THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL AFFAIRS, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Wednesday, November 19, 2025
The Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology met this day at 4:17 p.m. [ET] to consider Bill S-202, An Act to amend the Food and Drugs Act (warning label on alcoholic beverages); and, in camera, for consideration of a draft agenda (future business).
Senator Rosemary Moodie (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Senators, welcome to this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology. My name is Rosemary Moodie. I am a senator from Ontario, and I chair this committee.
Before we begin, I would like to do a round table and have senators introduce themselves, starting with our deputy chair, Senator Osler.
Senator Osler: Flordeliz (Gigi) Osler, senator from Manitoba.
Senator Senior: Paulette Senior, senator from Ontario.
[Translation]
Senator Boudreau: Victor Boudreau from New Brunswick.
[English]
Senator Arnold: Dawn Arnold, also from New Brunswick.
Senator Hay: Katherine Hay, Ontario.
[Translation]
Senator Petitclerc: Chantal Petitclerc from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Burey: Sharon Burey, Ontario.
Senator Greenwood: Margo Greenwood from beautiful British Columbia.
Senator Cuzner: Rodger Cuzner, Nova Scotia.
Senator Muggli: Tracy Muggli, Treaty 6 territory, Saskatchewan.
The Chair: Thank you, senators. Today, we will proceed to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill S-202, An Act to amend the Food and Drugs Act (warning label on alcoholic beverages).
I would like to welcome back officials from Health Canada, who are with us in the room today and are available to answer technical questions, if needed: Aysha Mawani, Director General, Controlled Substances and Overdose Response Directorate, Controlled Substances and Cannabis Branch; and David Lee, Chief Regulatory Officer, Health Products and Food Branch.
Before we begin, I would like to remind senators of a number of points. As chair, I will call each clause successively in the order they appear in the bill.
If at any point a senator is not clear where we are in the process, please ask for clarification. I want to ensure that at all times we all have the same understanding of where we are in the process.
In terms of the mechanics of the process, when more than one amendment is proposed to be moved in a clause, amendments should be proposed in the order of the lines of the clause.
If a senator is opposed to an entire clause, the proper process is not to move a motion to delete the entire clause but rather to vote against the clause as standing as part of the bill.
Some amendments that are moved may have consequential effect on other parts of the bill. It is, therefore, useful to this process if a senator moving an amendment identifies to the committee other clauses in this bill where this amendment could have an effect. Otherwise, it would be very difficult for members of the committee to remain consistent in their decision making.
Because no notice is required to move amendments, there can, of course, have been no preliminary analysis of the amendments to establish which ones may be of consequence to others and which may be contradictory.
If committee members ever have any questions about the process or about the propriety of anything occurring, they can certainly raise a point of order. As chair, I will listen to the argument, decide when there has been sufficient discussion of a matter or order and make a ruling.
The committee is the ultimate master of its business within the bounds established by the Senate, and a ruling can be appealed to the full committee by asking whether the ruling shall be sustained.
I wish to remind honourable senators that if there is ever any uncertainty as to the results of a voice vote or a show of hands, the most effective route is to request a roll call vote which, obviously, provides unambiguous results.
Finally, senators are aware that any tied vote negates the motion in question.
Are there any questions on any of the above? If not, we can now proceed.
Senators, is it agreed that the committee proceed to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill S-202, An Act to amend the Food and Drugs Act (warning label on alcoholic beverages)?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall the title stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall the preamble stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 1 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 2 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall the preamble carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall the title carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall the bill carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Does the committee wish to consider appending observations to the report?
Hon. Senators: Yes.
The Chair: The Rules allow us to go in camera to discuss these observations. Does the committee wish to discuss observations in public or in camera?
Senator Burey: I will go with the will of the committee either way.
Senator McPhedran: Thank you. I think if Senator Burey is comfortable with her observation being known publicly, that’s probably a good thing.
Senator Burey: I will go with the will of the committee. If that’s the will of the committee, I’m okay with that.
The Chair: We will stay in public. Senator Burey, would you like to raise it?
Senator Burey: Thank you, chair.
The Chair: If you give us a few minutes, we will distribute copies of the observation.
At this point, we are ready to discuss Senator Burey’s observation.
Senator Burey: First of all, I would like to salute Senator Brazeau for his tenacity and his continued efforts to protect the health of Canadians, especially related to alcohol and its harms and alcohol labelling in this bill.
I’m appending an observation because we heard significant testimony, and I did a little bit of research on observations and their value, specifically in Senate Procedure in Practice in Chapter 7 on public bills. Quoting from Senate Procedural Note No. 5 on the legislative process:
The purpose of observations is to draw attention to elements of the bill or related policy, or to put some views or opinions on the record.
I also note: “These recommendations, while not binding on the government, have often influenced government policy.”
That is the aspect of my observations or the rationale, let’s say, for my observations.
If we go through the first observation, I can read it out. You have it in front of you, but just to read it out:
Your committee has learned that alcohol is a risk factor for serious medical conditions that result in both mortality and morbidity, including, but not limited to: alcoholic liver disease, fetal alcohol spectrum disorder, various cancers, hypertension, cardiovascular disease, substance use disorder and addiction, and an increased risk of dementia.
While Bill S-202 currently acknowledges the link between alcohol consumption and cancer, your committee recommends that labelling should also recognize the broader spectrum of fatal and debilitating diseases associated with alcohol use, such as alcoholic liver disease, fetal alcohol spectrum disorder, and addiction.
Of course, we heard testimony and we received briefs. I don’t want to go into it because we were all here, but I’m open for discussion on this first observation.
The Chair: I would like to open the floor for discussion. Any senators wish to comment?
Senator Senior: Thank you so much, Senator Burey, for coming forward with this observation. I find that it helps us to put on the record — in this case publicly today as well for our discussion — the wider spectrum of the impact of alcohol. And it also, I think, attaches a clearer understanding, hopefully beyond this room, that this is a concern and we, as a committee, do take it seriously.
Even though Senator Brazeau was clear as to why he limited the labelling as such, your first observation here helps to fill that gap for me personally, so I appreciate that.
Senator Burey: Thank you, senator.
Senator Muggli: As a newbie who has only been in an environment of hearing observations maybe three times now at committee, I’m just seeking clarity. It says, “. . . your committee recommends that labelling should also recognize the broader spectrum . . . .” Does that mean we are telling the ministry or the minister that we are recommending they do this without having to legislatively be told to do it?
Senator Burey: Senator Muggli, thank you. That’s why I started with Senate Procedure in Practice, which gives us some guidance on the role of observations, and I will read that.
I note:
These recommendations, while not binding on the government —
— so that’s the answer to your question in that they are not binding —
— have often influenced government policy.
I think that captures the sentiment we heard. It is not binding, but it could influence government policy.
Senator Muggli: Thank you.
Senator Burey: Okay.
Senator Osler: Thank you, Senator Burey, for your continued advocacy. I have a question and it would probably be best directed to officials. Is there any labelling on alcoholic beverages directed toward pregnant women and the risk of consuming alcohol while pregnant? I had thought no, but then I had heard from another source that there was on some alcoholic beverages. It’s just for my own information and for the committee’s information, please.
The Chair: Just to be clear, the officials are very kind to attend to support us through clause-by-clause consideration. They generally do not weigh in on observations and the work that we do there. Mr. Lee is kindly offering to weigh in.
David K. Lee, Chief Regulatory Officer, Health Products and Food Branch, Health Canada: Thank you, Madam Chair. There is not currently a requirement in the regulations, although as a voluntary permission, if somebody wants to label it that way, we do permit that.
Senator Osler: Thank you.
The Chair: Welcome, Mr. Lee. Nice to see you again. We have a history building here. Are there any other questions?
Senator McPhedran: Thank you, Senator Burey — Dr. Burey — for these observations. I concur with the statements made by Senator Senior. I do want to convey to the committee that if Senator Brazeau could be here, he would be here. I wanted to also convey on his behalf that he appreciates your observations.
Senator Burey: Thank you, Senator McPhedran.
The Chair: Is there any further discussion on the observation? If not, do we agree with this observation as stated?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Senator Burey, can I invite you to speak to your next observation?
Senator Burey: I am just going to go straight into it. Thank you, Senator Osler, for that question. We had a bit of clarification. Here is the observation:
Your committee has learned that many countries including the United States, Australia, New Zealand, France, and Ireland require mandatory alcohol warning labels for pregnant women, due to the risk of birth defects and brain damage to the fetus.
To ensure Canada aligns with international best practices and to protect fetal health, your committee recommends that labelling should recognize the risk of birth defects and brain damage to the fetus.
Again, this is a recommendation that can affect government policy. I don’t have to go into the details. I’m a behavioural pediatrician. I diagnose many kids who have these neurodevelopmental effects, so I have seen the lifelong damage to families, and the cost to the Canadian economy is astronomical. We are all health leaders around here. So that’s my discussion on this.
The Chair: I’m opening the floor for further discussion on this observation.
Senator Petitclerc: I have just a small observation on your observation. Throughout the years and the different observations, we don’t often see recommendations in observations. But I’m not saying I don’t like it. I feel like usually it would be “the committee recognized” or “observed” or “was made aware.” I’m just thinking if we as a group go with a recommendation, it is a bit stronger than what we have been used to. But I’m not saying it’s a bad thing because maybe we want to choose to intentionally be that strong. I would support that. But I’m just saying it is not something I’m used to as language.
Senator Burey: Thank you.
Senator Greenwood: I would just suggest taking out these four words: “your committee recommends that.”
Just say it:
. . . best practices and to protect fetal health, labelling should recognize the risk of birth defects and brain damage to the fetus.
Senator Burey: I would agree.
The Chair: Can we make a proposed change? We’ll read it through from the start.
We are talking about the first one, right?
Senator Burey: The second one.
Senator Greenwood: Second observation, second paragraph.
The Chair: It would be:
To ensure Canada aligns with international best practices and to protect fetal health, labelling should recognize the risk of birth defects and brain damage to the fetus.
Senator Osler: I recognize this is an observation and not an amendment. It is an observation that expands the scope of the original bill, which is very focused on the causal link with cancer. Perhaps I’ll look to my colleagues with more experience. It is an observation, not an amendment. We are talking about scope. Is that admissible without witnesses?
The Chair: Welcome. Would you have a comment on this, Ms. Perez-Leclerc?
Mayra Perez-Leclerc, Analyst, Library of Parliament: Whether the committee should use the language —
The Chair: No. Whether we are stepping out of scope to include this content.
Senator McPhedran: Because we didn’t have witnesses on these points.
Ms. Perez-Leclerc: We had witnesses who spoke about the fact that the health risks associated with alcohol consumption went beyond cancer, and they touched on other issues as well. So it could potentially cover this.
The Chair: Thank you. I’m also going to ask if we would like to revert back to the first observation and take the same approach: Take out the words “your committee recommends.” I’ll read it again.
Senator Hay: I’m just curious why we are worried about saying out loud that “this committee learned.” Why can we not be definitive that we heard this, we learned it and we have an observation about it? It is stronger. It is a decision. I think that’s our job.
The Chair: I don’t think that’s the question. The choice of the words “this committee learned” is not being discounted here. It’s “your committee recommends” which is the language we are looking to have changed.
Senator Hay: I see. I heard it differently, sorry.
Senator Burey: Could we have a word from the analyst on the previous wording of observations recommending? I know I have done a number of observations, and I have used that word a number of times. In fact, I will go back to Senate Procedure in Practice. I note: “These recommendations, while not binding on the government . . . .”
We have been using the word “recommends” throughout our language, and I’m just asking if the —
The Chair: I can tell you that in examples that were shown to me, because I raised this going in, I was shown a number of examples that use this language under observations. I would concur.
Senator Burey: Under observations, yes.
Senator Senior: While I agreed with Senator Greenwood’s point earlier in terms of those four words and striking them, is the intent to have it be stronger or to not use the word “recommends”? I wasn’t sure even though I agreed.
The Chair: Senator Greenwood, would you like to answer?
Senator Greenwood: What I think is this: Even if we take out “your committee recommends that” in both places, an observation implies it comes from this committee anyway. It is implied. If there are observations, it is implied that the committee wanted these recommendations in there. If people were going to stumble over the word “recommends,” you can take it out and it says the same thing. It is just more implicit then.
Some people will get stuck on why you are making recommendations in observations. If we are not, then basically what you have said is this is what we learned. We are writing it down here. They don’t have to enforce this. This is our best thinking about this particular piece.
I think the question around scope is a really important one. But we also heard from the analyst that we did hear people talk about it, so we want that captured here because it’s equally important for some people.
I just don’t want these to get stuck because words like “recommend” can be kind of loaded in these scenarios. I would take it out and just state it.
The Chair: I would like to retract my recommendation to consider the first observation, because when I reread it, some kind of language would have to replace those three words. It’s not an easy extraction. I would leave it be, if we’re comfortable with “your committee recommends.”
I didn’t see anybody else — I saw a lot of head shaking.
Ms. Perez-Leclerc: Taking a quick look at the testimony, for example, the medical health officer from Vancouver Coastal Health talked about:
Health harms can include acute intoxication, alcohol poisoning, liver disease, hypertension, heart disease and cancer. Social harms can include intimate partner violence, impaired driving and injury.
We do have some testimony speaking about additional health risks associated with alcohol consumption.
Senator Burey: I have a whole list of them, but I don’t think I have to go into it.
The Chair: Thank you. If we’re in agreement with the changes in the second observation — you have a comment about which one, Senator Osler?
Senator Osler: The second observation. I’m thinking about the second observation and scope. Would Senator Burey consider adding the word “future”? It would be: “. . . your committee recommends that future labelling should recognize the risk of birth defects and brain damage to the fetus.” So it’s not this bill and these labels, but potentially future labelling.
Senator Burey: Thank you, Senator Osler. I’m actually quoting from Dr. Eric M. Yoshida, Professor of Medicine, University of British Columbia. He’s from the Division of Gastroenterology. He said, “Dear Committee Members,” and he went on to say:
This list includes but is not limited to : alcoholic liver disease . . . malignancy . . . intoxication . . . psychiatric disorders (including . . . anxiety, depression . . .), fetal alcohol syndrome (with lifelong implications for those born with fetal alcohol syndrome . . . .
I’m not sure that I’m out of scope with the testimony we heard. And he wasn’t the only one who talked about that. So this is what I’m saying.
The Chair: I’m going to ask the room to indicate whether they’re in agreement with it moving forward in the current way that it is named and without any changes based on a concern for scope?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Thank you. If we have completed the first observation and second observation, we have a third observation from Senator Osler.
Senator Osler: Thank you, Madam Chair. You will be receiving the observation in both official languages. The goal of this observation is simply to place on the record the concerted efforts of this committee to hear from diverse perspectives on this bill, including from the alcohol industry.
The Chair: I don’t think we have to read it, but I’ll wait a few minutes for you to get it in front of you so that you can read it yourselves.
Would you like to read it?
Senator Osler: Thank you, Madam Chair. I’ll read it in English:
Your committee made concerted efforts to hear from a range of perspectives, including those of the alcohol industry. While briefs were received from some industry stakeholders, only one witness appeared in person to provide testimony.
Senator McPhedran: Thank you, Senator Osler, for this opportunity.
I think that as matters progress with this bill and this overall question, this is a very important statement to have in public reflecting the whole committee, reflecting the fact that — I would say given this is my tenth year in the Senate — we’ve made extraordinary efforts to try to get witnesses to speak on behalf of this industry.
And I think it’s valuable to be able to state that, with the possibility that maybe a different version might be offered subsequent to this.
Senator Hay: Senator Osler, thank you for adding this. I think it’s really important. And I agree with you, Senator McPhedran; I think we should expand this a little bit to ensure it’s very clear that we even changed dates to try to accommodate the industry, and it still didn’t garner any witnesses.
My only question is: I thought there were two witnesses, but one was the industry and one was an independent opinion. Thank you.
The Chair: Would someone like to propose some language? Would you be comfortable with an expansion of this to include more details? And do you want to propose the expansion or Senator Hay?
Senator Osler: I would be interested in hearing expanded language, if anyone would like to bring it forward. We simply wanted to keep the observation short, succinct and objective.
The Chair: Senator Hay, do you have any thoughts on language, potentially?
Senator Hay: I share my colleague Senator Muggli’s feelings of not going through observations very often. I may be on the stronger side of making an opinion known, so if I’m the only one, I’m totally cool as it is.
But I would expand it with what Senator McPhedran said about making extraordinary efforts, including repeated attempts and additional dates to appear, and we only had one witness appear in person.
I do believe, if I may, they could have appeared virtually. So we could say, “repeated requests to appear virtually and/or in person and all were declined.”
The Chair: Any comments?
Senator Senior: I take the point, but I agree with Senator Osler in terms of keeping it straightforward, simple and objective and not looking as if we have gripes. That would be my response.
The Chair: Overkill.
Senator Senior: Yes.
Senator McPhedran: I concur with Senator Senior.
Senator Greenwood: I agree with everything that’s being said. I want to look at this carefully as it’s written:
Your committee made concerted efforts to hear from a range of perspectives, including those of the alcohol industry. While briefs were received from some industry stakeholders . . . .
Does this mean all stakeholders or alcohol industry stakeholders?
Senator Osler: Alcohol industry.
Senator Greenwood: That is broad.
The Chair: Would you prefer to add in the word “alcohol” before “industry stakeholders”?
Senator Greenwood: I just want to be clear because if I get stuck on that, then I think, okay, it’s including those in the alcohol industry. We received briefs from industry stakeholders and only one witness appeared. Do you mean all industry or just those alcohol industry folks? Just for clarity, that’s all I’m saying.
Senator Osler: I do think that adds clarity, and I appreciate the suggested addition of the word “alcohol.” I think it’s a nice amendment to the observation.
Senator Greenwood: Nobody having the context, they may get confused. But I agree: short and sweet.
The Chair: With this change, which is simply to add in the word “alcohol” between “some” and “industry,” it would read, “While briefs were received from some alcohol industry stakeholders . . . .” With that change, are we in agreement to include this? Are members in agreement with the observations as presented?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Is it agreed that the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure be empowered to approve the final version of the observations being appended to the report, in both official languages, taking into consideration today’s discussion and with any necessary editorial, grammatical or translation changes as required?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Is it agreed that I report this bill with observations to the Senate in both official languages?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Thank you, honourable senators. We’re going to go in camera, if we can, for a quick procedural for two minutes.
(The committee continued in camera.)