March 7, 1997

Time for a sober second smoke

Chretien's censorship solution is no answer to the problem of tobacco smoke

By WILLIAM JOHNSON
Ottawa Sun GATINEAU, Que. -- Holy smoke. What's all the fuss about? To hear Quebec politicians and the Bloc Quebecois, the federal tobacco bill restricting sponsorship of sports and cultural events is uniquely tailored to destroy the economy of Quebec. They trumpet the scenario of Quebec versus the rest of Canada. Amid all the noise, it sounds like the battle of the Plains of Abraham replayed, with smoke instead of fire.
A more accurate precedent is the conflict a century ago over the prohibition of alcohol. Much the same prohibitionist mentality that raged then now inspires Ottawa to drive tobacco advertising underground. Back in 1898, it was demon rum rather than the noxious weed that divided the country. Six provinces wanted prohibition, one -- Quebec -- was adamantly opposed. Prime Minister Wilfrid Laurier was caught in the middle.
So he held a national referendum, the first in the country's history. Like the next two, the 1942 plebiscite on conscription, and the 1992 referendum on the Charlottetown Accord, Laurier's referendum demonstrated that the country was divided. So he left it up to the provinces to choose or reject prohibition.
In the current debate, Jean Chretien's Liberals have not been so wise. They claim that limiting the advertising of tobacco -- including the sponsorship of sports and cultural events -- is a question of health and of protecting children from the dangerous addiction to smoking. They quote the figure of 40,000 deaths a year in Canada. And they evoke children of 13 and 14 who start smoking for life -- and death. Who can be for childhood addiction and death by cigarette? The last time we were subjected to that kind of apocalyptic propaganda was in 1987, when the government of Brian Mulroney passed Bill C-51, "An act to prohibit the advertising and promotion of tobacco products." It was inspired by the same prohibitionist mentality, the same gratuitous assumption that censorship against pronouncing the names of tobacco products will reduce consumption.
Now it is Bill C-71, "The Tobacco Act," that the Liberals and the Reform party have joined together to send to the Senate. We can only hope that the senators will take a sober second look.
They might start by reading the judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada when it struck down as unconstitutional Mulroney's Bill C-51. I think the same reasoning will eventually bring the court to strike down Bill C-71.
In 1995, in RJR Macdonald Inc. v. the Attorney General of Canada, the Supreme Court found that the prohibitions against advertising tobacco products violated unjustifiably the Charter guarantees of freedom of expression.
"Freedom of expression, even commercial expression, is an important and fundamental tenet of a free and democratic society. If Parliament wishes to infringe this freedom, it must be prepared to offer good and sufficient justification for the infringement and its ambit. This it has not done." What was true of Bill C-51 seems to me equally true of C-71. In both cases, there are severe restrictions on freedom of expression based on naive and unproven assumptions about what makes people decide to smoke.
The harm to tobacco companies, to sports and cultural events, is clear and certain. Their right to express themselves freely to their fellow citizen will be trampled. And for what?
Children will be unable to see in Montreal a Grand Prix race with the word "Players" on the car and the driver.
But they will be able to see the same words carried by television on cars racing in cities around the globe -- unless a television blackout is imposed to keep young eyes from looking on a forbidden word.
It could be that all the restrictions will promote rather than impede smoking among the young.
Cigarettes will have an additional appeal as a symbol of revolt, of maturity, of daring and adventure.
I don't know that this is so. But nor do the politicians know the opposite. They are only guessing. And that is no sufficient reason to violate the freedom of expression of every citizen of this country.
A health issue? Yes, like bleeding the patient to drain out the sick humors. Chretien has chosen a medieval treatment -- censorship -- for a modern illness. Now let the Senate justify its existence.

William Johnson can be reached by e-mail: wjohnson@magmacom.com