OTTAWA -- The Supreme Court of Canada has upheld a decade-old federal law setting strict limits on advertising by tobacco companies in the name of safeguarding public health, said the Canadian Press.
In a 9-0 judgment, the court ruled the 1997 law, and the detailed regulations that go along with it, can be justified under the Charter of Rights.
The legislation had been challenged by three leading cigarette manufacturers, Imperial Tobacco, JTI Macdonald and Rothmans Benson & Hedges. They argued the law violated their right [image-nocss] to free speech in their commercial advertising.
It is the second time the top court has been called upon to sort out the issue. In 1995, it struck down earlier legislation that imposed an outright ban on nearly all forms of tobacco advertising, but left room for Ottawa to try again. The government then rewrote the law to focus more narrowly on issues like advertising aimed at young people, ads that associate smoking with a desirable lifestyle and sponsorship of sports and cultural events.
The companies claimed the new version was so vague it still amounted to a total ban, because it was impossible to figure out how to stay within the rules.
But Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin, writing for the unanimous court, rejected that contention and concluded that the law's key provisions are constitutional in their entirety.
The latest judgment had been eagerly awaited by both the tobacco industry and anti-smoking crusaders.
The debate has been raging since 1988, when the Conservative government of Brian Mulroney enacted the Tobacco Product Control Act, banning virtually all advertising by the industry.
In its 1995 judgment, the Supreme Court, by a 5-4 margin, ruled that the government had failed to present enough evidence to justify such sweeping measures on public health grounds, and thus had violated the free-speech rights of the tobacco firms under the Charter.
Since then, the composition of the court has changed drastically, with McLachlinsince elevated to chief justicethe only judge still sitting of the nine who considered the issue 10 years ago.
The industry briefly resumed advertising after the 1995 decision, mounting billboard campaigns and running ads in print media although it voluntarily refrained from booking radio and TV spots. All that stopped again when the Liberal government of Jean Chretien stepped in to impose new rules with its own Tobacco Act in 1997.
In theory, the new law allowed brand-name advertising in adult-oriented publications, in adult venues such as bars and by direct mail. In practice, the companies did not run such ads for the next 10 years while they fought things out in court. They did invest in sponsoring sports and cultural events, like the Montreal Grand Prix car race and the city's international jazz festival, until regulations were imposed in 2003 to close that loophole.
Industry spokespersons have long insisted their goal in mounting a new legal challenge was to create a minimal window in the law that would allow advertising to adults but not to adolescents. They have also insisted they did not want to return to lifestyle advertising that would portray smokers as daring and dynamic types, like the old Marlboro Man.
Critics among anti-smoking groups, including the Canadian Cancer Society and Physicians for a Smoke-Free Canada, were skeptical of such claims. They contended that if the industry won its court battle it would try to push the limits and see how much it could get away with. Anti-smoking forces have also continued to lobby Ottawa to go beyond the 1997 rules and impose tougher limits. They maintained that, despite their setback at the Supreme Court in 1995, it might be possible to return to a total ban on advertising by presenting better legal and medical evidence to support the move.
Members help make our journalism possible. Become a CSP member today and unlock exclusive benefits, including unlimited access to all of our content. Sign up here.