very well versed - they had good credibility. Even those Councillors who
opposed the bylaw thought that a common bylaw for all of the Region made sense, and this in the
end helped the proponents to win their case.
The opponents on the other hand were consistently in the position of being outsiders to the
process. Although a few councillors, and one rural municipality, supported their position, they
were never able to collect a critical mass of supporters. Throughout the process they were
disorganized, and unable to speak with one voice. In addition, opponents were unable to produce
the peer- reviewed studies that councillors respected, to support their arguments of economic
hardships and a minimal health impact of ETS. They were on the defensive, since they had to
respond to the well organized collection of information produced by, in particular the CTFWR.
Their support group, the Ontario Restaurant Association, did not take an active role in the
community. In addition, it lacked credibility for some councillors, who called it a Toronto club.
In addition, there was poor communication between the business representatives on the
Bylaw Advisory Committee and the business community. The business owners whom we
interviewed claimed that they didn=t know about the Bylaw Advisory Committee until after the
fact, and were not kept informed of its proceedings. So although they were nominally represented
on this insider structure, they were too poorly organized to take advantage of this opportunity.
The issue network that emerged then on this bylaw was closed to one of concertation, if we
use the typology presented in Figure One. Regional Council was a strong, well organized council
with a clearly-established practice of co-operating with the Medical Officer of Health and the
26
Community Health Department. The overlap of personnel within the Health Department and the
Council for a Tobacco-Free Waterloo Region, combined with funding obtained from the provincial
government, put the CTFWR in a very strong position as a spokesgroup for the issue. However, the
partnership that developed was primarily between the Regional Council and the Community Health
Department, with the Council for a Tobacco-Free Waterloo participating on this particular issue.
This case study suggests that, at the local level at least, it may be necessary to redraw the typology to
take account of the particular nature of local government decision-making.
CONCLUSIONS
On their own, none of the three frameworks commonly used in policy analysis adequately explains
the decision of Waterloo Regional Council to pass a 100% no smoking bylaw that applies to all
public places. The policy cycle framework is helpful for explaining how the issue first emerged as
an agenda item for council. We know that the initiative undertaken by one Kitchener councillor,
combined with the emergence of province-wide lobbying and some initiatives from the provincial
government, brought the item to the council table. And as Cobb and Elder (1972, 12) noted over
thirty years ago, this initiation process is crucial for the subsequent policy discussions and choices,
since it determines Awhat issues and alternatives are to be considered by the policy and the
probable choices that will be made.@ In other words, this early stage of issue initiation sets the
frame within which an issue will be considered by council.
In the case of Waterloo Region, that frame was one of health, as opposed to economics or
individual rights. From the outset, councillors were asked to consider a policy that would promote
healthier living within their community. Evidence from other communities makes it clear that the
health frame facilitates the ETS policy process, since it reinforces the need to have a strong bylaw.
27
However, neither the policy cycle nor the framing literature adequately explains first, why the issue
moved from early discussions to a successful policy outcome, and second, why health remained
the predominant frame in Waterloo Region. Certainly there were many councillors, particularly in
the outlying townships, who were not convinced that an ETS bylaw was needed, or that it should
impose a 100% ban on smoking in public places. Indeed, other health issues (such as the use of
pesticides and herbicides) have been raised at council meetings, but have not yet resulted in a ban
on their use. Some analysts might argue that the scientific evidence is much stronger in the case of
the health hazards of environmental tobacco smoke. However, when the ETS bylaw was first
proposed in Waterloo Region, the scientific evidence on the hazards of ETS was somewhat weaker
than it is today.
A more likely explanation of the ETS bylaw outcome in Waterloo Region is the early
development and subsequent consolidation of an issue network among proponents that included
both outsiders and insiders in the policy process, and that interacted with the health frame to
produce a tough no-smoking bylaw. To the extent that it occurs within a generally pluralist context,
this issue network resembles the model proposed by Richarson and Jordan (1979). It occurs at the
sub-sectoral level, is fairly loose, is based as much on interpersonal as structural relationships, and
is issue-specific.
On the basis of the information we collected in this case study, we developed a working
model of the ETS bylaw decision-making process that is based on the issue network approach but
also takes into account the framing literature, as well as the conditions that apply at the local level
of decision-making (see Figure Three). We suggest that this model may have wider application than
ETS bylaw development, and may provide the basis for developing an explanatory model of
28
municipal decision-making.
FIGURE THREE
The Bylaw Development Process
29
References
Bacchi, C. (1999). Women, Policy and Politics: The Construction of Policy Problems, London:
Sage.
Cobb, Roger W. and Charles D. Elder (1972). Participation in America Politics: The Dynamics of
Agenda-Building. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Dowding, K. (1995). AModel or Metaphor? A Critical Review of the Policy Network Approach@.
Political Studies, 43, 136-58.
Gibbins, R., M. Sletten, A. Casebeer, H.S. Campbell. (1999). APrivate Places, Public Spaces@ in
W. Ramp. J. Kullg, I. Townshend and V. McGowan, eds., Health in Rural Settings: Contexts For
Action. Lethbridge: Univ. of Lethbridge.
Klink, A., C. D=Onofrio, K. Emanuels, J. Twiss. (1999). AImplementation of AB 13: The Impact
of Social Will on Tobacco Control in California Cities@, Center for Civic Partnerships, Public
Health Institute: California Department of Health Services.
Mack, R. (1971). Planning and Uncertainty. New York: John Wiley.
Marsh, David.(1999). AThe Development of the Policy Network Approach@ in David Marsh,
Comparing Policy Networks, Buckingham: Open Univ. Press, 3-17.
Marsh, David and r.a.w. Rhodes, eds. (1992). Policy Networks in British Government. Oxford:
Clarendon.
Nathanson, C.A. (1999). ASocial Movements as Catalysts for Policy Change: The Case of Smoking
and Guns@, Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law, 24, 421-88.
Pal, Leslie A.(1992). Public Policy Analysis: An Introduction (2nd edition). Toronto: Nelson.
Parsons, Wayne. (1995). Public Policy: An Introduction to the Theory and Practice of Policy Analysis.
Aldershot, UK: Edward Elgar.
Richardson, J. and G. Jordan (1979). Governing Under Pressure. Oxford: Martin Robertson.
Rose, R. (1973). AComparing Public Policy: An Overview@, European Journal of Political Research, I,
67-94.
Sabatier, P. and H. Jenkins-Smith (eds.). (1993). Policy Change and Learning: An Advocacy-Coalition
Approach. Boulder, Colorado: Westview.
30
Sato, H. (1999). APolicy and Politics of Smoking Control in Japan@, Social Science and Medicine, 49,
581-600.
Wilkes, S. and M. Wright (eds.). (1987). Comparing Government-Industry Relations: Western Europe, the
United States and Japan. Oxford: Clarendon.