FEDERAL PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE HEARINGS ON BILL C-71, THE TOBACCO ACT: EXAMINING WRITTEN AND ORAL STATEMENTS OF TOBACCO INDUSTRY STAKEHOLDERS
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Introduction. This case study examined the tobacco industry as a stakeholder during the\nparliamentary hearings on a 1997 keystone piece of Canadian tobacco legislation—Bill C-71, the Tobacco Act—regulating the sale, manufacture, sponsorship and promotion of tobacco products. A significant amount of public participation was present in the hearings, in which the tobacco industry stakeholders (e.g., growers, manufacturers, distributors and retailers, allied manufacturing industries, and sponsored sport and cultural events organizers) provided more than half of all written and oral submissions to government.\nBackground. The government introduced Bill C-71 after the 1995 Supreme Court of Canada sided with the tobacco industry in a decision to strike down the standing tobacco control legislation. Purpose. This study undertook the examination of the explicit and implicit meanings of statements within tobacco industry submissions to the Canadian government in order to understand how the tobacco industry attempted to influence tobacco control legislation during the policy development of Bill C-71. The research questions asked: 1) How were issues related to smoking and tobacco discussed in the texts?; and 2) What discursive tactics were used by the tobacco industry stakeholders to justify their positions? Methods. 77 tobacco industry oral and written submissions to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Health and the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs were analysed using interpretive discourse analysis. The first level of analysis used a tool that drew on Potter & Wetherell (1994) and Rudman (2003). Foci\nwere placed on how tactics were used within the texts to create roles, shape and forefront\nm\nparticular identities, arguments against opposition, problems and solutions. The second level of analysis drew on the first level to examine the discursive tactics employed by tobacco industry stakeholders. The approach to analysis and interpretation o f discursive tactics involved detailed reading of texts as well as linking texts with broader contextual features, particularly sociopolitical and economic contextual factors (e.g., neoliberal economic policies, illegal market surge, judicial strike down of past legislation, and national cultural divide between Anglophone and Francophone populations).\nFindings. Six categories of discursive tactics were constructed through interaction with texts: 1) presentation of self (e.g., community-involved\nvictim); 2) undermining government efforts (e.g., harm-causing, counter Canadian tradition, totalitarian); 3) tactical use of evidence (manipulation of counter evidence, presenting misleading studies); 4) use of intentional discourse types (legal, constitution and democracy-based); 5) evasion of health discourse (e.g., superficial support for health objectives, denying links to tobacco industry); and 6) increasing economic discourse (framing self as entrepreneur, consumer and market-based solutions).\nConclusions. In this case study, many tactics were used to frame smoking and tobacco, and problems and solutions in ways aligned with neoliberal ideology or rationality, focusing on individual responsibility, freedom in the market place, entrepreneurship and minimizing a government role. Appeals to “reason”, “justice”, and “democracy” were made by all tobacco industry stakeholders to liken Bill C-71 to its predecessor and undermine government’s overall health objectives and specific regulations. Tobacco industry stakeholders portrayed government as the root of the problem of tobacco consumption and negative economic situation, thereby deflecting responsibility from\nIV\nthemselves and evading health issues. Interestingly, many of these same arguments have been cited in literature since the early 1980s, suggesting that tactics are re-used and specific argument content is shaped by the context. Findings may assist health promoters identify and prepare for future opposition from the tobacco industry.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».