Hon. Patrick Brazeau moved second reading of Bill S-254, An Act to amend the Food and Drugs Act (warning label on alcoholic beverages).

He said: Honourable senators, first, by introducing this bill, I would like to thank individuals from the Canadian Institute for Substance Use Research at the University of Victoria, in particular Dr. Tim Stockwell, Dr. Tim Naimi, Dr. Adam Sherk, Kate Vallance and Ashley Wettlaufer.

I rise today to propose a modest but essential amendment to the Food and Drugs Act to require honest labelling — a cancer warning — on alcohol products.

Most Canadians know that excessive alcohol consumption is harmful to their health. Everyone knows that over time alcohol can damage the liver. We are all aware that binge drinking can lead to loss of judgment and bodily control. More and more people are aware of fetal alcohol spectrum disorders. And many know about the devastating consequences on the roads caused by intoxicated drivers.

[Translation]

For those who don’t know, honourable senators, a recent report states that impaired drivers on our roads kill four Canadians per day. Some of us may be aware of the cost of alcohol abuse in terms of lost productivity, health care and the criminal justice system. In 2017, those costs were estimated at $16.6 billion according to the Canadian Substance Use Costs and Harms report.

However, what most Canadians do not know, honourable senators, is that alcohol causes fatal cancers. Alcohol consumption causes at least seven fatal cancers that we know of. Even in small amounts, it causes cancer of the mouth and throat, vocal cords, esophagus, breast, liver and colon.

[English]

As Dr. Tim Stockwell, a senior scientist with the Canadian Institute for Substance Use Research at the University of Victoria, says, “Even drinking one drink a day increases your risk of some cancers . . . .”

This data is not in dispute. This is not hypothetical. The greater the amount consumed, the higher the risk that one will get one of these cancers.

Most anti-cancer efforts focus on the cure or disease management. Considerable strides have been made in allowing people to live longer while managing their cancer. These are admirable aims.

[Translation]

Honourable senators, I think that just as much if not more effort should be made in terms of prevention. Research shows that only one in four Canadians knows that alcohol can cause cancer. I was part of that 25%. That’s not enough. Today, people, especially young people, want to know what is in their food and beverages. They also want to know who is making their clothes and how the materials in their electronics are being mined. That is their right. Most consumers don’t know that alcohol can cause deadly cancers and they have the right to know that. They have the right to know what they are putting in their bodies.

[English]

As Dr. Tim Naimi of the Canadian Institute for Substance Use Research at the University of Victoria says, Canadians can quickly determine the amount of calcium in their can of peas from the label. Yet, when buying a “calorie-dense, potentially addictive, intoxicating carcinogen,” none of this information is conveyed on the label.

Canadians learn a lot about food and drinks through labels. Except for alcohol.

Consuming peas does not raise the risk of developing seven fatal cancers, Your Honour. But consuming alcohol does.

Alcohol is a drug which seems to enjoy a unique place in our culture. It seems to escape the warnings placed on other harmful drugs.

[Translation]

Why, honourable senators? Illusions and myths are part of the reason. The assumption that young adults can drink wine at the family table and thereby learn to be responsible drinkers is part of our charming cultural folklore. The fact is, people who drink at a young age are more likely to become heavy drinkers later in life.

Another popular belief is that drinking small amounts of red wine is beneficial to health. Although some very minor health effects have been noted, these have been greatly exaggerated. An overwhelming amount of data shows the opposite. In fact, the World Heart Federation has emphasized that alcohol doesn’t protect heart health. Not only does it not protect it, it is harmful to heart health. Let me be perfectly clear. The myth that alcohol is beneficial for heart health might help boost sales, but it is completely false. It’s unfair to allow consumers to continue to believe that alcohol has health benefits.

Here’s what this bill isn’t about. This bill isn’t paving the way for a new era of prohibition. Honourable senators have likely heard the criticisms about excessive moralization and the reintroduction of prohibition. This bill doesn’t impose prohibition. No one will be forced to drink contraband alcohol in speakeasies and we won’t go back to a time of bootleggers trafficking moonshine; not at all, but nice try. The purpose of this bill is simply to protect consumers. Canadians have the right to know what they are consuming and the adverse effects on health.

[English]

Next, this bill is not the nanny state run amok. There is also some agitation about the nanny state and government overreach when it comes to making labels honest. Images of a heavy‑handed, joyless parliament are trotted out. But, Your Honour, informative labels are not about stealing joy. The labels I’m asking for are to provide necessary health information.

Providing basic health risk information is not overreach. It is a basic responsibility of industry. And if industry won’t do it — for any one of the many sincere sounding reasons lobbyists will argue — it becomes the basic responsibility of Parliament to step in.

Canadians deserve nothing less than honest, straightforward cancer warning labels on their alcoholic beverages. Those who push the overreach narrative may, in fact, be called the “lobby state,” where sophisticated, well-financed campaigns conspire to tell consumers that it is in their best interests not to have products honestly labelled.

Your Honour, this bill is not anti-business. Some have accused this effort of being anti-business by asking for cancer warning labels. This is nonsense. Businesses should label their products honestly.

During the regulatory process, industry, along with public health and cancer researchers, will have plenty of opportunities to work with regulators to determine the specifics of the cancer warning label. Telling the truth about their products should be the cornerstone of every business.

Certainly, they would rather not have customers know that their product is directly linked to at least seven fatal cancers. That’s hardly a good selling point, but it is the case, and consumers have the right to know.

If dramatic warnings about the anti-business nanny state reintroducing prohibition doesn’t stop this bill, lobbyists will be ready with yet another weapon. I call this the “We will do anything for love, but we won’t do that” argument. I thank the late, great Meat Loaf for the inspiration.

Here, lobbyists will impress parliamentarians with how much they are doing for the community in many other ways. They will provide glossy educational pamphlets and will point to their messaging about drinking responsibly. They will argue that this is already working well, that industry and government are working well together, so why rock the boat with this cancer label fearmongering?

If these arguments seem familiar, Your Honour, that is because they were deployed extensively by the tobacco lobby. It’s exactly the same song: Our product doesn’t cause cancer, and if it does, we shouldn’t have to label it. Look at all the good we do in the community by providing jobs, sponsoring sports and culture and so on. Why punish the hard-working men and women who work in our industry? This is what we will hear.

It is commendable, Your Honour, that industries fund worthwhile community projects. We can all applaud these initiatives. But such good works should never be used as a moral shield, as a way to squirm out of their responsibility to tell the stark truth about cancer risks to consumers.

I am asking my colleagues to resist the lobbyists’ siren song long enough to hear me out. Let me take you through the four things the bill requires labels to have.

At paragraph 5.1(a), we are asking that the label indicate what constitutes a standard drink because research shows that Canadians do not know what a standard drink is. How can they follow health guidelines or intelligently make decisions about their drinking if they do not have this basic information?

Paragraph 5.1(b) further asks for the number of standard drinks per container. Currently, some people believe a bottle of wine contains two or more standard drinks. Some think it contains one. How are consumers supposed to make informed, intelligent decisions about their risks of fatal cancers if they do not know this basic information?

Paragraph 5.1(c) is asking for input from Health Canada regarding the dosage of this carcinogen. The risks should be clearly and plainly stated.

Finally, and most importantly, in my view, paragraph 5.1(d) requires a plain language, easily accessible and understood message about the direct link between consumption of the product and several types of fatal cancers.

This is the cancer warning. It is the crux of the bill. If we are to reduce the number of loved ones being taken before their time, it is absolutely essential to provide this information directly and plainly to consumers.

Cancer is pernicious and insidious. A person can do everything right, and still get it. It can claim the young and old, the health conscious and the person that abuses substances.

We know that it can seemingly strike out of nowhere, and that to a great extent, all of us are vulnerable. But, Your Honour, I hope I am making myself clear here. This chamber can help reduce the number of fatal cancers of the mouth, throat, vocal cords, breast, liver and colon.

[Translation]

By supporting this bill, Canadians will be better equipped to fight cancer. As a result of direct and simple labelling, Canadians will receive the information they need to make informed choices about their own health.

Will deaths due to mouth, throat, vocal cord, esophageal, liver, breast and colon cancer decrease overnight? No, not necessarily, but they will decrease because Canadians will have the medical facts before consuming alcohol.

Some ignore cancer warnings, and we understand that. As I said earlier, we are not a nanny state and adults have a choice. However, many more Canadians will heed the warning. We hope that many will read the warning and moderate their consumption.

They will start keeping a personal record of their weekly consumption. Some will do so deliberately, others will do so subconsciously. They will know what a standard drink is, the number of standard drinks in the package and when they increase their risk of developing a fatal form of cancer.

[English]

Will lobbyists be upset? Yes. Yes, they will be. But tobacco lobbyists were upset about cancer warnings, too, back in the day. Tobacco lobbyists had many expensive temper tantrums, providing a great deal of work for the legal profession. Court cases about tobacco and cancer drag on to this day. But through honest health labelling, everyone who smokes cigarettes is fully aware of their increased cancer risk.

To summarize, Your Honour, I am not standing before you today, as a person who struggled with alcohol abuse, on my high moral horse preaching abstinence to my colleagues. While I am happy to be almost three years sober, my own issues are entirely beside the point. I am here as a person concerned with reducing the number of cancers in Canada.

I fought a boxing match against a certain Prime Minister to raise money for cancer research. I did that to honour my late mother, who died of cancer in 2004.

Your Honour, obviously, we cannot prevent all cases of fatal cancer, but we can make a significant dent in cancer deaths by honestly labelling alcohol products. The choice is always with the consumer, as it should be.

The role of government is to intervene as lightly and as infrequently as possible. We are not telling people how to live their lives, Your Honour. There is, in my view, a role for Parliament in insisting that consumer products are labelled honestly.

Alcohol is a Class 1 — or Group 1, as some prefer — carcinogen, the same as tobacco smoking and asbestos, and that information needs to be on the label. With Bill S-254, it will be.

Thank you, Your Honour.