Madam Speaker, thus this is Group No. 3, that is, mainly the whole chapter on sponsorship, or clause 24. I remind you that, at second reading, the official opposition voted for the principle of the bill because we agree with 80 per cent of the bill and with all clauses aimed at reducing smoking, especially among young people, but also among all Canadians, although this is obviously more of a voluntary decision for adults.
Concerning sponsorship, though, there are important economic issues at stake for Quebec and for Canada also, since sponsorship accounts for some $60 million that are distributed by the tobacco companies for sporting and cultural events. Of those $60 million, some $30 million go to sporting and cultural events in Quebec. You will understand, therefore, that the Bloc Quebecois, which forms the official opposition and has Quebec's interests at heart, wants to preserve these funds that ensure the survival and even the development of cultural activities, and thus are good for the economy, especially in the tourism industry.
In terms of added value, events such as the Montreal Jazz festival, the Montreal Grand Prix and other international events are important because they attract many visitors to the Montreal area, as do events such as the summer festival in Quebec City, which also attracts many visitors. In fact, all events of this calibre attract a lot of visitors and that is why their economic impact is so great.
But there is also the issue of visibility. Events such as the Montreal Grand Prix, the Du Maurier tennis tournament or the golf open give sports fans an opportunity to see, on television, what goes on all over the world. It is a window on the world, an opportunity to promote extraordinary sporting and cultural events that give each region and each country the visibility they need.
Let us talk about the Montreal Grand Prix. The Grand Prix in Formula 1 racing comes in third place among sporting events, after the Olympic Games and the World Cup in soccer, in terms of coverage and in terms of viewership. It is the third most important event. There are no such races in the United States or anywhere else in North America. But there is one in Montreal.
We could lose all that because, even if the minister has accepted, through an amendment, to stagger the application of section 24 concerning certain restrictions on the sponsorship of sporting and cultural events, there is still section 31-and I see that the chairman of the health committee, who, like me, has studied this bill clause by clause, knows full well what I am talking about-which will prohibit retransmission as soon as this bill becomes law. So it will be this year, if the bill is adopted in the next few weeks as planned by the government and if the other House gives its consent. This means that the Montreal Grand Prix is threatened, and we see in the newspapers that China, which is badly in need of visibility, is very interested in taking over the Montreal Grand Prix and would be most happy to do so. You can certainly understand why we want to defend ourselves in these circumstances.
There is always the same argument that something similar happened with the French Grand Prix. But in France it is not the same situation because, in the context of the automotive industry, in connection with Formula 1 cars, several companies are represented. The same is true for England, Italy and Germany. There are enough sponsorships from racing car manufacturers that they can do without tobacco sponsorships.
But this is not the case in other countries. It is not the case in Australia. They wanted to ban it, but they were forced to adopt a legislative measure allowing an exception. So, there are a number of countries with the same situation, notably Japan, because it was not possible to attract automobile manufacturers, Formula 1 teams sponsored by tobacco companies, not just by companies we are familiar with but by foreign companies.
Imagine this strange situation: in order for a car sponsored by a tobacco company to be allowed on television, if clause 31 were allowed to stand, the brand on the car would have to be purposely blurred, somewhat like the procedure used when interviewing a criminal or an informer who wishes to remain anonymous. This is commonly seen on television, but in this case, the car is travelling over 200 kilometres an hour. You can imagine the skill required if ever the leading car were sponsored by a tobacco company. There are a number of things like that.
The official opposition presented many amendments to clause 24 so as to reduce the impact, so that the situation could continue. Most of the amendments consist of compromises. Most of the amendments we have presented here at report stage were suggested by people who benefit from these sponsorships, not by tobacco products, and not by companies.
I do not wish to come to the defence of tobacco companies. I do not smoke, but sports and cultural events are very important to the cultural and economic life of Quebec. That is what we are fighting for.
The main issue is this: Is there a connection between displaying a tobacco company brand in a place of entertainment or somewhere else and the increase in smoking among young people? I systematically asked this question, as the chairman of the health committee knows. I asked each witness whether he had a scientific study demonstrating a link. Each time, people replied that they did not, that they had a number of studies, but none on that specifically.
A very articulate representative of the Canadian Cancer Society, to whom I had directed the question, even answered me: "No, there is no study".
Finally, these people have the impression that sponsorship is a way of improving the image of tobacco companies, but nobody could show in a scientific way that it helps increase tobacco use. As an advocate of non-smoking, I am pursuing the goal of improving health. I will recall very briefly that I was a recreation professional when I was younger, before I became a member of Parliament. I might not look like it, but I used to take part in 10 kilometre runs. I realized soon enough that it did not agree with smoking. In another speech, I pointed out that Céline Dion surely does not smoke in order to protect her voice.
So, we should do promotion in a positive fashion. We should spend more money on programs to prevent smoking. The government is collecting $4.5 billion in taxes on the sale of tobacco products. It should take some of that money to try to reach its goals. Instead of announcing a piece of legislation that has yet to be adopted, it should have launched a program to encourage people to stop smoking by showing them the benefits of quitting, how pleasant it is to be in shape, to take deep breaths, to go play outside, as Kino-Québec used to say, to play sports, and by demonstrating, if necessary with the help of athletes or famous singers, how great it is to be in good health and a non-smoker. This would have a very positive impact on our young people.
I know that some other colleagues from the Bloc Quebecois will speak later on. My hon. colleague for Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead will probably rise and speak with enthusiasm as he puts forward other arguments that will convince you, Madam Speaker, or the chairman of the health committee, to postpone the implementation of this provision of Bill C-71.