The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Before we proceed, honourable senators, it is almost six o’clock. Pursuant to rule 3-3(1), I must leave the chair until eight o’clock, unless it is your wish, honourable senators, not to see the clock. Is it agreed not to see the clock?

Hon. Tony Dean: Honourable senators, I move the adjournment of the debate until the next sitting of the Senate and for the balance of my time.

(On motion of Senator Dean, debate adjourned.)

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I wish to draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Matt Pike. He is the guest of the Honourable Senator Ravalia.

On behalf of all honourable senators, I welcome you to the Senate of Canada.

Hon. Gwen Boniface: Honourable senators, I rise to speak in support of Bill S-256, the Canadian postal safety act, proposed by Senator Dalphond. This bill would allow law enforcement to demand, seize, detain or retain items sent within Canada through Canada Post. There have been cases where counterfeit items, such as passports, firearms and other weapons have been delivered using Canada Post.

While Bill S-256 opens up the search authority to all contraband items being sent by Canada Post, I want to specifically address its influence on the drug trade.

As senators are aware, the rise in fentanyl and, subsequently, fentanyl-related deaths in our country has skyrocketed. There is no part of Canada left untouched. Of course, addictions and mental health issues ravage bigger cities like Vancouver, Calgary, Toronto, Montreal and even here in Ottawa, but now rural outliers, northern areas and Indigenous communities are all feeling the brunt of the opioid use perpetuated by the rise in fentanyl. This isn’t the first time you’ve heard me speak to this issue, as I have my own bill before this chamber that attempts to decriminalize simple possession of currently illegal substances through a national strategy process. That process alone won’t cure Canada of the poison that is fentanyl, but like Bill S-256 before us now, these are steps in the right direction to save lives, and ultimately that’s what this bill is about.

Senator Dalphond has very eloquently outlined what this bill will do and the impetus for it. That was a 2015 resolution from the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police that has, until Bill S-256, not been considered, let alone implemented. Senator Dalphond referred to Chief Mike Serr, head of the Abbotsford Police Department and Co-Chair of the Drug Advisory Committee of the CACP, in both his second reading remarks and the press release tied with the introduction of this bill. I know Chief Serr, and I have the highest respect for his dedication to the work dealing with drug issues. I reached out to him, in fact, to consult on my own bill.

As I was once the president of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, I understand the in-depth and evidence-based research the association performs, especially at the committee level. Resolution 8 from the CACP’s one hundred and tenth annual conference joined the work from the Drug Advisory Committee and the Law Amendments Committee to come up with the solution before us today.

Let me detail the issues straight from resolution 8; it’s a long quote, so please bear with me:

The Canada Post Corporation Act (CPCA) is the legislative basis for the Canada Post Corporation and was passed in 1981. Subject to the Canadian Security and Intelligence Service Act, the Customs Act and the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act, the Canada Post Corporation Act currently exempts items in the course of post from search or seizure by law enforcement, pursuant to the Criminal Code, Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, Copyright Act or Trade-marks Act, and potentially others. This exclusion may perhaps be due to domestic trafficking not being seen as a priority when section 40(3) of the CPCA was last updated in 2005. This means that search and seizure authorities granted to law enforcement personnel under the Criminal Code of Canada and other criminal law authorities are overridden by the CPCA, giving law enforcement no authority to seize, detain or retain parcels or letters while they are in the course of mail and under Canada Post’s control. That said, the CPCA is augmented by the Non-mailable Matter Regulations which specify that Canada Post inspectors shall turn over any illegal material found in the course of mail to law enforcement. Recent court rulings have determined that postal inspectors cannot act as agents of the state where police convey information received to postal inspectors in order to intercept the contraband during the postal delivery process.

Senators, obviously this poses a significant challenge for law enforcement. Reliable intelligence may point to contraband being sent through Canada Post, but law enforcement would be unable to act upon this intelligence unless they’re able to actually intercept the contraband before it enters the postal system or after it is successfully delivered. There is a large gap during the course of mailing, sorting and delivery where law enforcement is exempted from intercepting contraband.

Let me remind senators of a few facts laid out by Senator Dalphond in his speech. There are 25 postal inspectors across Canada — 25 — so they are few and far between.

The maximum weight for an item of lettermail as outlined in the Letter Mail Regulations accompanying the CPCA is 500 grams. Lettermail currently cannot be opened by inspectors; they can only set aside an identified letter to remove it from the course of the system as non-mailable and call the police. Such is the dilemma.

In 2020, Canada Post handled approximately 384 million parcels and 2.5 billion letters. This is 6.5 times more letters than parcels.

Senator Dalphond also stated that 500 grams of fentanyl has a current street value of $30,000. This is a lot of money, but it’s meaningless compared to the number of lives that could be lost to those 500 grams of fentanyl. According to the Drug Enforcement Administration in the U.S., just one gram of fentanyl can result in the deaths of 300 to 500 people.

It would be easy to transport one gram of fentanyl through one letter, but I’ll let you extrapolate. Let’s consider if it’s 250 grams of fentanyl — half the allowed weight to be considered a letter. I’ll let you do the math on that.

In order for a piece of lettermail to be considered mailable, it must have the address of the addressee. A return address is optional. In many cases, the address listed will be one of a private residence. As already referenced by Senator Dalphond, Canada Post is the shipping method of choice for many drug traffickers. Someone will order illegal drugs online through the dark web, and those responding to the orders will use Canada Post as the base method to ship to the addressee. It should come as no surprise, then, that many illegal drug toxicity deaths occur in private residences; it should be no shock to us. A May 2021 report from Public Health Ontario has observed that over 70% of opioid-related deaths occurred in private residences. British Columbia has also seen a majority of drug toxicity deaths occurring in private residences, at around a 55% rate in 2022.

The ease of having illegal drugs sent straight to your home with very little chance — or, let’s be serious, no chance — of interception will only perpetuate these statistics and the wholly founded perception of drug traffickers that Canada Post is ripe for abuse.

Colleagues, those who work in the drug trade and organized crime writ large are always finding ways to be a step ahead of or work around law enforcement. These people are smart, they’re crafty, they’re creative and they don’t have to adhere to any law, and that’s how they meet their objectives. They have identified the Canada Post Corporation Act as a vessel to move illegal goods because of the very slim chance of detection. This has only been more prevalent with the ability to transport fentanyl through lettermail.

Private delivery or courier services such as FedEx, Purolator or DHL are not barred from search by police. Law enforcement currently has the lawful power to search packages and parcels being shipped through these companies with a warrant. Those shipping drugs throughout Canada are already avoiding the use of private courier companies for exactly that reason.

The key provision of the CPCA that Bill S-256 seeks to amend is section 40(3), which deals with the liability to seizure. The way the section is currently worded, nothing in the course of post is liable to demand, seizure, detention or retention, unless it’s subject to the Canada Post Corporation Act itself, the CSIS Act or the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act. As you will recall in the description of the issue provided in the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police resolution, this means that mail in the course of post is exempted from search and seizure pursuant to the Criminal Code, the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act or other acts.

Bill S-256 amends this provision to widen the scope of liability in force of section 40(3) to include such acts as the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drug and Substances Act. It does this by creating a new definition of enforcement statute, which means an act of Parliament, the law of a province or the law of an Indigenous jurisdiction. As senators well know, the CSIS Act and the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act are both acts of Parliament, as are the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. The new definition would cover all of these acts and, as a result, allow for searches and seizures to apply to items in the course of post by law enforcement. Of course, this can’t be done on a whim. Peace officers would have to follow usual warrant procedures and submit an application before such a search and seizure can take place, as they would now when searching or seizing parcels being sent through a private courier service.

Senator Dalphond called this lack of law enforcement ability to seize, retain or detain contraband in the course of post a “loophole” in the law. I would certainly agree with our colleague, but perhaps I would take it even further: This is a legal chasm. This gap in the law is actively contributing to the erosion of safety and to the deaths of Canadians.

The principle of this bill is solid and, I hope, worthy of the argument. It is in this vein that I wholeheartedly agree with Bill S-256 and would recommend that it be sent to committee as soon as possible for a thorough — but perhaps expedited — study. Every missed Canada Post letter or parcel containing fentanyl or its analogues is a missed opportunity to save lives. The longer Parliament lingers on such a bill, the more lives are put in jeopardy by the menace of fentanyl.

Thank you, meegwetch.

(On motion of Senator Martin, debate adjourned.)

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Housakos, seconded by the Honourable Senator Wells:

That the Senate call on the Government of Canada to:

(a)denounce the illegitimacy of the Cuban regime and recognize the Cuban opposition and civil society as valid interlocutors; and

(b)call on the Cuban regime to ensure the right of the Cuban people to protest peacefully without fear of reprisal and repudiation.

Hon. Frances Lankin: I won’t go into Uber drivers; that’s a matter for the new committee we’re trying to establish.

Senator Harder, I have two questions. I’m going into the weeds a little bit. I generally support the premise. As Senator Housakos stated, it’s about fairness, copyright, content and who does the heavy lifting in terms of the gathering and creation.

First, do you know how an organization like The Canadian Press will be treated, given that it’s kind of like a cooperatively owned organization and the companies largely involved in that have their own agreements already negotiated? You just referred to that. Do you have a sense whether there is a duplication of payment there from the platforms, or whether they will not qualify as an eligible entity?

Senator Harder: Thank you.

Senator, my understanding is that the agreements that are in place are with the publishing companies that, from time to time, also include The Canadian Press in their publications, and that is how the existing arrangements provide for compensation in that indirect fashion.

I can also state that you’re correct — as I stated — that there are some large newspapers that have agreements. I suspect the sustainability of those agreements will depend upon this legislation. This legislation will ensure there’s a requirement to negotiate fairly, and that is why News Media Canada is so supportive of this bill.

Senator Gold: I will have to make inquiries and report back. Thank you.

Senator Batters: Thank you very much.

[English]

In your speech you indicated — and it came through translation, so roughly translated — that virtually all stakeholders in the legal community support this bill. Who doesn’t support it and why?

Senator Dalphond: Thank you very much for this question of precision. I said I don’t know any who oppose it, but I restrained myself from making an overreaching statement that everybody is behind it — just in case you find somebody who will oppose it. I know that you, as critic, will work hard on this bill, and if there is any weakness in it, you will show it to me. Thank you.

Senator Wells: Senator Gold, assuming that the government and Transport Canada may be the subject of this investigation, can we assume that the review or the investigation will be independent of the department and the government?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you, Senator Cordy, for raising that. The government knows that there are still barriers, biases and systemic obstacles in the way of Black Canadians and others. It’s too regular a feature of life, frankly, for too many of our citizens. These have taken root over generations, and eradicating them will take some time.

To your question, the government has launched programs to support departments in addressing barriers to recruitment and promotion at every level, including the executive level. In that regard, the government is releasing disaggregated data on equity‑seeking groups, which will help us to understand the nature of the problem and, I hope, over time, to track progress in addressing the problem. Indeed, the government has amended the Public Service Employment Act to strengthen its provisions to address potential biases and barriers in the staffing processes, and the Clerk of the Privy Council recently issued a call to action for public service leaders to fight racism within the public service. One hopes that this is at least the beginning of progress in that important area.

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I wish to draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Kateri Coade, the Executive Director of the Mi’kmaq Confederacy of PEI and daughter of the Honourable Senator Francis.

On behalf of all honourable senators, I welcome you to the Senate of Canada.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for your question. The Government of Canada and all Canadians are horrified at the actions of the Iranian regime that have culminated in violations of human rights and, in particular, the tragic killings of Mahsa Amini and hundreds of brave protesters.

The Government of Canada has announced new measures that go even further than the ones previously imposed. The government is banning officials of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, the IRGC, from Canada forever, creating a new sanctions bureau and continuing to increase their sanctions on Iran and expanding the ability to seize and freeze assets. Indeed, the Government of Canada has some of the toughest measures of any country in the world against the Iranian regime. Impunity for those in the regime is not an option. Canada stands with the Iranian people and is considering and will always consider further measures to ratchet up the pressure.

Hon. Peter M. Boehm, pursuant to notice of December 8, 2022, moved:

That, notwithstanding the order of the Senate adopted on Thursday, February 24, 2022, the date for the final report of the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade in relation to its study on the Canadian foreign service and elements of the foreign policy machinery within Global Affairs Canada be extended from March 30, 2023, to September 29, 2023.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?

Hon. Mobina S. B. Jaffer moved the adoption of the report.

She said: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to Bill S-205, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to another Act (interim release and domestic violence recognizance orders). Bill S-205 was referred to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee by this honourable chamber’s order of reference given on April 26, 2022. The bill amends both the Criminal Code and the Youth Criminal Justice Act with respect to judicial interim release, also known as bail.

The sponsor of this bill is Senator Boisvenu. Bill S-205 provides more protection for victims of intimate partner and domestic violence, and requires judges to consider whether the accused should be ordered to wear an electronic monitoring device as a condition for bail. The committee reported Bill S-205 back to the Senate with four main amendments.

[Translation]

First, the first paragraph of the bill authorized peace officers to require individuals to wear electronic monitoring bracelets as a condition of release at the time of their arrest.

This provision would have ensured the individual’s presence in court, protected victims and witnesses, and prevented further offences. After consideration, the committee amended the bill to delete this clause.

Second, clause 2 of the bill created two new conditions that judges could impose when granting conditional release to an accused. This clause also emphasized the importance of implementing requirements to consult the victims.

With respect to the new conditions, the court could, at its discretion, require an accused to wear an electronic monitoring device, participate in a substance abuse treatment program or receive domestic violence counselling.

The committee amended clause 2 by removing the second condition related to treatment programs and domestic violence counselling.

(1700)

The committee also added a requirement to the first condition. The attorney general must now ask the accused to wear an electronic monitoring device before a judge can allow release.

Clause 2 also required a judge to ask the prosecutor if the victim was consulted before granting conditional release to a person accused of intimate partner violence.

The committee amended the requirement for consultation, making it mandatory to consult victims of crime, whether an intimate partner or some other person.

[English]

The third amendment related to Bill S-205 is a new type of peace bond. This new peace bond could be imposed if someone had reason to believe their current or former intimate partner would commit an offence causing them or their child injury. The court could require this current or former intimate partner to wear an electronic monitoring device. The committee amended this section by requiring the Attorney General’s consent before the judge can request the use of an electronic monitoring device. This is consistent with the second amendment mentioned earlier.

Finally, the committee made a fourth amendment. The committee recognized that Bill S-205 shared similar elements with Bill C-233, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Judges Act (violence against an intimate partner). Most notably, both bills would require judges to consider whether an accused should be ordered to wear an electronic monitoring device as a condition for granting bail.

The committee adopted coordinating amendments between Bill S-205 and Bill C-233 should Bill C-233 first come into force. Bill S-205 adds electronic monitoring as a condition for interim release under section 515(4), which is broader than section 515(4.2), to which Bill C-233 is limited. Therefore, if Parliament passes both bills, the coordinating amendment ensures that Bill S-205 would prevail in that regard, its amendment being further far-reaching.

[Translation]

Honourable colleagues, in committee, we had the privilege of witnessing the hard work and tenacity of our colleague Senator Boisvenu, particularly with respect to the prevention of violence against women and the protection of survivors. We’re very grateful to him.

Senator Boisvenu, I’d also like to personally thank you for your commitment and perseverance in protecting women.

People of conviction bring about change, and you’re certainly one of those people. Thank you.

(On motion of Senator Martin, for Senator Boisvenu, debate adjourned.)

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Klyne, seconded by the Honourable Senator Harder, P.C., for the second reading of Bill S-241, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Wild Animal and Plant Protection and Regulation of International and Interprovincial Trade Act (great apes, elephants and certain other animals).

Senator Boyer: Yes.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Senator Harder, you have eight minutes remaining. Will you take questions?

Senator Harder: Certainly.

Senator Gold: Thank you for the question. I do not know the exact date at which point the government became aware of this practice. We all became aware of it only recently in the media. I will certainly make inquiries.

But, Senator Plett, I can assure you and every senator in this chamber, as I’ve done before, that the government has been working and continues to work with its counterparts in the Government of the United States in order to address the issue of illegal migration generally and the causes of that migration, which go beyond simply the Canada-U.S. border, as you well know.

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I wish to draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Sylvia Parris‑Drummond, the CEO of the Delmore “Buddy” Daye Learning Institute in Halifax. She is the guest of the Honourable Senator Bernard.

On behalf of all honourable senators, I welcome you to the Senate of Canada.

Senator Cordy: Thank you, Senator Gold. I think these are steps that are going in the right direction, and tracking is certainly a strong first step.

You spoke about government departments, but has a specific government department or departments been tasked with tracking the progress on these initiatives to eliminate what are real barriers that Black Canadians face in the labour market? Are they being assessed regularly to determine their effectiveness? Sometimes we have programs that no one is ever assessing, so we don’t know whether they’re working or not. To follow up with that, are there specific markers, milestones or timelines that the public service is aiming for in meeting employment equity?

Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!