Food and Drugs Act

Honourable senators, I rise today to speak at third reading of Bill S-202, An Act to amend the Food and Drugs Act (warning label on alcoholic beverages).

I did not speak at second reading of this bill. Former senator David Richards served as critic at that stage of the debate. Following his retirement from the chamber, I assumed that role at third reading. As a result, some of my remarks today may carry aspects of what would traditionally be considered second reading observations. I ask colleagues for their indulgence in that regard.

Let me begin by acknowledging the Honourable Senator Patrick Brazeau for his sincere and determined advocacy on this issue. His commitment comes from deeply personal experience, and no one who has listened to his remarks or reviewed the committee evidence could doubt the seriousness with which he approaches the harms associated with alcohol abuse. Those harms are real.

Excessive alcohol consumption can devastate families, damage communities and place enormous pressure on our health care system. That’s not in dispute. However, our responsibility as legislators is not simply to agree with the objective of improving public health. Our responsibility is to ensure that legislation is balanced, evidence-based, proportionate and workable in a practical way.

This is particularly important when legislation proposes mandatory warning labels that carry broader economic trade and regulatory implications. As the critic of this bill, it is my role to test some of the assumptions that have shaped this debate and to examine whether the evidence presented to Parliament has been fair, complete and properly contextualized.

Honourable senators, one of the central themes throughout committee study was the repeated comparison between alcohol and tobacco. Witnesses frequently emphasized that alcohol is classified as a Group 1 carcinogen by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, or IARC. That is the same category as tobacco and asbestos. That statement is factually correct, except that the way it was presented often lacked an important context.

The IARC classification system measures the strength of evidence that a substance can cause cancer. It does not measure the relative risk posed by that substance. The IARC, itself, clearly states that just because substances appear in the same category does not mean they are equally dangerous.

Tobacco is responsible for approximately 15% of cancers worldwide. Alcohol is responsible for approximately 3%. Those are both serious numbers, but the scale of harm is not equivalent, and that distinction matters.

It is also important to recognize that public health guidance surrounding alcohol remains scientifically contested in several respects. A recent U.S. Congressional oversight report examining the Biden administration’s alcohol intake and health study concluded that the process has become fraught with bias, relied upon researchers with predetermined anti-alcohol positions and failed to provide balanced scientific representation.

The report further concluded that the study should not be relied upon in developing dietary guidance because it was “. . . irretrievably flawed . . . .”

Whether one agrees with every conclusion in that report or not, it underscores an important point for legislators: Evolving public health recommendations must still be subject to rigorous scrutiny, transparency and balanced scientific debate.

If Parliament is going to mandate warning labels for consumers, those warnings should be accurate, proportionate and properly contextualized. Canadians deserve information; they also deserve precision.

At committee, witnesses often referenced increased cancer risks associated with alcohol consumption. Again, those risks are real, but there was very little discussion distinguishing relative risk from absolute risk. For example, we heard testimony that even moderate alcohol consumption could increase the risk of breast cancer by 19%. Presented without context, that sounds alarming; however, the absolute increase in lifetime risk is significantly smaller.

According to the American Cancer Society, the average lifetime risk of breast cancer for women is approximately 13%. A 19% relative increase raises that figure to approximately 15.5%. That’s still important information. It’s critical, however, that Parliament present risk in a manner that’s complete and understandable, not simply attention grabbing.

We should also be cautious about presenting scientific conclusions as fully settled when major international jurisdictions continue to debate both the methodology and interpretation of alcohol-related health studies.

The same Congressional report noted concerns about the increasing reliance on what it described as “the Canadian model.” That approach asserts that no level of alcohol consumption is safe, despite longstanding studies suggesting more nuanced outcomes associated with moderate consumption.

Honourable colleagues, another concern I have with the legislation relates to the broader category and economic implications that received comparatively little attention during committee study. Canada’s wine industry, breweries and distilleries are important contributors to local economies across the country. Collectively, Canada’s alcohol production sector supports tens of thousands of jobs across agriculture, manufacturing, hospitality, tourism, transportation, retail and export industries. These are not isolated businesses. They are part of an integrated economic ecosystem that stretches from farmers and packaging suppliers to restaurants, hotels and rural tourism operators.

Many of these businesses are already operating in an environment of rising input costs, inflationary pressures, labour shortages and increased regulatory burdens. Parliament should carefully consider the cumulative effect of adding yet another federal compliance requirement to an already highly regulated sector.

In Newfoundland and Labrador, we have seen meaningful growth in craft brewing and distilling. Similar growth has occurred in regions across Canada where local producers have become important employers, tourism drivers and community partners. These businesses are already dealing with inflationary pressures, supply chain costs, transportation costs and evolving regulatory requirements. A mandatory federal labelling regime will create additional compliance obligations, redesign costs, inventory complications and administrative burdens, particularly for smaller producers that do not have the scale or flexibility of multinational corporations.

For many producers, especially small- and medium-sized Canadian companies, mandatory warning labels would require redesigning packaging, modifying bottling and printing processes, managing separate inventories and navigating evolving regulatory specifications. Those activities and costs are not insignificant. Large multinational corporations may be able to absorb those changes relatively easily. Smaller Canadian producers often cannot. The result could be a regulatory framework that unintentionally disadvantages domestic producers while favouring larger global competitors with greater economies of scale.

We should also recognize that once Parliament begins legislating highly prescriptive warning frameworks, the scope of those requirements can expand significantly over time. Evidence before U.S. congressional investigators suggested that some public health advocates were not simply seeking informed consumer choice but broader behavioural and policy objectives designed to reduce alcohol consumption generally.

Honourable senators, these concerns are not theoretical. Recent reporting out of Ireland specifically and Europe in general demonstrates that governments implementing these regimes are already facing significant pressure surrounding costs, trade implications and market disruption.

Ireland’s proposed warning label framework has now been delayed until at least 2028 following concerns around tariffs, trade uncertainty and economic impacts on producers and exporters. Several reports noted particular concern for smaller wineries, distilleries and exporters that would be required to create market-specific labels for individual markets and absorb additional compliance costs that larger multinational companies are far better positioned to manage.

That distinction matters in Canada. Many Canadian wineries, breweries and distilleries are not multinational corporations. They are regional employers, tourism operators and agricultural businesses deeply connected to rural and coastal communities.

Also, we cannot ignore the trade implications associated with legislation like this. During committee study, considerable discussion focused on Ireland’s proposed alcohol warning label framework. What is particularly notable is that Canada itself raised concerns at the World Trade Organization, or WTO, regarding Ireland’s approach. Canada warned that country-specific labelling requirements could create barriers to trade, increase costs for exporters and undermine market harmonization. Those concerns are particularly important for Canadian producers that export into highly integrated North American markets. Diverging labelling requirements create duplication, reduce efficiency and complicate cross-border trade.

Once Canada establishes a unique mandatory packaging requirement, producers may be forced to maintain separate production and inventory streams for Canadian and export markets. That creates additional costs throughout the supply chain and reduces competitiveness for Canadian businesses operating internationally. Parliament should, therefore, carefully consider whether Canada could face similar objections if we move forward with our own unilateral labelling framework for imported beer, wine and spirits.

It is difficult for Canada to argue internationally that country-specific alcohol labelling requirements create unnecessary trade complications abroad while simultaneously dismissing similar concerns when they are raised domestically here at home.

We should also be mindful that alcohol regulation in Canada already involves a complex mix of federal and provincial oversight. Adding another layer of federal packaging and warning requirements risks increasing fragmentation within an already complicated regulatory environment.

At a time when governments across the country are discussing the reduction of internal trade barriers and improving economic competitiveness, Parliament should proceed carefully before introducing new requirements that may further complicate compliance across jurisdictions. Beyond international trade, we should also recognize the potential for interprovincial complications within Canada itself, where barriers and differing regulatory regimes already create significant challenges for businesses.

Honourable senators, I also want to briefly address the committee process surrounding this bill. The committee observation attached to the report noted that, “While briefs were received from some industry stakeholders, only one witness . . .” ultimately appeared before committee. Some interpreted that absence as evidence that the industry had something to hide. Of course, I would question that conclusion. To be frank, I suspect many industry stakeholders believe the outcome of the study had already largely been determined before they appeared.

One of our colleagues referred at one point in the hearings to the “. . . . massive capacity of the profit-seeking alcohol industry versus the capacity of governments . . .” and said that “. . . the two-year-plus delay —” on warning labels “— in Ireland seems to be directly attributed to this situation.” She then referred to the “. . . well documented . . . intimidation methodology of the industry.”

Another colleague said:

I will probably say something off, but the power of the alcohol industry lobby appears to me as our Canadian version of the U.S.’s NRA. . . .

And, finally, the bill’s sponsor, Senator Brazeau, said:

Next week, we’ll probably be hearing from the alcohol lobby representatives and the industry. When I look at this panel and the next one, here is what I think is going to happen next week. I think the industry is going to come here, and they will try to discredit the scientists who have been working on this for quite a long time. They are going to try to discredit CCSA’s new drinking guidelines. They are going to try to discredit the Canadian Cancer Society’s numbers and ratios in terms of getting cancer with respect to alcohol. They are going to probably say that bills such as these are just for people who have problems with alcohol and nobody else.

When witnesses and stakeholders believe their participation will not receive fair consideration, confidence in the committee process suffers. That is not healthy for Parliament, regardless of the issue before us.

In fact, concerns surrounding transparency and predetermined outcomes are not unique to this debate in Canada. The same U.S. oversight investigation found evidence that some officials involved in developing alcohol guidance had discussed limiting public access to internal materials and shaping findings around a predetermined policy objective. Again, whether one accepts every conclusion of that report or not, legislators should take seriously any warning signs suggesting that scientific or regulatory processes risk becoming advocacy-driven rather than evidence-driven.

To be clear, I am not suggesting that industry perspectives should override public health considerations. They should not. Legislation is only strengthened when Parliament hears competing views, fully and fairly, before arriving at conclusions.

Honourable senators, none of the concerns I raise today diminish the sincerity of Senator Brazeau’s efforts or the importance of addressing alcohol abuse in Canada. He has unquestionably succeeded in elevating this discussion nationally. He has drawn attention to the health consequences associated with excessive alcohol consumption and forced Parliament to engage seriously with those issues, and that is important work.

My concern throughout this debate has not been whether Canadians deserve information. They do. My concern is whether Parliament is providing that information in a manner that is balanced, accurate, proportionate and mindful of the broader economic, regulatory and trade implications that may follow.

Honourable senators, good public policy requires balance. Public health objectives are important, but so too are proportionality, competitiveness and regulatory predictability.

The question before us is not whether Canadians should have access to health information. Of course they should. The question is whether this particular legislative approach has been demonstrated to meaningfully improve outcomes in a manner that justifies the broader economic, regulatory and trade consequences that may follow. Those are legitimate questions for us as legislators to ask. Thank you, colleagues.

Senator Brazeau, would you like to ask a question?

Would Senator Wells take a question, please?

Yes.

Thank you very much, Senator Wells, for your third reading speech. I have one or two questions.

I have worked on this for quite a number of years. I drank for 35 years, so I’ve been working on this for 41 years, because I’ve been sober for 6 and a bit now. I have dealt with a lot of the experts — doctors, health practitioners, et cetera — who have worked on this for decades. To me, the bottom line is this: It’s either we side with the alcohol industry — because you know as well as I do that they do not want alcohol warning labels on their products because sales will go down. When we had the industry individual come before the committee, he basically said that they were waiting for a mandate before they would put cancer warning labels on their products.

Having said that, do you believe it’s high time now that we give that mandate to alcohol companies? At the end of the day, this is about either siding with the alcohol companies or siding with the well-being and the health of Canadians. Seventy-five per cent of Canadians are not aware of the cancer correlation with alcohol consumption — seven fatal cancers. So, are Canadians deserving of having these cancer-warning labels despite heavy resistance from the alcohol industry?

Thank you, Senator Brazeau.

I believe it goes beyond that.

The question, of course, is absolute: Should we side with the alcohol industry, or should we side with Canadians seeking more information or correct information? I don’t think it’s a question of siding; I think it’s a question of balance. We regularly read about levels of alcohol that could be healthy. I can’t speak for everyone, but I can speak for myself. I have read articles that have said that a glass of wine a week or whatever could be considered healthy.

We know the opposite, as well; we know that. I went through my speech today, and we also know there are other consequences of this.

I don’t think it’s at all a question of siding with one or the other side. There is a balance to be struck. Of course, the debate we’re having and the work you have done over the years, Senator Brazeau, including what has come out publicly that you might not have expected to come out publicly, have contributed to the debate. Canadians know that. They appreciate it, and I appreciate it.

Does it extend to warning labels on every bottle of wine, beer or spirit? My thought is “no” because I don’t think it can be applied fairly, proportionally and equally across the spectrum. As an example, there are thousands of vintners around the world that sell to Canada. Do they have to have a separate label for Canada, or would it be just as easy for them to say, “Forget the Canadian market; we have a global label, and then we have a label for Canada” for something that, maybe in their minds, is not proven?

What do we say to bar owners, who would then be faced with the issue of selling a bottle or a can of beer that has a warning label, but they pull a pint that has no warning label? Or do the glasses have to be labelled?

There is more to it, Senator Brazeau, than just asking, “Is this right or wrong? Is it right for Canadians? Is it right for the industry?” There are far greater considerations for liquor, as well, that’s poured in a bar. You don’t hand the bottle; you pour it into a glass. No label is obvious to someone purchasing through that medium.

My answer to your very clear question is I don’t know, but I know there are sharp edges around this that aren’t black and white.

Thank you very much for that response.

Just in response to that from somebody with lived experience and having worked with the actual experts on this file, I’m hoping that all colleagues around here will view it the same way I do: It is a question of either siding with the alcohol industry or siding with the right of Canadians to know that there is a correlation between alcohol consumption and seven fatal cancers.

Having said that, you talked about trade and the economy. However, unfortunately, you have not touched upon the fact that Canada currently has a $6-billion alcohol deficit, meaning that after all the sales, all across the country, from alcohol, Canada still has a $6-billion deficit because of the costs associated with our legal system, our health system and other expenses with respect to society.

So, we have the alcohol industry, with deep pockets, and we have the industry that just doesn’t want this to happen. You know this as well as I do: They are here on the Hill — how many times a year? — meeting with parliamentarians, ensuring that there are not cancer warning labels on their products.

What are we going to do about it? Are we going to side with the alcohol industry or side with the right of Canadians to know that alcohol consumption, not just excessive consumption — I’m going to correct you on that — not just excessive drinking but even minimal drinking could cause a lot of problems with families, health, et cetera.

Whom are we going to side with? We went through this with the tobacco companies 30 years ago. Are we going to do the same thing, or are we going to send a clear message to the other house that it is time to do this?

Thank you, Senator Brazeau. I wasn’t suggesting this was only an issue of excessive drinking; in fact, I don’t think I said that. In my example, I referenced articles that I have read over the years that suggest an acceptable level.

I don’t think there is anyone in this chamber who hasn’t had some connection, such as a family member or a friend, who has had an issue with alcohol consumption. I know I have. I recognize the importance of it. I just don’t know, and I’m not convinced that a regime where labelling on wine, beer and spirits within Canada, on alcohol coming into Canada and alcohol being consumed in Canada — I don’t know if there is a practical application that works.

I’m not at all suggesting that drinking should be acceptable across the board. I’m not at all suggesting that, but as parliamentarians, certainly as senators, we will make a decision when it comes to a vote. My role as critic — and my role as a colleague — is to point out some of the things that we should all consider when we decide to cast our vote.

I have another question.

Actually, you did talk about excessive drinking at the beginning — a friendly correction.

Are you aware that all the articles that you read with respect to the “benefits of drinking” — there are a lot of women who have breast cancer in Canada and a lot of men who have colon cancer. There are a lot of women who, for a very long time, were told by their doctors to have a little glass of wine while they were pregnant. You tell that to their children who have fetal alcohol spectrum disorder and will for all their lives.

Are you aware that those studies — you didn’t reference them, but you basically talked about them — that our Canadian scientists and those abroad have debunked those articles?

The articles I was referencing were articles I have read in newspapers and magazines, not medical journals. They show up from time to time. I see ones that say dark chocolate can be good for you. I can’t imagine that because dark chocolate is — well, anyway.

I’m just saying that I think we have all seen articles that have said that moderate drinking can be healthy. I don’t know if it is or not. I have no idea. I’m not in that business. I’m not a researcher. I’m not a scientist.

So my only answer to that is that this was my reference. It wasn’t medical journals; it was articles. I think all colleagues have seen that. We have also seen ones that talk about the dark side of alcohol consumption, which is valid as well. It wasn’t my intent in that anecdote to reference that as science, but I just referenced that as this is what we see and read.

I don’t know how far Canada should go in labelling. Clearly, I think there are rough edges around the proposal before us. I think there would be unintended consequences.

We heard from many groups, not just the liquor, beer or wine lobbies but others. There are restaurants and other parts of Canadian society that this would have an effect on, and I was pointing that out. I’m in no way advocating for the excessive use or the overuse of alcohol. As I said before, I know all colleagues have been touched in some negative way — and maybe very few in any positive way — by the use or overuse of alcohol.

Senator McPhedran, would you like to ask a question?

Yes, I would, please, Your Honour.

Senator Wells, would you take a question?

I would. Thank you.

Senator Wells, are you familiar with the commercial determinants of health and the way in which the hundreds of millions of dollars spent by alcohol and alcohol-adjacent companies influence people’s choices?

Are you familiar with the fact that the labelling required for food, like peas and corn, is more exacting, demanding and focused on health than the labelling or the lack of labelling on alcohol?

Senator McPhedran, I’m not aware of the details of those. I mean, I know that advertising has an effect, and that’s why much of the media advertising on alcohol has restrictions. Of course, we always see companies sponsoring events, and that advertising is there. I’m sure they wouldn’t be investing in that advertising if it didn’t have some positive effects on their sales. But I’m not familiar with the other references you made.

I will take a question.

Thank you, Senator Muggli. I’m not suggesting it’s not practical for a distillery to make a choice, whether that’s a health, business or community-minded choice. I’m not at all saying that. Essentially, yes, it’s a Canadian labelling requirement, but we’re reaching out to the world and saying, “Anything coming into Canada needs this unique label.”

In fact, we just had a discussion half an hour ago, when I was speaking on Bill S-4, about Canada jumping out of some of the more positive requirements in the North American appliance sector and saying, “No, we are going to be separate from that.” I talked about the risks associated with that, and we heard that from witnesses at committee. We’re talking about the same thing or an equivalent thing here. Canada will be, I believe, unique in the world to not do this.

I recognize that an individual decision by an individual company is a good thing if they think that’s a good thing. They are an individual business that chooses to do that.

For those who know me, I think less government in society is generally better. Freedom of the individual and freedom of business, not to run amok but to do things that are responsible for their businesses, are, in general, better. In this case, the business made a decision that they wish to do that, and I applaud them for being able to do that.

Senator Wells, do you know what a Group 1 carcinogen is? Secondly, do you know that alcohol has been designated as a Group 1 carcinogen in Canada since 1988?

I know in general what a Group 1 carcinogen is. I know that alcohol has been included in that category. I didn’t realize the year, but I accept that.