Food and Drugs Act

Moved third reading of Bill S-202, An Act to amend the Food and Drugs Act (warning label on alcoholic beverages).

He said: Honourable senators, I begin with a simple truth in the spirit of my Algonquin community: Knowledge is the light that guides us away from the shadows of harm. Today, we decide whether we will turn that light on or leave millions of Canadians in the dark.

Every year in this country, alcohol causes at least seven types of fatal cancer — not “may be linked to” and not “might increase risk of” but “causes.” The World Health Organization has said so since 1988. The International Agency for Research on Cancer classifies alcohol in the same Group 1 category as asbestos and tobacco.

There is no safe level.

Yet if you walk into any store in Canada today, you will find a bottle of wine that tells you it was “crafted with passion” but says nothing about the fatal cancers it can cause. That is not an oversight; that is a choice we have allowed for far too long.

Bill S-202 ends that choice.

Four modest lines on every container would include what a standard drink is, how many standard drinks are in the package, how many standard drinks it takes to increase health risks and the undeniable fact that alcohol causes seven fatal cancers.

That is all we are asking for: the same honesty we demand of tobacco and cannabis. Why, in 2026, do we still give alcohol a free pass?

When this bill was known as Bill S-254, Senators Cordy, Miville-Dechêne, Richards, Mégie and Duncan rose in this chamber and said, “That’s enough.”

Last fall, in committee, over 40 witnesses — doctors, hygienists, cancer specialists, addiction physicians, researchers and Canadians who had lost loved ones — hammered home the same message with one voice: Canadians have a right to know.

Dr. Michelle Murti, Toronto’s Medical Officer of Health, said:

Alcohol produces some of the highest burden of drug-related harms and deaths. . . .

Furthermore, we support the proposed requirements in the bill . . . [including] the direct causal link between alcohol and the development of fatal cancers.

Dr. Erin Hobin’s research, the most robust in the world, shows that clear and eye-catching labels raise awareness by up to 30% and encourage millions of people to rethink their alcohol use. In one full-scale trial conducted in the Yukon, these labels reduced alcohol sales by more than 6% in just three months, with the heaviest drinkers reducing their alcohol intake the most.

Brandon Purcell of the Canadian Cancer Society painted an unforgettable picture for us. A 42-year-old woman who follows the Canadian guidelines for low-risk drinking — one or two glasses of wine with dinner — still increases her risk of colorectal cancer by 14%, breast cancer by 19% and esophageal cancer by nearly 30%. She thinks she is drinking in moderation. She doesn’t know she’s gambling with her life, because no one has told her.

When the industry tells us that these labels won’t work, remind them that graphic warnings on cigarette packaging, introduced in 2001, have helped to more than halve the prevalence of smoking and have prompted millions of people to quit.

They said those labels would fail too.

When industry lobbyists say the cost is too high, ask them to compare their redesign budget to the $19.7 billion Canadians spend each year on alcohol-related diseases, a net loss of $6.4 billion even after accounting for every penny of alcohol tax revenue.

When historians say they fear temperance, remind them that temperance activists wanted prohibition. We want the truth.

The goal is not to stop people from consuming alcohol. The goal is to ensure that all Canadians get the same basic information that is already provided on items like yogurt, cereal and canned peas.

Colleagues, the science is clear and the witnesses have spoken. Hundreds of Canadians have sent letters to our offices. We are out of excuses. Let’s pass this bill today. Let’s send it over to the other chamber with the strongest possible message: Canadians deserve to see the truth on each and every bottle.

Before I conclude, I would like to bring to your attention two items of interest from the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology. As you can see from the transcripts and video recordings, members were surprised to learn that two confirmed industry representatives had suddenly cancelled at the last minute, citing “family reasons.” The chair, Senator Moodie, who should be applauded and recognized, made every effort to accommodate these witnesses, including offering to have them testify virtually. Significant efforts were also made to reach out to other industry stakeholders, again without success.

Still troubled by this inability to question industry directly, during clause-by-clause consideration, committee members speculated that perhaps the industry’s sudden unavailability was strategic. Perhaps they are keeping their powder dry and saving their firepower for when the bill gets to the other place, where our elected counterparts face unique pressures that we do not. Is the industry banking on being more persuasive there? I guess we will find out.

I recognize this is not a “happy hour” speech, but continuing on my earlier point, the second item from the committee involves one brave industry representative who did honour his commitment to appear, and he should be acknowledged for that.

We heard from Mr. Brad Goddard of the Coalition of Canadian Independent Craft Brewers, who spoke about the unique artistic labels one sees on craft beer.

You can see the exchange on video, but I’ll summarize it briefly as it pertains to our debate. I asked Mr. Goddard if his unique craft labels warned consumers about established fatal cancer risks. He said, “No.” I asked him if he knew that alcohol has been classified as a Group 1 carcinogen since 1988. He said he was aware. I finally asked him if he could provide the committee with a comprehensive list of issues or things that they have done to warn their consumers about cancer risks, and he went on talking about how much money he and his organization spend on the Cancer Society. I asked him if he could provide an exhaustive list. He said, “No, not an exhaustive list.” I asked him if he could provide a medium list, a small list, any kind of list. He said he would take it under advisement. This was last October. We are now in March, and we still haven’t heard from him.

It begs the question: Is the industry waiting for a government mandate to start notifying their own consumers about the well‑established fatal cancer risks, the very same government that these organizations and the alcohol industry lobby to ensure that there are no cancer warning labels on their products?

While we wait for the industry to answer this question, it seems logical to conclude that they are indeed waiting for a mandate. So here I am asking all of you, colleagues: Let’s give the federal government the mandate to deal with this, because it’s our right to do so.

I’ll end off by saying that I know that one of the reasons that this bill got as far as it did is because of my personal experience and what I shared throughout the years with respect to alcohol and mental health struggles and whatnot. I had a very rough life. I’m just speaking for myself, but alcohol ruined my life. I drank for 35 years. I’m at level 51 now. I was sick before 2017, and I’m sick again. As a matter of fact, I’m not a doctor; I’m not going to say my cancer is back, but I’m obviously having a lot of the same symptoms that I had when it first started in 2017. I’m in the midst of tests left, right and centre, and I’m having a scan tomorrow morning.

But I’m not sharing this because it’s about me. This piece of legislation is not about me. It’s about the health and well-being of Canadians and about all Canadians having the right to know that alcohol causes seven effing cancers. I think “effing” is in the dictionary, so I hope I’m not using derogatory language. But it does cause seven cancers.

To prove to you that this bill is not about me, that it’s about the well-being of Canadians, one last thing I want to talk about is the committee work we did. We had Health Canada bureaucrats — not health experts, bureaucrats. They basically told our committee, when asked and pressed about Bill S-202, that they were studying the legislation. Studying the legislation? The legislation is two pages, including the cover page. It’s four bullet points. But that’s Health Canada.

I’m concerned that when we are talking about the health and well-being of Canadians, we have Health Canada officials basically come and mock our committee, mock the work that we’re doing. There are serious questions we need to ask ourselves.

Here’s a list of organizations that support this legislation — and don’t forget that behind the names of these organizations are a bunch of health professionals, not bureaucrats: Canadian Institute for Substance Use Research at the University of Victoria, Canadian Cancer Society, Canadian Centre on Substance Use and Addiction, Canadian Medical Association, Canadian Public Health Association, World Health Organization, Alcohol Action Ireland, Families for Addiction Recovery, Niagara Region Public Health, Association of Local Public Health Agencies, Ontario Public Health Association, Public Health Ontario, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, Canadian Liver Foundation, Windsor-Essex County Health Unit, Timiskaming Health Unit, Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Queen’s University Health Board, Nova Scotia Health, Shelburne County Community Health Board, Durham Region’s Medical Officer of Health, Durham Regional Cancer Centre, Vancouver Coastal Health, Fraser Health, Toronto Public Health, Simcoe Muskoka District Health Unit, Canadian Alcohol Use Disorder Society, Queens Community Health Board, Dartmouth Community Health, Southeastern Community Health Board, Peterborough’s Board of Health, Middlesex-London Health Unit, BC Alliance for Healthy Living.

Health experts — real health experts — are saying we should put cancer warning labels on every alcoholic beverage. They are the experts. But instead, we have Health Canada telling us, according to a briefing note that was published by Blacklock’s last week, that they don’t believe we should put cancer warning labels on alcoholic beverages because Canadians can make decisions for themselves. How in the heck can Canadians make decisions when 75% of them aren’t aware of the cancer risk associated with alcohol consumption? How can they make informed decisions for themselves? Yet, we have bureaucrats and Health Canada who are going against all these experts across the country.

These are just the ones I listed. I’m sure I’ve forgotten a bunch of them. But Health Canada bureaucrats are telling us, “Nothing to see here, folks. We know better than all of these people.”

What the heck are we doing? It’s a poison. It was easy to associate tobacco and cancer. That was easy for Canadians to do. It wasn’t easy at the beginning, but it became relatively easy after the warning labels came.

The same thing applies with alcohol. Cigarettes caused deaths but didn’t cause accidents or DUIs. Cigarettes didn’t cause depression, domestic abuse, suicide or fetal alcohol syndrome. Cigarettes didn’t do that, but we put cancer warning labels on them because of the cancer.

It’s 2026, and it’s time that we treat alcohol as what it is, and alcohol is at the centre of everything that I just named. As a society, we haven’t found a cure for cancer. Perhaps it’s difficult to find a cure for cancer when alcohol causes cancer and 80% of Canadians consume alcohol.

In First Nations communities, we often talk about laws of seven generations. Colleagues, this is a piece of legislation that thinks about the seven generations ahead. I have my children River and Elie here with me. It’s not about us. It’s all about them.

I’ll be celebrating six years of sobriety at the end of this month if I make it to then. I live one day at a time.

I know I’m a little different and live one day at a time. That’s all I can do.

The bottom line is this: I started this with my team and all these experts, and I’m an expert in nothing. I’m an expert in my failures, which is why I’m trying to bring a solution to a lot of failures that I have personally. I know my personal failures are also reflective of those of many Canadians because I can say with certainty that a great majority of you, colleagues, have talked about knowing somebody who has trouble with alcohol — family members, whether it is a parent, a son and so on.

We’re all affected by this. It’s time for us to do something about it. The elected house won’t do it because the alcohol industry is powerful. It has a lot of resources and money. It has a lot of sway and power with elected representatives. We’re not elected, but we can give this mandate to the House of Commons. How could the elected representatives in the other place have a mandate to talk about cancer warning labels when Canadians don’t know about them?

If we pass this bill, colleagues, we can make history because we will change the landscape of this country just with warning labels. They will reduce drinking and make people healthier and more aware — maybe not tomorrow or next week, but I’m not thinking about next week. I’m thinking a generation down the line.

I had to break the cycle myself. I had to quit drinking. That’s the only reason I’m still alive today. But I’m still enough to fight for them and ensure that cycle is broken because alcohol ruins lives.

I have six children. I have some children I don’t talk to. I have a daughter I became reacquainted with not long ago. I don’t need to get into the specifics of that, but the bottom line is alcohol. Yes, there are individuals who make bad decisions, but it’s not just about bad decisions. Alcohol is a poison. It poisons the brain and makes people do things that they wouldn’t do if they were sober.

I’m sure you’ve all said things at a dinner party after having a bit too much to drink that you regretted or that involved confrontations. Alcohol kills more people and has more of a negative impact than all other substances put together, but we celebrate it as if it’s part of our culture. Really? Look at First Nations communities and all the suicide attempts and suicides that involved alcohol or other substances.

If we don’t do this, who will? Since 1988, government after government has delayed this. Why? Are they complicit? Is the Government of Canada complicit with the alcohol industry in ensuring that there are no cancer warning labels? I’m beginning to think that they are, though we don’t know that.

All I am asking of you, colleagues, is this: Let’s send this bill to the House of Commons. Then we will find out over there, when the time comes, what exactly the problem is. I don’t understand why this bill received all-party agreement to be studied. It was properly studied. Our chair made a number of attempts to bring the alcohol industry in to testify, but they wouldn’t budge. We know why: They don’t want to see these cancer warning labels. We have a $6-billion alcohol deficit in Canada. If the government is not making money, who is?

We can wait weeks, months or years or we can do this right now. That’s all I have to say. Thank you for your time.

Thank you for the question. No, I won’t go back to them. The reason is because the science is there. It’s been clear. It’s been there for a long time. The problem is we have a federal government that is not listening.

As you know, I’m a non-affiliated senator here in my corner with no budget, so it’s very difficult in terms of public awareness and education. As you’re aware, that costs a lot of money.

However, having said that, it should be noted that I was listening to the Olympics several weeks ago on the French TSN, or RDS. I was listening to a commercial, and its narration was basically the first time I heard the Government of Quebec saying that, essentially, if people diminish their alcohol intake, it may prevent them from getting up to seven cancers.

I don’t know if you recall, but in January 2023, when the new drinking guidelines came out, the Government of Quebec was one jurisdiction that wasn’t in favour of the new drinking guidelines. This bill was first introduced in November 2022. It’s almost four years later. But even though I’m in my corner as a non-affiliated senator with no budget — and I’m fine with that — a lot more Canadians have become aware of the negative impacts of alcohol. I’m alone in my corner with no budget to raise this awareness. It’s up to the Government of Canada to raise this awareness. They have not only the deep pockets but they also have the obligation.

But nobody has put enough pressure on the Government of Canada to move forward with this, which is why I’m asking all of you. We have the power this evening, if we wish, to send it to the other house so that they can deal with it.

At the end of the day, there are so many important and very serious things happening in this country. It’s time to punt this piece of legislation to the House of Commons so that this chamber can deal with other serious issues.

Absolutely.

Thank you for the question.

I have no further details than you probably have. I just received the small quote that’s apparently in the briefing note. Regardless, it says Health Canada is not interested in having cancer warning labels, which is nothing near what they testified before the committee. That is why we have to send this over there so that they have to deal with it. This is political hypocrisy at its finest. Let’s call a spade a spade.

I do recall that conversation, obviously. Like I mentioned before the dinner break, let’s not forget that Health Canada also said that since 2022, they’ve been studying and reviewing the former Bill S-254, which is now Bill S-202. Like I said, the bill is just half a page and there’s a cover page.

It’s Health Canada. They’ve been reviewing a bill for almost four years, and they had nothing to say about it. It’s very concerning.