I don't remember. All I remember is that I found a package of cigarettes that was not completely empty. Of course I never spent my hard earned money on them. For some reason I felt an obligation to try it. I did so all alone. I do not believe I finished the cigarette that I took out of the package because it caused me to cough and wheeze and choke. Being a person who all my life had been somewhat given to an intelligent process of thought and analysis, I stopped and said this to myself: Self, I think this is stupid. It does not make any sense at all to take into one's body that which the body by natural means seems to so violently reject.
I do not think I finished that cigarette, although I do not really recall. I am fairly old now and that probably happened about 50 years ago. I do not recall what exactly happened, but I do know that I made the decision that I would not smoke cigarettes. It had nothing to do with advertising. It had nothing to do with peer pressure. It had to do simply with an intelligent decision. To this day I am very grateful that I made that decision.
We should take account of the fact that tobacco companies make a large amount of money. One of the ironies that I find in government operations is that while on the one hand we are talking about the increased costs of health, on the other hand we are talking about the dangers to our young people and the need for us to protect each other and ourselves from ourselves, according to the Liberal government's philosophy.
At the same time we are subsidizing and assisting farmers who produce tobacco products. To be pushing and pulling on the same object at the same time seems rather schizophrenic, to say the least, and does not clearly show where one is headed. The subject of assistance to the farmers who produce the product is a whole subject for another day. It seems to me that we ought to rationalize this and at least be consistent in the various arms of government with respect to what we are trying to achieve.
I do not like to use the word hypocritical. I know that it is against the rules to apply that term to any individual member of parliament. I suppose that to collectively lay it on the feet of the governing party today is on the verge of being incorrect. But it is the only word that I really know. If we look at the dictionary definition of hypocrite, from the root word it means that you are wearing a mask. You are trying to pretend that you are something you really are not. That is the definition of a hypocrite. I hear the Liberal government say over and over that it is concerned about the health of Canadians and that it is concerned about the social impact of smoking, but at the same time it pours resources into the production of the product. To me that it is hypocritical. That is doing one thing with the hands while the face and the mouth are trying to give a different message.
I do not believe that we ought to approve this particular bill. We should be opposing it because of its lack of clarity. It does not show a clear direction in terms of where this government is going on this particular issue. It does not, in my opinion, have much hope of significantly changing what is happening in the world of smoking these days.
What I would like to see more and more is a really solid education component for all of our young people beginning in junior high. This should include actual visits to hospitals. I have heard of young people who had relatives who got lung cancer. They had to visit those relatives. They saw how they were breathing through a tracheal tube. They saw how they were unable to speak because of throat cancer. They saw firsthand the devastation. Although I am not proposing that we try to shock our young people into an action or a decision, I believe that should be a part of the education process. It should be a part of the experience.
Why does the government not undertake to produce some films that make some sense? Quite often we hear criticisms of the National Film Board and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation about some of the garbage they produce using taxpayers' money. Why do they not undertake to do a good, solid, medically based analysis on film and make it available at a cost that school boards can easily afford? Make it available to the school boards. Show it to children. Maybe show it repeatedly to them. I would like to include the health benefits of not smoking. I would like to include the financial costs of taking up the habit versus entering into a savings program. If all of the Liberal members when they were youths had learned how to save money maybe we would not have a $580 billion debt today.
We have to stop thinking that way. We need to start thinking in terms of saving our money instead of spending it on a habit which is statistically a proven killer. I certainly urge the government to not promote this type of action but to promote an action that will in reality affect our habits. For goodness sake, let us stop subsidizing the production of tobacco products.