Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak again on Bill C-71, for it seems to be that the debate has grown out of all proportion to the reality of the situation.
It appears that, as a result of the regularization of tobacco advertising-and not a total ban-almost all cultural events and associations are going to disappear from Montreal. I must, therefore, point out a few things.
First of all, the bill before us is the result of a Supreme Court of Canada judgment. Prior to that judgment, there was a total ban on tobacco company advertising, yet cultural and sporting events did exist in Montreal and elsewhere in the country.
Second, let us look at the percentage of revenues coming from tobacco sponsors compared to the total revenues of the various cultural groups. Mr. Speaker, were you aware that tobacco sponsorships account for only 1 per cent of the total revenues of the National Theatre School of Canada in Montreal, 0.4 per cent of the revenues of Montreal's Grands Ballets canadiens, 0.8 per cent of the revenues of Centaur Theatre, 0.4 per cent of the revenues of the Musée d'art contemporain de Montréal, and 0.3 per cent of the revenue of the Opéra de Montréal? I have a much more detailed list here, but those few examples are enough to lead me to my next point.
The question that inevitably arises is this: why do tobacco companies contribute such minimal amounts to support cultural events of this calibre? Why? The answer is simple: because the people who go to these events are adults, not teenagers.
I would like to explain how tobacco advertising during a cultural or sporting event can influence our young people, since the sports media, manipulated by the tobacco companies, give the impression
that watching or attending a sporting event has no impact on the consumption of tobacco.
I would like to quote Francis Thompson, who said the following in the monthly magazine Info-Tabac:
To sell a product as repugnant as cigarettes, you have to invest massively in marketing. It is no coincidence that for more than 70 years, the tobacco industry, which is quite small, has invested more in advertising and promoting its product than any other industry, with the exception of the automobile industry. The marketing budgets of cigarette manufacturers are a long-term investment in what we could call "social seduction". Remember that expression "social seduction".
The primary objective of tobacco companies is not to sell a product outright as in the case of a car or another product but to influence the social or cultural image of the product, the shared perception of what it means to be a smoker.
One element has not changed: the vast majority of new customers are recruited among young people, because almost no one starts to smoke once they reach adulthood.
Although manufacturers say they do not aim their advertising at non smoking teenagers, they nevertheless have to design their advertising so as to reach young adults. Obviously, ads aimed at 19-year olds may very well have an impact on 16-year olds or 17-year olds.
Most boys know perfectly well they will not become racing car drivers by smoking Rothmans; girls also realize that Matinée cigarettes will not make them look like Claudia Schiffer.
Teenage girls also know they will never be as rich as Madonna, but that does not prevent millions of teenage girls from imitating her look. Adolescence is a time when we seek ways to create a new identity, symbols that we can flaunt, that show we belong to a certain group and set us apart from the world of our elders, our parents or our teachers who impose a list of don'ts which, paradoxically, are also part of the rites of passage.
It is also peer pressure, not advertising, that leads a person to his first cigarette. So, what role does marketing play? It adds a little impetus to peer pressure.
Over the years, a fairly extensive list has been compiled of the risk factors found often among adolescents who take up smoking.
Among the most important are poverty, change in social status, the perception that smoking is what everybody does, identification with peers rather than family, lack of self esteem, failure in school, aggressiveness or shyness and, finally, difficulty in turning down a cigarette.
Those just starting to smoke have no doubts about the dangers of smoking, because they almost universally think the risks do not apply to them, since they will not become addicted. You know, when you are an adolescent you are invincible. This brings me to the subject of marketing.
As the industry can hardly affect poverty levels or promote failure in school, it focusses on making cigarettes the norm and on personal freedom. Tobacco is at times associated with, believe it or not, happiness, even health, because the ads depict dynamic individuals, who appear to be in great shape, sociable and well off, often in settings involving sports.
We must not forget that brand identities have been created. In an Ontario study done in 1992, anthropologist Grant McCracken showed-