THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL AFFAIRS, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Thursday, October 9, 2025
The Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology met this day at 10:29 a.m. [ET] to study Bill S-202, An Act to amend the Food and Drugs Act (warning label on alcoholic beverages).
Senator Flordeliz (Gigi) Osler (Deputy Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Deputy Chair: Senators, my name is Flordeliz (Gigi) Osler. I am a senator from Manitoba and deputy chair of this committee.
Today, we’d like to welcome the Developing Young Leaders of Tomorrow, Today #LeadLikeAGirl program, who are joining us here in the room as guests of Senator Bernard. Welcome to the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology.
Before we begin, I would like to have senators introduce themselves.
Senator Senior: Good morning. Welcome, everyone. Senator Paulette Senior from Ontario.
Senator Hay: Katherine Hay, senator from Ontario.
[Translation]
Senator Boudreau: Good morning, everyone. Victor Boudreau from New Brunswick.
[English]
Senator Burey: Good morning, everyone. Sharon Burey from Ontario.
[Translation]
Senator Arnold: Good morning, everyone. Dawn Arnold from New Brunswick.
Senator Petitclerc: Good morning, Chantal Petitclerc from Quebec.
Senator Youance: Good morning, Suze Youance from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Bernard: Wanda Thomas Bernard from Mi’kma’ki territory, Nova Scotia.
Senator Muggli: Tracy Muggli, Treaty 6 territory, Saskatchewan.
The Deputy Chair: Today, we begin our study of Bill S-202, An Act to amend the Food and Drugs Act (warning label on alcoholic beverages).
Joining us today for the first panel, we welcome our colleague and a member of this committee, the Honourable Senator Patrick Brazeau, sponsor of the bill. Thank you for joining us today.
Senator, you have five minutes for your opening statement, followed by questions from committee members. Senator Brazeau, the floor is yours.
Hon. Patrick Brazeau, sponsor of the bill: Thank you, Madam Chair and honourable colleagues.
The fact remains that if we were here to discuss whether we should legalize alcohol today, knowing what we know about alcohol, we would likely not proceed to do so. So instead, we are here to discuss putting cancer warning labels on alcoholic products in Canada.
Colleagues, Bill S-202 is a modest but critical amendment to the Food and Drugs Act to require cancer warning labels on alcoholic products in Canada.
I thank the Canadian Institute for Substance Use Research, or CISUR, at the University of Victoria — particularly Tim Stockwell, Dr. Tim Naimi, Adam Sherk, Kate Vallance and Ashley Wettlaufer — for their expertise in this domain.
Most Canadians know that excessive alcohol consumption harms health and causes liver damage; impaired judgment; fetal alcohol spectrum disorder; and drunk driving, which kills four Canadians daily.
The 2017 Canadian Substance Use Costs and Harms report estimated alcohol-related costs at $16.6 billion annually, including health care and lost productivity. This is known as the alcohol deficit. But what most do not know is that alcohol causes at least seven fatal cancers: mouth, throat, vocal cords, esophagus, breast, liver and colon cancers.
[Translation]
As Tim Stockwell notes, even one drink a day increases cancer risk. The more consumed, the higher the risk, yet only one in four Canadians is aware of this link. That is unacceptable.
Consumers, especially younger generations, demand transparency about what they consume, whether it is food, clothing, or electronics. They have a right to know the risks related to alcohol.
As Dr. Tim Naimi points out, we can easily find the amount of calcium in a can of peas, but a “calorie-dense, potentially addictive, intoxicating carcinogen” like alcohol lacks similar labelling. This bill corrects that.
Alcohol enjoys a unique cultural status, often escaping the scrutiny applied to other drugs. Myths persist: that moderate wine consumption is heart-healthy or that drinking young teaches responsibility. The World Heart Federation debunked the heart health claim. Alcohol harms the heart. Early drinking also increases the likelihood of heavy drinking later. These illusions must not obscure the truth.
This bill is not about prohibition or nanny-state overreach. It is about empowering consumers with facts. Critics may invoke fears of prohibition or claim that government overreach steals joy. However, providing health information is not overreach; it is Parliament’s responsibility when industry fails to act.
Nor is this anti-business. Honest labelling is a cornerstone of ethical business.
[English]
Bill S-202 requires four labelling elements: first, standard drink definition, as many Canadians do not know what constitutes a standard drink; second, the number of standard drinks per container, addressing confusion about servings, for example, whether a bottle of wine is one, two or three drinks; third, Health Canada guidance on safe consumption levels and clarifying the risks; and fourth, a clear cancer warning label stating the direct link between alcohol and fatal cancers in plain language.
These labels will not eliminate cancer overnight, but they will reduce deaths by better informing choices. Some may ignore warnings, and that is their right, but many will heed them, consciously and subconsciously tracking their intake, knowing what a standard drink is and when the risks rise.
Tobacco warnings faced similar resistance, but today every smoker knows the cancer risk. Alcohol deserves the same honesty.
As a Group 1 carcinogen — like tobacco and asbestos — alcohol’s risks must be labelled. I speak not as someone preaching abstinence, though I am over five years sober. My fight is personal, having lost my mother to cancer in 2004 and having done all I can to raise funds for cancer research since then.
We cannot prevent all cancers, but we can make a dent by ensuring Canadians know alcohol’s risks. This bill empowers consumers to make informed choices with minimal government intervention. I urge your support for Bill S-202 to protect Canadians’ health.
Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you, Senator Brazeau. We will now proceed to questions from committee members. For this panel, senators will have four minutes for your question and that includes the answer. Your questions will be directed to Senator Brazeau.
Senator Hay: Thank you, senator, for your work here. It’s really important. As the daughter of an alcoholic — my dad is a fantastic human being but struggled a lot — I appreciate the work you’re doing.
My question for you is around the stakeholder consultation that was conducted prior to tabling the bill. How did their feedback shape its content? And then my follow-up question is this: What challenges do you foresee in implementation?
Senator Brazeau: Thank you very much for the questions. To answer your second question first, in terms of the barriers, let’s make no mistake about it and not hide the facts. Let’s talk about the truth. The truth is industry itself. Hopefully, we’re going to have representatives of the industry come to answer questions as to why they don’t have cancer warning labels on their own products, knowing the facts that they do.
It will be important to hear from them, but here is the bottom line: The alcohol industry and lobby are interested in one thing and one thing only, and that is profit. They do not care about the health or well-being of Canadians. That’s the bottom line. We all have a job to do in life, and even representatives of these companies will have to come here and try to save face and put the best answers forward. We know they have a job to do, but we also have a job to do. Our job is to make sure that Canadians from coast to coast to coast are aware of the dangers, the negative impacts and the seven cancers that alcohol causes.
So that will be the biggest challenge that we have before us: the lobby themselves. They are great at lobbying parliamentarians on the other side who are elected. When dealing with these issues, things should be non-partisan. Unfortunately, it’s often because of partisanship that we’re not able to make great strides.
As a member of this committee, I know that all members around this table are tough and strong, and I look forward to these questions to the industry when the time comes.
That’s the biggest impediment.
In terms of your first question, I mentioned some individuals out of the University of Victoria who have been working on this issue for decades. I’m just a spokesperson for their hard work and dedication over the years.
Last February, on World Cancer Day, my office brought in experts from across Canada and abroad to have a serious discussion on the truth about alcohol. These experts are all of the opinion that this is where we need to go. There is much more that we should and need to be doing, but this is a great first step for tackling this issue of alcohol.
The discussions that I’ve had with those experts have been invaluable. They have shaped this piece of legislation, and a little bit of another piece of legislation that I have, Bill S-203, which would prohibit the advertising of alcohol in Canada, but that’s for another day.
So, yes, it has shaped this piece of legislation, along with a bit of my own lived experience. It was because of my lived experience that I found myself to be among the 75% of Canadians that were not aware that alcohol consumption caused seven cancers.
We have all been touched by cancer. We have loved ones who have died or been affected by cancer. I mentioned my mom. I had colon cancer as well.
It’s time we do something about it. That’s why we are here.
Thank you.
Senator McPhedran: Senator Brazeau, you’re much more than just a spokesperson. You’re a pioneer. You have come to us with courage and clarity. I’m honoured to be your seatmate in the Senate.
My question to you is about youth in this country and your sense of what potential difference this law could make to young people in Canada.
Senator Brazeau: Thank you for those kind words. I love you, my seatmate. It’s okay to say that; there’s nothing wrong with doing so.
If I were to go back in time and if somebody were to ask me if cancer warning labels were on alcoholic products when I was young, would that have changed or shaped me at the time, I don’t know, because we can’t go back in time. Yesterday is done and tomorrow is never a guarantee, and that’s why we have to try to live one moment and day at a time, and try as much as possible to appreciate living in the moment.
It’s not always easy to do, but since we’ve had cancer warning labels on tobacco products — and let’s not forget that even today, there are warning labels on every single cigarette, not just the packaging — smoking has gone down almost 25% in the last 20 years, and that’s significant.
In answer to your question, let’s apply that to cancer warning labels 20 years down the road. If there are cancer warning labels on alcoholic products, maybe rates of consumption will go down 20% or 25%. Is that a good thing for youth? Absolutely.
We know that alcohol has been accepted since the beginning of time, practically, and we’re always afraid to talk about the truth and the facts with respect to alcohol. Here we’re talking about cancer warning labels, but we didn’t talk about the deaths, the accidents, the injuries and the DUIs. We didn’t talk about the suicides. We didn’t talk about domestic abuse issues, which alcohol is directly or indirectly causing. And there are 911 calls and calls to the ambulance. We have people in waiting rooms with alcohol-related injuries that very few people know and talk about.
What people see is the commercials and the lifestyle that they’re promoting. I haven’t met many men and women in my lifetime who are able to attain the lifestyle that the alcohol companies push day in and day out.
This will make a huge impact. I can’t quantify it because I’m not an expert, but I know that the youth of today want to know what ingredients are in their food. They want to know what minerals their phones are made of. They want to know what they’re ingesting, and they have a right to know. Every Canadian consumer should have a right to have this information before them.
This will make huge strides in the future. As I said, it’s not going to make everything perfect, but it’s a beginning that I believe everybody is ready for. The time is right, and it’s going to improve health. Just as important is mental health. We cannot talk about mental health in Canada today while turning a blind eye to alcohol or other substances. From experience, it is impossible. They almost go hand in hand the majority of the time.
Senator Burey: Thank you, Senator Brazeau, for bringing this very important bill to the Senate and for your advocacy in this area.
As you know, I’m a behavioural pediatrician, and I see the impact on youth.
This is following on from Senator McPhedran’s question: As we know and as you talked about, substance use is a childhood and youth illness. It starts in youth, and we see that in our practices.
I’m wondering why the bill focuses just on cancer when we know that there are so many other health impacts. For example, we know about fetal alcohol spectrum disorder, which is a lifelong condition. We know about mental health. We know about addiction. Why is it just focusing on cancer labelling?
Senator Brazeau: Thank you for your work, your advocacy and that very important question. The simple answer is this: I’ve been here in this institution for quite a number of years, and I can safely say that things don’t necessarily move in a rapid fashion here, especially when you’re in the Senate and unaffiliated and kind of alone in your corner.
That’s essentially the short answer. I just focused it on cancer because, to me, as a first step, it’s sellable. It’s something that people quickly understand because we’ve been through it with the fight against the tobacco companies, which lasted 20 to 25 years.
In order to be able to move yardsticks forward, sometimes it’s okay to think big, but in terms of realistic changes, sometimes it’s better to think smaller and more focused, and then things happen subsequently in the years to come.
Obviously, alcohol causes a lot more than just seven cancers. Maybe I’ll write a book on exactly what it causes, not just in the physical sense but with respect to mental health as well.
I’m not an expert in this field. I just have lived experience. But in order to get Canadians to a place where they can accept that we need to start having this serious conversation on alcohol, we need to put the focus on the seven cancers that it causes as a first step. Then, hopefully, this issue will snowball into a more fulsome conversation that is needed, but for the time being, this is to get something happening and something moving.
Let’s not forget that the alcohol lobby has a lot of resources, both human and financial. As we all know, they will do whatever they will, even having a whole bunch of nights and receptions that they host for parliamentarians. They do that graciously to ensure that they don’t have cancer warning labels their products, because that’s going to mean a reduction in their sales and they don’t want that to happen.
Senator Bernard: Senator Brazeau, I want to echo my colleagues who are saying thank you for being this forward. Senator Burey actually asked one of the questions that I wanted to, and you’ve answered it, so I won’t ask it.
As you know, I have these young leaders here from Developing Young Leaders of Tomorrow, Today. Why should they be concerned about warning labels on alcohol?
Senator Brazeau: What a great question. As I said, maybe there is a more fulsome answer for another day. We have mentioned some of the things that alcohol causes and that we tend to turn a blind eye to. It’s only other people who struggle with alcohol and other families who struggle with alcohol — nothing to see here, folks.
I have learned a long time ago that most human beings go through the same crap. They have the same problems and issues. We’re very good at trying to hide it, because we’re afraid to feel shame, ridiculed or as if we’re different than others because we may struggle with alcohol while other people may not.
That’s not necessarily true. I think everyone in this room knows somebody who struggles with alcohol, and they might not be all that distant. It does ruin lives. It kills people. It’s certainly not good for mental health.
Personally, it led me down a very dark path — so dark that I wanted to put an end to my life. Luckily, I failed and am able to speak and answer your question today.
This substance called alcohol has been accepted, as I said earlier, from the beginning of time. We see it as celebratory, fun, a celebration, but for many people, it’s anything but. It’s a lot of pain and hurt inside, and not everyone has the courage and the capacity to ask for help or even to admit that they have problems when they do.
Why do I know this? I was one of them. I was ashamed to ask for help or share this with anyone.
That’s why it’s important for youth to know, because if you put this substance called alcohol in one category and put all other substances together in another, alcohol alone still costs society more and causes more damage than all the other substances put together.
I hope that answers the question. It would certainly take a lot more time to properly address it.
Senator Bernard: Thank you.
Senator Senior: Thank you, senator, for being here and being the face and the voice on this issue. I have two questions, but I think I’m going to ask my second question first. If I have time, then we can go to the other one on second round.
The first one is what I’m thinking about in terms of popular culture. I’m thinking of the song “Blame It (On the Alcohol)” by Jamie Foxx. Do you remember that? I’m thinking of the video that accompanied that song and how catchy it was, and how it made alcohol such a cool thing. It was cool before, but when Jamie does it, it’s really cool.
I’m thinking about the importance of an awareness campaign that would accompany this bill and how you would put those two things together to have an impact against that kind of advertising. This is catchy music, hip-hop. It is what our young people are into and what a lot of us older people dance to.
If you could comment on that, I would appreciate it.
Senator Brazeau: Thank you for that question. It’s important, because this is not an easy message to sell given the fact that this has existed since the beginning of time. It’s hard to change people’s mindsets surrounding alcohol.
But my office has been collecting clips from prominent actors, singers and athletes who no longer drink. As we all know, regardless of what we may think of a particular athlete or singer, they do bring a lot of weight through their voice. That’s all to say that I’m not going to let the cat out of the bag, so to speak, but there has been a lot of thought given to public announcements and the need for them. However, nothing has been solidified or confirmed yet. We are working on it, because more of these announcements coming — hopefully — from prominent people will change the strategy a bit. It’s going to help. We’re not there yet, but we’re currently working on it.
Senator Muggli: Thank you, senator. I really appreciate you taking on this work.
You probably know a little bit about my background, but substance use has been a career focus for me for 36 years. I really appreciate your lived expertise, because it’s more than experience. You have a lot of expertise in this area.
You know, as we all do, that people don’t necessarily turn to substances unless there are underlying mental health challenges that they’re dealing with. Root causes and what causes mental health challenges, that probably gets into the determinants of health. The root causes are many, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try to educate.
I think we have a lot of work to do on the promotion of low‑risk drinking guidelines. It’s been a one-off. I don’t think there is a real national focus on pushing those guidelines and that understanding.
You’re right about alcohol far outpacing the use all other substances combined. As a former administrator in a hospital, alcohol presentations always outnumbered presentations to the emergency department by far.
My question is actually about labels. I worry a lot about cancer, but I worry about fetal alcohol syndrome and other conditions such as diabetes, mental health and suicidality.
Will we, in the future, have 10 labels on a bottle? I really think we have to think about rotational labels, where you buy a bottle today and it’s about cancer, then tomorrow, the bottle has something on it about fetal alcohol syndrome. I just wanted to hear your thoughts on that.
Senator Brazeau: Thank you for the question. I realize this is about the seven cancers that alcohol causes in terms of having warning labels. I think there couldn’t be enough warning labels on the products, because they cause so much damage.
Could we have all of the negative impacts that alcohol causes on several labels? I don’t know. I know that the alcohol industry doesn’t want labels. If this committee, Parliament and the Senate would recommend and force them to have labels, then they would gladly, perhaps, agree to having QR codes. Then the question becomes this: Do most Canadians take the time to look at QR codes? So there is that frailty in terms of the industry and what they’re willing to accept.
I know that they would be willing to accept QR codes, in the final analysis, but I don’t think that’s the best thing for Canadians or for this committee necessarily.
But I sincerely hope — like with tobacco smoking — we’re not just reinventing the wheel. We know that tobacco smoking doesn’t just cause cancers; it’s now known by the majority of Canadians that it’s heart disease and many other things.
I might be wrong, but this is why I believe that having initial cancer warning labels on alcoholic products is going to open the door to having that bigger conversation about all the negative impacts alcohol has, not just the seven cancers.
What that process will look like in terms of the regulatory phase, we don’t have any control over how big these labels would be, the font size, the colours, et cetera. My hope, since day one, has been that if we can get these cancer warning labels initially, that’s going to open that door wide open. We will have done a great thing for Canadians, especially in promoting better health so they can make better-informed health decisions for themselves.
[Translation]
Senator Petitclerc: Senator Brazeau, thank you for this initiative and for all the answers you’ve given. My colleagues have asked a lot of excellent questions. I will ask a couple more.
Have you been looking at how this is unfolding in Ireland? I gather the bill that was adopted there in 2023 is not yet in force. I’ve been trying to understand the barriers to that. So, have you been looking at what they’re doing in Ireland? Would you expect to see that kind of text? I won’t get into the details, but my question is essentially this: For tobacco, the words and photos take up a lot of space on the pack. What do you picture that looking like on a bottle of wine?
Senator Brazeau: Thank you for the question.
As I said, I was more concerned with getting this bill studied. That was my main goal — probably my only goal.
I claim no expertise as far as what the label should look like. I’m no good at art, and I have a hard time even drawing a stick figure.
We are definitely monitoring what’s happening in Ireland, where warnings are supposed to appear in 2026, but there are a few small issues, one of which is called the liquor lobby. They have financial and human resources, and they’ll do absolutely everything they can to make sure labels do not appear on their products.
So, we’re looking at what’s happening, but the biggest obstacle is the industry itself, regardless of what they say. They’ll say they’ve done their own research, and Dr. So-and-so said such-and-such, but they fund their own medical findings. That has to stop. I don’t want to say this because it’s not very parliamentary, but in English, that’s what you call BS.
That has to stop. We need to stand up to those people. There is no reason — no reason at all — that cannabis and tobacco companies in Canada have to put warning labels on their products while alcohol companies get a free pass. We are all aware of the negative effects of alcohol, but we still give them a free pass. That’s unacceptable.
Senator Petitclerc: I think I know the answer, but I have another question about Ireland. Producers tried to say that labelling infringed on their commercial rights, but the European Commission said consumer health took precedence over business interests. Can we therefore be certain that, if the same thing were to occur here, the outcome and the decision might be the same?
[English]
The Deputy Chair: We are out of time. Senator Brazeau, do you want to hang on to that answer and we can get to it on second round, if possible?
Senator Brazeau: Yes, I can wait for second round, but if I forget it, somebody please remind me.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you. It is on the record.
Senator Greenwood: Thank you, Senator Brazeau, for being here and for bringing forward this really important piece of work.
This question has kind of been asked in a variety of ways, so I want to give you an opportunity to elaborate. I think about the Tobacco and Vaping Products Act — which was recently adopted in 2018 — that institutes plain packaging, among other things, to help reduce rates of smoking and regulate vaping products.
During that time, there was a lot of pressure and disinformation from tobacco producers and lobbyists about the bill that have, frankly, been proven to be unfounded — and I know you started to talk a bit about that.
Could you elaborate on some of the answers you’ve given to the committee? Does anyone have objections to this bill? Is there disinformation that you wish to counter? I know you have identified some groups, but is there anyone else who would object to this? Is there disinformation out there that needs to be contradicted?
Senator Brazeau: That’s also a very good question.
In no particular order, do you remember when doctors — not all doctors, but some — used to freely recommend a glass of wine for pregnant women? How did that turn out? At the same time, breast cancer rates are pretty high for women. Colon cancer rates are pretty high for men. “Drink with moderation,” that’s the campaign. “Drink responsibly,” that’s the disinformation that is out there.
One of these days, just as with the tobacco companies, where there were class-action lawsuits, the same thing will happen with the alcohol companies. So nothing is being reinvented here, but instead of allowing the companies and the federal government to go to the Supreme Court and fight this for 20 or 25 years with taxpayer dollars, resources, time and energy, why don’t we just create a little shortcut? It’s going to take a lot of time, there’s going to be a lot of fighting and it will probably end up in the Supreme Court anyway, but we can circumvent a few processes here.
That’s the level of disinformation here. Everybody has the right to disagree with this bill, but every time somebody is going to challenge it, saying, for example, “The chances of alcohol causing this type of cancer are small compared to this other one,” well, maybe those types of people used to work for the alcohol companies or the alcohol lobby. I have never worked for any alcohol company, but when somebody speaks negatively about this bill, they must be asked if they have ever worked for or represented the alcohol lobby. And it is the same thing with doctors. If they are not in agreement with this bill, then they must be asked if they were ever commissioned by alcohol companies to do any reports or studies and so on.
At the end of the day, as I said at the beginning, alcohol companies are interested in one thing: profit. There is nothing else. Hopefully, as parliamentarians, we care not only about the economy, but about the health and well-being of Canadians. This is just a small step in providing much-needed health information that even I wasn’t aware of at one point. Every Canadian needs to be aware of it.
[Translation]
Senator Boudreau: Senator Brazeau, thank you for joining us to discuss this important topic. I can see that you speak from the heart with a great deal of passion and compassion.
My question is similar to Senator Petitclerc’s. We know what is happening in Ireland, and I know the United States also has some history around labelling products, not for cancer specifically, but for other medical conditions.
You may not be the best person to do this, but I believe you’re very knowledgeable on the subject. Have other governments taken measures like those you’re proposing? If so, what were the outcomes? Did they note any progress compared to other countries?
Senator Brazeau: Thank you for the question. South Korea labels products, but they didn’t encounter the same industry push-back as in Ireland. Few governments around the world have done this. In January of this year, the U.S. Surgeon General stated in a report that the United States ought to move forward with labelling and warnings about various cancers and their causal link to alcohol.
Now there’s a new president who doesn’t drink alcohol and who probably isn’t politically aligned with his surgeon general’s recommendations. Many countries are talking about this at the moment, and some governments are further ahead than others.
[English]
Senator Arnold: Thank you, Senator Brazeau, for your courage and vulnerability. I think it shows great leadership to bring this forward, so thank you very much for that.
As a former mayor, I dealt with the results of alcohol use on the streets of my city for many years. I also dealt with it from a domestic violence perspective on the streets of my city. Often, it was older people who were using alcohol and had used it for a long time, so people would see these more elderly people and see the results on the streets of our city.
However, I’m particularly concerned with the increase in breast cancer among young women right now, and I feel that your approach is great — keep it simple. I’m a big believer in that. I’m curious if you have had any conversations with any provincial or territorial organizations. Is there anything we should be aware of within Canada that might cause some challenges to this?
Senator Brazeau: Thank you very much for those kind words and for your question. In answer, again, the impediment is the industry and lobby itself. They are one of the most powerful lobbies in the world, along with pharmaceuticals. There is a reason. I have not had any specific conversations with any provincial or territorial jurisdiction because this is in the federal jurisdiction realm in terms of this piece of legislation. Having said that, the impediment will try to invoke jurisdictional issues and do everything they can to make sure that this doesn’t see the light of day. As of now, it is not so much in the purview of any provincial jurisdiction, which is why I kept it to the seven cancers: to keep it in the jurisdiction of the federal government and in terms of my role as well, and our role.
That’s the impediment: the alcohol lobby itself. Do you know why? Well, have you seen that across the country, more parks are now allowing alcohol to be consumed? In this day and age, when there is supposed to be less drinking among youth, some jurisdictions, whether municipal or provincial, are opening up their parks to more alcohol. Are they the ones who want more alcohol in their parks? Not necessarily. It is the lobby.
There could be many impediments to pieces of legislation, but with this one, the major impediment is the lobby itself, and the second impediment is the government of the day. It is either the government of the day is interested in doing something about this and actually doing it, or they are not. Those are the two biggest impediments.
[Translation]
Senator Youance: Thank you for the work you do in the Senate, Senator Brazeau.
My question is for entities such as the SAQ in Quebec and the LCBO in Ontario. Would they have to be lobbied? Can they block this bill? What would be their responsibility should your bill be enacted?
Senator Brazeau: Thank you very much for your questions. As I just said, it would be nice to have a federal government that supports this bill. It would have been even better had the federal government introduced a government bill, but it didn’t. That tells me it probably isn’t very interested in moving on this.
However, a bit of campaigning to promote warnings over the coming weeks, months and years could result in whatever government is in power feeling compelled to advance the bill because more Canadians will be better educated about the harms associated with alcohol and the seven types of cancer it causes.
In a perfect world, the federal government would take a greater interest instead of saying there’s no real need for warnings because it doesn’t have a bill before it.
Health Canada needs to feel compelled to do something for the sake of Canadians’ health. It’s a little strange, but that’s where things stand.
Senator Youance: If the labels change, will that have a significant financial impact on product sales?
Senator Brazeau: I’m sure that if industry representatives were to answer that question, they would say there will be significant costs if warnings are issued. Listen to this: Corona, a Mexican company, put a warning on the back of its zero-alcohol Sunbrew beer. The company recommends limiting consumption of these beverages to two per day. Why? Because they add vitamin D. Ladies and gentlemen, don’t drink more than two non-alcoholic beers a day because it contains too much vitamin D. In contrast, a bottle of Jack Daniel’s or wine containing more than 20% alcohol doesn’t need a label. I think the companies should be responsible for issuing those warnings because they’re the ones making money off sales of these toxic products. They can foot the bill for putting warnings on their bottles, just like tobacco companies did. Tobacco companies even put warnings on each individual cigarette, not just on cartons and packs. It may cost alcohol companies more,
[English]
— but so be it.
The Deputy Chair: That concludes the first round. Colleagues, we have seven minutes and five senators with questions on second round.
Senator Brazeau, if you are amenable, can we allow the senators with questions on second round to read their questions into the record and ask you to provide written answers?
Senator Brazeau: Yes, absolutely.
Senator Burey: Why is alcohol, a known Group 1 carcinogen, still treated differently from tobacco when it comes to health warnings and labels?
Senator Bernard: You have talked a lot about industry, and I’m thinking about small business owners. I don’t know if this is happening across the country, but in Nova Scotia, we have a lot more microbreweries popping up. What might be the impact on them?
[Translation]
Senator Petitclerc: In Ireland, the European Commission found that consumer health took precedence over business interests. That decision would suggest that, if the Canadian industry objected, the same finding would be reached here. Is that the case?
[English]
Senator Arnold: Senator Brazeau, you made the point over and over again about the lobby and the money that the companies are making from this, but provinces also make money from the sale of alcohol. They are also seeing so many of the affected systems and breakdowns in communities. How will we tell the story of the connection between the two?
Senator Hay: So “just say no,” is not really a strategy. Where I think I’m going to go is the practical, tangible prevention strategy that I believe Health Canada has an obligation and mandate to enact. It requires prevention before addiction and also around behaviour change strategy. That’s just a statement. I support putting labels on bottles, though I recognize that it is at the point of sale, so prevention becomes incredibly important.
I’m curious, because I’m a results kind of person, how you envision the measures for success over time. What are the tangible measures for success that you would see in a broader prevention strategy?
Second, I will talk about industry. How do you see this working within prevention strategy and the industry, a multibillion-dollar market cap industry, and their obligation to fund the prevention strategy that also includes the labelling?
Senator Greenwood: I have a simple question. We talked about disinformation. If you had to do an information campaign based on evidence, what would the elements be in that information campaign that you would share beyond your labels? If we looked at this from the other side, what are the benefits of not consuming alcohol? We are always looking at the negative side. What are the benefits of doing that? In an awareness campaign, what would we put in there? We could get to prevention in real time.
The second piece I wanted to raise is that this is an individual challenge but also a societal one. It is a collective challenge because of the environment and the reinforcement of that, and that’s why I talked about an information campaign.
I also want to offer this: I think some of this awareness can also contradict some of the collective stereotypes that groups of people have experienced over history. I am specifically speaking about Indigenous people and the stereotypes that are related to alcohol and Indigenous people. This is a way to contradict some of that in a much broader collective and societal contribution, so I offer you that.
The Deputy Chair: This brings us to the end of the first panel. I would like to thank Senator Brazeau for his testimony today.
For our next panel, we welcome, from Health Canada, Aysha Mawani, Director General, Controlled Substances and Opioid Response Directorate, Controlled Substances and Cannabis Branch; Sheri Todd, Director General, Horizontal Policy, Planning and Programs Directorate, Controlled Substances and Cannabis Branch; and Martin Duplessis, Acting Director General, Food and Nutrition Directorate, Health Products and Food Branch. From the Public Health Agency of Canada, we welcome Annie Comtois, Acting Director General, Centre for Health Promotion, Health Promotion and Chronic Disease Prevention Branch.
Thank you for joining us today.
Ms. Mawani, I understand you will be the only one delivering opening remarks. You have five minutes for your opening statement, followed by questions from committee members. The floor is yours.
Aysha Mawani, Director General, Controlled Substances and Opioid Response Directorate, Controlled Substances and Cannabis Branch, Health Canada: Good morning and thank you, Madam Chair, for inviting me today, as well as my colleagues from the Public Health Agency and Health Canada.
Before I begin, I would like to acknowledge that I am joining you today from the unceded traditional territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabe People.
We are pleased to be here today as you consider Bill S-202, An Act to amend the Food and Drugs Act (warning label on alcoholic beverages).
[Translation]
The considerable burden of disease associated with alcohol consumption is a global public health concern. The health risks associated with alcohol consumption are well established, and long-term consumption increases the risk of cancer, hypertension, liver disease and more.
The health portfolio continues to closely monitor international alcohol policy developments, as well as trends in alcohol consumption and its harmful effects.
A clear understanding of the context in which these policies were introduced and the research that supports them is essential to advancing the implementation of effective public health interventions.
[English]
The Health portfolio recognizes the importance of raising awareness about alcohol-related harms and seeks to support Canadians as they make informed decisions about alcohol use. Alcohol, as you may know, is the most commonly used psychoactive substance in Canada, with 79% of people in Canada aged 15 and older having consumed alcohol in the past 12 months. Alcohol accounts for substantial overall costs to health care, criminal justice and lost productivity, totalling $19.7 billion in 2020. For the same year, there were 650,000 emergency department visits, 120,000 hospitalizations, and 17,000 deaths due to conditions caused by alcohol use in Canada.
Health Canada’s efforts to address substance use, including alcohol, are guided by the federal Canadian Drugs and Substances Strategy. The strategy is based on four foundational elements: prevention and education; evidence; substance use services and supports; and substance controls.
The strategy is led by Health Canada and involves several other departments across the federal government. The strategy aims to protect the health and safety of all Canadians by minimizing harms from substance use for individuals, families and communities.
[Translation]
As part of Canada’s Drugs and Substances Strategy, Health Canada’s work on alcohol encompasses a variety of activities, such as funding research, improving knowledge about best practices, monitoring trends in alcohol consumption and related harms, supporting public awareness activities targeting specific groups, including youth, and developing Canada’s Food Guide, which provides nutritional advice to help Canadians make informed decisions about food and beverage consumption, including alcohol.
[English]
Through Health Canada’s Substance Use and Addictions Program, or SUAP, Health Canada provides funding to community-led and non-profit organizations across the country in addressing substance use, including alcohol. Since 2017, Health Canada’s SUAP program has invested $17.7 million in support of projects that deliver new or innovative programs or tools for alcohol use disorder, including screening, intervention and referral to services.
We also work with the Public Health Agency to increase awareness and prevention of fetal alcohol spectrum disorder, or FASD. The Public Health Agency supports FASD prevention efforts through several initiatives, including surveillance on maternal and child health issues; promoting healthy pregnancies through annual investments in the Canada Prenatal Nutrition Program; and funding time-limited FASD awareness and prevention projects.
Health Canada is committed to collaborating with provinces and territories, Indigenous leaders, community organizations, health professionals, researchers, people with lived and living experience and substance use disorder experts to reduce the harms associated with alcohol use.
We would be pleased to answer your questions on this work. Thank you for your time today.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you, Ms. Mawani.
For this panel, senators will have four minutes for their question, and that includes the answer.
Senator Hay: Thank you all for being here and for the work you do for all the people in Canada.
I have a couple of questions. One is really around measures for success. How do you see, two, three and five years out, changes in the prevention strategies and in actual behaviour through this work?
The other side of it is that Health Canada is a very complex place, with multiple branches in the government. How do you see that potentially being a barrier in the whole strategy of launching all of this?
Ms. Mawani: Thank you for the question. In terms of the Canadian Drugs and Substances Strategy, the federal actions to address alcohol-related harms span a full spectrum. First announced in 2016 and then in 2023, there is a rigorous monitoring framework associated with the Canadian Drugs and Substances Strategy, which allows us to measure progress.
The strategy, as I mentioned, has four pillars to it: prevention and education resources for Canadians; substance use services and supports, including the funding of the Substance Use and Addictions Program, which has its own measurement framework; substance controls to manage public safety risks; and evidence to support the research.
Under the Substance Use and Addictions Program, we fund a range of research and community-based programs, interventions, knowledge translation tools and a variety of issues on alcohol use disorder. My colleague Sheri Todd can speak in a little more detail about some of the specific projects and the monitoring that’s done around those projects.
To your point around measurement, one of the big areas that Health Canada is involved in regards surveys and research to monitor trends in alcohol use and harms and also to assess levels of awareness of alcohol-related harms among people. Health Canada conducts monitoring and surveillance through national surveys, such as the Canadian Substance Use Survey, which was last published in December 2024; the Canadian Student Alcohol and Drugs Survey, which was released in March 2025; and the Canadian Postsecondary Education Alcohol and Drug Use Survey, released in May 2024.
So we’re continuously looking to leverage the various tools and suite of measures to better understand the behavioural factors that influence alcohol consumption patterns.
Senator Hay: Thank you for that. How do you see Bill S-202 impacting some of these strategies?
Ms. Mawani: Bill S-202 is something that we’re continuing to review at the moment.
Senator Hay: How do you see it adding value to the work that you’re doing?
Ms. Mawani: That’s part of the review process that’s currently under way. With respect to the Substance Use and Addictions Program, there have been different measures that we’ve undertaken to help understand alcohol labelling. One of those projects that was funded by the Substance Use and Addictions Program was the Yukon labelling study. We wish to understand the outcomes of that, as well as the international best practices in countries looking at introducing alcohol labelling or which have done so already, such as Ireland, which is looking to do so, New Zealand, Australia and the United States.
Senator McPhedran: Thank you very much for being here. I realize that you may have to refer this to others in your department. As it happens, I was the health advocate for the City of Toronto in the 1980s, when there was a concerted campaign to stop smoking in restaurants and other places. I saw first-hand the power of the tobacco lobby and the use of litigation on both sides of this question.
Does Health Canada have a defensive litigation strategy, learning from what has happened with provinces and tobacco companies over the past 30 years in anticipation of being able to reduce alcohol use in this country?
Ms. Mawani: I would have to defer to my colleagues in other parts of the department on that. We’re happy to get back to you with a response to that.
Senator McPhedran: Thank you. So can we expect a written answer to the committee?
Ms. Mawani: Yes.
Senator McPhedran: Thank you very much.
Senator Burey: Thank you for being here and or sharing some of that information about the commitment of Health Canada to various programs.
I’m a pediatrician. I’m just going to come right out and ask this: Is it working? We have evidence that all those programs — we are facing a mental health crisis, addiction is off the charts and young people are becoming addicted. I see them as patients, and we’re talking about alcohol now.
We already know about the cancer risk, which is what this bill speaks to. Isn’t it time to get more forceful in our approach to alcohol? We simply don’t have the money to sustain it, and that’s one of the things that we have to do.
I had to make that little statement first. My question to you — though I have several — is this: Why has the government not shared the updated Canada’s Guidance on Alcohol and Health on its website to replace the outdated low-risk alcohol drinking guidelines?
Ms. Mawani: The low-risk alcohol drinking guidelines provide information on how to reduce the risks of alcohol-related harms. They clearly note that any amount of alcohol consumption can be a risk to one’s health, and the guidelines set a limit and not a target for consumption.
With respect to Canada’s Guidance on Alcohol and Health, when Canada’s Guidance on Alcohol and Health was first released in 2023 by the Canadian Centre on Substance Use and Addiction, or CCSA, Health Canada provided the CCSA an additional $2 million to engage with stakeholders across the country to help guide the development of tools on alcohol use for Canadians. This engagement, which recently concluded in spring 2025, helped us better understand the impacts of alcohol use in Canada, its effects on various populations and how to effectively speak to diverse Canadians about the risks related to alcohol use.
Health Canada is currently reviewing the results of this work to best understand how to communicate behaviour change.
Senator Burey: Will you be putting the updated guidance on alcohol and health on your website where Canadians go to look for information?
Ms. Mawani: We’re reviewing the results of the engagement. Right now, the low-risk drinking guidelines are on Health Canada’s website.
Senator Burey: So that stands?
Ms. Mawani: The low-risk drinking guidelines are on the Health Canada website.
Senator Burey: Should this bill go forward, do you think that this bill will add to the need to update the guidance from a preventative point of view?
Ms. Mawani: There are different ways in which to communicate the harms of alcohol use to Canadians. We continue to look at the range of research best practices, including international best practices, to understand how to best communicate the risks to Canadians.
Senator Brazeau: Thank you all for being here this morning. From what I understand, Health Canada provided funding for the Canadian Centre on Substance Use and Addiction’s research for the guidelines. Is that correct?
Ms. Mawani: That’s correct.
Senator Brazeau: That organization, along with leading Canadian experts out of the University of Victoria, has also received funding from Health Canada to do work on alcohol policy. One of their recommendations — I’m talking about the CCSA in this case, and also CISUR out of the University of Victoria — is that we have clear warning labels on alcoholic products in Canada.
Can you share with us if you have looked at that specific recommendation? If so, has Health Canada, since 2023, when the new guidelines have come out, recommended to the minister to move forward on alcohol labelling in Canada?
Ms. Mawani: With respect to alcohol labelling, Health Canada has and is continuing to look at a number of different measures.
Something I mentioned previously is that we’re continuing to monitor developments internationally in places like Australia, New Zealand, Ireland and the U.S.
Australia and New Zealand, since 2002, have included standard drink information, with mandatory pregnancy warnings added in 2023 to help prevent against FASD.
Ireland’s Public Health (Alcohol) Act 2018 provided the authority to introduce mandatory labelling on alcoholic beverages, with warnings about pregnancy, cancer and liver disease. Starting in 2028, all alcoholic beverages in Ireland will need to include explicit statements.
We’re also looking at other countries, including the U.S., where alcoholic beverages have carried a health warning about pregnancy and impairment since 1988.
We’re continuing to review the international best practices and monitor policy developments and research, including on some of the SUAP-funded projects, which my colleague Sheri can speak to, in particular the Yukon labelling study.
Sheri Todd, Director General, Horizontal Policy, Planning and Programs Directorate, Controlled Substances and Cannabis Branch, Health Canada: I’m happy to speak to a couple of the projects we’re funding. One is with the University of Victoria, as you mentioned, with the Canadian Institute for Substance Use Research. That one is called updating, optimizing and expanding the Canadian Alcohol Policy Evaluation project. That is in the process of developing and implementing two initiatives. One of them is to increase awareness, uptake and implementation of —
Senator Brazeau: Excuse me, I don’t mean to interrupt. I really don’t want to know what you’re funding currently. What I want to know is what you’re not funding.
If Health Canada is funding all this research and providing funding to the experts in Canada with respect to alcohol policy, and they are suggesting to Health Canada we should have cancer warning labels on alcoholic products, my question is this: Why aren’t you funding that? That’s the only thing I want to know.
I don’t want to know what you’re currently going through, because I have an office of three people also looking at what is happening internationally in other countries. You have a lot more human and financial resources than we have.
I want to know if the people you’re providing funding to in Canada to do some very important work are recommending to you to have cancer warning labels on alcoholic products in Canada. My question is this: What specifically are you doing to make that happen?
Has Health Canada provided any recommendations to the Minister of Health since 2023 on the need for cancer warning labels in Canada? That’s all I’m looking for.
The Deputy Chair: Senator Brazeau, you’re out of time. I’m going to ask you to repeat that question on second round. That will give our Health officials some time to respond.
Senator Senior: Senator Brazeau asked my question, but I wish to build on that a little more. First, does Health Canada have its own research arm regarding the impacts and harms of alcohol?
Ms. Mawani: The Canadian Institutes of Health Research, or CIHR, is part of the Health portfolio, along with Health Canada and the Public Health Agency of Canada. They fund research on alcohol-related harms.
CIHR has conducted research on alcohol labelling, including current projects focused on the impact of interventions on consumption rates.
Senator Senior: I’m sorry, I just needed a yes or no. Thank you.
Are the research results the same as what Bill S-202 is saying with respect to the seven cancers?
Ms. Mawani: Research is still ongoing. For example, there are two projects currently under way looking at the impact of alcohol labelling on consumption rates.
Senator Senior: I’m asking about the seven cancers and not so much the labelling. Are the results similar, the same or different?
Ms. Mawani: The health risks of alcohol consumption regarding various types of cancer, including liver, esophageal, pharynx, larynx, colorectal and breast, are well established, as well as regarding other serious health conditions, such as hypertension and liver disease.
Senator Senior: So that is known within Health Canada.
Ms. Mawani: It is well established.
Senator Muggli: Thank you for being here. Full disclosure, I have 36 years of experience working in this realm of substance use as a social worker and health care administrator. I saw nothing but increases in emergency department presentations for ETOH over that 36 years.
I’ll move to SUAP. That’s what I used to call it. I know that a lot of SUAP pilots maybe show successes, but then who funds the actual program thereafter?
My understanding is that funding has been to try something new. Then, in desperation, organizations have to try to convince their province or health authority to fund it.
You talked about continuing to monitor, review, look at ways and so on. As a health care provider, I would never allow my staff to use the word “monitor” in their charting because that kind of meant nothing was happening. It’s not action-oriented.
When you will be able to share your findings from your monitoring or reviewing of different ways to address this issue?
Ms. Todd: I can speak to the first part of your question.
You’re right, SUAP funding from the federal government is time-limited. The idea of SUAP funding is to provide funding for pilot projects that aren’t receiving funding elsewhere, through provincial or territorial governments and hospital funding. They are intended to be innovative and to pilot something.
At the outset, there need to be sustainability plans as part of the project’s objective to get funding.
The idea is for a province, territory, local hospital or community organization to be able to fund this on an ongoing basis.
Senator Muggli: Do you know what percent of SUAP pilots actually get funded and become programs?
Ms. Todd: I don’t have the percentage.
Senator Muggli: That would be an important indicator of your program.
Ms. Todd: I can look into that.
Senator Muggli: That would be great.
Ms. Todd: We do know there are a number of provinces, territories and hospitals, for example, and other organizations that continue projects.
We did have one, for example, at the Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario, or CHEO, that was deemed to be successful. You talked about being in a hospital. This was to build a screening tool by service providers at CHEO. That was partnered originally with Rideauwood. It was to help develop substance use screening for youth aged 12 to 21 with alcohol or substance use health issues.
It helped to increase use of an evidence-based screening tool by point-of-access service providers at CHEO. It helped to ensure youth who were coming to the hospital were provided the right tools once they were identified as having substance use issues. That has been integrated into the hospital system.
So not all projects require ongoing funding; some of them just need that seed funding by SUAP. Then they can continue to advance within the settings they are in.
Senator Muggli: Did you want to carry on with the other question I had around sharing results of learnings?
Ms. Mawani: Yes. In terms of sharing results of learnings, it is very much an ongoing basis. Whether it’s through work with CIHR, the SUAP projects or internal policy work, it’s very much an ongoing, rolling basis and something that we look to learn, whether it’s through multilateral fora and attending international conferences or engaging with provinces and territories, which are important partners. It’s an ongoing basis.
Senator Muggli: Thank you, Ms. Mawani.
Senator Arnold: Thank you for being here. I was struck by something Senator Brazeau said earlier, that zero-alcohol Corona actually has a warning to not have more than two because of the vitamin D content. I remember as a child drinking diet colas, and I don’t know if it’s still there, but there was a warning that said, “This product could cause cancer in laboratory animals.”
I’d like to know historically — and maybe this isn’t fair to you because you all look very young — how did this decision get made even at the basic level? We don’t have anything mandated for calories, carbohydrates, sugar or fat. How can we can we have something that Canadians consume from coast to coast to coast and there’s literally nothing on it? That clearly has a direct impact on health?
Martin Duplessis, Acting Director General, Food and Nutrition Directorate, Health Products and Food Branch, Health Canada: All alcoholic beverages in Canada are regulated as a food under the Food and Drugs Act, the Food and Drug Regulations and the Safe Food for Canadians Act. Right now, they are subject to general food labelling requirements. The required label elements are the alcohol by volume, priority allergens, gluten sources and added sulphites, common names, net quantities and manufacturing details. The ingredients list is not required because standardized products have composition standards. You also have unstandardized products, like Scotch, where there is an international element of consumer familiarity about the composition of those products.
Nutritional facts tables or front-of-pack labelling are not subject unless the manufacturers are making a claim like a product being low in calories. Then they would have to put in a nutrition facts table.
I don’t know about the history, but over time, those nutrition labels have been added to help consumers make informed choices. With respect to those alcoholic beverages historically, I cannot speak about the decisions made in the past about what is exempted from these requirements.
Senator Arnold: And you don’t know why?
Mr. Duplessis: No.
Senator Arnold: Thank you.
Senator Bernard: I have a very simple question: If this bill passes and you are then required to use labels, what are the potential loopholes? I’m thinking, for example, of people who make their own alcohol at home, or the microbreweries, as I raised earlier with Senator Brazeau. What loopholes would you anticipate?
Mr. Duplessis: Good question. The bill is still under review in terms of what the implications could be, and the loopholes will need to be carefully considered. We are still analyzing that in the bill, for sure.
Senator Bernard: A version of this bill was before us in the previous session. Were you looking at it then, or are you talking about now? When you say it’s under review, what do you mean?
Mr. Duplessis: It’s under review in that we are working closely with our colleagues in terms of looking at the all the different interventions. When we look at the bill, it’s under review as a measure aligned with other measures that could be used to better inform Canadians on alcohol consumption.
Senator Bernard: Thank you.
The Deputy Chair: Senator Bernard, you still have two minutes and 30 seconds.
Senator Bernard: I’ll give my time to my seatmate here. Senator Brazeau, would you like my two minutes?
Senator Brazeau: Sure. If you offer them, I’ll take them.
Just following along the lines of Senator Bernard, we hear this often, that you are reviewing the legislation. It’s not a thick piece of legislation; it’s only a couple of pages.
Could you tell us exactly what kinds of conversations you’re having with your colleagues with respect to reviewing this legislation? I’m not quite sure what you mean when you say are reviewing it. What exactly does that mean? You have been reviewing it since 2022.
Ms. Mawani: As I mentioned previously, alcohol warning labels are one among many tools that can be used to raise awareness about the health risks and harms of alcohol use. We are continuing to look at the full suite of international best practices and projects under way. We have also carried out some public education with respect to public awareness around alcohol and labelling.
In 2023, Health Canada conducted what’s called the Public Awareness of Alcohol-related Harms Survey to assess the public’s knowledge and opinions regarding alcohol. Some of the key findings indicate that over a third of alcohol consumers are not familiar with the concept of a standard drink. A minority of Canadians were aware of the risk of cancer at low alcohol consumption levels, and 62% of people surveyed agreed that the labels on alcoholic beverages should display or provide the number of standard drinks.
We are continuing to amass the evidence, look at best practices, understand the research, understand what other jurisdictions are doing in other countries and consider and review the bill.
The Deputy Chair: Senator Brazeau, you have 29 seconds left, and we have you on second round. Is that sufficient, or do you want to go ahead?
Senator Brazeau: I just have to make this comment. As the sponsor of this bill and somebody with lived experience with the negative impacts of alcohol, I’m a little bit disappointed in the response because you’re saying you’re asking people questions. It’s time to educate Canadians, not ask them questions. What have you been doing specifically to educate Canadians on the negative impacts of alcohol?
The Deputy Chair: We are out of time, so I’m going to suggest you hold on to that. We have Senator Brazeau on second round.
Senator Greenwood: Welcome. Thank you for all the work that you do. I have a couple of pretty straightforward things.
First, and it’s kind of following up on all of my colleagues’ comments so far in this discussion, I would like to invite you to send us your findings around the different strategies you’re talking about. I know you have mentioned a lot of them, but I’ll never hold them in my head. Maybe it’s just what each study is and what the major finding was, particularly with respect to labelling? I know you are situating labelling in a much larger strategy or suite of addressing substance use. That’s what I heard you say, “addressing substance use.” I would like if you shared that because I think that would be important for us to know.
Ms. Mawani, does all of this have to be looked at before you will consider the bill reviewed? There are a lot of things going on that you want to know. Does that all have to be looked at before you will consider Bill S-202 reviewed?
Ms. Mawani: In terms of the review of the bill, we are looking at not only the public health interventions and policy dimensions of it, but also from a regulatory perspective and what would be involved in that process.
Senator Greenwood: I’m trying to get a sense of the process of what you need to do in order to consider that this bill has been reviewed.
I guess my second question, if I may, is pretty straightforward. I don’t know if you can answer it, but I will put it on the table. Would the passing of this bill cause harm to your efforts around alcohol use and all of these strategies? Would this be harmful to the work that you’re currently doing?
Ms. Mawani: Would the passing of the bill be harmful?
Senator Greenwood: That’s right.
Ms. Mawani: Again, the bill is under review. We are looking at different aspects of the policy, the regulatory dimensions and the public health implications. So as I mentioned, alcohol warning labels are one among several tools that can be used to raise awareness about the harms of alcohol, so it’s considered within that full suite.
Senator Greenwood: Is there a time frame for this?
Ms. Mawani: I do not have a time frame. There is no time frame.
Senator Petitclerc: Listening to you brought me back to when we were studying the legislation on plain packaging and vaping. At the time, we already had a lot of information and data on the harm of vaping, which is similar to alcohol. We know it’s cancerous. It’s the World Health Organization — we had that data, yet it took time for legislation, regulation and control when it came to vaping.
My question is this: Do you have the capacity to do it without legislation? Is it your experience — not specifically with this — that once we do have the legislation passed, action is quicker?
Mr. Duplessis: As I mentioned, alcoholic beverages are regulated as food under the Food and Drugs Act. The Food and Drugs Act authorizes the making of regulations respecting the labels of food to prevent consumers from being deceived or misled. It also prohibits the sale of food not labelled in accordance with the regulations.
Health Canada already has experience in using labels for risk mitigation. Operationally, this will require amendments to the Food and Drug Regulations as well. When we add any policy decision to require labelling, it will need to be carefully looked at to take into account different legal aspects, consumer perspective, et cetera.
Senator Petitclerc: Am I correct that you would have, if decided, the capacity to make labelling happen?
Mr. Duplessis: Yes.
Senator Petitclerc: I understand you have the capacity to make it happen, but would you say that having legislation makes it happen faster?
Mr. Duplessis: Yes.
Senator Petitclerc: Does it add pressure? Does it perhaps give you tools? Do you know what I mean? Does it just help?
Mr. Duplessis: Good question. As I mentioned, under the Food and Drugs Act, we have the statute to do labelling, like we do for allergens. What will be required is more of a change in the regulations that we have to go through the regular process for adding. If this is labelling we’re talking about, we have to go through the process.
[Translation]
Senator Boudreau: I thank our witnesses.
We have talked a lot about the positive effects of this bill in committee, and there seems to be near consensus on its positive effects. As parliamentarians, we must nevertheless consider all aspects of an issue. You are in the process of studying this bill, so have you looked at the impact it would have on the industry? Will it have impacts other than financial ones? There are hundreds, if not thousands, of breweries, distilleries, and wineries. They aren’t all international giants; some are family-owned businesses. Are you aware of the negative impacts on the industry, and can you tell us about them, please?
Mr. Duplessis: Everything you mentioned is part of the normal regulatory process. If a decision is made about labelling, public servants must follow all the standard steps for changing regulations. We must consult, develop policy and review all the different options. In addition, any published regulations must be accompanied by a regulatory impact analysis summary.
Senator Boudreau: Can you share some of the results with us?
Mr. Duplessis: The process happens when a regulatory process begins.
Senator Boudreau: Thank you.
[English]
The Deputy Chair: That concludes the first round.
We have five senators on second round. For this round, I’m going to limit the question and answer to two minutes, so please be precise. You may have to ask the witnesses to provide some written testimony, if they are amenable.
Senator Brazeau: My earlier question regarded that Health Canada funds CCSA, which developed the new drinking guidelines, and has also funded CISUR out of the University of Victoria. And again, the leading experts in Canada on alcohol policy, who are within the confines of those organizations — and several others across the country, but mainly coming out of those — have recommended to Health Canada that we should have clear warning labels on alcoholic products in Canada.
If you’re funding these individuals, they’re doing the work they’re required to do, they’re the leading experts, they come with reports and studies and they say that this is what we should be doing, can you tell us — since 2023, since the new guidelines came out — if Health Canada has recommended to the minister to have health warning labels on alcoholic products? If so, how many times have they done so?
Ms. Mawani: We continue to study the question of alcohol labelling, again, looking at various best practices, the ways in which international jurisdictions are carrying out alcohol labelling, as well as looking at projects and best practices from within Canada, and considering all of this in the context of the suite of measures around alcohol use and harms.
And so whether it’s public opinion research, which I mentioned earlier that we’ve undertaken, or it’s SUAP-funded projects, or it’s looking at what other jurisdictions — such as Ireland — are doing, we’re looking at it holistically.
Senator Muggli: The pathway to tobacco labelling, I’m sure, was interesting and challenging. I’m assuming there have been some lessons learned that would help you create a successful pathway to alcohol labelling. Could you talk about how you might take lessons learned from tobacco labelling into alcohol labelling?
Ms. Mawani: The key federal statutes regulating alcohol differ from those of tobacco, but we’d be happy to connect with our tobacco counterparts within Health Canada and provide you with some lessons learned around tobacco labelling.
Senator Muggli: I think that would be very useful. Thank you.
Senator McPhedran: I want to repeat my appreciation, and I think it is shared around the table, that you’ve taken the time to be with us today and carefully consider our questions. I would also like to put on the record a request that you take a message back to your minister, please.
I want to note that we invited your minister to be here with us today. While we appreciate you being with us, I think it is fair to say that we have every expectation that the Minister of Health will respond to our invitation. This is a conversation that we need to have with the government, with a cabinet leader. If you would, please, take that message back to your minister.
Ms. Mawani: I’m happy to take that back. Thank you.
Senator Senior: I have a series of short questions that require even shorter responses. How long has Health Canada been aware of the link between alcohol and cancers?
Ms. Mawani: The well-established risks between alcohol use and cancer are within Canada’s Food Guide. There is a section on alcohol within Canada’s Food Guide. I don’t know how long that has been online, but it has certainly been at least five years, I believe.
Senator Senior: Thank you. I’m assuming there have been a few ministers over the past five years. Has the current minister been apprised of or briefed on the link between alcohol and cancer?
Ms. Mawani: The minister has been briefed on the suite of measures under the Canada Drugs and Substances Strategy, which I mentioned earlier, and alcohol harms, the use of alcohol and the risks of alcohol are part of that.
Senator Senior: Thank you. Similar to Senator Petitclerc’s question, in the past, has Health Canada been proactive without a bill in not just labelling but warning Canadians about health risks?
Ms. Mawani: Health Canada has launched a number of public education campaigns. We have developed targeted messaging, particularly for youth, on the Health Canada website around the harms of alcohol use, offering tips to young adults about reducing their risks if they do choose to drink alcohol. Messaging on alcohol has also been integrated —
Senator Senior: I mean specifically related to cancer as well. Has that been done?
Ms. Mawani: With respect to the risks of polysubstance use, Health Canada’s Reduce Your Risks of Substance Use campaign, which includes all substances as well as alcohol, does look at a variety of risks.
Senator Senior: Thank you.
Senator Burey: Thank you for being here. I’m a physician, but just as a regular Canadian, alcohol is a known Group 1 carcinogen. I’m looking at the list from the International Agency for Research on Cancer. Alcohol and tobacco are on the same list. Why are we treating them differently when we do warnings and labelling in this case?
Ms. Mawani: Health Canada continues to study the question of alcohol labelling.
Senator Burey: It’s listed as a Group 1 carcinogen. I’m just asking the question. I don’t know why you’re doing it. It’s a Group 1 carcinogen, listed the same way as tobacco, but we treat tobacco one way, and we treat alcohol differently.
Ms. Mawani: Again, we are continuing to review the best available evidence and the best practices.
Senator Burey: Thank you.
Ms. Todd: I can add that key federal statutes regulating alcohol differ from tobacco. I’m not sure if my colleague wants to comment on that.
Mr. Duplessis: For us, labelling is under the Food and Drugs Act, so on the conversation about looking at the entire suite of measures, any policy decision on whether the measure should be labelling will have to be discussed among other measures. After, if this decision is implemented, we will be implementing it as part of our Food and Drug Regulations —
Senator Burey: Thank you.
The Deputy Chair: Senators, this brings us to the end of this panel. I would like to thank all the witnesses for their testimony today.
(The committee adjourned.)