Fossil-fuel, pharma, development companies could be banned from sponsoring Vancouver events

Who should be prevented fromadvertising at City of Vancouver events?

A new sponsorship policy will be debated at council next week andnot everyone agrees on whoshould be on the banned list.

Specifically, whether it should include fossil fuel companies, pharmaceutical manufacturers, large property owners ordevelopersthat could benefit from rezonings.

"There's enough inundation of corporate advertising that's aimed at people," said Coun. Adriane Carr of the Green Party.

"As a city, in terms of our public realm, I think we need to be free of that and free of those kinds of influences."

Carr was one of severalcouncillorswho supported expandingthe proposed list when it was first introduced last month by city staff.

It was eventually referred back to staff for more studyand is back on the council agenda for next Tuesday.

No debate over tobacco, cannabis, liquor

Vancouvercurrently doesn't have a sponsorship policy, and a staff report argues that adopting one would "establish a consistent, city-wide approach."

It would only apply to eventsdirectly hosted by the city as opposed to thePride Parade and Italian Daysand exclude events put on by the park board, police board and library board.

The original sectors on the banned list included:

• Tobacco,cannabis, gambling and liquor.
• Weapons/life-threatening products.
• Pornography/sexual services.

But Coun.Christine Boyle put forward an amendment adding fossil fuel and pharmaceutical corporations, and Coun.Jean Swanson suggestedadding "large property owners, developersand corporations that stand to derive financial benefit from rezonings."

"[In]a stroke of the pen, the city can multiply the value of a piece of property by 10 or 20 times," said Swanson."And I think it's really important to be beyond the perception that we're vulnerable to being biased on those decisions."

NPA councillors opposed

While both of those amendments passed, they were opposed by all four Non-Partisan Association councillors.

"[It] would essentially leave no room for any sponsorshipand take away the ability to look at those opportunities that will actually benefit the community," said Coun. Sarah Kirby-Yung. Sheput forward a further amendment supported by all three Green councillors to refer the report back to staff.

"It was very restrictive and it doesn't provide the ability to actually bring in some financial support for a program that the city might not be able to do otherwise."

Fellow NPACoun.Lisa Dominato also worried it would apply too broadlyand not give staff the discretion to make decisions around individual sponsorship choices that councillorsmight support.

"I think it's challenging. I don't know where you draw the line," she said.

Who should pay?

In its report back to council, staff said they couldn't find any other Canadian jurisdiction that explicitly banned sponsorship by fossil fuel, pharmaceutical and development companies.

Staff also warned that the categories are so broad, it was likelythe city would forgo opportunities to partner with banned corporations "without the necessary discovery sessions to explore fit and strategic business alliance."

However, Carr argued that's a risk worth taking and if an event is important enough, the city should be able to foot the bill without sponsors.

"If we don't get as much money as we may have, if we allowed that, so be it," she said.

"As a city, we need to turn to taxpayers, and say, 'You know, we want the support for these programs, and the way we get it is through to our tax revenue.' "