Madam Speaker, I had begun, in my earlier speech, to explain that the bill before us is unreasonable, because it mixes very different values. Sponsorship does not mean advertising. The two things are very different.
The fact that a company's name appears on a car is not going to cause us to buy more of the company's product. If the company advertised the merits of its product, I would agree we should prevent this sort of advertising, which would encourage people to use a product more. But this is not what sponsorship is about, not at all.
The aim of sponsorship is simply for a company to present an event or let the public know it is presenting one. It is to show that the company shares the concerns, social life, daily life, recreational activities and culture of the people. If it also promoted its product, that would be advertising. Just because we see an image, we do not necessarily try to imitate it.
We have seen certain political figures in the federal government for the past 30 years, and we have not turned into Liberals. By seeing them, we were not tempted to do as they do. Once we get to know them, we no longer wanted to imitate them. That is the difference.
We are surrounded daily by sources of pollution. Statistics indicate that 60 per cent of the population is overweight. However, advertising and sponsorship by chocolate products has not been prohibited. Chips, peanuts and animal fat are all still permissible.
The doctor treating my weight problem became as fat as I was in a year. Should he have treated me by phone? It was not by treating me in his office that he put on weight. And yet, if anyone had the motivation it was he. He knew the causes and did not heed them. He avoided them.
That is why I say we do things through education. On the news this morning, they were saying that, for the past 10 years, women have suffered from lung cancer more than men. The number of women smokers has quadrupled in the past 10 years. Does this mean that women are greater fans of car racing than men? Is the sponsoring of a cultural festival by Rothmans or Du Maurier and a racing event by Players to blame for the fact that the number of women smokers has increased fourfold?
From what I can see on television, I do not think that such events are attended by more women than men. Inappropriate associations are being made. Why is that? Because the federal government, through its minister, has put its head on the block to please a powerful lobby: the anti-tobacco lobby. There is nothing wrong with those who are against tobacco use to fight for their cause and express their opinions; that is their role. There is nothing wrong either with the tobacco companies wanting to defend their position; that is their role.
But when a minister says: "If this bill does not pass, vote against the Liberal Party in the next election", the real purpose of his legislation is clear: to please the very powerful anti-tobacco lobby representing thousands of well-meaning people.
If it were not for this commitment made by the Minister of Health, I suspect the government would be more inclined to compromise and show greater flexibility in the implementation of this act. The Minister of Health wants to save his head at the expense of thousands of jobs throughout Quebec, particularly in Montreal, Quebec City and Trois-Rivières, in the riding of Joliette, where an important tobacco growing industry generates seasonal jobs. I would hate to see them have to lay people off.
Try educating and convincing people instead; it is a much more effective approach. The best example of a successful education campaign is Operation Nez Rouge, which was designed to fight alcohol abuse. The whole thing is based on education and it did not cost the people of Quebec thousands or millions of dollars. It was initiated in Quebec 10 or 15 years ago by a professor at Laval University, in Quebec City.
This initiative has now been extended not only to other provinces across Canada, but also to several countries, where similar organizations were created. Today, as a result of this campaign, the number of alcohol-related automobile accidents has been reduced by nearly 80 or 90 per cent. This is how effective this educational approach has been, instead of the government interfering with people's lives through legislation.
Drunk drivers were not condemned, they were educated. Today, these individuals are proud of what they have learned. They are
proud to play a role in social development and to help reduce the number of traffic accidents. We did not convince these people by intruding in their lives, but by teaching them principles.
In addition to being ill-advised, this intrusion is a dangerous precedent. If, whenever there is abuse of any kind, the government must legislate to prevent such abuse, eventually no one in Quebec or in Canada will be able to act of his own free will. Everything will be regulated.
Discotheques will be closed, because they are too noisy. Indeed, it is dangerous for young people to listen to loud music because they could go deaf. The fact is we do not prohibit music in discotheques. As long as it is played inside, the number of decibels is not regulated. Then again, maybe we should do something about it, because it is harmful and it is costly to society if a young person loses his hearing.
Similarly, we do not prevent people from overdoing it, from staying up until four or five in the morning. Some young people do that. Quite often, they roam the streets. Should we legislate, impose a curfew at one in the morning and tell these kids they must not be on the street after that time? That is not what we do. We leave it up to parents to educate their children. And it is through education that we will succeed.
There are many other examples. Cars pollute the environment, and not just because there are tobacco company logos displayed on them. They pollute because they release carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. This adversely affects the quality of life of all of us. When I breathe the carbon dioxide released by cars, it is harmful to my health. Yet, the government did not legislate on that. It does not prevent cars and buses from being on the road, even though it is harmful to my health.
Earlier, I mentioned products that cause obesity. Again, the situation is the same. The companies that make these products were not prohibited from sponsoring social or cultural events. It is ill-advised to try to regulate such issues. The official opposition is merely asking the government to amend its legislation so as to allow the tobacco industry to continue to sponsor events that provide jobs for thousands of people.
This bill might help save the lives of some people, but it could also ruin the lives of the thousands of others who will be deprived of their livelihood. Indeed, it might ruin the lives of some people because it will make them lose hope. And the same goes for their children.
This is a bad remedy. They are prescribing a remedy without first looking at the side effects. It is like saying that, because I eat things that are not good for my health and a cure will not be found for 10 years, my fingers will be cut off. It is not the best solution. It is like saying that if my fingers are cut off, then I will no longer be able to eat those bad things.
Instead of cutting off people's fingers, we should try to educate them, to show them how to eat, how to better protect their health and their bodies. This is what we mean by educating people. It is more work and it may be more costly but, in the long term, it is much more beneficial and much more respectful of people's freedom. We are asking the government to respect people's freedom and to recognize this freedom by accepting our proposed amendments to the bill.
