The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Honourable senators, when shall this bill be read the third time?

(On motion of Senator Dalphond, bill referred to the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs.)

Hon. Claude Carignan: Colleagues, I rise today at second reading of Bill S-256, the short title of which is the Canadian postal safety act. I fully support the objective of the bill, as described by Senator Dalphond in his November 29 speech. He said, and I quote:

The Canadian postal safety act’s purpose is to assist law enforcement, Indigenous communities and rural municipalities in their efforts to intercept dangerous drugs, particularly fentanyl and other opioids, that could be delivered by the mail system, especially in remote areas. . . .

The aim of this bill is not to weaken or change requirements for searches and seizures, but rather to remove an old statutory limit that prevents police from fully assisting Canada Post inspectors and customs officers in enforcing the law.

The old statutory limit that Senator Dalphond was talking about is subsection 40(3) of the Canada Post Corporation Act, which reads, and I quote:

Notwithstanding any other Act or law, but subject to this Act and the regulations and to the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act, the Customs Act and the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act, nothing in the course of post is liable to demand, seizure, detention or retention.

This provision clearly sets out a broad prohibition — applicable to police officers in particular — on seizing or retaining items in the course of post. As Senator Dalphond pointed out, when an item entrusted to Canada Post is being sent, the police cannot intervene without the assistance of a Canada Post inspector.

The fact is, postal inspectors can open all mail items that weigh 500 grams or more to check whether they contain objects that contravene any Canadian law or regulation. This authority is set out in subsection 41(1) of the Canada Post Corporation Act. This provision is an exception to the prohibition on seizure and detention set out in subsection 40(3).

Senator Dalphond summarized the very important limits that subsection 40(3) places on police work as follows, and I quote:

While an item is in the mail, the only option the police have is to work closely with 1 of the 25 inspectors at Canada Post — 25 to cover the whole country. An inspector could then find a way to inspect a parcel and retain it if illegal material is found inside. Subsequently, based on the information communicated by the inspector, the police could seize the item for further investigation and possibly to lay a charge.

In his Bill S-256, Senator Dalphond proposes an exception to the prohibition in subsection 40(3). He proposes that this prohibition not apply if the seizure or detention of mail is necessary for the enforcement of federal laws, including the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, as well as provincial laws.

Personally, I wonder if it would be better to simply repeal the prohibition in subsection 40(3).

The Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs also recommended repealing this subsection. The association believed that this would, quote, “increase the effectiveness of the proposed changes to combat the trafficking of contraband,” according to a May 19, 2023, letter from the assembly that I will come back to later.

In my opinion, subsection 40(3) was rendered obsolete in 1982, when protection from unreasonable seizure was enshrined in section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

It is important to note that the prohibition on seizure in subsection 40(3) is a privacy safeguard established long before 1982. Indeed, the current wording of subsection 40(3) of the Canada Post Corporation Act is substantively very similar to previous versions from the last few decades. Examples include the 1981 version, subsection 38(3) of the Canada Post Corporation Act, and the 1951 version, section 41 of the Post Office Act, which reads as follows:

Notwithstanding anything in any other Act or law, nothing is liable to demand, seizure or detention while in the course of post, except as provided in this Act or the Regulations.

Like Senator Dalphond, I think the current wording of the ban is undesirable because this ban is far too broad.

This provision jeopardizes the safety of Canadians and it even prevents a judge from issuing a warrant under section 487 of the Criminal Code or section 11 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, to allow police officers to open a letter which they have reasonable grounds to believe contains fentanyl or other banned substances.

This problem was raised in 2017 in R. v. O’Dell in the Provincial Court of Saskatchewan. In fact, Ms. O’Dell was charged with trafficking in fentanyl. The day before her arrest, she dropped off a package containing that drug at a Canada Post office. Police officers seized it without a warrant, but obtained one afterward before opening the package. The judge found that the seizure of the package was not authorized under the Canada Post Corporation Act, because of the ban in subsection 40(3).

This subsection also prevents, for example, a judge from authorizing police, under section 487.01 of the Criminal Code, to intercept and secretly open an envelope left in the possession of Canada Post by a suspect. That was the finding in the 2018 Supreme Court of British Columbia ruling in R. v. Perkins. In that case, an individual was accused of possession of cocaine and fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking. In its ruling, the court accepted the admission of the Crown prosecutor that the judge could not provide this judicial authorization given the prohibition in subsection 40(3).

I am going to the trouble of citing these examples to demonstrate that if subsection 40(3) did not exist, the police would have to respect the usual privacy protections found in the Constitution, the Criminal Code and other laws.

I am obviously thinking of the protection against unreasonable search and seizure in section 8 of the Charter, and also sections of the Criminal Code imposing rigorous conditions that police must satisfy in order for a judge to issue a search warrant.

In addition to these legal provisions, there are thousands of court decisions interpreting them. In other words, since section 8 of the Charter was created in 1982, there have been more than 40 years of case law, primarily from the Supreme Court of Canada, requiring police officers to obtain judicial authorization to conduct investigations or seizures in situations where a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy or protection.

Thus, the common law principles created by these decisions will automatically apply if exceptions are created or if we repeal the prohibition on seizing or retaining objects in the intended course of post.

This contradicts the argument that Bill S-256 proposes overly broad exceptions to the prohibition set out in section 40(3), a provision that, on the face of it, no longer serves any purpose. It has become outdated since the Charter was created.

Bill S-256 grants no new investigative or seizure powers to police officers compared to those they already have with respect to packages shipped by any company other than Canada Post.

As Senator Dalphond pointed out, traffickers have spread the word that there is much less risk of their packages being intercepted if they send them through Canada Post rather than through any other private courier company, such as FedEx, UPS, Purolator or DHL.

It is critically important that we do everything we possibly can to combat fentanyl. Bill S-256 is a step in that direction. It also represents a concrete solution to enable police to tackle one of the links in the fentanyl trafficking chain by allowing judges to issue authorizations to police officers to open parcels and letters in the possession of Canada Post, when there are reasonable grounds to believe they contain fentanyl or other criminally prohibited goods.

As the saying goes, great sorrow is often silent. This is true of the sorrow experienced by many people who are, or will be, suffering from opioid addiction. Many of them will die or find themselves vulnerable, living on the margins of society or even homeless. They need us, as parliamentarians, to speak out and take action against the ravages of opioid trafficking on public health and public safety.

Opioids have caused over 32,000 deaths in Canada according to statistics recently posted on a Government of Canada website.

The trafficking of opioids and other hard drugs does not just affect addicts. This scourge tears families apart and increases the violence and profits of criminal organizations. That is the situation described by Justice Moldaver in his dissenting opinion in the 2021 Supreme Court of Canada case R. v. Parranto, which was uncontradicted on that point. Justice Moldaver said, and I quote:

The dangers posed by trafficking in hard drugs, such as heroin and cocaine, have long been recognized in Canada. . . .

Trafficking also leads indirectly to a host of other ills, including an increase in all manner of crime, committed by those seeking to finance their addiction, as well as by organized crime syndicates . . . .

A further and perhaps even more devastating consequence of the hard drug trade is its impact on families and the intergenerational trauma it causes . . . .

Justice Moldaver goes on to say that the threat posed by the trafficking of drugs, such as heroin and cocaine, and I quote:

 . . . pales in comparison to the one posed by fentanyl and its analogues. . . . [F]entanyl has altered the landscape of the substance abuse crisis in Canada, revealing itself as public enemy number one. . . .

The scale of fentanyl’s devastating impact becomes even more apparent when one considers that, between 2016 and 2020, there were approximately 3,400 homicides across Canada, a number far below the number of fentanyl-related deaths . . . .

Therefore, to prevent such misdeeds, I urge you to vote in favour of Bill S-256.

As I explained, this bill will finally close the loophole that traffickers have been exploiting in the Canada Post Corporation Act. This loophole, which only applies to items sent by Canada Post and not through other courier companies, means that traffickers prefer to do business with Canada Post because they know that this law deprives the police of their usual legal means of seizing, opening or tracking items containing lethal drugs.

As Senators Dalphond and Boniface mentioned in their speeches, the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police has in fact publicly expressed, in a resolution adopted in August 2015, the need to close this loophole as soon as possible.

Why is it that, six years after this resolution, the federal government has not introduced a bill to try and address this urgent problem? How seriously does the government take the fact that the Canada Post Corporation Act deprives police and postal inspectors of essential powers to intercept mail containing drugs or other illegal and dangerous items?

On this point, I would like to return to R. v. Gorman, which Senator Dalphond referenced in his speech. In this case, the judge found, among other things, a very important power of inspectors in subsection 41(1) of the Canada Post Corporation Act to be unconstitutional.

The ruling by the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador was not appealed by the federal government. In fact, the Attorney General of Canada even decided not to intervene to plead legal arguments before the judge.

The court first gave the federal government one year, which ended on April 12, 2023, to amend the Canada Post Corporation Act. Subsequently the court granted an additional six months, which will end on October 12.

On April 20, the government introduced Bill C-47, the 2023 budget bill. Clause 509 of the bill proposed a legislative amendment required to comply with the ruling in R. v. Gorman.

Let’s recall that, in this case, the court found that the challenged provision was contrary to section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms because it allowed the postal inspector to open a package without objective reasons to suspect that it contained an illicit object. If the bill is passed, the wording of clause 509 would correct this problem. The relevant part of clause reads as follows:

“Non-mailable matter” is defined in a regulation as “Any item transmitted by post in contravention of an Act or a regulation of Canada.”

Although section 509 of Bill C-47 makes it possible to comply with the ruling in Gorman, I find it disappointing, inexplicable and very worrisome that the proposed amendment still proposes maintaining the words “other than a letter” in subsection 41(1). That means that postal inspectors are still not allowed to open items that are being transmitted by post weighing less than 500 grams, which is the regulatory definition of a letter, even if they have reasonable grounds to suspect that the letter contains fentanyl or other illegal objects within the meaning of the Criminal Code. Five hundred grams of fentanyl is a lot, given that consuming even the tiniest bit of this drug can be fatal.

If the government chose to amend subsection 41(1) through the 2023 budget bill in response to the Gorman decision, why didn’t it take the opportunity to incorporate the contents of Bill S-256, the heart of which is an amendment to subsection 40(3) of the Canada Post Corporation Act, which I mentioned earlier? The federal government was well aware of this problem.

As evidence of that, here’s an exchange that took place in the Senate on December 1, 2022, between Senator Dalphond and Minister Hutchings, Minister of Rural Economic Development. Senator Dalphond asked the following question:

As you may know, it is reported that, for fentanyl sellers, Canada Post is the shipping method of choice, and often the only one available to ship these illegal products into rural and remote communities.

 . . . are you ready to consider proposals such as Bill S-256 to remove from the Canada Post Corporation Act restrictions that impede the police from seizing illegal drugs and other illegal items shipped through mailed envelopes?

The minister replied with the following:

Thank you, senator. That is an incredible question because it alludes to what I mentioned earlier about the terrible drug problem that we have in rural Canada. As you know, Canada Post is a Crown corporation, but I will be following that bill’s progress to the detail. I know that is exactly how some of the drugs are getting into these rural communities.

If Bill C-47 on Budget 2023 were adopted and came into force in its current form, postal inspectors would still be prohibited from opening an object weighing less than 500 grams in the course of post containing drugs, weapons or any other object prohibited under the Criminal Code. Police would also still be prohibited from opening any object in the course of post with the assistance of a postal inspector even if the police had obtained a search warrant from a judge.

In view of these facts, are you, like me, seriously concerned about the fact that the federal government is not taking seriously the threat of the trafficking of hard drugs, such as fentanyl, shipped through Canada Post? Why is the government not closing as quickly as possible the loopholes I have just mentioned that are in the Canada Post Corporation Act?

Another thing in Gorman fuels my concerns about the inadequate measures taken by the federal government to combat trafficking in hard drugs. In this case, a significant amount of cocaine was seized: It was two kilograms of apparently high purity. What’s more, the judge found that Mr. Gorman was planning to receive more packages containing the drug, again for trafficking. I’m concerned that because of government Bill C-5, which just passed, this individual will be given a sentence to be served in the community and not in prison.

In closing, I completely agree, on one hand, with the purpose of Bill S-256. I invite you to refer this bill to the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs for further scrutiny. On the other hand, I hope the Senate committee will carefully consider in its study of Bill S-256 the two recommendations for amendments that I raised in my speech. These are exactly the same recommendations that the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs made in the letter I mentioned previously and that it sent to the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs as part of its study of Bill C-47 on Budget 2023.

I will read an excerpt from that letter about these recommendations. The assembly makes the following recommendations to the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs:

1) Replace the current section 41(1) of the Canada Post Corporation Act with the proposed amendment from Bill C-47, and remove the words “other than a letter” from the provision; and

2) Remove section 40(3) of the Canada Post Corporation Act in its entirety.

I also note that the position of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police expressed during the study of Bill C-47 by the Senate committee was along the same lines as the two recommendations made by the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs.

In closing, I thank attorney Michael Spratt and law professors Steven Penney and Steve Coughlan, and the Association des avocats de la défense de Montréal-Laval-Longueuil and the Association québécoise des avocats et avocates de la défense for sharing their observations about certain aspects of this bill with my team. Thank you.

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

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

(Motion agreed to.)

(At 8:59 p.m., the Senate was continued until tomorrow at 2 p.m.)

Hon. Yonah Martin (Deputy Leader of the Opposition): I move that this bill be adjourned in my name for the balance of my time.

(On motion of Senator Martin, debate adjourned.)

[Translation]

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator McCallum, seconded by the Honourable Senator Boisvenu, for the second reading of Bill C-226, An Act respecting the development of a national strategy to assess, prevent and address environmental racism and to advance environmental justice.

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. Pierre J. Dalphond moved second reading of Bill S-256, An Act to amend the Canada Post Corporation Act (seizure) and to make related amendments to other Acts.

He said: Honourable senators, today, I’m pleased to begin the second reading of Bill S-256, the Canadian Postal Safety Act.

My bill is rather short with only eight clauses, only one of which is of substance. The others are ancillary amendments to the first clause.

The amendment of substance proposes to amend subsection 40(3) of the Canada Post Corporation Act, which sets out the following principle, and I quote:

Despite any other Act or law, nothing in the course of post is liable to demand, seizure, detention or retention, except as subject to this Act and its regulations . . . .

This principle dates back to 1867 with the passage of the Post Office Act. At that time, it was inconceivable to interfere with the operations of the Royal Mail or to read the content of letters one was tasked with delivering. In short, the objective of this law was to protect privacy.

For quite some time, only a postal inspector could detain an item, for instance if it wasn’t sufficiently stamped for the class of mail or if it contained items that were illegal to send by post. It would be more than 100 years before any exceptions to the principle of prohibiting interference with mail items were adopted. This was done through the passage of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act in 1984, an amendment to the Customs Act in 1986 and the passage of the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act in 2000.

Under the amendment to the Customs Act, a shipment entering Canada may be subject to inspection by border services officers if they have reason to suspect that its contents are prohibited from being imported into Canada. If this is the case, the shipment, whether a package or an envelope, may be seized. However, an envelope mailed in Canada to someone who resides at a Canadian address cannot be opened by the police or even by a postal inspector. Paragraph 41(1)(c) of the Canada Post Corporation Act states the following, and I quote:

The Corporation may open any mail, other than a letter, to determine in any particular case . . .

The Letter Definition Regulations state that a letter is a mailed item that does not exceed 500 grams. However, postal inspectors may open a parcel if they believe it contains something that is prohibited under legislation that applies to the post. If it is, the item is confiscated and turned over to police.

I will conclude my introduction by saying that Canada Post handles billions of items per year. In 2020, Canada Post delivered 6.4 billion items, of which 2.5 billion were letters, 384 million were parcels and the remainder was advertising.

That is the current situation in Canada.

[English]

To summarize, nothing in the course of the post in Canada is liable to demand, seizure, detention or retention, except if a specific legal exception exists in the Canada Post Corporation Act or in one of the three laws I referenced. However, items in the mail can be inspected by a postal inspector, but if it is a letter, the inspector cannot open it to complete the inspection.

Thus, a police officer who has reasonable grounds to suspect that an item in the mail contains an illegal drug or a handgun cannot be authorized, pursuant to a warrant issued by a judge, to intercept and seize an item until it is delivered to the addressee or returned to the sender. I am told that letters containing drugs have no return address.

While an item is in the mail, the only option the police have is to work closely with 1 of the 25 inspectors at Canada Post — 25 to cover the whole country. An inspector could then find a way to inspect a parcel and retain it if illegal material is found inside. Subsequently, based on the information communicated by the inspector, the police could seize the item for further investigation and possibly to lay a charge. It is important to remember that if the illegal object — for example, a packet of fentanyl — is in a letter weighing less than 500 grams, it cannot be opened by the postal inspectors. The most they can do, if they identify such a letter, is to remove it from the course of post as non-mailable matter and call the police.

By the way, colleagues, 500 grams of fentanyl currently has a street value of $30,000.

Incidentally, in 2020, postal inspectors inspected approximately 3,287 items, with 3,067 found to contain non‑mailable matter. During that same year, as I said a few minutes ago, Canada Post handled 6.4 billion items. Of these, 384 million were parcels that could be inspected, including being opened, and 2.5 billion items were letter mail, which cannot be opened; the rest were direct marketing materials and advertising.

This context is, unfortunately, well known by criminals, including drug distributors.

In 2019, Maclean’s reported that the Canada Post system is exploited by drug traffickers in an article entitled, “For fentanyl importers, Canada Post is the shipping method of choice.” That article outlines that on the dark web, an anonymous online marketplace for illegal drugs and other contraband, Canada Post appears to be traffickers’ preferred shipping method for Canadian orders.

Mike Serr, chief of the Abbotsford Police Department and co‑chair of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police Drug Advisory Committee said in 2019:

The word is out there that you don’t use the courier service, you use Canada Post because of the limitations to law enforcement.

In the same Maclean’s report, an anonymously quoted man from London, Ontario, who had ordered fentanyl, heroin and other drugs online from the dark web said:

Some will also offer private courier services at really high prices, but almost always offer Canada Post as the base option. Sending through Canada Post can never be a 100 per cent surefire way to beat the cops, but it works 99.9999999 per cent of the time.

A Canada Post carrier told Maclean’s that the postal system moves too quickly for due diligence:

You don’t have time to be discerning as to what you’re actually delivering and handling. You’re going to throw it in there, get into your truck and get out there as fast as you possibly can.

One carrier told Maclean’s:

As an employee, you’re going, ‘Jeez, I didn’t sign up for this.’ I signed up to be a mailman, to deliver Christmas cards. Not fentanyl.

To complicate the matter further, in a recent judgment from the Supreme Court in Newfoundland and Labrador called Her Majesty the Queen v. Christopher Gorman, the judge concluded that the power of the inspector to seize a parcel was unconstitutional, being too broad. The judge granted the Attorney General of Canada one year to fix the problem, until April 12 next year. This judgment was not appealed.

My bill is an attempt to put an end to the perception that our postal service is the best way to ship illegal drugs and other illegal materials.

The Canadian postal safety act’s purpose is to assist law enforcement, Indigenous communities and rural municipalities in their efforts to intercept dangerous drugs, particularly fentanyl and other opioids, that could be delivered by the mail system, especially in remote areas.

As such, this bill will facilitate police operations and should reduce harms in Canada, assisting efforts toward this goal of Canada Post inspectors and customs officers.

Rest assured that, under this bill, any detention or search of parcels or letter-sized items in the mail would be subject to the same judicial authorization already required by law in situations for such items while outside the course of post, such as a search warrant.

The aim of this bill is not to weaken or change requirements for searches and seizures, but rather to remove an old statutory limit that prevents police from fully assisting Canada Post inspectors and customs officers in enforcing the law.

Canadians’ expectation of privacy in the mail will not be reduced by Bill S-256, although there will no longer be a legal barrier to appropriate authorization of police searches and seizures while an item is in the course of post.

This legislation will simply grant police the same powers for Canada Post mail that police currently have in relation to items shipped by private courier services such as FedEx, UPS or DHL. Incidentally, such powers already apply to Purolator, a courier company 91% owned by Canada Post.

To sum up, section 40(3) of the Canada Post Corporation Act, as drafted now, prevents law enforcement from detaining and seizing items in the course of post. For example, although police may have reasonable grounds to believe that a package of fentanyl or a prohibited weapon is being sent through the mail, the police cannot lawfully detain the item until it has been delivered to the addressee or until a postal inspector has intercepted it independently of the police investigation.

This framework places an unnecessary operational and logistical burden on the police in doing their job and bringing drug traffickers to justice, costing valuable time and resources, including for surveillance, and risking exposure of investigations and missed opportunities.

The current framework also seems to preclude the possibility that some mail should be situationally delayed to identify and remove contraband, such as if a package of fentanyl is dropped in a red postbox and the item risks becoming unidentifiable if mixed with other mail.

As the law stands now, the police cannot go to the red box where somebody has dropped 20 letters and try to seize these letters. They have to call an inspector, and if they are lucky enough and the inspector comes along with a little truck when they empty the mailbox, they can inspect the thing. With judicial authorizations they will be able to seize the letters in that mailbox before they go to the little truck, the distribution centre and sorting centres where billions of items are processed. And, of course, the letter is difficult to retrieve.

Parliament’s past actions do suggest that the ability to open letter-sized items, where authorized by law, may be important in intercepting fentanyl. In 2017, Parliament passed Bill C-37 to allow customs officers to open mail weighing less than 30 grams, due to the problem of fentanyl imports. Parliament effected this change by repealing section 99(2) of the Customs Act. At the time, it was said in reply to the Minister of Health, the Honourable Jane Philpott:

My Conservative colleagues have been pushing the government to finally acknowledge the flaws at our borders and grant officers the authority to search and seize suspicious packages weighing less than 30 grams. . . . Removing the “30 grams or less” exemption from the Customs Act is a much-needed step in combatting the opioid crisis facing our country.

Senators, why should the same not be true of Canada Post mail? The change proposed by my bill will be further progress along the lines of Bill C-37, allowing police to detain and search letter-sized items with judicial authorization where sufficient grounds are present to believe that they contain fentanyl or other contraband.

To address this enforcement loophole — I call it a loophole — in the Canada Post Corporation Act, I propose to amend section 40(3) of the statute to read:

. . . nothing in the course of post is liable to demand, seizure, detention or retention, except as subject to this Act and its regulations or an enforcement statute.

In Bill S-256, the term “enforcement statute” means any act of Parliament, any law of a province or territory, or any law of an Indigenous jurisdiction. My intent is an approach of cooperative federalism and reconciliation. Essentially, an illegal item present in the mail will no longer be a barrier to law enforcement for any jurisdiction, while still requiring the same judicial or other authorization necessary for search or seizure in other situations, such as a search warrant.

On this point, it is an important step for any federal statute and our postal system to respect Indigenous jurisdiction, including self-determination to prohibit or limit the importation of certain products into the nations’ territory, provided this is done in a lawful way. This bill aims to facilitate Indigenous and other police forces to enforce Indigenous laws as the federal government works to support Indigenous policing and self‑government. At the same time, Bill S-256 does not impose any policy on any Indigenous nation but rather upholds their jurisdiction.

I am encouraged and honoured that the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs, or AMC, has supported the goals of this legislation through a resolution adopted at their annual general assembly on October 25-27 of this year. This followed a review of a preliminary draft of the bill as part of my consultations. The AMC represents 62 First Nations across Manitoba. Their resolution reads in part:

WHEREAS, a statutory limitation currently exists whereby police are unable to search packages sent through Canada Post . . .

WHEREAS, legislation is being proposed to the Canada Post Corporation Act that would allow jurisdiction for police forces to search mail in the possession of Canada Post, if duly authorized with a search warrant, for the purpose of seizing contraband . . .

WHEREAS, opioids, firearms, illegal alcohol, and counterfeit items . . . are being sent through mail carriers and are an ongoing issue for First Nations in particularly in northern and isolated First Nations.

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the AMC Chiefs-in-Assembly calls upon the federal government to amend existing legislation or create a new law . . . . ensuring law enforcement’s ability to search and seize mail through Canada Post . . .

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that any federal legislation to prevent contraband from entering First Nations should also provide First Nations police forces with the same powers as their federal, provincial, and municipal counterparts . . . .

Thank you to Senator McCallum for her help and her leadership in this project. She facilitated the adoption of these resolutions, and I am grateful to her.

This past January, the Winnipeg Free Press reported on a death where drugs sent through the mail are believed to have been a contributing factor. This incident occurred in the Sayisi Dene First Nation, the northernmost First Nation in Manitoba. Chief Evan Yassie said in that news report, “Drugs were involved, drugs are involved, and it’s coming in steady through the mail.”

In June of 2021, the Health Canada Expert Task Force on Substance Use released its second report, regarding recommendations on the federal government’s drug policy. One recommendation reads:

Define the role of enforcement as a means to clearly support the aims of the public health framework and legal regulation by focussing on criminal organisations and the illegal toxic drug supply.

Colleagues, Bill S-256 is consistent with this recommendation, as enforcement actions against illegal drug supplies and traffickers, including organized crime groups, are complementary to harm reduction approaches on this public health matter.

In advancing the Canadian postal safety act, I’m happy to be working with Member of Parliament and prospective House of Commons sponsor Ron McKinnon, representing Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam in B.C. From Mr. MacKinnon:

The Canadian Postal Safety Act is one more important tool in the harm reduction tool kit which will help get poisonous drugs off our streets. Too many of us have lost friends or family because of the toxic drug crisis. This bill is an important move that will disrupt criminals and save lives.

Mr. McKinnon previously authored the Good Samaritan Drug Overdose Act. This was also a private member’s bill, Bill C-224, passed unanimously in 2017, to provide a legal exemption from possession charges or violations of related conditions for persons calling 911 to seek help for an overdose, as well as those at the scene. On May 4 this year, the fifth anniversary of that bill passing, Senator Gold told this chamber that the government will be pleased to work with parliamentarians on potentially expanding the Good Samaritan exemption such as to other non-violent offences.

I am also honoured to be working to close the Canada Post loophole with some members of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police’s Drug Advisory Committee. Canadian police chiefs have been pushing for the change in the Canada Post Corporation Act for years.

Bill S-256 is a response to their call. A resolution adopted in 2015, already seven years ago, calling for police authority to seize illicit drugs, weapons and counterfeit items from the mail where authorized by law. That resolution reads in part:

. . . BE IT RESOLVED that the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police requests the Government of Canada to amend the Canada Post Corporation Act to provide police, for the purpose of intercepting contraband, with the ability to obtain judicial authorization to seize, detain or retain parcels or letters while they are in the course of mail and under Canada Post’s control.

This was seven years ago. Unfortunately, so far there has been no response from the government to their call.

Chief Mike Serr, co-chair of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police Drug Advisory Committee, and to whom I referred previously, said about my bill:

The legislation responds to the CACP’s 2015 Resolution #08 which calls for police authority to seize illicit drugs, weapons, and counterfeit items from the mail, where authorized by law. The CACP Drug Advisory Committee supports legislative changes that provide tools for law enforcement to keep communities safe.

In advancing this bill, I wish to thank particularly Rachel Huntsman, who was in the gallery previously today, also from Newfoundland and Labrador, and Member of the Law Amendments Committee of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, or CACP. Her knowledge, advice and passion have been critically important to launching and shaping this bill. We have been working on this bill together for two years, along with Canada Post, the police chiefs and a lot of other people. I want to thank the Progressive Senate Group for providing research funds to finance this work.

Colleagues, the question with this bill becomes, “What are we waiting for?” I hope a Senate committee will hear from witnesses on this point and, if they reach the same conclusion as I have, that Parliament would proceed to close this loophole as soon as possible.

In conclusion, with Bill S-256, the “Canadian Postal Safety Act,” I think we are creating one more tool — an effective tool — to enforce the law and reduce the illicit distribution of fentanyl and other drugs through the mail. I hope that, as a chamber, we will make a difference and adopt this bill on second reading and send it to committee as soon as possible. Thank you, meegwetch.

Senator McPhedran: Senator Dalphond, many of the communities that you referenced are considered to be quite geographically remote. Do you see this as being a challenge in receiving the kind of judicial review in the timely manner that would be needed?

Senator Dalphond: Thank you once again for another interesting question. There are two parts to the answer. Most northern communities, when they are small, receive mail service only. No private companies deliver parcels there. The way to get to these remote areas is through the Canada Post system. It is important to say that the sole supplier of services is not subject to the control that would otherwise be available if it were not the sole supplier in these areas.

The second part of the question was about whether it will be easy to get judicial authorization or a warrant. As you may remember, we recently adopted amendments to the Criminal Code that go further than those which had previously been adopted under Bill C-75 that authorized warrants to be issued by email. Police officers can apply for a warrant by email, and would get the authorization back by email. We no longer have to send the police officer waiting in the corridor of a courthouse to get a signature. To answer your question, I think that it will be easy to get.

(On motion of Senator Martin, debate adjourned.)

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator McCallum, seconded by the Honourable Senator LaBoucane-Benson:

That the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources be authorized to examine and report on the cumulative positive and negative impacts of resource extraction and development, and their effects on environmental, economic and social considerations, when and if the committee is formed; and

That the committee submit its final report no later than December 31, 2022.

(On motion of Senator Wells, debate adjourned.)

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Verner, P.C., seconded by the Honourable Senator Miville-Dechêne:

That, in light of the reports of the Senate Ethics Officer dated March 9, 2017, and June 28, 2019, concerning the breaches by former Senator Don Meredith of the Ethics and Conflict of Interest Code for Senators as well as the statement made in the Senate on June 25, 2020, by the chair of the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration expressing regrets to the victims of Mr. Meredith’s misconduct, the Senate call upon the Prime Minister to advise Her Excellency the Governor General to take the necessary steps to revoke the honorific style and title of “Honourable” from former senator Don Meredith.

Senator McPhedran: I wonder if you could address in more detail what you would anticipate to be concerns around civil liberties and privacy protections with the proposal for opening mail at a certain measurement.

Senator Dalphond: Thank you very much, Senator McPhedran, for such an important question. As you know, I proposed that it only be done with judicial authorization: A search warrant must be issued. This is the safeguard that is available now for a search of any other distributor of items or parcels in Canada.

If you send a letter or an envelope through FedEx or another company, that could be intercepted with judicial authorization. The same would be applicable to Canada Post.

Hon. Marilou McPhedran: Senator Dalphond, would you take a question?

Senator Dalphond: Yes, please.

Hon. Pierre J. Dalphond moved second reading of Bill S-256, An Act to amend the Canada Post Corporation Act (seizure) and to make related amendments to other Acts.

He said: Honourable senators, today, I’m pleased to begin the second reading of Bill S-256, the Canadian Postal Safety Act.

My bill is rather short with only eight clauses, only one of which is of substance. The others are ancillary amendments to the first clause.

The amendment of substance proposes to amend subsection 40(3) of the Canada Post Corporation Act, which sets out the following principle, and I quote:

Despite any other Act or law, nothing in the course of post is liable to demand, seizure, detention or retention, except as subject to this Act and its regulations . . . .

This principle dates back to 1867 with the passage of the Post Office Act. At that time, it was inconceivable to interfere with the operations of the Royal Mail or to read the content of letters one was tasked with delivering. In short, the objective of this law was to protect privacy.

For quite some time, only a postal inspector could detain an item, for instance if it wasn’t sufficiently stamped for the class of mail or if it contained items that were illegal to send by post. It would be more than 100 years before any exceptions to the principle of prohibiting interference with mail items were adopted. This was done through the passage of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act in 1984, an amendment to the Customs Act in 1986 and the passage of the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act in 2000.

Under the amendment to the Customs Act, a shipment entering Canada may be subject to inspection by border services officers if they have reason to suspect that its contents are prohibited from being imported into Canada. If this is the case, the shipment, whether a package or an envelope, may be seized. However, an envelope mailed in Canada to someone who resides at a Canadian address cannot be opened by the police or even by a postal inspector. Paragraph 41(1)(c) of the Canada Post Corporation Act states the following, and I quote:

The Corporation may open any mail, other than a letter, to determine in any particular case . . .

The Letter Definition Regulations state that a letter is a mailed item that does not exceed 500 grams. However, postal inspectors may open a parcel if they believe it contains something that is prohibited under legislation that applies to the post. If it is, the item is confiscated and turned over to police.

I will conclude my introduction by saying that Canada Post handles billions of items per year. In 2020, Canada Post delivered 6.4 billion items, of which 2.5 billion were letters, 384 million were parcels and the remainder was advertising.

That is the current situation in Canada.

[English]

To summarize, nothing in the course of the post in Canada is liable to demand, seizure, detention or retention, except if a specific legal exception exists in the Canada Post Corporation Act or in one of the three laws I referenced. However, items in the mail can be inspected by a postal inspector, but if it is a letter, the inspector cannot open it to complete the inspection.

Thus, a police officer who has reasonable grounds to suspect that an item in the mail contains an illegal drug or a handgun cannot be authorized, pursuant to a warrant issued by a judge, to intercept and seize an item until it is delivered to the addressee or returned to the sender. I am told that letters containing drugs have no return address.

While an item is in the mail, the only option the police have is to work closely with 1 of the 25 inspectors at Canada Post — 25 to cover the whole country. An inspector could then find a way to inspect a parcel and retain it if illegal material is found inside. Subsequently, based on the information communicated by the inspector, the police could seize the item for further investigation and possibly to lay a charge. It is important to remember that if the illegal object — for example, a packet of fentanyl — is in a letter weighing less than 500 grams, it cannot be opened by the postal inspectors. The most they can do, if they identify such a letter, is to remove it from the course of post as non-mailable matter and call the police.

(1610)

By the way, colleagues, 500 grams of fentanyl currently has a street value of $30,000.

Incidentally, in 2020, postal inspectors inspected approximately 3,287 items, with 3,067 found to contain non‑mailable matter. During that same year, as I said a few minutes ago, Canada Post handled 6.4 billion items. Of these, 384 million were parcels that could be inspected, including being opened, and 2.5 billion items were letter mail, which cannot be opened; the rest were direct marketing materials and advertising.

This context is, unfortunately, well known by criminals, including drug distributors.

In 2019, Maclean’s reported that the Canada Post system is exploited by drug traffickers in an article entitled, “For fentanyl importers, Canada Post is the shipping method of choice.” That article outlines that on the dark web, an anonymous online marketplace for illegal drugs and other contraband, Canada Post appears to be traffickers’ preferred shipping method for Canadian orders.

Mike Serr, chief of the Abbotsford Police Department and co‑chair of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police Drug Advisory Committee said in 2019:

The word is out there that you don’t use the courier service, you use Canada Post because of the limitations to law enforcement.

In the same Maclean’s report, an anonymously quoted man from London, Ontario, who had ordered fentanyl, heroin and other drugs online from the dark web said:

Some will also offer private courier services at really high prices, but almost always offer Canada Post as the base option. Sending through Canada Post can never be a 100 per cent surefire way to beat the cops, but it works 99.9999999 per cent of the time.

A Canada Post carrier told Maclean’s that the postal system moves too quickly for due diligence:

You don’t have time to be discerning as to what you’re actually delivering and handling. You’re going to throw it in there, get into your truck and get out there as fast as you possibly can.

One carrier told Maclean’s:

As an employee, you’re going, ‘Jeez, I didn’t sign up for this.’ I signed up to be a mailman, to deliver Christmas cards. Not fentanyl.

To complicate the matter further, in a recent judgment from the Supreme Court in Newfoundland and Labrador called Her Majesty the Queen v. Christopher Gorman, the judge concluded that the power of the inspector to seize a parcel was unconstitutional, being too broad. The judge granted the Attorney General of Canada one year to fix the problem, until April 12 next year. This judgment was not appealed.

My bill is an attempt to put an end to the perception that our postal service is the best way to ship illegal drugs and other illegal materials.

The Canadian postal safety act’s purpose is to assist law enforcement, Indigenous communities and rural municipalities in their efforts to intercept dangerous drugs, particularly fentanyl and other opioids, that could be delivered by the mail system, especially in remote areas.

As such, this bill will facilitate police operations and should reduce harms in Canada, assisting efforts toward this goal of Canada Post inspectors and customs officers.

Rest assured that, under this bill, any detention or search of parcels or letter-sized items in the mail would be subject to the same judicial authorization already required by law in situations for such items while outside the course of post, such as a search warrant.

The aim of this bill is not to weaken or change requirements for searches and seizures, but rather to remove an old statutory limit that prevents police from fully assisting Canada Post inspectors and customs officers in enforcing the law.

Canadians’ expectation of privacy in the mail will not be reduced by Bill S-256, although there will no longer be a legal barrier to appropriate authorization of police searches and seizures while an item is in the course of post.

This legislation will simply grant police the same powers for Canada Post mail that police currently have in relation to items shipped by private courier services such as FedEx, UPS or DHL. Incidentally, such powers already apply to Purolator, a courier company 91% owned by Canada Post.

To sum up, section 40(3) of the Canada Post Corporation Act, as drafted now, prevents law enforcement from detaining and seizing items in the course of post. For example, although police may have reasonable grounds to believe that a package of fentanyl or a prohibited weapon is being sent through the mail, the police cannot lawfully detain the item until it has been delivered to the addressee or until a postal inspector has intercepted it independently of the police investigation.

This framework places an unnecessary operational and logistical burden on the police in doing their job and bringing drug traffickers to justice, costing valuable time and resources, including for surveillance, and risking exposure of investigations and missed opportunities.

The current framework also seems to preclude the possibility that some mail should be situationally delayed to identify and remove contraband, such as if a package of fentanyl is dropped in a red postbox and the item risks becoming unidentifiable if mixed with other mail.

As the law stands now, the police cannot go to the red box where somebody has dropped 20 letters and try to seize these letters. They have to call an inspector, and if they are lucky enough and the inspector comes along with a little truck when they empty the mailbox, they can inspect the thing. With judicial authorizations they will be able to seize the letters in that mailbox before they go to the little truck, the distribution centre and sorting centres where billions of items are processed. And, of course, the letter is difficult to retrieve.

Parliament’s past actions do suggest that the ability to open letter-sized items, where authorized by law, may be important in intercepting fentanyl. In 2017, Parliament passed Bill C-37 to allow customs officers to open mail weighing less than 30 grams, due to the problem of fentanyl imports. Parliament effected this change by repealing section 99(2) of the Customs Act. At the time, it was said in reply to the Minister of Health, the Honourable Jane Philpott:

My Conservative colleagues have been pushing the government to finally acknowledge the flaws at our borders and grant officers the authority to search and seize suspicious packages weighing less than 30 grams. . . . Removing the “30 grams or less” exemption from the Customs Act is a much-needed step in combatting the opioid crisis facing our country.

(1620)

Senators, why should the same not be true of Canada Post mail? The change proposed by my bill will be further progress along the lines of Bill C-37, allowing police to detain and search letter-sized items with judicial authorization where sufficient grounds are present to believe that they contain fentanyl or other contraband.

To address this enforcement loophole — I call it a loophole — in the Canada Post Corporation Act, I propose to amend section 40(3) of the statute to read:

. . . nothing in the course of post is liable to demand, seizure, detention or retention, except as subject to this Act and its regulations or an enforcement statute.

In Bill S-256, the term “enforcement statute” means any act of Parliament, any law of a province or territory, or any law of an Indigenous jurisdiction. My intent is an approach of cooperative federalism and reconciliation. Essentially, an illegal item present in the mail will no longer be a barrier to law enforcement for any jurisdiction, while still requiring the same judicial or other authorization necessary for search or seizure in other situations, such as a search warrant.

On this point, it is an important step for any federal statute and our postal system to respect Indigenous jurisdiction, including self-determination to prohibit or limit the importation of certain products into the nations’ territory, provided this is done in a lawful way. This bill aims to facilitate Indigenous and other police forces to enforce Indigenous laws as the federal government works to support Indigenous policing and self‑government. At the same time, Bill S-256 does not impose any policy on any Indigenous nation but rather upholds their jurisdiction.

I am encouraged and honoured that the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs, or AMC, has supported the goals of this legislation through a resolution adopted at their annual general assembly on October 25-27 of this year. This followed a review of a preliminary draft of the bill as part of my consultations. The AMC represents 62 First Nations across Manitoba. Their resolution reads in part:

WHEREAS, a statutory limitation currently exists whereby police are unable to search packages sent through Canada Post . . .

WHEREAS, legislation is being proposed to the Canada Post Corporation Act that would allow jurisdiction for police forces to search mail in the possession of Canada Post, if duly authorized with a search warrant, for the purpose of seizing contraband . . .

WHEREAS, opioids, firearms, illegal alcohol, and counterfeit items . . . are being sent through mail carriers and are an ongoing issue for First Nations in particularly in northern and isolated First Nations.

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the AMC Chiefs-in-Assembly calls upon the federal government to amend existing legislation or create a new law . . . . ensuring law enforcement’s ability to search and seize mail through Canada Post . . .

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that any federal legislation to prevent contraband from entering First Nations should also provide First Nations police forces with the same powers as their federal, provincial, and municipal counterparts . . . .

Thank you to Senator McCallum for her help and her leadership in this project. She facilitated the adoption of these resolutions, and I am grateful to her.

This past January, the Winnipeg Free Press reported on a death where drugs sent through the mail are believed to have been a contributing factor. This incident occurred in the Sayisi Dene First Nation, the northernmost First Nation in Manitoba. Chief Evan Yassie said in that news report, “Drugs were involved, drugs are involved, and it’s coming in steady through the mail.”

In June of 2021, the Health Canada Expert Task Force on Substance Use released its second report, regarding recommendations on the federal government’s drug policy. One recommendation reads:

Define the role of enforcement as a means to clearly support the aims of the public health framework and legal regulation by focussing on criminal organisations and the illegal toxic drug supply.

Colleagues, Bill S-256 is consistent with this recommendation, as enforcement actions against illegal drug supplies and traffickers, including organized crime groups, are complementary to harm reduction approaches on this public health matter.

In advancing the Canadian postal safety act, I’m happy to be working with Member of Parliament and prospective House of Commons sponsor Ron McKinnon, representing Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam in B.C. From Mr. MacKinnon:

The Canadian Postal Safety Act is one more important tool in the harm reduction tool kit which will help get poisonous drugs off our streets. Too many of us have lost friends or family because of the toxic drug crisis. This bill is an important move that will disrupt criminals and save lives.

Mr. McKinnon previously authored the Good Samaritan Drug Overdose Act. This was also a private member’s bill, Bill C-224, passed unanimously in 2017, to provide a legal exemption from possession charges or violations of related conditions for persons calling 911 to seek help for an overdose, as well as those at the scene. On May 4 this year, the fifth anniversary of that bill passing, Senator Gold told this chamber that the government will be pleased to work with parliamentarians on potentially expanding the Good Samaritan exemption such as to other non-violent offences.

I am also honoured to be working to close the Canada Post loophole with some members of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police’s Drug Advisory Committee. Canadian police chiefs have been pushing for the change in the Canada Post Corporation Act for years.

Bill S-256 is a response to their call. A resolution adopted in 2015, already seven years ago, calling for police authority to seize illicit drugs, weapons and counterfeit items from the mail where authorized by law. That resolution reads in part:

. . . BE IT RESOLVED that the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police requests the Government of Canada to amend the Canada Post Corporation Act to provide police, for the purpose of intercepting contraband, with the ability to obtain judicial authorization to seize, detain or retain parcels or letters while they are in the course of mail and under Canada Post’s control.

This was seven years ago. Unfortunately, so far there has been no response from the government to their call.

Chief Mike Serr, co-chair of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police Drug Advisory Committee, and to whom I referred previously, said about my bill:

The legislation responds to the CACP’s 2015 Resolution #08 which calls for police authority to seize illicit drugs, weapons, and counterfeit items from the mail, where authorized by law. The CACP Drug Advisory Committee supports legislative changes that provide tools for law enforcement to keep communities safe.

In advancing this bill, I wish to thank particularly Rachel Huntsman, who was in the gallery previously today, also from Newfoundland and Labrador, and Member of the Law Amendments Committee of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, or CACP. Her knowledge, advice and passion have been critically important to launching and shaping this bill. We have been working on this bill together for two years, along with Canada Post, the police chiefs and a lot of other people. I want to thank the Progressive Senate Group for providing research funds to finance this work.

(1630)

Colleagues, the question with this bill becomes, “What are we waiting for?” I hope a Senate committee will hear from witnesses on this point and, if they reach the same conclusion as I have, that Parliament would proceed to close this loophole as soon as possible.

In conclusion, with Bill S-256, the “Canadian Postal Safety Act,” I think we are creating one more tool — an effective tool — to enforce the law and reduce the illicit distribution of fentanyl and other drugs through the mail. I hope that, as a chamber, we will make a difference and adopt this bill on second reading and send it to committee as soon as possible. Thank you, meegwetch.

Some Hon. Senators: Hear, hear.

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, when shall this bill be read the second time?

(On motion of Senator Dalphond, bill placed on the Orders of the Day for second reading two days hence.)

[English]

Hon. Pierre J. Dalphond introduced Bill S-256, An Act to amend the Canada Post Corporation Act (seizure) and to make related amendments to other Acts.

(Bill read first time.)

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, when shall this bill be read the second time?

(On motion of Senator Dalphond, bill placed on the Orders of the Day for second reading two days hence.)

[English]

Hon. Pierre J. Dalphond introduced Bill S-256, An Act to amend the Canada Post Corporation Act (seizure) and to make related amendments to other Acts.

(Bill read first time.)