Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be able to rise during the question and comment period following the speech made by the hon. member for Annapolis Valley-Hants, who stressed the so-called pernicious
effects of sponsorship on our youth and on their decision to take up smoking.
I just received this morning a very nice letter from a resident of my riding who is 18 years old, whom I have never met, whom I do not know and who took the time to e-mail me a letter at 8.45 this morning.
Let me read you the letter sent to me by Lisa-Marie Dupont from Trois-Rivières:
"Mr. Rocheleau,
I saw the position you have taken on the issue of tobacco company sponsorship and I had to tell you that I support it. I am an 18-year-old woman who has lived all her life in Trois-Rivières, which hosts the annual Player's Grand Prix, and I have never smoked a cigarette in my whole life. Moreover, I have volunteered to work in the press room these last two years, an experience which will be very useful when I have to find a good job. It is nonsense to think health depends on sponsorship; the decision to take up smoking or not, especially among the young, is more a matter of education and guidance.
For a city like Trois-Rivières, this kind of event is very important. Tourism picks up considerably, the whole city comes alive with pride and hundreds of volunteers enthusiastically give a helping hand to make this event successful.
Such events give national and international visibility to cities. Is that not a sure advantage in this era of market globalization?
Please do not succumb to the pressures and keep defending your point of view. It is very important to our region.
Signed, Lisa-Marie Dupont".
There is one sentence that I would like to read again for my colleague: "It is nonsense to think health depends on sponsorship; the decision to take up smoking or not, especially among the young, is more a matter of education and guidance". This is quite a change from the shortsightedness, the partisanship and the kind of intolerance shown by government members and also by the health workers lobby-because it is indeed a lobby. I think such a testimony reflects good faith, intelligence, wisdom, balance and common sense.
Common sense is exactly what is lacking in this bill, 80 per cent of which we agree with. The members opposite seem to forget that. What we are opposed to are the sponsorship provisions in this bill, which will have a devastating effect on economic development.
If smoking kills-and I would like my colleague to comment on this-can the lack of jobs, as has been demonstrated, have the same effect? Is it possible that someone who is unemployed will have a tendency to smoke more, which will also contribute to killing him or her? So the public interest will not be served by these shortsighted policies that create more problems than they solve. I would like my colleague to comment on this.