Hon. Jane Cordy: Honourable senators, I note that this item is at Day 15; therefore, with leave of the Senate, and notwithstanding rule 4-15(3), I move the adjournment of the debate for the balance of Senator Dalphond’s time.

Hon. Jane Cordy: Honourable senators, I rise today at second reading in support of Bill S-254, An Act to amend the Food and Drugs Act (warning label on alcoholic beverages). It would make mandatory health warning labels on alcoholic beverages which are sold in Canada.

I’m speaking to you today from the unceded land of the Algonquin Anishinaabeg peoples.

I want to first begin by thanking Senator Brazeau for introducing this very important bill to this chamber.

Honourable senators, it has been scientifically proven that a link exists between consuming alcoholic beverages and certain types of cancers. As Senator Brazeau has stated in his speech, these include cancer of the mouth and throat, vocal cords, esophagus, breast, liver and colon.

As Senator Brazeau also highlighted, only one in four Canadians are even aware that there is a connection between consuming alcoholic beverages and the risk of cancer. The majority of Canadians are also unaware that the World Health Organization classifies alcohol as a Group 1 carcinogen.

In letters of support for this bill from organizations such as the Cobequid Community Health Board, the Yarmouth Community Health Board, the Lunenburg County Community Health Board and the Digby and Area Community Health Board, all from my province of Nova Scotia, they make it clear that the measures in this bill are in line with current health recommendations grounded in scientific, evidence-based findings:

Bill S-254 aligns with the recent call for warning labels that formed part of the Canadian Centre on Substance Use and Addiction’s proposed new Canadian Guidance on Alcohol and Health that Health Canada: “require, through regulation, the mandatory labelling of all alcoholic beverages to list the number of standard drinks in a container, the Guidance on Alcohol and Health, health warnings and nutrition information.” This recommendation comes from leading scientific experts in the field and is supported by an Evidence-based Recommendations for Labelling Alcohol Products in Canada written by Canadian Alcohol Policy Evaluation (CAPE) Project researchers, who have been leaders in the alcohol policy field for over 10 years.

The Eastern Shore Community Health Board members in Nova Scotia echo these concerns in their support for this legislation stating that they feel:

. . . it is imperative for people to know and understand the risks they are taking when choosing to consume alcohol. Not only is alcohol a health risk for cancer but we see the outcomes of alcohol addiction in our communities in the form of family violence, mental health issues and other chronic diseases. Warning labels are just the start of a series of public policies required to reduce the amount of alcohol consumed in our communities and create healthier environments for families.

Honourable senators, the goal of this bill is not to take away Canadians’ right to purchase these products, or restrict access to these products, as I feel opponents of this bill may claim. The intent is to provide the consumer with clear and accurate and, quite frankly, important information to make an informed choice when deciding to consume these types of products.

When we hear that only one in four Canadians even know that there is a risk of cancer from consuming alcoholic beverages over time, I think the proof is there that these types of labels are necessary and well overdue.

Honourable senators, some may ask if warning labels are even effective; will they make enough of a difference, or will they just be an unnecessary disruption to Canada’s alcoholic beverage industry?

We can look at tobacco as an example. I will quote from a relevant study. In 2006, International Tobacco Control conducted a four-country survey to assess the effectiveness of cigarette warning labels in informing smokers about the risks of smoking:

The aim of the current study was to use nationally representative samples of adult smokers from the United States (USA), the United Kingdom (UK), Canada (CAN), and Australia . . . to examine variations in smokers’ knowledge about tobacco risks and the impact of package warnings.

At the time:

Smokers in the four countries exhibited significant gaps in their knowledge of the risks of smoking. Smokers who noticed the warnings were significantly more likely to endorse health risks, including lung cancer and heart disease. In each instance where labelling policies differed between countries, smokers living in countries with government mandated warnings reported greater health knowledge.

For example, in Canada, where package warnings include information about a specific health risk, “smokers were 2.68 . . . times more likely to agree” that smoking causes that health risk compared to smokers from the other three countries.

The survey concluded that health warnings that are “graphic, larger and more comprehensive in content are more effective in communicating the health risks of smoking.”

We see that health warning labels are effective in educating the consumer of the risks. But the question now is, does that knowledge lead to change in behaviour, in this case, a decrease in consumption?

If we look at Canada in 2000, the smoking rate was roughly 28% of Canadians above the age of 15 who smoked on a regular basis. The latest statistic on the prevalence of smoking in Canada put that number under 12% today.

Of course, the decline in smoking prevalence in Canada cannot be attributed solely to mandated graphic health warning labels on tobacco packages. There were, as you know, many forms of advertising that spoke of the harms of smoking. Health warning labels are just one of the many tools to help curb consumer behaviour. It has been shown that, when used together with other policies and measures, it is a very effective strategy.

In the case of alcohol consumption, the evidence shows that the more alcohol consumed, the greater risk of certain cancers. Canadians need to be aware of that; however, we know that it is not in the financial interest of alcohol beverage producers to voluntarily add warning labels to their products.

The aim of warning labels is to reduce consumption, which would decrease demand for their products; this is why, as Senator Brazeau has said in his speech, “it becomes the basic responsibility of Parliament to step in.”

Honourable senators, again, I wish to thank Senator Brazeau for introducing this bill here in the Senate. I fully support the intent of this legislation. It has been shown that health warning labels on other products have had a positive impact on consumer behaviours. Why should alcoholic beverages be exempt from this same scrutiny? It is time they are brought in line with other products that can be harmful.

Honourable senators, I am hopeful that we can send Bill S-254 to committee in a timely manner for further study and for consideration. Thank you.

(On motion of Senator Martin, debate adjourned.)

The Senate proceeded to consideration of the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration, entitled Senate Budget 2023-24, presented in the Senate on February 7, 2023.

Senator Cordy: Certainly.

Senator Cordy: Of course.

Senator Cordy: I’ve gone to places where there are elephants, but I’ve not had great discussions with people about elephants. That would be a question that you would have to ask the sponsor of the bill. He can’t answer at this time because he’s not making the speech. Again, these are great questions that you’re asking, and that’s why I think that the bill should go to committee as soon as possible so that the questions that you are asking can be answered.

(On motion of Senator Tannas, for Senator Patterson, debate adjourned.)

Hon. Jane Cordy: Honourable senators, I acknowledge that I rise to speak today from the unceded territory of the Algonquin and Anishinaabe peoples.

I would like to thank Senator Klyne for bringing forward Bill S-241, and I would like to acknowledge the original author of this legislation, our former Senate colleague Murray Sinclair, for his work on this issue.

Honourable senators, as societal norms and attitudes change and evolve, it is incumbent on us as parliamentarians to ensure that our laws evolve in step to reflect this change.

Over the last 10 to 20 years here in Canada, we have seen a sizable shift in Canadians’ attitudes toward animal protections and treatment, from the food we eat to the products we purchase to the entertainment we enjoy. Canadians are paying attention more than ever to the things we enjoy in life and where they come from. This naturally extends to concerns for how we treat the animals with whom we share the planet. Canadians are demanding better, more ethical treatment of animals while at the same time demanding more transparency and accountability from the people, organizations and businesses profiting from our animals and wildlife.

Bill S-241 will take some of the biggest steps to date toward ensuring protections for captive wild animals in Canada.

Based on our continued and evolving scientific understanding of nature and the animals who call our planet home, along with Indigenous understandings of nature, this bill will create new legal protections for captive wildlife in Canada. Big cats, bears, wolves, seals, sea lions, walruses, certain monkeys and dangerous reptiles such as crocodiles and giant pythons will see new protections come into force.

The bill also contains measures for protecting the public from privately owned exotic and potentially dangerous wild animals. I was particularly alarmed to learn that anywhere from 4,000 to 7,000 big cats can be found in private ownership. Regulations vary from province to province. Some provinces like British Columbia have strict regulations where private ownership of big cats is banned outright, while others, like Ontario, have no provincial licensing requirements for ownership, breeding or trade in big cats.

The Jane Goodall act will also phase out captivity of elephants in Canada. As noted by others, elephants are compassionate and social animals. They suffer needlessly when kept in small enclosures or in isolation. Also, Canada does not have the climate to provide the proper environment for these animals, and it has been shown to be detrimental to their well-being to keep these grand creatures indoors for months at a time.

Honourable senators, Bill S-241 has the potential to establish the strongest legal protections for captive wild animals anywhere in the world. If we examine what is being accomplished as a direct result of the passing of measures contained in our former Senate colleague Wilfred Moore’s Bill S-203, which ended future captivity of whales and dolphins in Canada, Bill S-241 has the potential to do great work here in Canada, and it can also lead to change worldwide.

After an extensive search, the Whale Sanctuary Project chose a bay in Port Hilford, Nova Scotia, to establish the world’s first whale sanctuary. This will be the first permanent seaside sanctuary in the world for beluga whales and orcas. The sanctuary will provide an actual environment for once-captive animals who are incapable of being released into the ocean for their own safety. The bay will provide the whales with about 110 acres of space to roam and explore waters up to 18 metres in depth. The Whale Sanctuary Project’s mission is:

. . . to transform the way people relate to whales and dolphins by bringing an end to their exploitation and by creating seaside sanctuaries, assisting with international marine mammal rescues, and advancing whale and dolphin science.

. . . with your help, we are creating a gold-standard coastal sanctuary in Port Hilford Bay, Nova Scotia, where cetaceans (whales and dolphins) can live in an environment that maximizes well-being and autonomy and is as close as possible to their natural habitat. It is being designed to serve as a model for many more that can then be built all over the world in the coming years.

The sanctuary is gearing up to welcome their first inhabitants in 2023, and they have made it publicly known that their hope is to relocate Kiska the killer whale from Marineland as their first inhabitant.

Colleagues, we have a bill before us that is supported not only by groups representing some of Canada’s largest zoos, leading animal welfare organizations and the Jane Goodall Institute but also by a majority of Canadians. On September 8, in a statement directed to us as parliamentarians, the Jane Goodall act coalition said:

Protecting wildlife is not a partisan issue. It’s a national and international issue — one that should concern everyone. The Jane Goodall Act is Canada’s chance to lead and make a difference for our fellow creatures at this pivotal time for the natural world.

The Minister of Environment and Climate Change has also been charged by the Prime Minister in his mandate letter to specifically introduce legislation to protect animals in captivity. The Honourable Steven Guilbeault has tweeted his interest in Bill S-241 and our work in the Senate on the legislation.

Honourable senators, the principle of this bill is sound, and it should be referred to committee for study. The Jane Goodall act has the potential to establish the world’s strongest legal protections for captive wild animals. I would like to again acknowledge and thank my colleague Senator Klyne for continuing the work initiated by our former colleague Senator Sinclair.

Canada has the opportunity with this bill to be a world leader and set more gold standards when it comes to protecting wildlife and conserving nature in Canada. As legislation is not overwhelming Senate committees at this time, I think this would be the ideal time to send Bill S-241 to committee for further study. Thank you.

Senator Cordy: That is a decision that would be made by the Senate. Somebody usually comes forward that the bill be sent to a specific committee, but I’ve been in the Senate when it has actually overturned that. Usually it’s a discussion among leaders. I’m not going to suggest what committee it goes to. I’m not sure that the sponsor of the bill is going to suggest that. He may as we get closer, but that is a decision to be made by the Senate.

Senator Cordy: I think that you have raised a really good issue that could be discussed at committee. I would hope, as I said in my speech, that this would be an excellent time for this bill to go to committee. The members of whichever committee could certainly invite provinces and territories to appear as witnesses, and there could be a thorough discussion at that time.

To answer your question, no, I have not spoken to provincial ministers responsible for the owning of big cats by private individuals.

Senator Cordy: Thank you very much. That’s an excellent question. I recall that incident in New Brunswick, and when you brought it back up again, a shiver went up my spine as to how this could happen.

I was particularly alarmed, as I said in my speech, that between 4,000 and 7,000 big cats are found in private ownership, and that to me is very scary. Big cats are not meant to be living in homes and having private ownership. The same thing that happened in New Brunswick with the snake could conceivably happen again. I think this bill contains measures for protecting the public from privately owned exotic and potentially dangerous wild animals.

I don’t know the bill as well as Senator Klyne does, but from the research that I have done, I would say that is the case. I know that currently there are provinces like British Columbia that have stringent controls, some like Ontario that have none and probably a lot that are in between. My understanding is that this bill will go a long way in preventing big cats from being owned by private individuals.