Senator Plett: Yes, I have a question. The Prime Minister never wanted a public inquiry. He has gone to great lengths to avoid one because he benefited from Beijing’s interference.

Leader, here is the question: The Prime Minister designed this whole farce to absolve himself. According to the polls, a majority of Canadians want the public inquiry, but your Liberal government has basically said that they’re wasting their breath. Isn’t that right? I know you don’t want to answer it, but have the courage to do the right thing.

Senator Plett: This is ludicrous. Wouldn’t it be great if the Trudeau government showed as much effort when working to protect Canadians as they do trying to cover up — and, again, I’ll use that word — the fix —

Senator Plett: We all know, leader, that it is indeed inconvenient to have an opposition in this house — that is your problem. You are tired of answering questions; we are tired of asking questions that you either don’t know or refuse to answer. Why don’t you call the Prime Minister and get the answers if you don’t know them? The made-up Special Rapporteur asked a judge if he was in a conflict of interest due to his long-standing ties to the Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation and the Trudeau family. Was anyone surprised that the judge is the Special Rapporteur’s close friend who has his very own links to the Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation? The made-up Special Rapporteur also hired a lawyer to assist in his work. Did it honestly surprise anyone to learn that the lawyer donated more than $7,500 to the federal Liberal Party since 2006?

Senator Plett: You wish there was no opposition.

Senator Plett: You are right. It is his prerogative. The question that I asked was: Why does he refuse? If the Prime Minister truly believed the line he is selling to Canadians that NSICOP is the best place to investigate what he knew about Beijing’s interference all along, he would quickly fill the vacancies on this committee. He would make sure this committee included a senator from the official opposition, the second-largest group in this chamber. He would also act on NSICOP’s reports and recommendations. Instead, he appoints senators from each of the groups, excluding the official opposition. This is what he has done the last two times.

The Prime Minister does none of the things that I mentioned, because his main concern from the start, leader, has been covering up the truth about Beijing’s interference and intimidation.

Leader, what is the Prime Minister afraid of that he won’t name a Conservative senator to the committee?

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): My question for the Liberal government leader concerns the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians, or NSICOP.

Mr. Leader, the Prime Minister and his ski buddy, the made-up rapporteur, have told Canadians that NSICOP would be the perfect place to do in secret what a public inquiry into Beijing’s interference could do in front of all Canadians. There are currently two vacant seats reserved for senators on NSICOP, and that has been the case for months. The last two times this committee was set up, the Prime Minister refused to appoint a senator from the official opposition. Now, he is once again dragging his feet on the third try.

Leader, why is the Prime Minister waiting to fill the seats on NSICOP, and why does he continually refuse to do the right thing and appoint a senator from the official opposition?

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): Leader, my next question concerns the cover-up released by the Prime Minister’s made-up Independent Special Rapporteur on Foreign Interference. The fix was in from the start, and we could all see it happening. The Trudeau government will do all it can to never allow a public inquiry into Beijing’s meddling in our elections.

In his report and remarks to the media, the Special Rapporteur blamed the media and the opposition. He said whistle-blowers at the Canadian Security and Intelligence Service, or CSIS, were motivated by malice. He looked at only some of the leaks, and the words “Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation” do not appear in his report. All of this is taken straight from Prime Minister Trudeau’s playbook. He could have written the report himself. He needn’t have bothered with the Special Rapporteur.

Leader, why should the made-up Special Rapporteur and this cover-up carry more weight than the majority of the members of Parliament who voted for a public inquiry?

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): No, Your Honour. You addressed my point of order. It had to do with the question being asked of a committee chair on a question about whether they will take on something as opposed to what they are dealing with, but you addressed it. Thank you, Your Honour.

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, I will also be brief considering the time, but I do want to say a few words about the bill that Senator Brazeau has introduced: Bill S-254, An Act to amend the Food and Drugs Act (warning label on alcoholic beverages). I want to thank Senator Brazeau for bringing this legislation forward for our consideration and for his leadership on this important issue.

As indicated in the title of the bill, Bill S-254 will amend the Food and Drugs Act to require a warning label to be placed on alcoholic beverages. The legislation mandates four components for this labelling requirement. One, the label must indicate the volume of beverage that, in the opinion of the department of health, constitutes a standard drink. Two, it must note how many standard drinks are contained in the labelled package. Three, the label must indicate the number of standard drinks that, in the opinion of the department of health, should not be exceeded in order to avoid significant health risks. Finally, the label must include a warning from the department of health that there is a direct causal link between alcohol consumption and the development of fatal cancers.

Colleagues, I doubt that there is anyone in this chamber who has not seen first-hand the ravages of alcohol abuse. It has been mentioned by other senators who have spoken to this. It is a terrible scourge on our society which is all too common and extracts a heavy price from those who fall into its clutches.

We heard from a number of senators who shared their personal stories about their experiences, and I am certain that the rest of us could all add our own stories as well.

However, I want to point out that the objective of this legislation is not to launch a campaign against the consumption of alcohol or to revisit the question of prohibition. As Senator Brazeau said in his speech, he is not on his high, moral horse preaching abstinence, but rather he is concerned with reducing the number of cancers in Canada.

The preamble lays out the scope of this bill clearly in three statements. The first is that “ . . . Parliament recognizes that a direct causal link exists between alcohol consumption and the development of fatal cancers . . . .”

Next, the preamble states that:

 . . . in light of the serious public health risks posed by alcohol consumption, the public must have accurate and current health information in relation to alcohol consumption in order to make informed decisions about consuming alcohol . . . .

Finally, the preamble says, “ . . . affixing a warning label to alcoholic beverages is an effective way of making consumers aware of this health information . . . .”

On the first point, there is no debate. A direct causal link exists between alcohol and cancer, and although awareness of this fact remains low, this is not a new discovery. It has been 35 years since the International Agency for Research on Cancer classified alcohol as a Class I carcinogen. Literally hundreds of studies have confirmed this fact since then.

On the second point, there is also no debate. The public should have accurate and current information about the health risks of consuming alcohol. But for whatever reason, this is currently not the case. In fact, according to Cancer Care Ontario, only one third of Canadians are aware that they can lower their risk of cancer by reducing their alcohol consumption. Other studies put this number as low as 25%.

However, this is only one of the health risks when it comes to alcohol consumption. There are many others, such as damage to the liver, brain, heart and stomach; high blood pressure; reduced resistance to infection; decreased appetite; disturbed sleep patterns; anxiety; depression; suicidal depression; fetal alcohol spectrum disorder and more.

Canadians should be aware of these risks and understand how to minimize them. However, colleagues, whether a warning label is an appropriate and effective way of informing the consumer of the health risks associated with alcohol consumption remains an open question. At last count, there were at least 47 countries around the world that have already implemented health warning labels on alcohol products, including the United States, Australia, Portugal, France, Japan, Israel, Brazil and, of course, many more.

The United States has had health warning labels on alcohol products since 1988 when it passed the Alcohol Beverage Labeling Act. But whether Canada needs to follow suit is not clear for a couple of reasons. First of all, there is a significant lack of consensus on what constitutes a low-risk level of alcohol consumption. Only a few months ago, this number in Canada was 10 drinks per week for women and 15 drinks a week for men. Then, in August of last year, the Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse and Addiction recommended this be changed to two drinks a week regardless of your gender. The current recommendation in the United States and the U.K. is still 2 drinks a day, whereas in Australia it is 10 drinks per week.

Everybody claims to be basing their guidance on science, and yet there doesn’t seem to be a consensus on what the science says. One analysis notes:

In almost every well-conceived and controlled study done, it was found that when ex-drinkers were not included in the referent group (and the group consisted only of lifetime abstainers) . . . . there is a cardioprotective effect for regular light to moderate alcohol consumption.

The analysis also concluded that light to moderate consumption contributes significantly to reduced all-cause mortality.

Colleagues, from my own experience, my doctor has told me that one glass of wine per day will help my blood pressure. Two glasses of wine per day will increase my blood pressure. I had a perfect solution. I went and bought a larger glass, but he said that wasn’t the answer to my problem.

Now, I know there is a fair degree of disagreement on this issue. But that is just my point. It would be wrong to push ahead without first having a consensus on this science and the public buy-in.

It is clear that if you are looking for no risk, then you should not drink at all. But what is the appropriate level of alcohol consumption if a person is content with low risk? That answer is not clear.

The second reason for questioning whether health warning labels are an effective way of informing consumers about the risk of alcohol consumption is because the results of the current research on labelling are mixed. We are not venturing into uncharted waters here, colleagues. As I noted earlier, there were at least 47 countries around the world who have already implemented health warning labels on alcohol products. And it would be wise to consider their experience and learn from their efforts.

A recent study entitled Alcohol Health Warning Labels: A Rapid Review with Action Recommendations was published last September in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. The study reviewed the existing research on health warning labels located on alcohol containers and found 2,975 non-duplicate citations. This is a significant body of evidence from which they examined 382 articles and focused their final analysis on 122 research papers.

What their review showed is that simply slapping a label on alcohol containers is not necessarily a winning strategy. There is a spectrum of variables which needs to be considered when contemplating alcohol warning labels. One example is the label’s design: Where is the label located on the container? How much space does it use? What is the font size? What is the colour? Does it include a logo or an image? All of these were factors in the effectiveness of the label.

The results were not always what you think they might be. For example, they found that using shocking pictures such as those which we have all seen on cigarette packages are not necessarily effective.

. . . negative imagery should be used with caution, since it does not appear to be generally beneficial in influencing the behaviour of those viewing the label.

Part of the reason for this outcome was the issue of believability and acceptability. If the label was not believable or acceptable, it was less effective.

Furthermore, in addition to the design of the label, there is the question of content. What message do the text and images convey? Bill S-254 mandates four aspects of the content of the message, but there are many more which are also possible. What about the dangers alcohol consumption poses to pregnant mothers? What about impairment, risk of hypertension, liver disease or heart disease? What about warnings that alcohol can be addictive? When it comes to labelling alcohol, you could easily focus on any of these issues and all of them are important. So what do we do? In spite of all the data, there remains significant uncertainty. Quite simply, the research is not conclusive.

Alcohol labelling does not always bring the results you think it will. For example, negatively framed messages had the greatest influence on those who were heavier drinkers. With young drinkers, strong warnings have been found to have a boomerang effect where exposure to the warning actually led to a higher positive perception of the product. In fact, one 2009 study found that young adults used standard drink information to maximize rather than minimize their alcohol consumption. The label helped them decide where they would get the most bang for their buck and they ended up increasing their consumption rather than decreasing it. They mainly used the labels to identify drinks with the most alcohol and the lowest cost so they could drink less liquid, get intoxicated faster and spend less money. This finding was corroborated in a 2014 Canadian study where researchers found that 46% of participants said they would use standard drink labels to identify the least expensive alcohol.

Honourable senators, the obvious lesson here is that labelling does not always give you the outcome you would expect. Rather than giving us a conclusive path forward, the existing research seems to indicate that there is much that we do not know about alcohol warning labels.

However, colleagues, this bill does address a very important subject matter. I do not think any decisions should be made before it is examined at committee. I really believe, colleagues, this is a perfect bill for a thorough study at committee to hear from witnesses what their recommendations are.

With that, honourable senators, I would like to see this bill move to committee at the earliest opportunity so that the committee can do a thorough study and report back to us. Thank you.

(On motion of Senator Moncion, debate adjourned.)

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Batters, seconded by the Honourable Senator Wells, for the second reading of Bill C-291, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to other Acts (child sexual abuse and exploitation material).