By Andrew Thomson
The numbers don’t lie about the importance of Montreal’s Grand Prix as a major summer event in Canada.The Formula One race attracts more than 300,000 people each June, anxious to see well-known drivers such as Michael Schumacher, Juan Montoya, and hometown boy Jacques Villeneuve. According to Montreal Board of Trade, the weekend injects tens of millions of dollars into the local economy.
Now, the race is off the 2004 schedule because of Canada’s pending ban on tobacco sponsorship and advertising. Events that provide public enjoyment, international prestige and economic spinoff must now find new sources of financial support.
Despite the advertising ban, tobacco use remains legal and accessible in Canada. Anyone over the age of 19 with an affinity for puffing can step into a convenience store or gas station and pick their poison.
The government continues to earn tobacco tax revenues while permitting other hazardous products to advertise without hesitation. What about alcohol and its health effects? In a sort of hypocritical logic, beer ads plastered behind a hockey bench are less dangerous than cigarette logos at a comedy or jazz festival.
For example, Kelly Neall of the Ottawa International Animation Festival says that the du Maurier logo was always low-key and discreet at her adult-oriented festival, where people were only marginally aware of its placement. At the Odyssey Theatre, general manager Natalie Millett says most patrons regarded tobacco funding as “separating what you sell from who you are.”
The bill in question is the Canadian Tobacco Act, passed by Parliament in 1997; included are restrictions on the advertising and promotion of tobacco products at cultural and sporting events. A five-year grace period for existing sponsorships ends Oct. 1.
The Montreal situation provides a testing ground for the public’s willingness to sacrifice a major event that may not exist otherwise.
Tobacco advertisements and sponsorship play a major role in Formula One racing, one of the world’s most popular sporting entities. Officials have said the Montreal race will not return next year without an exemption from the legislation. A similar situation arose in Belgium, where tobacco laws were relaxed to permit Formula One to return for the 2004 season.
In response, federal Health Minister Anne McLellan has reaffirmed the government’s unwillingness to change the law or extend the grace period. Canadians can still watch F-1 races with tobacco logos every weekend on their television, just not in person.
The industry’s major player in arts funding has been Imperial Tobacco of Canada, the maker of well-known cigarette brands such as du Maurier, Player’s, and Matinée. Imperial president Bob Bexon announced recently that two new programs will replace the du Maurier Arts Council, created in 1971 to provide funding for programs across Canada. Imperial’s Arts Council will focus on organizations with annual total revenues of under $1.5 million, while its Arts Fund will solicit requests from larger groups. In total Imperial is increasing its annual donations to over $3 million.
Peter Honeywell, executive director of the Council for the Arts in Ottawa, does not believe any local cultural organizations will be a direct casualty of the tobacco legislation, although he says finding new sponsorship from the private sector is an “ongoing battle.”
But with seemingly more money available from Imperial Tobacco, should these groups worry about other private sector stepping up as sponsors?
Francis Thompson, a policy analyst with the Non-Smokers’ Rights Association, believes the notion of cancelled events and festivals has been overblown, and there is some proof to his claim. For example, The Globe and Mail reported in early September that TD Bank Financial Group is expected to replace du Maurier as the chief sponsor of jazz festivals in Vancouver, Toronto and Halifax.
However, the opposite situation has occurred with some events.
The du Maurier Classic was once one of the major tournaments in women’s professional golf. In reaction to the Tobacco Act, the event was cancelled in 2001 after no new sponsor would take du Maurier’s place.
The issue is not about the merits of smoking or its burden on health care. According to the World Health Organization, nearly five million people worldwide die annually from tobacco-related causes. It is hard to dispute that cigarettes and other products such as chewing tobacco are tools of disease.
Banning the promotion of a dangerous product is one thing, but banning such promotion while refusing to outlaw the product itself is quite another, especially when it puts Canadian sports and culture at risk.