Hon. Jim Quinn: Thank you, senator, for a very informative speech; it was wonderful. My question is to help gather a bit of clarification.

You mentioned that we’re losing seven farms on average in Canada every day. There is no doubt that supply management is essential to the sustainability of those sectors that you talked about. What about the other farms — even some of the ones under supply management — that are at risk because of other factors? How will the committee take that into consideration? Do you anticipate that will be raised at committee?

[Translation]

Senator Gerba: Thank you for your question, senator. I’ll start by clarifying that I’m not a supply management expert. What I’m focusing on is Canadians’ needs and their food security and food sovereignty. Therefore, if other sectors need protection, I believe the government is entitled to put them forward. I think we need to be guided by the knowledge that this bill is for Canadians because it involves their food security.

(On motion of Senator Martin, debate adjourned.)

[English]

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Moncion, seconded by the Honourable Senator Yussuff, for the adoption 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.

Hon. Jim Quinn: Senator Wells, would you take a question?

Senator Wells: I certainly would, Senator Quinn.

Senator Quinn: Thank you so much for a very informative speech. It underscored the importance of the issue being dealt with. In regard to the people that I have been meeting with from the various associations that I have talked to, the one thing that has stood out to me — in relation to other discussions that have happened here around the agricultural industry — is food security. You alluded to food security in your speech, and it resonated with me. I’m somewhat concerned that the farming industry — as price-takers — is continuing to face challenges such that the next generation has less interest in taking over, or becoming involved in that business, which backs into the question of food security.

I would suggest that we could wait to see what other approaches could be taken, but given where we are in our particular point in history within the agricultural business — with food security and the prices that my honourable colleague just talked about — does it not make sense that this oversight be corrected through the expansion of the exemptions? I agree that this is the right language.

At some point, I will have a great discussion with Senator Woo about carve-outs — maybe over a roast beef or something.

In any case, I want to get your opinion on this question: Should we not be concerned more about food security, as well as the ability of the current generation and the next generation to enter into the business?

Senator Wells: Thank you, Senator Quinn. That is an excellent question. It is a trend that we’re seeing. There are fewer family farms because it’s hard to make a go of it on that small scale — on the family farm scale, or even the small industrial scale. We do see, especially across the Prairies — and we see it within the fishing industry in Atlantic Canada as well — the larger companies that have economies of scale buying up smaller farms, or smaller operations, because they can have a better margin. However, it is still difficult. I cannot think of anything in the food supply chain that is decreasing in price; nothing comes to mind.

It is a really important point. If there are fewer and fewer farm operations, it becomes closer and closer to monopolistic tendencies where the consumer will have no say in the price. They will simply be in a position to take it or leave it, whether it’s the consumer or the value-added consumer companies that put value into grain or cattle.

I agree with you; it is untenable, and any time you increase the price of something that is already on dangerous ground, it doesn’t make it any better.

[Translation]

Hon. Jim Quinn: Will the senator take a question?

Senator Brazeau: Absolutely.

Senator Quinn: Senator, I applaud the initiative you are taking here, but we now have a warning on alcohol products regarding potential defects during pregnancies. You have listed many things that you would see on the bottle, but the main message, as I take it, is the correlation between alcohol consumption and the potential to promote cancer within a person.

Is there a way to consolidate it and bring it down, as is indicated on cigarette packaging? As I understand it, it says “Smoking can cause cancer.”

What I hear is a lengthy description to go on a label. Would it not be better to consolidate and get that main message through?

Senator Brazeau: Thank you, senator, for the question. As I said, the crux of the bill is not to suggest, but, because of the science and research, to say that even drinking minimally can cause cancer. It is that simple.

Obviously, this bill needs to get to committee so we can have the real experts debating, discussing and recommending what should be done in terms of the actual labelling, but the message is drinking alcohol causes cancers.

(On motion of Senator Martin, debate adjourned.)

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Dalphond, seconded by the Honourable Senator Harder, P.C., for the second reading of Bill C-233, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Judges Act (violence against an intimate partner).