Dear Click4hp listmembers,

We have been forwarded by a sleepless Sam Lafranco (at 4.00 AM this
morning) a message about phoning today in favor of the tobacco bill. My
point here is not to refrain people feeling like doing it to do so;
overall, I tend to agree with the bill. I think however we should be as
public health people a little more subtle in our analyses than the last
paragraph of the forwarded message which read like:

>>Those of you from Quebec should also call Quebec Liberal MPs and Members
>>of the Bloc Quebcois.  The message for the Liberals is to hang tough and
>>do the right thing by passing the Bill.  The message for the Bloc is
>>"shame on you for putting sports and cultural events ahead of Quebec
>>lives".

This is the type of argument that in my view leads nowhere, that reinforces
the image of "ayatollahs" which is attached to public health, and that
shows little comprehension of the politics of what is going on in Quebec
now. Please find below exerpts of a message I sent yesterday night to the
13 directors of health promotion research centers across Canada that
compose the Canadian Consortium of Heath Promotion Research.

For the non Canadian members of the list, sorry about our internal matters
but they are hopefully interesting to watch as an ongoing case study about
the use of electronic means to work (in this case politically) on health
promotion ! In this respect, you maybe heard over the media that the
referenda held two days ago, about amalgamation of city of Toronto and 5
other suburbian cities in each of these 6 cities (an issue about which a
lot was said on the use of electronic means utilized to mobilize against
amalgamation and on which one of the co-facilitaors of our list was very
involved) turned overwhelmingly (between 71 and 85 % according to the city)
against amalgamation. It would be totally unscientific to make any causal
assumption about use of electronic means and these results, but they most
likely were instrumental in facilitating the mobilisation and circulation
of information. The premier of Ontario has reacted by saying that he is not
considering these referenda as valid and that he would go ahead with his
amalgamation bill anyway (sounds very eastern european....); if he does so,
he is likely to taste the same medicine than what has happened in countries
where the legitimate (even if not legal) voice of the people has talked...

But back to our tobacco business:

____________ Forwarded edited exerpts begin here ________________


(...) My analysis of the situation is as follows:

1) Dingwall (the federal minster of health) has made a public committment
that if he does not pass the bill, people should not vote for the liberals.
He is likely not to back off.

2) The bill will probably pass in the house of commons thursday but
Chrétien (the premier of the country) will not be there. He will feel the
wind and the likelyhood for me is that the bill will get stalled in the
senate up to the moment where the elections will be launched (within a few
weeks) and then not be passed, due to the political opposition which is
mounting especially from Quebec on two fronts: economic loss from special
international events, and economic loss to an already economically
devastated Montreal ( I dont know if a stong an opposition is also present
in Toronto or elsewhere in anglo Canada).

3) I think the tobacco industry, keen as usual, is playing its cards very
well and the political heat in Quebec (probably soon to cascade elsewhere)
will become intolerable, leading to the scenario described in 2 above.
Remember the taxation issue, when a few years ago the industry was able to
channel latent racism against the Mohawks and resentment against
politicians (it seemed the industry supplied directly the cigarettes that
were publicly sold as a form of civil protest) to win their case and obtain
a drastic cutback in tobacco taxation (about 50% if my souvenir is exact).
I thus think that the polarization over economic losses in Montreal
(presented as another assault of anglo-federal against autonomist Quebec by
the Bloc québécois) is going to be very effective and kill the whole thing,
even if it is just a bit of the whole picture.

4) Why has the win-win solution for the politicians and the economy of
taxing the tobacco industry to create a special fundation, as in Australia,
that would support the events now threatened (they are major cultural
symbols here: le festival de jazz, le grand prix de montréal, le festival
d'été de Québec, etc. and I am sure equivalent events in Toronto are as
threatned beacuse they alternate with Montreal, even if a lot of attention
now paid to amalgamation these days and not to tobacco) not been utilized ?


(...)

6) I think we should do something, otherwize public health will continue to
look ayatollahlike in the public eye, and for the wrong reasons, be
defeated. Indeed, I find hard to oppose the argument heard tonite on TV
from a cultural event organizer that "the public's health will not be
improved if major economic losses are incurred due to the disparition (or
the diminution) of major events, for a measure (stop advertizing at these
envents) which might not easily be linked to the goals of stopping the
youths from smoking ". If the economic loss was not there due to a
foundation, whoever manages it (who is it in australia ???), then the
effect of no or restricted advertizement, could play synergistically with
the rest of other measures even if we cannot attribute to it a direct
causal link to youth smoking (I dont know this literature but it is
probably what we know sceintifically, is it not ???).

7) So what do we do ? Look passively at the killing of what seems to be an
overall good piece of legislation for the public health (if a couple of
significant irritants on which the opponents play extremely skillfully are
smoothed out) or strategize to promote what seems to be a win-win
alternative (except for the tobacco industry...) ?

J'attends de vos nouvelles.

________________ End of forwarded exerpts _______________


Une tres bonne journee.

Michel O'Neill, Ph.D.

**************************************************************************
Professeur titulaire et Codirecteur, Groupe de recherche et d'intervention
en promotion de la sante (GRIPSUL), Ecole des Sciences infirmieres,
4108-J Pavillon Comtois, Universite Laval, Quebec, Qc, Canada, G1K 7P4.
tel: +1-(418)-656-2131 #7431; telecopieur: +1-(418)-656-7747
Courrier electronique: [log in to unmask]

Codirecteur, Centre quebecois collaborateur de l'OMS pour le developpement
de villes et villages en sante / Quebec WHO Collaborating Center for the
development of healthy cities and towns,
2400 D'estimauville, Beauport, Qc, Canada, G1E 7G9.
tel: +1-(418)-666-7000 #461; telecopieur: +1-(418)-666-2776
Courrier electronique:[log in to unmask]
**************************************************************************