EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, May 2, 1996

.0859

[English]

The Chair: Good morning, everyone. We do have a quorum. A subcommittee doesn't need as large a quorum to start a meeting as does a regular standing committee of the House of Commons.

I welcome you here. These are members of the Association of Canadian Distillers. The order of the day is, pursuant to Standing Order 108(1), a study of Bill C-222, warning on alcoholic beverage containers. As I'm sure you know, this is my colleague Mr. Szabo's bill.

We have a very busy schedule. We are hearing five different organizations here this morning in a two-hour period. I'm sure you can appreciate the time element here, and I apologize for that.

.0900

Mr. Veilleux, I understand you're going to go ahead.

Mr. Ronald B. Veilleux (President and Chief Executive Officer, Association of Canadian Distillers): Thank you very much, Madam Chairman, members of the committee.

I have with me today Mr. Peter Chubb, vice-president of government and industry affairs, Corby Distilleries Ltd., and Miss Sandi Bokij, researcher and information specialist with our association.

Thank you for inviting us to communicate the position of our association on health warning labels. Our detailed position has already been given to the members of the committee, but I would like to table our final positions. There were some minor changes in both languages. In the next few minutes I will summarize that presentation.

The Association of Canadian Distillers represents 95% of distillers in Canada. Our mission is to protect and promote the viability of our industry and to advance the interest of its members. We stand second to none in our concern about the abuse of our products. We unequivocally oppose drunk driving, under-age drinking, and all forms of alcohol abuse. We also recommend that before pregnant women drink, they consult with their physicians about alcohol and all other health care issues.

In that regard we are tabling with this committee copies of the programs launched by our association and our member companies. They are in this folder.

[Translation]

Our position on fetal alcohol syndrome and the other social and health issues related to excessive consumption of alcohol is based on two fundamental principles. First, we are convinced that everyone has an interest in receiving objective scientific information on the positive and negative effects on health of alcohol consumption.

[English]

Second, we share the belief of many experts that the most effective prevention measure is direct intervention by health care givers and education; those at risk are particularly in need of education. The position of our association is that health warning labels are not the best approach to reduce or eliminate abuse and the potential health risks associated with alcohol, especially since the dangers of alcohol abuse are already commonly known by Canadians.

We subscribe to the idea that health promotion is the process of enabling people to increase control over and improve their health. Individual responsibility, exercised by well-informed consumers, is ultimately the most effective manner of combating alcohol abuse.

[Translation]

We believe, among other things, that to fight fetal alcohol syndrome, efforts should be directed primarily to alcoholic women and their male partners who are also alcoholics. In other words, we advocate an approach designed precisely to resolve a particular problem of excessive consumption of alcohol.

[English]

An example of a useful approach is the creation of an FAS information service by the Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse and supported by our association.

I would like to table the evaluation of one year of operation. These results are extremely positive. At every opportunity we are collaborating with governments, public health authorities, educators, law enforcement agencies, and many other partners across the country on alcohol awareness programs aimed at combating abuse and at encouraging responsible drinking, without discouraging the social and leisure enjoyment of it by the majority of Canadians who consume alcohol sensibly and moderately. We believe these public health approaches and educational efforts have a better chance of being successful when they are based on sound, up-to-date scientific knowledge and are tailored to the specific problems associated with the abuse of alcohol.

.0905

I'm tabling bibliographies of the studies that were done on health warning labels. The best way to summarize these studies is to quote from a presentation made to this committee last week, April 25, 1996. I quote from page 2, paragraph 1, of the presentation made by the Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse:

There is a strong likelihood that such warnings will be ignored by the very people who most need to heed them. One of the characteristics of alcohol abusers is their refusal or inability to acknowledge the harm their drinking inflicts on themselves and others. Warning labels by themselves are unlikely to change this fact.

Madam Chairman, members of the committee, even the experts in this field agree that health warning labels will not change the attitude of abusers. My question therefore to this committee - why do it? Thank you, Madam Chairman.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Veilleux.

We usually allow ten minutes for each party, but we have to have less than that because of our timeframe. If we can keep it to five minutes for question and response combined, I'd appreciate it.

[Translation]

Mrs. Picard (Drummond): I have no questions for the Association at this time.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Hill.

Mr. Hill (Macleod): Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm sorry for being a bit late. That was not intended.

You mentioned direct intervention as being the ideal mechanism for fetal alcohol syndrome, and that is obviously 100% true. The problem with direct intervention is that many of the women involved with alcohol abuse don't seek medical attention early in their pregnancy. In fact, the tendency for this group of women is to come in quite late. I myself have seen women coming in literally at the end of their pregnancy with alcohol problems.

The second issue for me is that many of these women are illiterate and I don't believe pay any attention to warning labels. So I'm interested in your viewpoint on a graphic label that shows a pregnant woman in profile with an X across it, as a mechanism to provide two things: a message to the illiterate individual and a message to those around, in a social sense, people who are drinking when they are pregnant and not visiting medical practitioners.

Mr. Veilleux: Our position on the health warning labels, and I will start with that, is very clear. It is common knowledge in Canada and all kinds of studies have been done.... It says at page 3, and I quote from the Addiction Research Foundation's submission to this committee last week:

It should be noted that in Canada's National Alcohol and Drug Survey of 1994, over 95% of Canadians over age 15 knew that alcohol can cause health problems, motor vehicle accidents and pregnancy complications.

We did our own surveys before that, and there are surveys that were done five years ago. These surveys indicate that 88% are fully aware of the complications you may incur if you drink alcohol while pregnant. There are other kinds of surveys that will be tabled later this morning by other groups and they say the same thing. Therefore, if it's common knowledge and everyone knows, what is this going to do in addition with its graphic or language?

.0910

In addition, we all know from the research and from the ARF and the Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse that people who abuse will not change their behaviour because of warning labels.I don't think it will be the best way to spend dollars to communicate with the groups that are at risk. The best way, again, is education.

I would add that for us, if we could have excellent programs like the one in Quebec called Éduc'alcool, where very early at school, kids are taught to consume responsibly if they are to consume at all, this is where you have to start. You have to get people to realize the positive as well as the negative aspects of alcohol. Kids have to realize very early in life, even before they get to dating or anything else, that abusive consumption is very negative. We have good programs with university students at the present time that work. Hopefully we could launch programs in schools too.

Mr. Hill: The associations talk very keenly about voluntary programs that they undertake and will undertake. Frankly, I do not buy the idea that there is no educational benefit to having labelling of any kind, because the individuals affected do have associates. I believe that a socially unacceptable activity like drinking and driving, which you have played a part in, has been an educational process. The individual who may drink and drive is not likely the one who stops. It's his or her buddy who says, you really shouldn't be doing this; let us take you or get you a cab. I'm looking for the same thing for a pregnant mom, for a friend or an individual to put an arm around them and say, this is so harmful; can you not for the sake of the baby change your drinking habits, even if it's for four or five months?

I look, then, for a voluntary component from the industry. You say the centre you've spoken of has great results. Because I haven't been in practice for the last two years I haven't seen the results in my own community, and I've dealt with a huge number of native problem drinkers in my home community. Explain to me, then, how you would approach this in a voluntary way.

I would rather not legislate this. I would much rather educate. I don't believe in big government. But I'm really convinced that if there isn't a huge voluntary component from the industry, you will face a backlash you do not want to face.

Mr. Veilleux: Madam Chairman and Mr. Hill, we have run several programs, and in response to your question I would like to highlight a couple.

There is a pamphlet we have produced in collaboration with the Addiction Research Foundation of Ontario - the same pamphlet produced by the Liquor Control Board of Ontario and the Addictions Foundation of Manitoba. Thousands and thousands of copies of this pamphlet are given to doctors and are distributed in doctors' offices with the full support of the Addiction Research Foundation, our industry, and the liquor boards of these provinces.

This is the type of message that people receive and understand. Why? It's very simple. If our industry goes out and gives a message, people don't believe it because they say we want them to consume more. If addiction foundations go out and give a message, people don't believe them because they feel that these people want them to stop drinking altogether. If we go out together, as we have done in this case, and give one single message to consumers, the consumers believe it's a balanced message. They read it, they understand it and they practise it. This is what our research has done.

.0915

I would think, knowing that, that a balanced message to the target population, the population at risk, will be extremely more effective than any label. If we have some money to spend, I think we should spend it on these types of programs instead of other programs.

There is one like this in Manitoba and one in Ontario. We've done another one in Alberta that is now all across Canada. We're targeting these kids, first-year university students away from home for the first time, with a new apartment and some cash in their pockets. We've all been there.

The Chair: I have to move on to the next questioner. Madam Picard.

Mr. Veilleux: Do you get the message, Madam Chairman?

The Chair: Yes, I was reading that. Thank you.

[Translation]

Mrs. Picard: Mr. Veilleux, good morning. I would like to ask you a question of an economic nature. Do you know how much your prevention and education programs now cost? How much are you spending on advertising your products? Have you evaluated the costs of placing warnings on alcoholic beverage containers? Can you tell me whether the implementation of this measure will cost the government something?

Mr. Veilleux: Mrs. Picard, we estimate that we are spending between two and three million dollars a year on programs of this nature. These are programs that our association and our members have initiated. All of our members initiate some programs and there are some that have been in effect since 1940. You will get a glimpse of those programs in the file we handed you.

This is a relatively small amount, and I would like to explain why. In Canada, our industry is worth about 3.5 billion dollars. As you well know, 87% of that amount, or 2.9 billion dollars, is returned to the government in the form of taxes. That leaves only 600 million dollars for the industry, therefore.

With this 600 million dollars, we have to purchase corn, wheat, etc. We have to distill the product, age it for several years, bottle it, label it, distribute it, market it, etc., pay our taxes - because we do pay taxes - and, finally, pay our employees. There is a small profit left at the end. If there were no profit, we would not be here. But the profit is not huge.

We cannot invest a lot of money in those programs, but we do invest some because we think it is very important that our industry communicate with the groups at risk. That is why we spend only about three million dollars per year on these programs.

With respect to advertising - I would like to refer you to Mr. Chubb who perhaps has more precise data - I would like to send you the most recent data later, because I don't have them in my head. I think our industry, overall, spends about 30 million dollars per year on marketing. A little of it is advertising, but it tends to be promotions.

I don't have figures on the costs of labelling. I would be lying to the committee if I gave you a precise figure, because I have none. However, I know that it is several million dollars. If we are talking about several million dollars, it is obvious that this will have some impact on our other programs.

We are convinced that we must continue our programs, but we will not be able to do so with the same intensity as before.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Chubb, were you going to comment?

Mr. Peter Chubb (Vice-President, Government and Industry Affairs, Association of Canadian Distillers): No, Madam Chair, I was not. My colleague has suggested that the specific amount spent on publicity and advertising above and below the line can be provided and will be provided to this committee later on.

The Chair: Did you have anything further, Mrs. Picard?

[Translation]

Mrs. Picard: Would it cost the industry a lot and would it be worth considering replacing the labels by writing, at the bottom of promotional literature, a message that might say something like: ``Moderation tastes so much better''?

Mr. Chubb: Some of us are doing that already.

.0920

[English]

The question is, are we mixing a commercial message with a moderation message? We as an industry have tended to have moderation messages, or sensible-use messages, separate from enjoyment messages. The brewers, on the other hand, have taken a different approach. They'll talk to you a little later. Molson says take care, and Labatt says other things. But yes, we do that: use it wisely, moderation tastes so much better.

[Translation]

What is the message?

Mr. Veilleux: "Moderation tastes so much better." I am sure that is something we could envisage. I would definitely say yes to that.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Szabo.

[English]

Mr. Szabo (Mississauga South): Mr. Veilleux, I want to thank you. You've sent us lots of material. I want to compliment and congratulate the distillers' association and its members for all of the work they've tried to do to promote the responsible use of their products. It's an important message.

Are you proud of this program? Do you think it's very important?

Mr. Veilleux: Proud of the programs we have?

Mr. Szabo: The initiatives you've taken, do you think they're important?

Mr. Veilleux: Yes, we're very proud of these programs. We believe these programs, which are really targeted at the abusers, are the right programs and necessary in this country to resolve the problems we're facing.

Mr. Szabo: If warning labels were introduced and it cost you money, is it the position of your association that you would cease to conduct any or all of these programs?

Mr. Veilleux: I responded to that in French, but I will repeat, Madam Chairman.

Mr. Szabo, I said that obviously we have a finite amount of dollars. I explained that our industry is a $3.5 billion industry, and 83% of that is taxes. Therefore, $2.9 billion goes back to governments in taxes. With the $600 million that's left, there is some profit left, because if there were no profit we would not be here.

Mr. Szabo: What's the average return on equity for this sort of...?

Mr. Veilleux: I don't know. I don't have access to that. They're individual companies.

Mr. Szabo: I have one last point.

The Chair: You have lots of time.

Mr. Szabo: Well, maybe other members would like to ask questions.

Mr. Chubb, I was going to ask a whole bunch of other things, but you just said something - that the distillers tend to separate the message of advertising the product from the moderation message, unlike the brewers. You basically said you like to make sure your message is clear, depending on what you're trying to do. I'd like to ask any one of you, is this a sensible message? Is this trying to sell your product, or is this a health warning in your view?

Mr. Chubb: I'll answer the question, if you like. This is an educational initiative, we believe.

Mr. Szabo: The frosty beer, the delicate wine, the refreshing gin and tonic - those you can see. They're all the same. ``These standard servings...contain an equal amount of alcohol. So don't be misled by appearances.'' The very last thing it says is ``And never mix drinking with driving.''

If I were to look at this, if it were on the wall at my place of business or whatever, it would not constitute to me or anybody a warning or a health message. I think it would represent an advertisement for alcoholic beverages. They look so good and they taste so good: wouldn't you like to have that nice, tall, cool one? It doesn't smack.... It's very slick - very slick. So I would think this advertisement alone tends to contradict.

Let me just ask one thing, then.

Mr. Chubb: May I respond to that? Just to clarify, I attempted to say that in an advertisement-

I notice you have one of my products over there on the table. An advertisement for Canadian Club is an advertisement for Canadian Club. Hiram Walker and Corby Distilleries, the companies I represent that sell Canadian Club in this country, would do a moderation message separate from Canadian Club. That's what I'm saying.

The poster campaign you refer to here, sir, really was focused on educating the consumer that a standard drink is a standard drink is a standard drink. We have found over time that there was a misperception in the minds of many consumers that somehow distilled spirits were ``hard liquor'' - that's the phrase often used - whereas beer and wine were kind of beverages of moderation. That is simply to communicate to the consumer that a glass of wine contains the same amount of alcohol as a glass of beer as a gin and tonic, full stop.

.0925

Mr. Szabo: I do understand that.

Mr. Veilleux: Madam Chairman, can I add to this? I would also like to say that we have distributed approximately half a million of these posters. You'll find them in doctors' offices, police stations and schools all across this land so that people realize what the equivalency is. I don't think this is slick advertising. I take offence to that. It's not slick advertising; it's a moderation message. That's what it is - nothing more.

Mr. Szabo: Mr. Veilleux, in your final comments you said that a warning label by itself wouldn't help. You also said the experts have said it would not change the attitude of abusers.

I thought it was very carefully worded. Do you not consider a label that says ``Drinking during pregnancy may cause birth defects'' in itself an educational message? Do you agree that even the things you're doing - posters, films, all kinds of different things - really constitute education, and that the purpose of many of your advertisements is not so much to stop alcoholics from drinking but rather to serve as a reality check or to convince or to bring a pulse of awareness at a critical time not to abuse? It's sort of the preventative side rather than the curative. Would you agree with that assessment?

Mr. Veilleux: Let me try to answer, Madam Chairman. The message you mentioned, that if you are pregnant you should not drink alcohol, is a good educational message. There's no doubt about that. But our contention is that health warning labels saying that are not effective. We're not saying that. It's your own experts, the Addiction Research Foundation, the largest foundation in this country. That's their job. That's what they are paid for by the Government of Ontario. The Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse is paid for by the federal government. They both stated very clearly in presentations to this committee that it does not work.

In our view, the best way to make sure the message you have quoted gets to the people who need that message is to educate them, to target the females who are pregnant or who are planning to become pregnant to make sure they do understand that if they abuse alcohol, it may create a problem. The message to them is very simple and clear: if you are pregnant and you want to consume, you should talk to your physician or family doctor first. He or she is the best person to guide you as to what to do or what not to do. Warning labels will not do that.

Mr. Szabo: Why are the Addition Research Foundation and the Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse supporting labels, then?

The Chair: I'm sorry, Mr. Szabo.

Mr. Veilleux: May I answer?

The Chair: You have to be quick.

Mr. Veilleux: Both groups, ARF and CCSA, have said they don't work, but put them on anyway. That's what they said.

The Chair: With the indulgence of the committee, the chair is going ask that you provide evidence to this committee. This is further in response to what Madam Picard was saying. I think I would like to see - and I'm sure the committee would agree with me - the effectiveness of the evidence you have provided, that it is working with regard to the educational tools you were putting out. We would like to see some kind of...if you could circulate that to us, maybe today or sometime later.

Mr. Veilleux: Yes.

The Chair: This flyer here, the one you're going to put into universities, golly, is it ever sending mixed messages. You're talking about alcohol and you're talking about sexuality in this one brochure. I don't know why you're mixing the two. Maybe it's my age - I don't know - but I find it a little offensive. What is the desired effect you're looking for from this ad? Is this what happens at universities these days? Is this reality and I'm just not with reality?

Mr. Chubb: If I may, Madam Chairman, you're absolutely right. I share your views. But this campaign, ``if you drink, don't bowl'', was created step by step in conjunction with post-secondary young people of a legal drinking age, 18, 19 and 20 years of age, in the province of Alberta. They're the ones who told us that if we want to convince them, attempt to change their behaviour, or attempt to educate them, then we'd better talk to them in their language. They created the campaign.

.0930

If it offends you, it doesn't surprise me; you're not the only one who's offended by it. But the target audience, the young people away from home for the first time at 18, 19 and 20 years of age, think it's the greatest thing they've ever seen.

The Chair: I wonder what their parents think.

Mr. Veilleux: I might add that it works. The surveys clearly indicate that it changes the behaviour of the kids who are abusing. That's the important piece in this program.

The Chair: I couldn't resist asking that question.

Thank you very much. Your brief has been very enlightening. It will be studied. We will be dealing with all of these briefs before the House rises in the middle of June. Thank you for coming.

The next group to appear is from the Canadian Wine Institute. Good morning, Mr. Soleas and Mr. Diston. Welcome to the subcommittee on Bill C-222.

Mr. David Diston (Consultant, Canadian Wine Institute): I'm David Diston, a consultant to the Canadian Wine Institute. I'm replacing the president of the Canadian Wine Institute,Roger Randolph, who unfortunately just came out of the hospital yesterday morning and is unable to attend.

I'm accompanied by George Soleas. George is the chair of the Canadian Wine Institute's technical committee and director of research and development for Andrés Wines Limited.

I'm in the fortunate position of being sort of retired, but I was formerly an executive with Vincor International Inc.

You have our detailed presentation. This morning we would like to emphasize three areas of that submission. Mr. Soleas will deal with the work the Canadian Wine Institute and others have done in recognizing the potential health benefits of moderate consumption of wine.

The second point I would like to emphasize is the point that has been made in some detail already this morning by the Association of Canadian Distillers, so I won't belabour it extensively. The fact is that all of the research shows that public awareness of the dangers of excessive alcohol consumption is at a very high level. It appears, in that sense, that warning labels would not add to that awareness level. It is extremely difficult and challenging to contact the relatively small number of people who aren't aware of the dangers of excessive alcohol consumption. Research appears to support the fact that warning labels don't help get to those people. Because of the unfortunate lifestyle of people who consume excess alcohol on a regular basis, they tend not to read these things.

.0935

In the interest of time, therefore, I would ask Mr. Soleas to comment on the work we have been doing on the beneficial effects of moderate consumption. We feel that can be negated by some of the warning signs proposed.

Mr. George Soleas (Chair, Technical Committee and Director of Research and Development of Andres Wines Limited, Canadian Wine Institute): I'm going to apologize for being a bit technical today, but I think it is necessary to do that to bring everybody up to what we've been doing.

The custom of drinking wine in moderation is the result of many centuries of cumulative wisdom. But over the last two decades or so there have been many studies, including epidemiological, in vitro, animal and some clinical studies, that have shown that alcohol, especially wine, increases longevity and decreases coronary heart disease.

How is that done? Alcohol increases the amount of good cholesterol, which is called high density liver protein. In fact, many doctors and researchers today will tell you that for every 0.1 units, you can increase your HDL, or good cholesterol, and you can decrease the risk of coronary heart disease by 25%. There are studies that show that up to two drinks per day - that's not fourteen drinks on Sunday night - which is drinking in moderation, can actually decrease your risk of coronary heart disease by 50%. It significantly reduces the coagulation of blood, blood clotting, which is a factor in coronary heart disease and occlusive strokes. Alcohol is a major component of wine, 10% or 12%.

Beyond what alcohol does, the wine phenolics, which are the compounds found on the skin of the grapes that during fermentation are extracted into the wine, act as excellent antioxidants. I saw on television last night that there is a study coming out in The New England Journal of Medicine on vitamin E today. We tested vitamin E as a reference against these wine phenolics. These wine phenolics are actually ten to twenty times more potent in preventing the oxidation of our bad cholesterol. If bad cholesterol is not oxidized, it's not that bad. So that's probably one of the factors why wine and alcohol can reduce the risk of coronary heart disease.

Another thing that these wine phenolics do is to actually dilate blood vessels. They produce a compound called endothelium-derived relaxation factor. They actually relax vessels. They inhibit the production of certain compounds in blood that are responsible for inflammation called leukotrienes or prostaglandins. Some scientists have said that reduces stress. This is somethingI cannot measure, but there are studies that can show that.

I just came back from a cancer conference in Washington. There were many presentations produced on the vital chemical compounds found in red and white wine that actually inhibit tumorigenesis, or the growth of cancer.

So these are the benefits one can get from drinking wine in moderation. It is part of a healthy lifestyle that we've always promoted as a wine industry.

In 1993 the World Health Organization, in collaboration with the Harvard Medical School of Public Health, developed what is called the Mediterranean dietary pyramid in which wine in moderation was recommended as a part of a healthy diet.

The British government established recommended levels of alcohol consumption recently. The United States government has incorporated moderate wine consumption in its dietary guidelines. The Government of Canada has incorporated moderate wine consumption in its dietary guidelines.

.0940

Recently I read in The New York Times that at a news conference announcing the new guidelines, Dr. Philip Lee, Assistant Secretary for Health, said: ``In my personal view, wine with meals in moderation is beneficial. There was a significant bias in the past against drinking. To move from antialcohol to health benefits is a big change.''

Another article says:

Philip R. Lee, assistant secretary of health and human services, said, ``New scientific findings show that drinking in moderation can be fine for health. We're not recommending that people drink.'' But to be fair, he said, ``that's what the research shows. And we should not hide the scientific facts.''

The Chair: Thank you. Mrs. Picard.

[Translation]

Mrs. Picard: You spoke to us about the advantages of the moderate consumption of wine, butI imagine you are aware of the accidents attributable to excessive consumption of wine products.

You, too, are investing in prevention programs. I would like to know how much you are spending on advertising and on prevention programs. Have you calculated what it would cost you to label? I know that you are going to reply to me that it costs a lot. What is expensive about it?

[English]

Mr. Diston: I can undertake, Madam Chair, to supply that information. I don't have it available to me at the moment. I think Mr. Randolph would have known, but I didn't pick it up in my briefing material when I got nailed for this presentation. I'll undertake to supply our best estimates to the committee as soon as we possibly can, which should be immediately.

The Chair: Thank you. Mr. Hill.

Mr. Hill: Mr. Soleas, it is true that moderate alcohol use, particularly wine, has very few negatives and in fact some positives, but you are missing the point when you say there are dietary programs in many countries that promote moderate alcohol use. You will agree that there is no dietary program anywhere in the world that promotes alcohol use during pregnancy.

Mr. Soleas: I agree with you that there are no programs to promote alcohol use during pregnancy.

Mr. Hill: I'm sure you would recognize that there are significant problems for an innocent bystander in this equation, and that there is uncertainty about whether even moderate alcohol use during pregnancy is not harmful to the fetus.

Mr. Soleas: Dr. Hill, Madam Chair, I have seen absolutely no evidence published in any scientific journal that suggests moderate consumption of alcohol can be damaging to the fetus. Nevertheless, our industry does not promote drinking during pregnancy.

What I argue is that these suggested warning labels are ambiguous, misleading and take an alarmist approach. They are ineffective and an outdated strategy. They have been used in the United States for six years. One study on FAS warning labels by Dr. Hankin, which was published in the Journal of Public Policy and Marketing of 1993, stated that women who are in no danger of harming their babies by their drinking have cut down slightly. Those whose drinking constitutes a danger - and these are the risk groups - have not changed their drinking a bit.

Mr. Hill: Then I come back to my previous question, which I'm sure you've heard, since I agree that a verbal message can be very difficult for the targeted group. A graphic specifically to a pregnant woman - did that receive positive or negative comments from the wine industry?

Mr. Diston: Madam Chair and Mr. Hill, I think our position is almost identical to the response given by the Association of Canadian Distillers.

.0945

I would add, Dr. Hill, that I believe you're correct in terms of the desirability of having associates point out to people at risk that it's unwise to consume alcohol during pregnancy. I believe that is good. Just as people have been made aware to warn drivers to take a cab, the same level of awareness should also apply in the case of the health risks associated with pregnancy. I believe the public is sufficiently aware of the problems and potential problems that they would know to warn pregnant women if they're associating with them.

Mr. Hill: Finally, could you tell me what voluntary programs your institution is willing to undertake so that this can take place and the heavy hand of legislators does not have to come down upon your head?

Mr. Diston: In terms of applying warning labels to our packages, we are not in favour of that.

Mr. Hill: You resist that, but what else?

Mr. Diston: If it's legislated, we'll do it of course.

We are a participant in the Éduc'alcool program in the province of Quebec. Along with others, the wine industry sponsored a health conference in Toronto two years ago, with significant amounts of money and support in various forms, that studied some of these issues. The amount of money we have been spending will be supplied when we send in that information we were just talking about.

Our industry is much smaller than the other two levels of alcoholic beverages. Two-thirds of the wine sold in Canada is imported, but those of us who produce the remaining one-third do contribute to some of these activities, and we will provide the details.

The Chair: Thank you, Dr. Hill.

Mrs. Chamberlain, do you have a question?

Mrs. Chamberlain (Guelph - Wellington): I'd like a point of clarification from Dr. Hill. The questions you've been asking have been around fetal alcohol syndrome and pregnant women. There has been very little discussion about kids.

Madam Chair, you made the comment about the poster. As a mother with three teenagers, two of whom at 17 and 19 are at this critical age.... Dr. Hill, is that education not as important? That's an honest question. I didn't know where the questioning was coming from exactly.

The Chair: He's not the witness here today.

Mrs. Chamberlain: No, is that not...?

The Chair: He can ask whatever questions he wants to ask. The bill is addressing fetal alcohol syndrome.

Mr. Hill: Let me answer so that the rest of the committee knows where I am coming from.I believe legislation is legitimate when an independent bystander is affected. Legislation is really useful with second-hand smoke. For the fetus, who has no choice in this matter, legislation is useful there. The rest for me is education.

Mrs. Chamberlain: Thank you. I just wanted clarification.

The Chair: Mr. Murphy.

Mr. Murphy (Annapolis Valley - Hants): We get conflicting messages in this whole debate. We talked about the Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse and so on saying there is no evidence that it helps, but let's do it anyway. Dr. Hill mentioned young people helping other young people because they had read something on the alcohol bottle, which triggers doing something.

I think some of the educational programs that you and others are doing are great. I'm one of those people who might say those programs are great. If we could have a minimal impact by having labels, I say go for it. What would your response be?

Mr. Diston: I think our response would be that we haven't seen evidence that any useful benefit would come from warning labels. They don't seem to get the result we're looking for. All the research being done is showing ever-increasing levels of awareness already in the community.

.0950

Mr. Murphy: Madam Chair, we've had people talk about studies and so on, and I'm wondering if this committee shouldn't do something a little more in-depth to take a look at the research. Maybe we should get somebody who can tell us, here are the studies that have been done and the labels are no bloody good, they're not working, they don't do anything to enhance people's recognition or behaviour. Maybe we should see more. We throw it around a lot that the studies have been done, that the labels are not working, but I think we should see more evidence.

The Chair: That's a good question. If I could add to what Mr. Murphy has said, how many of those studies have included women? How many have included pregnant women? Have they been part of the experimental subjects?

Mr. Soleas: Yes, they have been. There are many studies published in very prestigious journals such as The Lancet, the British Medical Journal, The New England Journal of Medicine. We've sent a few of them to you - I'm sure Roger Randolph has sent them to you - and the message is clear. I'd be willing to send more.

The Chair: Could you send those to the committee so we could review them?

Mr. Soleas: Yes.

The Chair: Thank you. Mr. Pillitteri.

Mr. Pillitteri (Niagara Falls): Some people might think I'm sitting on this committee because I have a vested interest, but far from it, I make that clear.

I know Mr. David Diston. When I first told him I was opening my winery, the first remark he made to me was this: if you want to make a small fortune in the wine industry you should start with a large fortune, but you will have fun doing so.

By the way, I've always drunk in moderation and I have enough wine to bathe in from morning till night, so there has never been a case of abuse. I think anyone who is closer to it has a little more respect for the use of it rather than the abuse of it. It's education, not only through myself, that has had a much greater effect than labelling.

As David Diston pointed out, we do have very little say in the Canadian market. We are only one-third. Two-thirds of the consumption of wine in Canada is brought in from other countries.

We also face a dilemma within our own country, within our domestic market. The dilemma is that the other countries with which we are competitors in our own marketplace actually dictate pricing and competitiveness in this industry. Other countries, especially the Europeans and the French and Italian wines, subsidize heavily into coming into Canada. To them, coming into the marketplace, it would be just an added few cents of doing a cost factor.

In the wine industry in Ontario specifically, people think there is so much money in the industry, that it's such an elaborate thing. If some of our friends were to read some of the magazines, some of the things that go in agriculture, because I relate wines to agriculture.... If we look at a$6.40 bottle of wine, the only thing that's left for the industry is $2.28. Now, I stated ``left'', but I forgot to tell you what's in that $2.28 that the manufacturer has to put in. There is the bottle, the cork, the label, the labour, the taxes of maintaining a business, but most of all the grapes that go into making wine.

.0955

The Chair: You are allowed to use your whole five minutes for a statement. You've used three and a half minutes already.

Mr. Pillitteri: I've used three and a half, but I was just going to ask a simple question. If they're legislated, and of course they'll have to comply, is there anything left within the industry to allow it to be self-sustaining in Canada if we were to take on more cost factors? Our own governments, federal and provincial, at times are not really looking into this.

Are we really that healthy an industry that we have to divert from education to labelling and pricing and adding costs to an industry that could really be self-sustaining? Is it worthwhile to do that when we have the studies that show it does not work?

The Chair: He's left you only half a minute.

Mr. Diston: I agree with Mr. Pillitteri that the wine industry is heavily overtaxed, Madam Chair. The cost of implementing a possible decision in this regard would not affect the competitive situation of the industry, because it will apply to the foreign suppliers as well as to the domestic suppliers.

Ultimately the consumers will have to pay a higher price for their wines if there are significant cost factors, which I think there would be, particularly for many imported wines. For the smaller wineries in Canada, of which there are many now struggling to survive, it would effectively be paid for by the consumer.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Diston.

Mrs. Picard, do you have another question?

[Translation]

Mrs. Picard: In 1989, the United States adopted a law that required the affixing of labels. Did you oppose that law when the United States decided to regulate?

[English]

Mr. Diston: The Canadian Wine Institute did not, to the best of my knowledge, object. We considered it an internal United States matter. I'm sure that the Wine Institute and similar bodies in the United States, which have nothing to do with us - they're based in California and other states - expressed negative concern and recommended against it, but were overruled at that time. We certainly, to the best of my knowledge, didn't say so.

[Translation]

Mrs. Picard: Are you exporting your wines to the United States at this time?

[English]

Mr. Diston: In extremely small quantities. The Canadian wineries export far less than 1% of their production to the United States. Most of the exports of Canadian wines are going to the United Kingdom and some of the Caribbean and Far East countries. There is some export into the United States, but it's very, very small.

[Translation]

Mrs. Picard: Have other countries enacted legislation concerning warnings on containers?

[English]

Mr. Diston: Yes, I understand that some other countries do have not identical labelling, but they have similar labelling. It's not unique to the United States.

[Translation]

Mrs. Picard: Have some studies demonstrated the effectiveness of these labels on containers or is it quite insignificant if it is not accompanied by prevention programs?

[English]

Mr. Diston: I'm not an expert on some of the other countries, but Mr. Soleas may be aware of studies done in those countries.

Mr. Soleas: I am not aware of any studies that were done in those countries. I'm aware of studies done in the United States.

Mr. Diston: I believe, but can't guarantee, that they have done studies in the United Kingdom.

.1000

The Chair: I think we should allow Mr. Szabo to have a few minutes since he was the originator of the bill.

Mr. Szabo: You agreed with the distillers' position that there was a very high knowledge level of the risks associated with the misuse of alcoholic beverages, 95% in some cases. Therefore, I think the implication is that the labels aren't necessary because everybody knows. Would that be generally -

Mr. Diston: No, I believe that's a misinterpretation of what I said.

Mr. Szabo: The balance of my question would be this: if there's this high awareness level already, why do we try to put up posters and everything to increase awareness?

Mr. Diston: We believe the other forms of educational awareness will likely have a better chance of communicating with the remaining small number of members of the community and of reinforcing the awareness in high-risk groups.

Mr. Szabo: All right, I understand.

There is a long list of problems we have associated with alcohol misuse, such as 19,000 deaths and $15 billion of costs. Do you believe that level of impacts of misuse of alcohol is therefore now an acceptable level and we don't have to do more than go after the last 5%?

Mr. Diston: No, we don't believe that's acceptable.

Mr. Soleas: Absolutely not, but it seems that the industry resources are better spent on educational programs aimed at those risk groups than at everybody.

Mrs. Chamberlain: I would like to make a comment. My colleague Mr. Szabo indicated that these bottles were purchased in the States and that there's a warning on them. I was sitting here, looking and looking, and I had to really look to find this warning. I'm commenting on that because I think in some ways it backs up what these people are saying.

An hon. member: Ours will have to be much bigger.

Mrs. Chamberlain: Yes, much bigger. I would ask the committee members to have a look. They are in different spots and so they're not very good. I had not seen them before.

The Chair: Thank you for coming in. There is one thing I would like to ask before you leave. You, as well as the previous group, have consistently said that you're doing educational programs within the community on a voluntary basis. Could you provide this committee with evidence that the voluntary educational programs are working?

Mr. Diston: I will try my best to do that.

The Chair: We would appreciate it.

The next group to appear is from the Brewers Association. We have four witnesses from the Brewers Association: Mr. Morrison, the president and chief executive officer; Mr. Sleeman, the chair; Mr. Collins, the executive vice-president, public and corporate affairs; and Mr. Millette, president and general director of the Brewers Association of Quebec.

.1005

Mr. John Sleeman (Chairman, Brewers Association of Canada): Good morning, committee members. I am president and chief executive officer of Sleeman Brewing and Malting, a family-owned brewing company in Guelph, Ontario. I am also the chairman of the Brewers Association of Canada.

I'd like to thank you for giving us the opportunity to appear before you here this morning to discuss, on behalf of the association's 24 member brewing companies in Canada, the issue of warning labels on alcoholic beverage containers.

We have filed material with the committee. We will therefore keep our opening remarks brief, especially as we are running a little late this morning.

This is a very important issue to us. Let me open by saying that the Brewers Association of Canada fully supports the goal of reducing the incidence of alcohol misuse. We have long been active with programs to encourage more responsible behaviour by the minority of Canadians who abuse the product. Our association and the individual member companies that represent 99% of domestic beer production offer awareness programs through television, radio, print, and point-of-sale materials. These programs focus on the overall theme of responsible use and, conversely, the price to individuals and society of excessive consumption.

In addition, we have formed partnerships with professional organizations to develop and deliver programs targeted directly at those who are most at risk for problems with misuse. We also fund basic research on the medical and behavioural impacts of alcohol consumption. I'd like to take a moment and discuss some of the partnerships we're involved with.

The first is with the College of Family Physicians of Canada. When scientific literature and discussions with researchers showed an increasing number of studies linking steady consumption of alcohol during pregnancy with FAS, the brewing industry and the College of Family Physicians developed and introduced FAS awareness programs. In addition, the brewers and Health Canada funded a program covering a broader range of alcohol issues. A steering committee composed of family physicians from each region of the country researched and prepared a program that gives physicians the tools they need to identify at an early stage and intervene with those most likely to have a problem with alcohol misuse.

Another partnership we have is with the Native Physicians Association of Canada. In order to promote responsible use in the native community, the brewers funded the research and development by the Native Physicians Association of Canada of a ``caring together'' program. The program was expanded in February with the introduction of a new educational video campaign, developed by the native physicians and funded by the brewers. This video promotes good prenatal health for expectant aboriginal mothers, with a specific warning on fetal alcohol syndrome.

In addition to these partnerships we have a partnership with BACCHUS Canada. The brewers support BACCHUS Canada, which promotes the responsible use of alcohol amongst students at post-secondary institutions across the country. Materials and messages relevant to this age group are developed for use in more than 100 Canadian colleges and universities.

.1010

Further, we have a partnership with the Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse. One of the concerns raised in 1992 during a series of national symposia on fetal alcohol syndrome, otherwise known as FAS, was the lack of resources for community groups seeking information on how to deal with the issue through both treatment and prevention programming. Canadian brewers agreed to fund an FAS resource centre at the Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse. The centre provides information by telephone and computer network to community groups or individuals across the country.

In the past ten years the brewers have spent nearly $100 million on responsible-use programs and partnerships. No other industry matches the human and financial resources the brewing industry has invested to promote the responsible use of our products. We remain committed to what we see as both a corporate and social responsibility.

We are confident that the combination of direct advertising through television, radio, print, point-of-sale materials and partnerships with a variety of groups, such as the ones we've spoken of this morning, will continue to make a significant contribution to encouraging responsible behaviour by consumers.

I'd like to ask Yvon Millette to carry on.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Millette (President and General Director, Brewers Association of Quebec, Brewers Association of Canada): Thus, like all the programs that are run by the brewers, painstaking research is conducted to ensure the relevance of the messages and educational programs directed to the various audiences.

In Quebec, for example, the programs are not simply translations or adaptations of the national programs, but are specially designed by Quebec agencies to divvy up the programs according to the population and the customs of Quebeckers.

We think that every effort and resource should be effectively put in place to ensure the success of our educational programs. Our involvement in these programs is not simply symbolic, but an honest and sincere effort over the years to assume our role as a good corporate citizen. I sincerely believe that the educational programs that the brewers have implemented over the years are the most effective ones in dealing with problems of alcohol misuse.

[English]

Mr. Sleeman: Thank you, Yvon.

I would like to ask Sandy Morrison, president of the Brewers Association, to make a few comments.

Mr. Sandy Morrison (President, Brewers Association of Canada): Turning directly to the proposed measure, the mandatory warning labels on alcoholic beverages, we believe such warning labels are ineffective in reducing alcohol misuse. Since the appearance of such labels in the United States in 1989, numerous studies, which have been referenced by others, have shown they do not change the behaviour of those who misuse alcohol.

The brewers of Canada recently commissioned public opinion research in Canada to determine whether mandatory warning labels, as proposed in Bill C-222, would in fact provide new information to consumers. The complete results of that research are contained in our written submission.

It found that first, virtually the entire population, more than 95%, were aware that alcohol could cause health problems, especially during pregnancy, and that excessive drinking impaired one's ability to drive or to operate heavy equipment. Second, given a choice of possible approaches to address the misuse of alcohol, Canadians consistently and in substantial majority supported the very kinds of information and targeted education programs our industry has developed and has been funding. Warning labels, on the other hand, were deemed to be an effective approach by 15% or less of those surveyed.

With respect, Bill C-222 cannot be defended as responding to the declared wish of Canadians for effective programs to address the issue of alcohol abuse, particularly when put in the context of alternative programs of education and intervention such as we operate.

Mr. Sleeman: Of major concern to us is the potential impact of the legislation on existing responsible-use programs. If we are legislated into putting labels on our bottles, the industry faces two choices. We can pass on the $10 million to $12 million in annual costs to the consumers. This would be equivalent to a 2.5% increase in excise taxes on consumers, who in Canada already pay the highest beer taxes in the world. Or we could cover the cost of the labels from within the current revenues of the industry, presumably and probably from the existing responsible-use spending. At a time of scarce resources for both government and the private sector, we believe funding should be focused where it will do the most good. We also believe the targeted programs offer a much greater chance of success than do labels.

.1015

In addition to these ongoing costs of $10 million to $12 million a year to print and attach an additional label to our containers, our industry would face a one-time cost of $30 million to make the front-end changes to our production systems necessary to accommodate a mandatory warning label.

In the case of my company, for instance, there is no way I can put the mandatory warning label on this bottle. I'll have to throw this bottle away and buy new bottles, because the way my company bottles its beer, this bottle spins down the line and there's no way I can affix a label other than on the neck. These bottles would have to be thrown away. These are 100-year-old bottles. They're fashioned on my grandfather's bottles. So I have to throw away part of the heritage of my company, put in new bottles and put in the equipment to put the labels on.

The cost to Sleeman Brewing would be in excess of $5 million. We've just become profitable.It would take us over five years to pay for it. The money that should be going to hire new people and grow the business would go to putting the labels on the bottle. It would have a severe impact on my company.

The Chair: You've now used ten minutes.

Mr. Sleeman: I have only a few words. Shall I carry on or would you like me to finish?

The Chair: Just wrap it up, please.

Mr. Sleeman: I will divert from our prepared notes and say in conclusion -

The Chair: There's still the question-and-answer period.

Mr. Sleeman: - that we want to continue to encourage responsible use of our products and to invest in the programs we have seen work over the last several years.

The Chair: Thank you very much. I'm sorry to impose this time limit on you, but everybody is champing at the bit to ask questions.

Madam Picard.

[Translation]

Mrs. Picard: I would like to congratulate the members of your association for their involvement in all these educational programs and in the impact advertising, which have demonstrated the effectiveness of increasing public awareness of alcohol abuse.

You began to speak about costs and this is what interests me this morning. I am going to repeat the questions I put to the other associations. How much are you spending at present on your educational and advertising programs? How much are you spending to promote your products?

Have you calculated the costs of labelling? I would like you to give us further details about the costs of affixing labels on bottles.

Mr. Millette: With regard to the first part of your question, Mrs. Picard, the expenses related to the educational programs averaged, over the last ten years, 9.5 million dollars, hence the 95 million dollars referred to by Mr. Sleeman in his presentation. Those are programs that came from the Canadian brewing associations and the various provinces, as well as some member companies which have presented programs over the years.

With regard to the other part of your question, namely, the costs related to labels, we are talking about approximately 37 million dollars in capital costs and modification of equipment, thus in capital costs to adjust production in order to affix the labels on the containers.

In regard to operating expenses, the costs are in the order of 10 to 12 million dollars per year. For the first year, we are talking in the neighbourhood of 45 million dollars for the entire Canadian brewing industry.

Mrs. Picard: I image you were there, in 1989, when the United States adopted their labelling legislation. Did the Brewers Association of Canada oppose that law? Did you come out against the adoption of that bill?

Mr. Millette: If I may be facetious, Mrs. Picard, I will say to you that we are more interested in the federal and provincial laws in Canada. We do have to spend a fair amount of time just to follow the evolution of these laws and regulations.

To my knowledge, our industry did not make representations during the enactment of thatU.S. legislation.

.1020

Mrs. Picard: How much is it now costing you? When you export your products to the United States, you have to comply with their standards. Have you evaluated how much it costs you to comply with those standards?

Mr. Millette: I do not have that figure here. You are talking to me about exports?

Mrs. Picard: Yes.

Mr. Millette: No, unless the bottling lines for products intended for export are restricted, so as to limit costs. I do not have that figure here.

Mrs. Picard: But you do have some studies, I believe, showing that this law is more or less effective. Do you know whether this U.S. law has been amended since its enactment in 1989?

Mr. Millette: It has not been revised, but there is more and more talk, in the U.S. brewing circles, of reviewing this formula. I see, in the correspondence of the various American industries related to alcoholic beverages, that they ought to review this law since it is ineffective. The studies show this fairly clearly.

Mrs. Picard: Are there, in the United States, through your associations, public awareness programs such as one finds here in Canada? Do they have educational programs like ours, related to these warnings?

Mr. Millette: Some televised educational programs cross over to the United States, for example some sports programs, and are seen by Americans. But you will appreciate that we already have some costs related to the warning labels. It is a question of effectiveness in the allocation of resources. We want to avoid duplication, of course.

[English]

Mr. Morrison: Just to add to that, it is fair to say that the American brewing industry does not have the same umbrella educational programs through its national trade association that we have in Canada. The individual brewers in the U.S. have some of their own programs, but there is no comprehensive national program such as what exists in Canada.

The Chair: Thank you. Mr. Szabo.

Mr. Szabo: I asked the previous groups whether or not the programs were important. The point I wanted to get at is whether you are dedicated and committed that it is important. I thinkMr. Sleeman has answered the question on behalf of the brewers by saying that they're not doing it if they have to do these labels. So it's not important.

Now, I want to -

Mr. Sleeman: I beg to differ, sir.

Mr. Szabo: Well, you can respond when I'm finished, okay?

Mr. Sleeman talked about awareness programs. It was just the word ``awareness'' in all of the things, sir, that you said. Then Mr. Morrison said that 95% of people were aware. That was the figure he used. The previous group said that we're really going after the other 5% in terms of awareness.

However, the rub against labelling, the representation of this group as I understand it, is that it is ineffective in preventing alcohol misuse and it doesn't change behaviour. The labels fail to change behaviour. They don't prevent misuse and they don't stop alcoholics from drinking. But your stuff is good, your education is good because it promotes awareness. Nobody, but nobody, said that your stuff is doing anything to prevent misuse, nor is it doing anything to change behaviour. You've taken one side of it and I hope you will be able to address that.

I want to ask a question of Mr. Sleeman, since they're not going to spend the $10 million. The Minister of Health has already taken their representation and said it's going to cost Health Canada $10 million because the industry has said it's not going to spend this $100 million over a decade,$10 million a year. It has nothing to with the regulatory.... I will ask you the question fully and then you can answer.

I assume you are familiar with the WHMIS program, the workplace hazardous materials information system. Ethyl alcohol, ethanol, is a substance listed under part II of the Hazardous Products Act. It says that if a product has more than 0.1% of ethanol in it, it is a D2A scheduled substance, along with other carcinogens and teratogens.

.1025

In your workplace, where you have this stuff, do you currently have health warning labels for your employees cautioning them about the substance in your plant, specifically related to the potential risk to pregnant women?

Mr. Sleeman: I thought, sir, we were here today to talk about warning labels on bottles, not how I run my business.

Mr. Szabo: Well, sir, it's the law in Canada under the Hazardous Products Act to warn users of products if there is a hazardous material that may hurt them if it is misused.

In fact, my question probably is more relevant to Health Canada. If we warn people in the workplace that ethanol is present in greater than 0.1% of weight, then it seems obvious that we should also have the same warnings here. By law, it has to be in the workplace.

Mr. Sleeman: When do I get the chance to say something?

Mr. Szabo: I thought you did. Please go ahead.

Mr. Sleeman: If you look at the labels, you'll notice that we already tell people how much alcohol is in the beer. It says 5%. The way we warn people about what they're going to consume is by spending $100 million over ten years telling them to handle it properly.

What we're saying is that we're not the bad guys here; we're interested in promoting responsible use, not just awareness. You picked up on something, but we're interested in promoting responsible use. That's why we spend money on billboards and TV ads. What we're saying to you, sir, is that labels are not going to do the job.

Mr. Morrison: To answer your specific question about awareness, an argument could have been made twenty years ago, when fetal alcohol syndrome was not a known factor. There was a need for a warning label because it was not commonly known. The industry, rather than going to a warning label, went into an awareness program rather extensively, working with health professionals and Health Canada. Our evidence now shows that the awareness has gone from virtually 0% to over 95%.

Our focus has shifted to programs with the Native Physicians Association of Canada and the College of Family Physicians of Canada to take the awareness and move it into programs that will change attitudes and behaviours. These are targeted programs. We agree that our focus has now moved from creating purely an awareness into modifying behaviour.

A good example of a change in attitude and behaviour that has been effected by government and industry is drinking and driving. Twenty years ago drinking and driving was not seen to be socially irresponsible; today it is. That's having an effect. Drinking and driving incidents have dropped 38% over the last decade. There's more to be done, but that's why we think our programs, which work with health professionals targeting the needy areas by focusing on changing behaviour, are far more effective than putting those resources against a warning label telling people what they already know.

Mr. Pillitteri: For a moment with the line of questioning, I thought maybe we should have dealt with toxic waste. I thought we had toxic waste on our hands rather than labelling. I do not understand the line of questioning.

Let's go back here. This is an issue that relates to Canada. We have been focusing also on the export market and so on. But tell me, in Canada is it changing? Is there such a thing as a microbrewery now? Is it that some people just don't export? Is it possible that so many are coming on in the last decade or so in your industry that we tend to have a local Canadian market rather than focusing on the export industry? I know that within my industry this is what is happening. How is it in the brewing industry? It would be a cost incurred that would be only local.

Mr. Sleeman: The interesting thing about the beer industry in Canada is that the sales are generally flat. With respect to my colleagues at Molson and Labatt, their sales are generally flat. They have to look at export.

The small breweries are the ones that are growing. These are breweries like Sleeman and Upper Canada in Ontario, Big Rock in western Canada, and McAuslan in Quebec. Those are the ones that are growing in an otherwise stagnant or declining industry. They're small companies. They do not have the financial resources to put the labels on the bottles, which they don't do now because they can't export; they sell their products in Canada.

.1030

What we have is the fledgling part of a new industry growing. They are equally committed to responsible use. They contribute to the programs run by the larger breweries because they can't afford them on their own. Putting labels on the bottles would be very difficult financially for these companies.

Mr. Morrison: Mr. Pillitteri, I think it's important to pick up on a question Mr. Szabo asked about the industry, saying put labels on and we take our programs and run.

The reality is that we all have choices in this country. Government finds that it has choices to make. It would be nice to have hospital beds ready, willing and able, and MRI machines in every community, but we can't do that. We have to make choices. What we want to do is put the money to the most effective use. Our complaint about the legislation is that it would divert those resources into an ineffective program.

Mr. Pillitteri: To go back to labelling in the United States, is it constant? In all the states of the United States, do you have to put on the same amount of labelling? I know that in the wine industry it's not, but is it the same in beer?

Mr. Morrison: It's a national label.

The Chair: Mrs. Chamberlain.

Mrs. Chamberlain: Madam Chair, thank you for being so lenient with me. I know that I'm not on the committee.

I want to make a couple of points. First, I think it's really important and we must commend these industries for the voluntary dollars they are putting into these programs. I do not think they should be attacked. It's important that we understand they've done this voluntarily.

The question I want to ask is a little like Paul's, although I really didn't agree with the line of questioning. Is it not the case that warning labels in the United States occurred because the states do not indicate an alcohol content level, whereas Canada does? We're quite different in that regard. Is that not correct?

Mr. Sleeman: The history of post-prohibition retail beer sales in the United States is that it was illegal to put alcohol content on the label of the bottles. So the consumer, assuming that he was ill-informed, would not know what was in the package, would not know that it could be dangerous to his health. Part of the reason for the label in the United States was that there was no other alcohol warning, but our bottles already have a warning label.

There have been some recent changes in the United States. Coors has won a court case to have alcohol content put on its label. But for years, and indeed with the start of this program, one of the driving factors was that Canadians were already informed about the alcohol content and Americans were not.

The Chair: Mr. Murphy.

Mr. Murphy: Let me compliment the industry on your educational program and applaud you on your contribution to economic life in Canada.

I'm here strictly to think about labels and whether they will make a bloody bit of difference. That's what I want to try to determine.

We know that countries other than the U.S. have done labelling, and they did it before the U.S. did. With the evidence that has been presented and some of the studies we've been told about that labelling won't make a difference, why did the United States go ahead? Why did they do this?

Mr. Sleeman: I can only speculate. I don't have an answer to that question. I don't know if anyone here knows the rationale behind it.

Mr. Morrison: I think there was a combination of issues in the United States. One was that individual states, and there are a great number of them, were contemplating different messages. The industry obviously was concerned about requiring 48 or 52 different labels on their nationally distributed products. The other factor is the litigious nature of U.S. society. There was a suggestion from lawyers in the U.S. that in their own interest, companies should accept product warning as a legal defence against product liability suits.

So the industry's situation down there was somewhat different from ours. We believe we are meeting our social responsibility with our programs, that we have alcohol content labelling on our products, and for that reason we are not willing to accept warning labels on a voluntary basis.

.1035

Mr. Murphy: What do your legal people say? I understand what you say about the U.S. and litigation. If we had labels in our country, would that enhance or decrease the industry's liability?

Mr. Morrison: I'm not a lawyer so I wouldn't feel comfortable answering that.

Mr. Sleeman: I don't know. I don't think we're prepared or qualified to answer that question. I'm sorry.

The Chair: I will add a quick one here, and I think I've asked the other groups the same thing.I congratulate you for your voluntary involvement with Health Canada and with the family physicians and national physicians. Can you provide this committee with any evidence on the success of your program? Second, what percentages do Health Canada and the Brewers Association put in?

Mr. Howard Collins (Executive Vice-President, Brewers Association of Canada): In some of the programs it's an equal amount, while in other programs we provide more of the funding, but we certainly value the partnerships. We do have information on some of the programming.Mr. Morrison earlier mentioned the way the numbers have moved on the awareness of FAS. We have information on the other programs and I'd be glad to provide it to the committee.

Madam Chair, there is one other thing. We really didn't get into the programs this morning. We have copies of the materials here and we'd like to file them with the committee if we could.

The Chair: Please do. That would be helpful.

Mr. Morrison: In response to the research question, we have the detailed research that was referenced in our written submission to the committee, and I'll leave that with the clerk of the committee.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Again, thanks for appearing before the committee. I apologize for the length of time you were given. It's been a pretty rushed hearing, but your presentation has been worthwhile. Thank you.

The committee will pause for one or two minutes. We have two more groups and I'm told we have this room until noon.

.1037

.1039

The Chair: I call the committee members back to the table. I think we're ready to roll.

We have witnesses from Teamsters Canada. Welcome to the table, gentlemen. I understand you've been waiting. We are running a few minutes late, but don't worry - you will get your half hour. Who is about to start off here?

.1040

Mr. François Laporte (Director, Government Affairs, Teamsters Canada): Madam Chair, with me this morning is Serge McDuff, a union director for Labatt Brewery in LaSalle, Montreal, and Mr. Hugues Pelletier, the director of the union at the Molson-O'Keefe plant in Montreal.

[Translation]

Before beginning our presentation, I want to thank you for giving us today the opportunity to express our organization's point of view about Bill C-222. Those who are familiar with the Standing Committees of the House of Commons know that we intervene only in cases in which our members' interests are at stake, and not just for the pleasure of being heard.

A number of people are not aware that the 95,000 members of the Teamsters Canada union include some 4,500 who are employed by the breweries. In Quebec alone 4,000 of our members work in the brewing industry, while in Ontario there are nearly 500 Teamsters in this industry. The Canadian President of our union, Louis Lacroix, is himself a former worker at the Labatt brewery in the Montreal suburb of Lasalle. Since Louis Lacroix must be in Toronto today he cannot be present, and he has asked me to convey to you his greetings.

We do not want to hide the fact that our presentation opposes Bill C-222 because its repercussions go well beyond the idea of labelling bottles of alcoholic beverages. Some people find it hard to oppose a bill that at first glance, seems so virtuous. However, our position goes beyond moral values and also takes into account the day-to-day reality of thousands of workers in Quebec and Canada.

You may find it strange, but in relation to Bill C-222 the Health Committee of the House of Commons will be hearing quite a lot about the issue of employment in Canada's breweries.

Since the free trade agreements were adopted and interprovincial barriers to trade in beer lifted, with the unflagging support of our members we have waged an unrelenting battle for employment in the brewing industry to be maintained and developed, despite the enormous pressure exerted by the arrival of foreign products on the Canadian market.

We must meet the challenge, not only of foreign competition, but also of provincial authorities that promote those foreign products at the expense of our members' jobs.

At the negotiating table we are constantly being reminded that the reality of the 1990s is a far cry from the reality of former years, and that we must take into account the globalization and competitiveness of the industry. We hear these arguments dozens of times every day, and the workers in the brewing industry are forced to take them into account every time they renew their collective agreements.

This reality has forced us to review our negotiating methods and to adopt new attitudes at the negotiating table. Yesterday's solutions are no longer applicable to today's realities!

Increasingly, when it is time to discuss issues of labour training and employment development, the industry tells us about financial constraints resulting from the new market realities.

Far be it from us to judge management's attitude: reality is what it is and our members are quite capable of realizing that things have changed.

Our point is that the brewing industry does not need one more financial constraint such as the one that bill C-222 would impose on it. It should always be borne in mind that, in our system of supply and demand, additional production costs are either passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices, or compensated for by reductions in labour costs. When all is said and done, your constituents are always the ones who pay!

According to the industry's estimates, the adoption of Bill C-222 would mean additional costs of approximately 45 million dollars for the first year and some 12 million dollars annually in the subsequent years. That is money that will not be available for job creation and maintenance or labour training programs.

.1045

It is not our intention to force the government into a dilemma of choosing between creating jobs and preventing alcohol consumption; that view is too simplistic. We do feel, however, that the potential effectiveness of a bill should be analysed before the bill is passed.

In our humble opinion. Bill C-222 is only a feeble attempt to copy the United States' regulations on warnings about the contents of alcoholic beverages. The effectiveness of the United States' regulations is very dubious indeed.

Our organization has been involved in the brewing industry in the United States since 1950. Out of the 1.5 million workers we represent south of the border, over 100,000 work in the breweries. Our analyses of beer sales in the United States suggest that the adoption of regulations about warning labels on alcoholic beverage bottles has resulted in no significant reduction in consumption!

While we do not want to defend the tobacco industry, the example of that industry, where warning labels are more prominent than ever, clearly shows the ineffectiveness of these measures. A survey carried out by Earnscliffe Research Communications shows that 95% of Bill C-222's target group, that is, pregnant women, are aware of the risks of consuming alcoholic beverages during pregnancy. As well, 99% of survey respondents know that consuming alcohol can affect their ability to operate a motor vehicle. Our point is that the general public is well aware of the repercussions of abusive consumption - and I stress the word abusive - of alcoholic beverages.

Although the objectives of Bill C-222 are very laudable, we feel obliged to state that warning labels will not better inform the public or even dissuade it from consuming these products.

Bill C-222 misses the mark altogether and is, at best, a nice try at having a clear conscience. The additional 45 million dollars the brewing industry will have to spend on labelling will no longer be available for existing moderation and rehabilitation programs.

It is not our job to justify or defend the breweries' actions in this regard, since their representatives are quite competent to do so, but the approximately 9.5 million dollars spent on programs to address problem cases, as well as the 95 million dollars already paid out by Canadian breweries for social research and education programs, are nonetheless a very good indication of this industry's desire to help persons with consumption problems.

In day-to-day life, there are a number of situations in which consumers will not read warning labels. The case of beer served in a glass in a licensed establishment is a good example of this kind of situation, as is the case of consumers of so-called hard liquor such as gin, who only rarely see the label on the bottle of the beverage they consume. As well, wine connoisseurs usually pay far more attention to vintage and place of origin than to any other warning that might be on a bottle.

Should the government require sports equipment manufacturers to apply a warning label to their products simply because practising a particular sport may result in serious injury? Or should we require automobile makers to warn their customers that driving their vehicle can be fatal if they are involved in an accident? The answer to both these questions is no, because the public is aware of these realities, as are 99% of consumers of alcoholic beverages.

In closing, the Teamsters are aware of the negative repercussions of abusive consumption of alcohol. Bear in mind that a significant proportion of our members are individuals whose livelihood depends on the use of a motor vehicle. I am referring to the 40,000 truck drivers whom we represent.

Most of our members are also fathers and mothers of families. We all want our children to grow up aware of the implications of drinking alcoholic beverages. However, we know full well that education in this regard goes beyond simple labelling of bottles.

For years our organization has been involved in setting up prevention and assistance programs for persons with problems of abusive consumption of alcohol.

.1050

We are not trying to say that there are no problems related to alcohol; we are saying that Bill C-222 is not the solution to these problems, simply because it does nothing concrete or effective to stop abusive consumption of alcoholic beverages, and because it imposes a financial constraint on the industry that will not only affect existing programs but endanger our jobs as well. Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you. Madam Picard.

[Translation]

Mrs. Picard: Mr. Laporte, you spoke of labelling costs of 45 million dollars in the first year. You will pardon my ignorance on this, but I do not see how it could cost 45 million dollars to the industry. I know there is something technical in this, but we have some difficulty understanding, since it is not our area. Someone was saying earlier that the bottle had to be changed. Can you give us more information concerning these costs?

Mr. Laporte: I think Mr. Millette was right when he spoke of 37 million dollars in capital costs and 12 million dollars in operating costs. The breweries are in a much better position to give you precise figures, but we know very well that it would be necessary, in some breweries, to change the equipment and, in some cases, completely change the bottle because the label cannot be affixed to the present bottle. So there are different situations, depending on the brewery and its bottling method. It is fairly complex, but in terms of the figures, Mr. Millette made the right reply.

Mrs. Picard: I understand. I want to know how things are done technically and how it is that you could lose some jobs.

Mr. Hugues Pelletier (Molson-O'Keefe, Teamsters Canada): Personally, I can tell you that in terms of the labelling, we have a label of about one inch in width that does not fully cover the bottle, as you see here, on a bottle of Molson Ice.

To comply with the requirements of Bill C-222, you would need a label that wrapped around the bottle, and this would require completely different equipment. To comply with this request, the breweries would have to alter their bottling lines, at very high cost.

Mrs. Picard: So you would have to purchase some equipment, some new technologies. Is that what would make you lose some jobs?

Mr. Laporte: Possibly, but it must also be kept in mind that, for years, we have negotiated employment development programs in our collective agreements. I can give you some figures in relation to employment in the breweries, but in regard to the money that is now being spent on these training and job maintenance programs, etc.... If the industry were required to spend an additional 45 million dollars for those labels, when all is said and done, all the other programs that are in place - alcohol consumption prevention programs or other, job-related programs - would inevitably be affected. Our point is simply that.

If you impose an additional financial constraint, all the existing programs may have to be reviewed, including the job creation programs.

In regard to the figures in the breweries, to give you two examples, in 1990 Labatt's brewery, in Montreal, had 1,517 workers; in 1995, today, it has only 1,222. That's a loss of 300 jobs solely at Labatt, therefore.

With regard to Molson-O'Keefe, before the merger, the two breweries combined employed 2,150 workers. Today there are only 1,190 employees at Molson-O'Keefe, and we are told that the brewery's objective is to reduce that number to 850 by the year 2000. And we're talking about people who are well paid, who have good wages, who pay taxes and keep the economy going.

If you add some additional constraints to the industry, the figure of 850 at Molson-O'Keefe may be reduced to 600.

Mrs. Picard: What is the reason for these job losses? Is it the production costs?

Mr. Laporte: Rationalization. In the case of Molson-O'Keefe, there was a rationalization after the merger. In the case of Labatt, there was modernization to deal with the new competition.

Everything is relevant today. Our competitors are no longer simply the Canadian breweries, but also the American breweries, the imported products. In the case of Quebec, it might be theSociété des alcools du Québec, which promotes imported beers at the expense of our jobs. You have to take all this into consideration. When you analyze the situation, you realize that today the industry has to be more competitive and rationalize its operations. We are the ones who are paying the price.

Mrs. Picard: Thank you very much.

.1055

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Szabo.

Mr. Szabo: Thank you, gentlemen. I understand your case very well. When expenses come into the current equation and have to be absorbed by the company, obviously with labour costs being anywhere from two-thirds to three-quarters of the operating costs, it's a target. So you have every right to be here, and I thank you for your argument.

If hypothetically, as you said, the consumer is always the one who pays, which means the cost is just added into the selling price and is then recovered.... Let's just say that happens. Let's just say that the cost of putting this label on this bottle here is passed on to the consumer, and presumably wouldn't affect your...would you have an opinion as to whether you would support this label?

Mr. Laporte: Once again, as I mentioned to you, that label represents an extra operational cost.

Mr. Szabo: But if the consumer paid for it, if I paid for it in the selling price and bore all the costs, would you support labelling?

Mr. Laporte: You also have to look at the efficiency of the label, as I mentioned in my brief. When you look at what's going on in the United States, at the sales of the beer in the United States, regarding the industry where we represent the workers, we see very little impact.

It's a very difficult question. You put me on the spot. As I said, it's very difficult to be againstla vertu, but we see very little impact from that label. The question is, why impose on the brewery an extra cost that may affect our employment?

Mr. Szabo: If there was no more cost to the brewery - let's say the Government of Canada paid 100% of the cost of putting the label on all of the products we're talking about, which means there would be no impact whatsoever to the business - would you support labelling as an educational...?

Mr. Laporte: If the labelling didn't affect our employment, I guess we would not have any problem with that and we would not be here today.

Mr. Szabo: Thank you. You're an angel.

As a result of this coming up - and I know the industry has been very active in this thing - can you tell me if the industry has given you some representation? I know I've received letters from employees of breweries, Molson and some others, and also just some straight employees. The letters all say about the same thing. Has the industry made some representation to you about what would happen if labels were legislated?

Mr. Laporte: They provided us some information. I think they published a document or a pamphlet. We took some numbers out of it. They also sent letters to their employees regarding the possible impact of that regulation.

As well, as I mentioned, when I look at the situation in the United States, we base the numbers that come from our own organization... the numbers that come from the United States.

Regarding the cost of that bill, the $45 million, sure that comes from the industry. They are the ones who know the cost. They are in a better position than we are to analyse that situation.

Mr. Szabo: Since you're on the labeller side of it, in the plants you're aware of, have you seen any warning labels because of ethyl alcohol or ethanol being in the plants or around where employees are, under the WHMIS program, to caution people about a hazardous product, a D2A product such as a carcinogen, etc.? Have you seen it with regard to ethyl alcohol and do you recall what the warning said?

[Translation]

Mr. Pelletier: The labelling on hazardous products is big and very visible. You don't need glasses to see it. It is flamboyant, colourful. There are logos and all kinds of things that are very easy to see.

It is not comparable to the labelling provided for a bottle. If your glasses are more or less well adjusted, you will not be able to see anything at all on it. It isn't even worth reading.

.1100

[English]

Mr. Szabo: I agree with you, Mr. Pelletier. I have samples here. These are products I purchased last weekend. I was in Windsor and I hopped in a taxicab and drove to Detroit. These are Canadian products exported to the United States, all of which have these labels on them. Here is the label on the Molson Golden bottle. It's blue on gold, shiny, and I can't read it from here even though I have my best glasses on.

These labels are really quite ineffective. If I were to guess how effective they were, I would say probably not very. So I agree with you. The quality...if it was readable.... If the intent were in fact to use it as a reminder or to inform or educate, it would not be an effective measure. It's almost like tokenism of legislation. Would you agree?

[Translation]

Mr. Pelletier: I fully agree with you, except that you have a product that is bottled in a341 millilitre bottle, a small bottle.

Of course, if you could bottle it in jeroboams, you might be able to put on some labels that are easier to read, but this is not the case. We have to live with reality. And the everyday reality is that people take a bottle of beer and check the brand name. That's all. They don't want to know what is written on the label, since it is of no importance, unless there is a contest.

Mr. Szabo: Thank you, sir.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Pillitteri.

Mr. Pillitteri: I'm glad that Mr. Laporte answered a magic wand question and there was no cost to industry. I don't know how you managed to answer that, because it was so clearly hypothetical.

I used to be in industry at one time and I used to work in labour. You stated that you have cooperation with industry in education and also within the workplace. Do you also have input into labelling content, into the labelling aspect, design and so on? Do you have that, or is it strictly industry?

Mr. Laporte: The only input we have is from the numbers we sell in the United States that we get from our organization. We looked at the sales of beer before 1988 or 1989 and what they were in 1991 or 1992, and we didn't see any major change. Our conclusion is that the label didn't have any impact on sales.

Once again, when you look at the survey you realize that 95% of pregnant women are aware of the danger. Again the question is, what is the efficiency of that label?

The Chair: Are there any other questions? No?

Thank you very much for coming in. It's very difficult knowing that you are workers in the brewing industry. Obviously it must have been indicated to you that maybe jobs were in question should we go the labelling route. Some of the questions that went your way were very difficult for you as workers to answer. They were probably questions that should have been directed to the industry, and actually were directed to the industry.

Anyway, I do thank you for coming in. I know it was very difficult for you to be here and to answer the industry questions when you are workers within that industry. Thanks very much.

The last group to appear is from the Brewery, General and Professional Workers' Union. We have John McNamee, the vice president. Thank you for coming. Please go ahead.

Mr. John McNamee (Vice-President, Brewery, General and Professional Workers' Union): Thank you, Madam Chair. I would like to thank the committee for giving us the opportunity to appear.

.1105

I represent the Brewery, General and Professional Workers' Union, which is based in Toronto but is an Ontario-based union representing employees in all three beverage alcohol sectors - beer, wine and hard liquors. I'm also here representing the Canadian Council of Brewery Workers, which is an across-Canada federation of brewery unions. Both organizations are somewhat concerned about this proposed legislation.

By way of illustration, and perhaps by way of detour, I'd like to take you a little bit through my day so far.

When I got up this morning, I brushed my teeth and showered in Mississauga water. I have to tell you that's not the best thing in the world for you. When I applied deodorant - and I'm not going to get too far into this - there was aluminum in it. When I took a fresh shirt from the dry-cleaning bag, I somehow managed to avoid putting that bag over my head and suffocating myself. There were no warning labels on the faucet, the dry-cleaning bag or anything else.

I made myself some toast. I somehow managed to avoid electrocuting myself or burning myself on the element, even though there was no warning label on the toaster. I made some coffee, the first of about ten cups I'll go through today. There was no warning label about caffeine. As a matter of fact, when I put cream in the coffee and butter on the toast, there was no cholesterol warning.

Then I did something terrible. I got in the car and I actually drove to the airport. Toronto traffic is a lot of fun. There's no warning label on the car, but I have to tell you, even if I'm driving perfectly safely, I can be killed or maimed with no trouble in a car. Then I got on a plane. Sometimes planes drop 30,000 feet with distressing consequences to passengers, but there was no warning label.

Please note, I'm not going to talk before this committee about my parents as a health hazard, but my point very simply is that there is virtually no product in this society that is not dangerous if misused. Why, then, should we talk about alcohol having a government warning label when anything can be misused? I ask you, by what principle of equity, of law, of science, can you say alcohol ought to have this warning label but cars, butter, toasters and all these other things ought not? I think you're going to have some real trouble making those distinctions.

Why do I care if there's a warning label on a bottle? What difference does that make to me? Very frankly, I see it as stigmatizing beverage alcohol. That in the end will cost us jobs, pure and simple.

It obviously takes more employees to produce more levels of alcohol, and employment in this industry has taken, if you'll pardon the term, a shit kicking over the past few years. In the brewing industry alone, from 1989 to 1994 we lost 33% of the jobs. They went from 19,000 to 13,700, and since then there have been at least two major plant closures in this country. The distillery industry has been, if anything, in worse shape. The winery industry has gone through a ton of rationalizations; it hasn't lost as many employees as the other two, but employment is still well down.

There are a lot of reasons for that. Plant and company rationalizations figure into it heavily. In the distillery industry, smuggling is stealing a lot of the market, but the demographics are also playing a major part. We have, we know, an aging population, and people in general are drinking less. Perhaps that's a good thing - not a good thing for our members, but a good thing overall. On the other hand, it's costing us jobs.

When you come and put this nice little warning label on every bottle that people pick up, I tell you it will have an effect, but it will have an effect on the 93% of consumers who use alcohol responsibly now. I take that figure from a report that was provided to the City of Toronto by its acting medical officer of health. In fact, I sit on the alcohol advisory committee for the City of Toronto.

.1110

When you sensitize people, when you stigmatize beverage alcohol as being a bad thing, you will not be impacting that 7% of people of this country who are abusing alcohol. You will be impacting those people who believe that what they are doing is safe. Now they're going to be reading a government warning label, which is both untrue and will say that drinking alcohol under any circumstances - that's what it says - is a bad thing. Those are the people who will slow down their drinking, even though it is unnecessary for them.

When I said the warning label is untrue, if you read that warning label - and perhaps unfortunately for me, I am a lawyer, but I'm trying to get over it - and read it strictly, it says that if I have a glass of wine in January and drive a car in May, my ability to drive that car is impacted. That's pure nonsense, but that's what it says.

A proponent of labelling will say, for heaven's sake, use some common sense about this. People know the impact of alcohol. They know that a drink in January is going to be out of your system in May. That's true, they do. But if they know that, what leap of logic gets you to the conclusion that they didn't know it in the first place?

Everybody in this country - and I don't care what the surveys say - knows that if you drink too much, you'll get intoxicated and you'll lose fine motor skills. If you drink too much over a long period of time, it will make you sick. We grew up knowing this. Alcohol has been around since long before the birth of Christ. We all grew up in a society that knows about alcohol.

The people who will be overly sensitized by health warnings will be those people who believe they are being told that their consumption now is more than it should be. But those people will not be the ones who abuse it. The people who abuse it are either in the position of already being addicted or they refuse to believe something they know. The people who will believe it or will slow down or stop buying will be the thoughtful people who already keep their consumption at moderate levels. Those are the people you will impact if you try to depress general consumption instead of attacking the problem where it should be attacked.

I really have little to add to that, except that my idea of research is not quite the same as the brewing industries'. I don't have that kind of money and everything else. There was a poll in the Toronto Star on April 23, one of their very scientific phone-in polls. I can provide a copy should the committee like one. That poll indicated that 88% of the respondents said they saw no reason for health warning labels on beverage containers. If the question had been asked whether they were willing to pay for health warning labels on beverage containers, I can guarantee you that the88% would have been higher.

My point, pure and simple, is that the warning label as proposed is inaccurate, is untrue. Also, the people you will impact by it are the people who use alcohol safely. That will cost us jobs and that will exacerbate the decline in employment in this industry. We can't afford it.

I do have a written statement, which I understand has gone for translation.

The Chair: Yes, that's right. Thank you very much, Mr. McNamee. You've given us some interesting analogies to think about.

Mrs. Picard.

[Translation]

Mrs. Picard: I have no questions.

[English]

The Chair: Dr. Hill.

Mr. Hill: I'm sorry, with coming in late like this -

The Chair: You'll pass for the moment? Mr. Szabo.

.1115

Mr. Szabo: Thank you, Mr. McNamee. You haven't said whether you're a constituent of mine, and please don't, because you're not going to like what I have to say.

Mr. McNamee: You may not like what I have to say either.

Mr. Szabo: I find incredulous some of the things you said. But I did agree with one thing you said, and I want to let you know what it is right off the bat.

You have come here and said that if we put the health warning labels on, the people the labels will communicate with are the 93% of people who are the responsible users of these products - I assume that's what you mean - as opposed to the 7% of the abusers. And you've said that it's going to make the responsible people, these 93%, actually consume less because of the message on the bottle, the label.

I think this is probably the best endorsement of labels that I have heard from all the witnesses. You've said to me that labels work and that 93% of Canadians who see the labels are going to reduce consumption of alcohol because they saw the label, because it works. They will see it, they will learn, and their behaviour will be changed. Let's have your response.

Mr. McNamee: I don't have a response, sir. If you take what I said as an endorsement, you're welcome to it.

Mr. Szabo: Okay. Earlier with the industries, I think I caught the nuances of words, the difference between awareness of a potential problem and the changing of behaviour or the effect of behaviour modification. I'm trying to figure out from somebody from the industry side what effects they are actually looking for or what they would measure to determine that something worked, that it was effective. What would indicate to you that it had the desired effect, which is to reduce misuse of an alcoholic product?

Mr. McNamee: I'm in some trouble answering a question with respect to a submission they made. However, if you wanted my view about an effective program, in my mind it targets somebody who is abusing or likely to abuse alcohol and puts the resources into helping them... not to know, because I believe they do know that alcohol can be dangerous if abused, but rather to accept that it can be dangerous and to modify their behaviour as a result.

Mr. Szabo: I know you're here because of the workers and the jobs. If it's true what the other union says, that by and large any increase - and it's like an increase in the excise tax - is passed on to the consumer.... It's not the corporation's fault. If it were regulated or legislated that a health warning label had to be there and it cost incremental dollars, has the industry indicated to you that it would be passed on, or have they indicated that it would take away from the gross margin used for job creation and for compensation?

Mr. McNamee: If they have a budget for job creation, damned if I know about it. They haven't indicated anything along those lines to me. All I know, sir, is that at the end of the day one of two people will pay. The consumer will pay or the taxpayer will pay. If the consumer pays, we will again affect volumes, because we've already hit stiff levels of price resistance and we're dealing with stiff foreign competition. If the taxpayer pays... well, sir, you're a politician. You can answer that question better than I.

The Chair: Are there any other questions around the table?

Mr. Hill: I have just one, and once again I apologize for being so rude as to arrive in the middle of your presentation.

Mr. McNamee: At least you got half of it.

.1120

Mr. Hill: Your concern for jobs is a concern I understand. Reflecting upon what's happened in the U.S., where they have had labels now for some time, what has happened to the jobs there?

Mr. McNamee: Jobs in the U.S. industry, it is my understanding, are going down, but I would be dishonest with you if I could ascribe any particular portion of that to warning labels as opposed to other issues. A whole bunch of factors go into it. I can't point at any job and say that as a result of warning labels, that job went down. All I can do is tell you it would be a factor in job loss. There are many other factors, of course.

Mr. Hill: Related to that question, what has happened to consumption in the U.S. since the labels have come on stream?

Mr. McNamee: To tell you the truth, sir, I'm no expert on that. In terms of overall volumes I couldn't tell you. As to individual consumption, perhaps you'd know better than I.

Mr. Hill: When you make an argument, if it's really theoretical, it's hard to judge. But if there's a jurisdiction nearby in which something has happened and you can compare, it's really useful to do that. That's one thing I've tried to do over and over again, to compare with the areas that have done this lately. I don't believe there has been an identifiable job loss in the industry in the United States.

Mr. McNamee: My understanding is that in fact there has been job loss in the U.S., but I would not ascribe any particular portion of that to labelling as opposed to other issues, because a whole bunch of factors enter into it. As I said, there are corporate rationalizations involved and everything else, and they have a different demographic.

Mr. Hill: I'm sorry to end up with more and more questions here. If there were some process whereby the education of the youth.... Let's say you have a daughter. As she's growing up, she becomes more aware of the fact that fetal alcohol syndrome is a problem. Would you support that as an individual?

Mr. McNamee: Absolutely. There is no question that -

Mr. Hill: If that process had no impact whatever on jobs in the industry, would you support it?

Mr. McNamee: I don't know how you could guarantee that. That's what I'm concerned about. It should have an impact on jobs in the industry.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not suggesting for a second that a pregnant woman should not be careful of her alcohol intake and perhaps scale it back, depending on how much she drinks, and yes, that will have an impact on volumes. What I'm suggesting to you, pure and simple, is that this information is far better imparted... than on a warning label.

In fact, as a member of the Toronto Alcohol Advisory Committee, we've had submissions from doctors who have said that this kind of blatant warning on a label, without more, is dangerous for a pregnant woman. If she has a drink and has a child and that child is less than perfectly healthy, it can create some real guilt even though that drink had nothing to do with the alcohol consumed.

My understanding of the best advice we've received from the doctors is that the information on fetal alcohol syndrome, which is a serious issue, should be communicated by a doctor, who can do a little more than splash something across a label that either tries to scare people or misleads them. Do I support getting that information out? Yes, I certainly do.

The Chair: If there are no further questions, I want to thank you, Mr. McNamee, for coming in. Obviously we will look forward to getting your presentation from the clerk in both official languages. Thank you very much.

Committee, I have a quick question before we close the meeting. We've heard from a lot of witnesses, and I think it's probably appropriate that our research staff start bringing this information together and summarizing the witnesses' presentations so that we can have a report brought to us. I don't know how you feel about that. I think it needs to be started now. Nancy is looking for some approval from us so that she can get going on it. Would you agree with that approach?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Thank you very much. The meeting is adjourned.

Return to Committee Home Page