Hon. Karen Sorensen: Honourable senators, I’m pleased to stand today in support of Bill S-241, the Jane Goodall act.

The long-awaited legislation will ban new captivity of big cats, bears, wolves, sea lions, seals, walruses, certain monkeys and dangerous reptiles at roadside zoos. It will require permits for breeding and acquisition of species like big cats, phase out elephant captivity in Canada and provide limited legal standing for certain species. It will also require designated animal care organizations to meet stringent criteria, including the highest standards of animal care, whistleblower protection, responsible acquisition and no use of animals in circus-style shows.

This bill will not affect the operations of responsible zoos and aquariums who already abide by the highest standards of animal welfare. In fact, the Jane Goodall act has been endorsed by the Calgary Zoo, the Toronto Zoo, Winnipeg’s Assiniboine Park Zoo, the Granby Zoo in Quebec and the Montreal Biodome.

I will take this opportunity to address questions that were asked in the chamber last week about why an American organization, the Association of Zoos and Aquariums, or AZA, is held up as a standard for animal care as opposed to Canada’s Accredited Zoos and Aquariums, or CAZA. CAZA standards have been criticized for being overly broad and subjective, and they do not necessarily remove accreditations from zoos that violate these standards. AZA has higher standards, is much more stringent about enforcing penalties for non-compliance and has historically been quicker to ban inhumane practices.

For example, CAZA banned elephant rides a decade after AZA had already banned them, and only after a vicious elephant attack occurred at a CAZA-accredited zoo. CAZA standards continue to be lower for elephant care. AZA standards allow only protected contact with elephants. What that means is humans cannot be in the enclosure with the elephants, while CAZA allows that sort of contact, which can be distressing to the animal and dangerous for the handlers.

One of my honourable colleagues asked why we would essentially outsource accreditation of Canadian zoos to an American body. Other Canadian professionals, including engineers and medical practitioners, are accredited by American organizations. This is because larger organizations like AZA often have more resources to enforce regulatory standards.

For instance, AZA has access to a wider pool of animal care experts to ensure proper and unbiased inspections of zoos. And because they have more dues-paying members, AZA has the financial cushion to revoke accreditation of those zoos that don’t meet their standards.

Canada’s AZA-accredited zoos consistently meet the highest standards of animal care, and their support of this bill speaks to its importance.

Before I get to why this bill is necessary, I would like to talk a bit about my local zoo to illustrate the positive impacts of accredited Canadian zoos.

The Calgary Zoo meets the rigorous accreditation standards of the World Association of Zoos and Aquariums — WAZA — and the Association of Zoos & Aquariums — AZA. Their conservation arm, known as the Wilder Institute, has spearheaded groundbreaking animal protection and international development efforts in Canada and around the world.

In 1998, the Calgary Zoo’s Wilder Institute supported the creation of the Wechiau Community Hippo Sanctuary, dedicated to conserving Ghana’s endangered hippopotamuses. The sanctuary monitors and protects the hippo population by combining conservation and protected area management with ecotourism and economic development.

The Wilder Institute’s work in Ghana is a model for protecting the ecosystem without sacrificing jobs and the economy. In fact, the hippo sanctuary actually creates jobs and industry in the region. The sanctuary embraces responsible ecotourism with a hippo-viewing platform that allows visitors to admire the majestic creatures while making it easier for conservationists to monitor the animals.

But that’s not all. The sanctuary also features an organic shea cooperative and shea butter processing centre, which employs nearly 2,000 local women. This initiative provides employment and income for over 20% of the local population, ensuring that the communities will never have to sacrifice environmental protection in the name of commerce. By employing women, it is helping to advance gender equality in Ghana, allowing women a degree of economic and political equality that did not exist before — all while stabilizing and increasing Ghana’s hippo population.

The Calgary Zoo Wilder Institute also does good work close to home. Since 1985, the zoo’s off-site conservation breeding facility has ensured the survival of species like whooping cranes and Vancouver Island marmots. Last summer, they broke ground on a new facility in Wheatland County, Alberta, which will allow them to expand their conservation efforts with improved habitats and more space.

As an example of the work they do there, the Wilder Institute has partnered with federal and provincial governments and the Canadian Wildlife Service to protect endangered burrowing owls in the prairies. The institute collects the youngest and least likely to survive owlets and takes care of them through the fall and winter, increasing their odds of survival when they are reintroduced into the wild. They cared for 20 of these tiny owls in 2021 alone.

The zoo is also embarking on a new project to advance their Arctic conservation efforts, including a polar bear sanctuary.

This commitment to animal welfare will be familiar to anyone who has ever toured the Calgary Zoo. Visitors to the zoo will find safe and spacious enclosures that provide a suitable habitat for the animals, not to mention enrichment items that allow them to exercise their bodies and brains. They’ll meet experienced staff who understand and prioritize the needs of animals.

What you won’t find are degrading circus acts, cruel elephant rides or animal handling activities that cause undue stress to the animals. The Calgary Zoo’s own staff do not have any physical contact with the animals except when providing medical treatment.

There could not be more of a difference between accredited, responsible zoos like the Calgary Zoo and unregulated, unaccredited and irresponsible roadside zoos that this bill targets.

CTV’s “W5” recently aired a disturbing report on roadside zoos here in Ontario, exposing cruel treatment of animals, ranging from inhumane enclosures and inappropriate contact with humans, to outright physical abuse: alligators trapped in tiny pools full of feces; monkeys confined to small cages, pacing in circles and biting themselves because they have no other stimulation; tigers behind substandard fencing; an animal “trainer” bragging about abusing a defenceless lion cub.

Undercover footage from these roadside zoos has also revealed a cavalier attitude toward the safety of guests, including children. The “W5” report included footage of children sticking their fingers into cages holding sharp-toothed lemurs, and, in one case, an animal handler holding a baby — a human baby — in one arm while petting a lion with the other. This type of recklessness puts the lives of both humans and animals at risk.

In 2016, police were called after a white lion escaped from its enclosure in the Papanack Zoo. The zoo blamed “human error” for the escape. The lion was shot dead.

Due to insufficient regulation, the burden of cracking down on these irresponsible organizations often falls to local municipalities. This is why we need strong federal regulation to prevent these travesties before they occur.

Zoos, at their best, are places of wonder and education. Many conservationists and animal rights activists gained their love of animals and nature from these early experiences.

But animals are not just here for our entertainment. They are sentient beings that feel pain and, for that matter, fear, stress, happiness, affection and perhaps even love. Elephants are herd animals who crave socialization and grieve their dead. Certain apes have been observed comforting other apes in distress, and primate mothers have been observed mourning lost infants, caring for their bodies for weeks or months after death. Octopuses — whom we didn’t even believe were sentient until recently — are clever and curious creatures who have been known to solve puzzles and use tools.

When animals don’t have the space, privacy and socialization with other animals they need, they act in abnormal ways. Whales in captivity have demonstrated dangerous compulsive tendencies: chewing on the walls of their tank, vomiting up their food to play with it and injuring themselves by ramming into walls. Whales who have been trained to beach themselves as part of their act start to do this compulsively even when not performing, which causes internal organ damage and kidney failure.

Captive animals who aren’t properly cared for pose a threat to humans. An orca who performed at SeaWorld for over 20 years was responsible for the violent deaths of three people, including two trainers whom he attacked and pulled under water.

Closer to home, an aggressive elephant killed a handler at Hamilton’s African Lion Safari in 1989. Thirty years later, another elephant attack at the same zoo prompted Canada’s Accredited Zoos and Aquariums to ban elephant rides.

Many Canadians have fond memories of riding an elephant at the circus, petting a whale at MarineLand and holding snakes at a roadside zoo. But these practices were developed at a time when we knew very little about animals, when we didn’t understand that they have emotional needs and that they can become dangerous to themselves and others when those needs aren’t met.

But we now know more about animals, and it would be irresponsible to disregard decades of research and observation, not to mention basic principles of dignity and decency, for the sake of our amusement.

I urge my colleagues in the Senate to support this bill.

Senator Plett: Well, I’ll get half of my question in.

Again, you want to do something with a bill here where it is grandfathered so much — the elephants that we have now under human care, and the zoos are calling it “under human care,” not captivity. The fact of the matter is that Parc Omega and Parc Safari have much larger facilities than Calgary, Toronto or Assiniboine Park — and I’ve been at all of them. So those animals aren’t in little cages —

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): Would the senator take a question?

Senator Plett: Senator Sorensen, I do not think there is a person in this chamber who is opposed to closing roadside zoos, so why do we always add something that isn’t subject to debate? This is a debate about accredited zoos and what this bill will do to accredited zoos. Now, you were quite disparaging about CAZA when CAZA, in fact, is a Canadian organization.

Senator Sorensen, we are told it is urgent to pass Bill S-241, but on the day that it passes into law not a single roadside zoo will be closed because of it. Every animal currently in a roadside zoo is grandfathered in and will be left to die in those conditions. It does nothing. I wonder why we are not creating a bill that deals with the situations we have.

CAZA is an accreditation organization, as is AZA. I will get to a question here and give you a chance to answer what I have already asked. Senator Sorensen, the issue that I raised with Senator Dean last week is that Bill S-241 turns over the accreditation of Canadian zoos to an American organization. There is currently a bill before the U.S. House of Representatives called the SWIMS Act. You know what question I’m going to ask. That bill will prohibit the breeding, importation and exportation of orcas, beluga whales, false killer whales and pilot whales for the purposes of public display in the U.S.

That is very similar to rules that Canadian zoos, under CAZA, are already required to abide by. AZA is opposing this bill, yet you want them here accrediting our zoos.

And WAZA, the World Association of Zoos and Aquariums, by the way, is not an accreditation organization. CAZA is, as is AZA.

So why do we want to get somebody in here to do the accreditation when they oppose the very things that we or Senator Klyne is trying to do with this bill that they are opposing south of the border?

Senator Sorensen: Thank you for your question, senator.

Regarding AZA, in my mind, the Association of Zoos and Aquariums is simply a superior accreditation body with higher standards for animal welfare. That is why I support that accreditation.

I had to research the SWIMS Act, but I did research it. I understand that the SWIMS Act is an outright ban on importing, exporting, transporting and breeding certain cetaceans for public display. You’re right that it’s probably a stronger bill.

AZA is opposing using that because they believe it is possible for zoos to humanely house some cetaceans under certain conditions.

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.

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.

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

She said: Honourable senators, I rise to speak to the eighth report of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs.

Bill S-210 would require organizations to use age-verification methods before making sexually explicit material available online for commercial purposes. It would also allow the Governor-in-Council to make regulations prescribing the types of age-verification methods that these organizations would be required to use.

As chair, I’m required to explain any amendments that were made to the bill.

One amendment was added to the bill during clause-by-clause consideration. This amendment was added to address privacy concerns relating to users providing their personal information for age verification before accessing certain online content, as would be required under this bill. Specifically, the amendment requires the Governor-in-Council, when making regulations, to consider whether the prescribed age-verification methods are reliable; protect user privacy and personal information; collect personal information only for age‑verification purposes; destroy that personal information once age has been verified; and, five, follow best practices for age verification and privacy protection. This amendment reflects concerns about the need for privacy protections that were voiced by witnesses during the committee’s study. Thank you, senators.

(On motion of Senator Martin, debate adjourned.)

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Pate, seconded by the Honourable Senator Dean, for the second reading of Bill S-233, An Act to develop a national framework for a guaranteed livable basic income.

(On motion of Senator Martin, 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).

The Hon. the Acting Speaker: Are you asking for five more minutes?

The Hon. the Acting Speaker: More than.

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.

Hon. Peter Harder (The Hon. the Acting Speaker): Senator Plett, you have 35 seconds.