insidetoronto.com

Several people applauded this new legislation because of the proven health risks second-hand smoke can cause. One group that completely supported the bill was the Ontario Lung Association.

"We'd been advocating for it all along and it was great to see the premier's announcement ... and how quickly it was accelerated," said George Habib, president and CEO of the Ontario Lung Association.

In December, MPP David Orazietti proposed the bill and a few months later it passed. Habib said along with support from smokers, non-smokers and medical experts, passing the bill was a no-brainer especially as kids cannot advocate for themselves.

"When you know that children and babies are sitting in cars ... it just doesn't make sense (to delay) and every day that goes by that the bill isn't passed there are children exposed to second-hand smoke in cars," Habib said.

While the bill did have overwhelming support, Habib said there was hesitation from some who felt that legislation wasn't the best action to take.

"The big issue had really nothing to do with the bill, it was 'Do we have too much government legislation,' but you have to separate that from the issues around Bill 11 because of how common sense it is," Habib said.

However, whenever a new law is passed, there will be some who will argue against it simply because they view another law as infringing on their personal rights and privacy.

For example, Bill 11 aims to protect children but does it also tell people how to raise their kids?

John Lawford, counsel for the Public Interest Advocacy Centre, does legal work in the areas of privacy, telecom and non-profit organizations.

He said how each law and legislation is received really depends on the individual.

"It's difficult because in trying to define privacy in the first place, people have different ideas of what that means..."

Lawford said some international charters have tried to define privacy but the Canadian charter has not.

The only privacy law that is concrete in the Canadian charter is that "you can be free from being searched in your own home, but generally speaking in other areas it gets to be more iffy," Lawford said.

And everything else is debatable.

For example, some people feel cameras anywhere, let alone on the TTC, is a form of control and a privacy infringement. But Lawford said what if there was a scenario where officials were worried about terrorists putting bombs on the subway?

"The thought is those (who) want to set off a bomb don't want to be photographed and eventually caught, but then you get into this big criminology type of sociology argument about whether crime is really deterred by surveillance...."

But there is a balancing act between privacy and other social needs such as security, and Lawford said because people don't expect much in terms of privacy, it can be easily taken away.

While some will argue that cameras on the TTC or on city streets is great to capture criminal acts and catch criminals, Lawford said when people really understand what it means to be watched, it's not such a great thing.

"There's lots of reasons why you could say surveillance from that point of view for policing is good but when you turn it around on people and say 'Well then I would just like you to know that we can follow you through your entire day now from the time you leave your door and do you feel good about that?' they always say no."

So the bigger question becomes how far can it go once it starts?

Lawford said with each piece of legislation passed, the foundation is being set to infringe on people's rights more easily. For example, after putting cameras on the TTC, they can then be put on public streets, which is some areas of Toronto already takes place.

"Because you don't know when someone's going to need help or they may be hurt or assaulted and we can be right there with the camera ... and the trouble is that it won't necessarily be used for that," Lawford said.

While legislations are packaged as "for your own good," it still begs the question of what gives government the right to make decisions like banning regular light bulbs when the "energy-efficient" bulbs cost more and have been shown to cause migraines?

"The question would become would they bust you coming home from Quebec with a trunk-full of light bulbs?" Lawford said.

Agree or not, Lawford said policy makers make these laws with the idea that they are creating a safer or healthier public but people still have the right to make their voices heard.