THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Wednesday, September 25, 2024
The Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs met with videoconference this day at 4:17 p.m. [ET] to study Bill S-256, An Act to amend the Canada Post Corporation Act (seizure) and to make related amendments to other Acts.
Senator Brent Cotter (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Good afternoon, honourable senators. I call to order this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. My name is Brent Cotter, and I am a senator from Saskatchewan and chair of the committee. I will now invite my colleagues to introduce themselves, beginning with the deputy chair.
Senator Batters: Denise Batters, Saskatchewan.
Last week, when we had our introductions, I said that maybe it would lead to good things for the Roughriders, and it did, so maybe it will this week too.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: Claude Carignan from Quebec.
Senator Audette: Michèle Audette from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Prosper: Paul Prosper, Nova Scotia, Mi’kma’ki territory.
Senator Simons: Paula Simons, Alberta, Treaty 6 territory.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: Éric Forest from Quebec, Gulf senatorial division. Hello.
Senator Clement: Bernadette Clement from Ontario.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you, colleagues. We are meeting to begin study of Bill S-256, An Act to amend the Canada Post Corporation Act (seizure) and to make related amendments to other Acts.
The sponsor of the bill is the Honourable Senator Pierre Dalphond, and we are pleased to have Senator Dalphond with us today as a witness. Many of us are keen to have an opportunity to cross-examine Senator Dalphond and Rachel Huntsman, Legal Counsel. I will begin by thanking you both for coming, and we will invite opening remarks before we move to questions.
[Translation]
The Honourable Pierre J. Dalphond, sponsor of the bill: Thank you all for allowing me to present Bill S-256, which would amend the Canada Post Corporation Act to facilitate the interception of fentanyl and other illegal substances delivered by Canada Post.
The idea comes from an article published in Maclean’s on March 7, 2019, entitled “For fentanyl importers, Canada Post is the shipping method of choice”. The article stated that people could buy illegal drugs on the dark web and easily have it delivered by Canada Post.
The Canada Post Corporation Act provides as follows: “… nothing in the course of post is liable to demand, seizure, detention or retention” unless authorized by legislation. This applies to all letters and packages sent via Canada Post.
[English]
Exceptions to authorize seizure of a piece of mail were added with the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act in 1984, a change to the Customs Act in 1986 and the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act in 2000. But these provisions apply only in special circumstances.
I also discovered that the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, or CACP — Ms. Huntsman will be able to speak about that more — has been recommending an amendment since 2015 to provide police with the ability to obtain judicial authorization to seize parcels or letters while they are in the course of mail.
In 2017, Parliament again amended the Customs Act to remove a restriction on customs officers opening mail weighing less than 30 grams, due to the problem of fentanyl imports in Canada by mail.
For the distribution of fentanyl by mail in Canada, no legislative amendment was proposed. Thus, the police cannot obtain a judicial warrant to seize mailed items, even if the police have reasonable grounds to suspect that they contain a dangerous drug such as fentanyl.
After learning these facts, I concluded that the Senate should initiate amendments. Later, I retained the services of Rachel Huntsman, a lawyer and former member of the Law Amendments Committee of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, or CACP, to assist in research and drafting the bill, which was tabled in November 2022.
It is almost two years later, so I am happy that we are progressing, even if it is at a slow pace.
I also visited the Canada Post sorting centre in Montreal that processes all mail going from Ottawa to the Atlantic provinces and met with Canada Post representatives, employees and inspectors.
Speaking of inspectors, many of you will remember that in June 2023, this committee dealt with an amendment to the Canada Post Corporation Act contained in the omnibus portion of Bill C-47, which authorizes them to “. . . open any mail, other than a letter, if it has reasonable grounds to suspect that . . .” it continues, “. . . the mail is non-mailable matter.”
This means that an envelope mailed in Canada cannot be opened and subsequently remitted to the police.
Since the Letter Definition Regulations state that a letter is a mailed item that does not exceed 500 grams, it means that an amount of fentanyl having a street value of $30,000 can be mailed with less chance of interception than the situation internationally, due to barriers to inspectors, or compared to private couriers, due to barriers to police.
Thus, there are two problems in the Canada Post Corporation Act. First, police with a warrant cannot detain and search items in the post unlike items shipped by private courier due to section 40(3) of the Canada Post Corporation Act. Second, under section 41(1), a Canada Post inspector who has reasonable grounds to suspect that a letter contains fentanyl cannot open the letter, unlike Canada Border Services agents.
My bill suggests that we take action to fix the first problem, but I am open to an amendment that would address the second. Indeed, our fourteenth report last June regarding Bill C-47 recommended urgently addressing these issues.
Finally, you should know that Canada Post is often the sole delivery service in remote communities.
I am grateful for the support of the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs, representing all 63 First Nations in Manitoba, who supported the bill. I will take this opportunity to offer my condolences on the tragic passing of Grand Chief Cathy Merrick earlier this month.
I am also grateful for the support of the Mushkegowuk Council, representing eight First Nations in northern Ontario, and of the Nunavik Police Service in northern Quebec. They all support the bill.
I hope that this bill will bring more cooperation among Indigenous nations in remote regions, Canada Post inspectors and the police to help protect communities from contraband coming through the post. This should include the enforcement of federal, provincial and Indigenous laws.
With Bill S-256, we can help save lives and protect communities in Canada, including in remote regions. This change should not have taken 10 years, but it is never too late to do the right thing.
Thank you. Meegwetch.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Dalphond. Ms. Huntsman, please.
Rachel Huntsman, Legal Counsel, as an individual: I am pleased to be here today to speak to Bill C-256, the Canadian postal safety act, which proposes to amend section 40 of the Canada Post Corporation Act. This amendment will allow law enforcement to seize contraband and dangerous goods from the mail under a judicially obtained search warrant.
During an investigation, the police can apply to a judge for a search warrant to seize items that are prohibited under the law. The law protects an individual’s expectation of privacy by requiring the police to prove to a judge that there are reasonable grounds to believe that a crime has been committed and that an item to be seized is related to a criminal offence.
While the police can obtain a search warrant to search mail and packages sent through Purolator, FedEx and UPS, section 40 of the Canada Post Corporation Act prohibits the police from seizing an item of mail while it is in the course of Canada Post, meaning from the time it is dropped off, for instance, at a Shoppers Drug Mart mail outlet, to the time it is delivered to the addressee.
It’s no secret that organized crime is using Canada Post to traffic in illegal goods, and this has been widely reported by the media.
As referenced by my friend Senator Dalphond, there was an article recently published in Maclean’s magazine entitled, “For fentanyl importers, Canada Post is the shipping method of choice,” which remarked that, thanks to an antiquated law, fentanyl is entering and being distributed across Canada through the postal system and the police are powerless to stop it.
Canada Post is also aware of this fact.
On November 15, 2021, Canada Post’s senior postal officer, in charge of security and investigative services, testified that organized crime is using Canada Post to distribute illicit drugs through the postal system.
It’s time to amend section 40 of the Canada Post Corporation Act. It is an antiquated law which was first enacted in The Post Office Act, 1867, for the purpose of preventing the civil forfeiture of goods in the mail. No one could have foreseen that today it is being exploited by organized crime to traffic contraband through the mail.
Put quite simply, section 40 of the Canada Post Corporation Act puts a stranglehold on the police’s ability to conduct investigations under the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, or CDSA. It is a barrier to public safety.
Although the initial driving force behind the tabling of this bill was our knowledge that opioids are being sent through the mail with impunity, I later learned that our Northern communities are having to cope with the consequences of illegal shipments of alcohol also being transported through Canada Post.
To better understand the scope of this problem, I reached out to several police services, one being Nunavik Police Service.
Nunavik has 14 communities, 12 of which have municipal bylaws that restrict the purchase of alcohol to certain set amounts. Even though these bylaws exist, huge quantities of alcohol are being shipped from Montreal into Nunavik through Canada Post, in plain view of the police and in direct contravention of their bylaws.
The contraband alcohol is then flown on smaller planes to the outlying dry communities, which have their own airstrips.
Although Nunavik police know that shipments of vodka are entering Nunavik’s 14 communities, the Canada Post Corporation Act prohibits them from seizing the alcohol while it is under the control of Canada Post. The alcohol cannot be lawfully seized by Nunavik Police until the person receiving the shipment leaves the post office.
The police don’t know when the packages will be picked up, and they obviously don’t have the resources to set up surveillance at all the local community stores where the postal outlets are located.
There is, sadly, a direct correlation between the shipments of alcohol coming into Nunavik and incidents of violent crime, suicide, domestic abuse and child neglect. Nunavik Police Service Chief Jean-Pierre Larose, who was not able to appear before this committee, unfortunately, told me about one SAQ in Dorval where there are large displays of Smirnoff vodka right at the entrance. Chief Larose said, “You don’t see that anywhere else. Everyone knows this alcohol goes to Nunavik.”
The illegal goods that Canada Post are literally transporting to Nunavik include alcohol, cocaine and crack cocaine. I’ve been told that similar issues are facing other Northern communities. Canada Post does employ postal inspectors, but they do not possess the powers of police officers and their duties are quite widely defined, including investigating theft of mail, break and enters at post offices, internal theft and inspection of mail for non-mailable matter. The definition of “non-mailable matter” is far-reaching and includes packages that emit odours, live animals being sent through the mail and items not properly addressed.
In 2022, there were approximately 25 inspectors tasked with overseeing the security of the entire postal system. In 2020, of the 384 million parcels that were sent through the mail, 3,000 parcels were actually searched by Canada Post inspectors. That is a search percentage of 0.0008%, so you can see why Canada Post is the postal service of choice for drug traffickers and organized crime.
In closing, it’s time to align the Canada Post Corporation Act with other federal and provincial legislation by amending section 40 of the act, which will permit police to remove illegal and dangerous goods from the mail before they reach our communities.
Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Huntsman. We’ll now turn to questions from senators, beginning with the critic of the bill.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: Thank you, Senator Dalphond, for presenting this bill. I think there is a flaw in the system, obviously, and it is being used by organized crime for trafficking.
I have a question that we discussed privately and that I referred to in my speech: Why not simply remove the prohibition? In any case, there are charters now, so there are protections against searches and unreasonable searches. Why not simply remove the prohibition against detention and seizure?
Senator Dalphond: Thank you for your question, Senator Carignan. You are suggesting a more radical solution than I am. I am more conservative than you in that regard. What I tried to do here is make amendments — because we wanted to retain the clause — but with exceptions. The act does provide exceptions.
You are suggesting that we do away with the idea that letters — not packages, just letters — are private and protected. That is another option. That is not what we have chosen to do because we remembered the two times that the Customs Act and the Money Laundering Act were amended. Those specific acts created exceptions. We retained that and created another exception, but perhaps there are simpler solutions than saying the approach was good in 1867 or last century, because of the Royal Mail. Mail was delivered by horse and the contents were confidential. The world is quite different now and we are not even sure that email is confidential. I am not opposed to that.
Senator Carignan: I have already looked into this and the only exception to mail delivered by horse was letters between friends for a person at war. That was the only exception to the postal monopoly. That shows how archaic or anachronistic these aspects are. Perhaps it would be preferable to correct them completely rather than taking a piecemeal approach.
Senator Dalphond: I really wish people from Canada Post were participating in our work. They could enlighten us on those matters. They refused to participate, but will apparently be sending us a written brief. I hope we get it soon.
[English]
Senator Prosper: Thank you for your testimony and for bringing this issue before us.
My question relates to an item within the bill — clause 2. It gets into the definition of an enforcement statute — “an Act of Parliament,” then “the law of a province . . .”
Then it gets into:
a law or by-law made by a council, government or other entity that is authorized to act on behalf of an Indigenous group . . .
Today, First Nations communities have bylaws, but the major issue is enforcing those bylaws. They’re there, but their enforcement is lacking.
So how do you envision enforcement to take place with respect to that? Would it be through the RCMP? What mechanisms will ensure that? If a First Nation makes a law, how will that be enforced?
Senator Dalphond: Thank you very much for the question. It’s an important one.
When we drafted it, we thought we should include not only federal and provincial laws but also bylaws by the communities. We were mindful of the fact that — and Senator McCallum had a motion or bill — the RCMP doesn’t seem to be enforcing what we’ll call Indigenous bylaws. They seem to consider them as having a different status. We didn’t want to do that; we wanted to send the message that there are provincial, federal and these laws.
Will an amendment to the Canada Post Act change the behaviour of the police or RCMP in some areas? I’m not so sure, but the main issue — the main driver — of this bill is the fentanyl, and the police want to prevent its distribution to the communities. They will seize it as much as they can in Montreal or wherever it is. I was told a story where they know they cannot search somebody who is trafficking. He goes to the mailbox at the corner of the street and drops in 20 letters every day. But the police can’t take it, because once it’s in the box, it’s in the mail. They cannot seize it; they have to wait until it’s delivered. It makes no sense. They don’t know where it will be delivered, so it would be much easier if they could seize it there.
There are also bylaws made by councils that say, for example, alcohol cannot be delivered in their community. I think in Nunavik, there was an experiment for a month where Canada Post was working closely with the local police. I think it was a tremendous success; they drastically reduced the quantity of alcohol that was brought into the communities.
So I hope this bill will also send a signal to take these bylaws seriously and that the inspectors, if they get some information and can see what is going in the parcels — not the envelopes, but they can inspect parcels — and Canada Post has all the information about the shipper and recipient, I think that can be done before it leaves the shipping bay. So I hope it’s going to be done with —
Senator Prosper: You mentioned some of the perspectives from, I believe, some First Nations and the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs. Can you maybe give a quick overview of some of their main concerns? Is it largely fentanyl and drug related, or are there other issues that are unique to those communities?
Senator Dalphond: Their support came after they heard about our bill because so many people are dying of fentanyl. They realized that we have to remove the source, and they saw it as a way to do that because in many remote communities, the only delivery system is Canada Post.
Even if you use FedEx, apparently it ends up with Canada Post at the end for the delivery, so they expect that could be a way to prevent drugs from coming into the community. I’m mindful of the fact that if there’s money to be made, there will be ways to get around that, but it should not be Crown corporations that prevent the police from interfering with the delivery network.
The Chair: Thank you both.
Senator Batters: Thank you for being here. I also want to remind everyone the context that we heard when this committee studied Bill C-47, the government’s Budget Implementation Act, which had a provision in it which in some ways was similar. However, this bill deals with it with much more specificity, and I’d like to remind everyone that 30 grams of fentanyl, which could fit in a letter-sized envelope, could contribute to as many as 15,000 potentially fatal overdoses. That context is really important so we realize what we’re dealing with here.
Senator Dalphond, when I first saw that Ms. Huntsman was going to be here, she was described as legal counsel. Is it correct that you have retained her to help you with this? She normally works for the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, or maybe acts for them.
Senator Dalphond: I will be brief. We met first when she came first with the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police to testify before this committee, and then — I don’t want to disclose too much — she retired from the police force, the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, and we kept in touch because we were working with her on other bills, so we reached out to her and she said, “I’m a retiree, but if you want, I could work with you.” I said, “Would you mind having a service contract with us? We’re going to hire you to assist us on that.” She said yes, and we’ve been very happy since.
Senator Batters: Out of the Senate budget, you have retained Ms. Huntsman. Is that correct?
Senator Dalphond: It’s slightly different. The leader of the Progressive Senate Group, or PSG, has a research fund. Parts of the budget for the group are allocated for specific research projects, so I applied to finance a research project on this, and it was approved. I was not the leader, so it was not me who decided that, and with that money, I hired Ms. Huntsman.
Senator Batters: I appreciate that.
As I mentioned, there was a previous portion of that government bill, the Budget Implementation Act, and your bill was introduced several months before that. November 2022 is when it was first introduced, so from the time your bill was introduced to the first reading of Bill C-47, that Budget Implementation Act of 2023, did you have any contact, Senator Dalphond, with government officials to discuss the possibility of including measures you were bringing from Bill S-256 to that budget implementation legislation, particularly under that section? And if you did have those discussions, then why did they indicate that they weren’t including your provisions, even though both aim to amend the Canada Post Corporation Act?
Senator Dalphond: Thank you very much for the questions. The only thing I can say is that I’m disappointed I was never contacted to say that we should include that. When Minister Gudie, I think is her name, from Newfoundland and Labrador, the Minister of Rural Economic Development —
Senator Batters: Gudie Hutchings. Is that right? Yes. Minister Gudie Hutchings.
Senator Dalphond: Yes. From Newfoundland and Labrador.
When she appeared during Question Period in the chamber of the Senate, I asked her if she was aware of the bill, and she said yes. I said, “Are you supportive of that?” and she said, “We are closely following what you are doing.”
I understood that to mean, “Go on, young man, and we’ll see.” I’m no longer a young man, and two years later, my bill is finally making it to the committee because I understand there were many bills before the committee and we had government bills that took precedence, but I do feel some disappointment, yes.
I thought that at least the government could have picked it up and put it in the Budget Implementation Act. The Budget Implementation Act was, as you know, was amended to deal only with the inspectors because they had seized parcels, but a judge ruled in Newfoundland and Labrador — and you referred to the testimony of a witness before the court — and concluded that the seizure was illegal. It was in breach of the law because there was no requirement. So they amended the bill to say that the inspector must have reasonable grounds to suspect, so they have the minimum threshold which is necessary to do the constitutional test, which is section 8 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The government was given a year to fix the problem, so they put it in the omnibus bill as they do when short of time, but when somebody from Justice Canada appeared before us, I asked, “Why aren’t you going further?” There was for response, so I think we are on the dark side where the Senate has to push because Canada Post is not pushing for it, obviously, and maybe the minister responsible for Canada Post is also not pushing for it.
Senator Batters: I was just looking back at the questions I was asking at that previous Senate Legal Committee meeting, and I was actually saying that you had a private member’s bill, and it can take quite some time to have a senator’s private member’s bill dealt with as compared to government bills, but the government didn’t take me up on that.
I’m wondering if you’ve had any discussions since that budget implementation bill was put forward and passed. Have you had any discussions with government officials, the Minister of Justice or his office since that time about your bill to try to get them to include those types of measures from your bill in a government bill — either a budget implementation bill or another government bill — to have that take place? If you did, please tell us about that.
Senator Dalphond: The answer is very short. Your call was not responded to, so nobody reached out to me to speak about it. There were no discussions whatsoever.
Senator Batters: So they didn’t reach out to you, but did you reach out to them to suggest they take it up, or no?
Senator Dalphond: Maybe I should have, but I did not.
Senator Batters: You’ve previously noted, Senator Dalphond, that there are only 25 Canada Post inspectors to cover the whole country. In your view, is that number sufficient to support the effective enforcement of the law, especially if the seizure of letters is authorized? It seems like that will not be under your bill, but do you believe it will be necessary to then have some increased resources to ensure the effectiveness of the new measures in your bill?
Senator Dalphond: Thank you for the question. I think I said in my speech it was 25 in 2020, but I don’t know about now. Maybe in 2024, there are 27 or maybe 30. Maybe Ms. Huntsman could complete my answer.
The basis of the system, to rely on the inspectors, would be ineffective because they’re not involving the police in investigations. They don’t follow trails. They monitor whether duties have been paid, if there are enough stamps or if there is meat in the box. They have many things to do. However, the machines are quite sophisticated. I visited the centre in Montreal.
The envelopes that ship drugs through letters, they don’t have an address from the sender. There’s only the address of the recipient. There’s no address if it is not claimed to send it back to, so the machine sees that. So they can program the machines to take these letters out of the line. It’s incredible; they process millions of items. They are big machines at the sorting place, like at an Amazon warehouse. It’s huge.
However, they are not equipped to go further. Some witnesses will appear before the committee who have developed technology that is very sophisticated. These letters could be scanned out from the line. They could be sent to a machine that can go through the letters without reading what is written; the machine is not able to read, but it can tell you if there are drugs in the envelope. The machine is so sophisticated that if you write a letter with ink that contains the drug — that’s the way they bring it into some U.S. jails — the machine can see that the chemical components of the ink are not normal, so the letter would be taken out of the line.
There are ways with technology, but that will require investment from Canada Post, as well as more inspectors. Obviously, if you take them out of the line, that’s easy. The rest is labour intensive.
Senator Batters: Thank you.
Senator Simons: Thank you very much, Senator Dalphond.
Maybe it’s illogical, but I find myself very torn. I don’t have any personal objection to seizing boxes of vodka, but there’s something about tampering with personal letters. Letters have always been sacrosanct, and maybe it’s because I grew up in a family where both my parents had relatives in the Soviet Union behind the Iron Curtain, and the idea that the Russian authorities were reading the mail sort of haunted us.
I want to understand what the tests are for when police can open mail. The court in Newfoundland and Labrador ruled, in fact, that the status quo was unconstitutional; it violated privacy rights and the rights to an unreasonable search and seizure.
So walk me through — because this is day one — how this would work. A letter goes in the mail. Would there have to be the machine sensing the presence of drugs? Would dogs have to sense the presence of drugs? What is the test after which somebody could open a letter, and what are the steps they have to go through in order to do that?
Senator Dalphond: There are two things regarding what you said. The bill, as drafted, addresses only one thing: the inability of the police force, even if they get a judicial authorization to search an envelope or parcel, to execute it, because Canada Post is a no-person’s land. If it’s Purolator, FedEx or others, they could, but they don’t do letters.
When it comes to fentanyl, as Senator Batters mentioned, you can have in the letter $30,000 worth of substance, which represents 12,000 doses. It’s incredible.
If we follow the bill, the police will apply to a judge to get judicial authorization to seize the letter. Judicial authorization or a warrant — they are the same. They will then go to Canada Post and try to enforce it, and the law will say, “No, you cannot. We’re untouchable.” With the amendment, they will have to comply with it. They will have to say yes.
They are scared. If police come with a search warrant and want to check the line, are they going to stop the line and have millions of items stuck there that won’t be delivered overnight? They’re all coming from Montreal. A letter that you send to Moncton from Halifax is sent to Montreal and then sent to Moncton. It’s all done within 24 hours, and it is a lot of things. So it moves fast. Fine.
That’s the extreme example of a judge authorizing a lot of things without being conscious of what the consequences would be. But if we want to seize the mailbox at the corner, at the counter at the drug store or the little truck that just picked up the box and brings it to another sorting place before it’s sent to the main sorting centre, there are many places you can interfere and stop. Then, you will have to identify the letters that are authorized. Those would be taken out of the mail, and they would be authorized to be opened.
So the inspectors would not be entitled to open it. It would be seized and the police would be authorized pursuant to a warrant to search it.
Senator Simons: Only if there had been a warrant.
Senator Dalphond: Correct.
Ms. Huntsman: To add to that, when the police apply for a warrant, which we sometimes call a judicial authorization, the threshold is reasonable grounds to believe that a criminal offence has occurred and that there is evidence within this package or letter that would support their belief. Yet, under the Canada Post Corporation Act, the inspectors’ grounds are actually reasonable grounds to suspect, which is a lower threshold. So when the police go to obtain a search warrant, they have a higher threshold to prove in order to get that judicial authorization.
Senator Simons: That raises an interesting question, because your remarks have all been focused around drugs. However, what you’re saying is that, in fact, the police could get a warrant to open anybody’s mail, if they believe you’re engaging in terrorism, ecoterrorism or some other thing that draws you to the attention of the authorities. So could this be used to intercept —
Senator Dalphond: If the letter is coming from the U.S., for example, the customs officer has the authority if he has reasonable grounds. I don’t know what they would do with the suggested changes — they have not been enforced — but they have the right to seize it and open it when it comes to Canada. But it’s the police, not the customs officer.
Senator Simons: But within Canada, if I write a letter to Senator Prosper in which we plot the overthrow of democracy — not that I would do that, and not that he would open it, but if police believed or chose to believe that what I was writing was politically dangerous, under this legislation, would they be empowered to read my mail — not merely to look for contraband but to read letters that Canadians send to one another, letters that they believe to be more private than emails?
Senator Dalphond: They would have to suspect there’s a breach of an enforcement statute as defined in section 2. So it has to be an act of Parliament, a law of a province or a bylaw made by a council that creates an offence. As you said, there are reasons to suspect or believe, which is a higher threshold. The police officer will have to have reasons to believe that a breach of a specific provision of specific legislation has been committed. The judge doesn’t give an open authorization; it has to be specific to the enforcement of that type of offence.
Senator Simons: But to be clear, this isn’t just about contraband, drugs or alcohol; this could be about political speech or a murder investigation where you’re looking, for example, to see if there are love letters sent between the suspect and his mistress. It could open up all those possibilities, could it not?
Senator Dalphond: Those kinds of love letters are most likely not in the mail anymore. They could be received and read by the recipient, so they can be found in their desk, office, wardrobe — wherever they put these letters. I’m not so sure that would be a problem for the mail system. Letters are in transit for a few hours or days, but that’s all.
Senator Simons: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Clement: To begin, I want to thank Senator Dalphond for his long-standing work on an issue that needs to change.
[English]
My questions are connected more with the presentation made by Rachel Huntsman. You referenced the private sector and how private sector delivery corporations have a whole different thing. Could you speak a little bit further about that and why Canada Post is the way it is and why the private sector isn’t? That’s first.
You also referenced the definition of “non-mailable matter,” which I’ve just looked at; it’s quite wild. I don’t know if that has any intersection with this bill, whether there is any concern or whether the bill needs to deal with that definition.
Third, I’m hearing that this is a useful bill in terms of dealing with some significant issues. Is there any opposition to it from a privacy or civil liberties perspective, going to some of the points raised by Senator Simons? I’m always concerned about systemic racism and making any changes that will somehow impact certain groups more than others. Those are my issues.
Ms. Huntsman: If I could respond to your third point first, as that’s an interesting point: Obviously, we’re all concerned about privacy, and that’s one of the reasons why police can’t just go willy-nilly into people’s homes and seize evidence or computers or open parcels. They need a search warrant.
Interestingly enough, there is a lawyer from Halifax, of the law firm McInnes Cooper — his name is David Fraser — and he is usually the first one out the gate whenever there are issues of police powers being discussed. He is usually very much against increasing police powers.
I am lucky to have an article with me from CBC News, and he was contacted on this very issue. If I could refer to the article, it states:
David Fraser, a leading privacy lawyer in Halifax, said he generally opposes the expansion of police powers.
Not this time.
“The Canada Post Act that says that the mail is sacred and it can’t be detained, which is quaint,” said Fraser, a partner with McInnes Cooper.
“But I think in the circumstances when you’re dealing with very dangerous items that are going through the mail, it does make sense to intercept them at that point before they represent a risk to the public.”
Here you have one of the leading privacy lawyers in the country supporting this amendment. That’s what I would say to that.
You did raise some other matters and talked about the private sector. I’ve been practising criminal law my entire life. I was a Crown prosecutor for 20 years, and then I went over to the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary and I was their legal counsel. I gave advice all the time on matters of search and seizure. It is a complex area of the law. Generally speaking, in order to seize evidence, police, unless there are extreme emergency circumstances at play, must get search warrants to seize items. If an item, package or letter is being sent through a private company such as Purolator or UPS, there are no restrictions in place. The police will get a search warrant to search that item. They should be able to do that with the same parcel if it’s being sent through Canada Post. Funnily enough, Purolator is owned by Canada Post, so police can get a search warrant to search Purolator.
I cannot explain it except to say it is an antiquated law that has been on the books since 1867 and never come off. It was almost cut and pasted from The Post Office Act and then put into the Canada Post Corporation Act. I don’t think that anyone thought it would be used as it is. I hope that answers that question.
Then you asked me about non-mailable matter. Obviously, strange things get sent through the mail. You have packages that are leaking, that could damage postal equipment, that aren’t properly delivered or that are opening. And as you said, the definition of “non-mailable matter” is very broad. Postal inspectors have the power to take that out of the system, and so they should. They’re given that power under the Canada Post Corporation Act.
But that’s very different from criminals posting a firearm or putting criminal matter in the mail. That’s not non-mailable matter; that’s something quite different. That’s why the police should be given the power to remove that item from the mail before it reaches the addressee.
Tomorrow you will hear from a police inspector with the Vancouver police who is very experienced, who I hope will speak to that. I’m not a police officer. I have never done police investigations, but I think he can properly explain better than I the problems they face, unfortunately, and how the Canada Post Corporation Act hinders investigation and creates a public safety issue too.
Senator Clement: Thank you very much. I would like the article you referenced about Mr. Fraser.
The Chair: Could you share that, Ms. Huntsman?
Ms. Huntsman: I will.
[Translation]
Senator Audette: Maybe I am from another planet, but we live on the same shared land. Kawawachikamach is south of Chief Larose’s territory, and he is someone I admire a lot. He has worked with the Inuit for several years, in Shefferville, where I used to live, and in Maliotenam. Drugs enter those communities too easily.
If this bill is passed and letters can be seized because there are reasonable grounds to think…. If I have been subject to abuse or intimidation by the police, there are certainly independent government organizations in civil society through which I can file a complaint if I feel my rights or privacy have been infringed upon. Yes or no?
Ms. Huntsman: Yes.
Senator Audette: So that is possible.
How can we reassure my colleagues that there are bodies or organizations and that I can lodge a complaint with if I feel my rights or privacy have been infringed upon? We need to act. There are 11-year-olds dying in communities because they took bad drugs that were delivered by mail. Sometimes it is just a little drop on a piece of paper.
Have you met with the First Nations Chiefs of Police Association? Maybe they have their hands tied as the Maliotenam chief of police does because there are legal loopholes that allow organized crime to reach our communities and harm us?
How can we reassure them that I have rights if I have experienced abuse, but if I do nothing, I am tacitly furthering community problems that lead to suicide and overdose deaths?
Senator Dalphond: We must not fool ourselves. If this bill is passed, it will disrupt one delivery method, but it will not put an end to all deliveries.
I think it is very important to stop a delivery method that is so inexpensive and easy that the people involved in distributing fentanyl and other illegal substances use it because it is so great for them that the police can’t even intercept items before delivery. So they do their transactions and are paid on the dark web and it works.
A Crown corporation is supporting those organizations. I have met with people from Canada Post and they do not agree. They are not voluntarily contributing to that. They do not have their eyes closed; they know what is happening.
The inspectors do what they can to detect suspicious packages, but there are just 25 of them for the whole of Canada and there is a lot of volume to handle in one day. They look after on-site security and if there is an incident at a post office, they are the ones who investigate. They have a massive job to do with just a handful of people.
I am more reassured that we have given the police the power to conduct investigations, identify people and track the network. They can take action, break up the network and seize items.
If we pass this bill, we will be sending the message that they can seize letters. The system is evolving. We will end up with something different.
That will send a positive message. Will it solve all the problems? I am sure it will not.
Senator Audette: Did she meet with the First Nations chiefs of police?
[English]
Ms. Huntsman: No, I have not. My role in this was quite limited. As I pointed out, first of all, our interest in this was driven by our knowledge of the fentanyl issue. It was only when I reached out to various police agencies — and I was lucky enough to reach out to the Nunavik Police Service — that I become aware of the alcohol issue. I had no idea; it was a real shock to me, because we don’t generally think of alcohol as being an illegal substance. I don’t have that experience.
It was just very eye-opening for me to hear from Chief Larose.
Senator Audette: Thank you.
Senator Denise Batters (Deputy Chair) in the chair.
The Deputy Chair: Senator Cotter had to leave, so I am acting as chair for the remainder of the meeting today. We will have a brief second round. I had put my name down to ask one question, so I will do that.
Senator Dalphond, in your opening remarks today, you mentioned your willingness to accept a certain amendment. I might have missed what you were indicating that amendment would potentially be. Could you tell us more about that? You might have described it, but I think I missed it.
Senator Dalphond: Thank you for the question. It was rather Senator Carignan who suggested an amendment that would be to get rid of these provisions instead of making exceptions to the provisions.
However, I am also sensitive to the issues that were raised about privacy. I am an old-fashioned man, so I still send letters and write personal notes. I know it is out of fashion because it takes too much time. The fact is that the mail comes with a certain expectation of privacy, although I’m not so sure that’s always the case. In downtown Montreal, when I send a letter to another law firm, it is not via the mail. A delivery system comes, picks it up and delivers it within two hours to the other place. We don’t use the postal system.
That being said, maybe instead of getting rid of the provision that says, “When it is in the mail, you should not intercept it,” it should be kept but with exceptions, and the exceptions are under judicial authorization, which are the ultimate safeguards against abuses. They might be mistakes, but that will offer some protections. To remove the whole provision might lead to — at least, we will have less value for that aspect of communication, which is the letters.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you. We will have a brief second round now.
Senator Simons: I understand that you’ve consulted with a number of Indigenous leaders in communities.
Senator Dalphond: In fact, they came to us after they heard we were working on this.
Senator Simons: I’m trying to understand. We obviously have the power, if we deem it so, to rewrite federal law, but is there any danger that this would undermine the autonomy and integrity of Indigenous bylaws if we are telling them, “Okay, your bylaws are now rewritten”? It’s fine if this nation or that chief agrees, but what if a chief or nation does not?
I want to understand the relationship between this legislation and bylaws that an independent nation has created for itself.
Senator Dalphond: I forget the name of the bill, but there is a law that says councils can make bylaws. What we are doing here is just recognizing that. We are not creating a new law. We are not telling them what they should be. We are just saying that an enforcement statute, which means a statute that the police can enforce, is either an act of Parliament — most likely in my mind, it is the Criminal Code or the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act — or the law of the province, which might be about alcohol or guns or many other things that are going through parcels, though maybe not in an envelope. We said we should treat the laws and regulations made by councils in the same way.
Senator Simons: That leads me to a few branching questions. One is this: Would that potentially give police authority to do something that a chief in council might not have intended? Do you know what I mean? If an outside police force can use a band bylaw which was not written with that intent, does that trespass at all upon the autonomy of a First Nation’s bylaw?
Second, if you’ve —
The Deputy Chair: You might not have time for the second question. You have 30 seconds more for an answer.
Senator Dalphond: Maybe Rachel can answer that because she has more experience in seeking authorization —
Ms. Huntsman: I will try to answer your question.
The way I see it is that by amending the Canada Post Corporation Act, we are actually providing certain Indigenous communities that have bylaws the authority to enforce their own bylaws. So if there is a bylaw that limits the amount of alcohol that can go into a community, you have to be able to enforce it, but the Canada Post Corporation Act prohibits that. So this amendment will actually empower Indigenous communities to enforce their own bylaws.
That’s my understanding of the terrible situation they find themselves in. This federal law puts a stranglehold on them to prevent them from enforcing their bylaws.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: The legal aspects are not my area of expertise. You said before that the technology does exist to detect illegal substances inside envelopes. There is not enough of it, but the technology does exist. Why is Canada Post reluctant to use it?
Senator Dalphond: I said a number of things earlier and do not want the people from Canada Post to misunderstand them.
I met with them and I know they are doing their best to manage a situation that is at times difficult, while also serving Canadians well. They always go where no one else goes. I have a lot of respect for the work they do. I do not want to be misunderstood.
We will be hearing from other witnesses who will explain, for example, that all the mail that arrives on Parliament Hill has to be scanned and examined somewhere before it is delivered to your office. If there is powder, the envelope is not delivered to your office.
How many letters do they receive daily? I don’t remember, but it is a fraction of the millions of pieces of mail that arrive in Saint-Laurent in Montreal.
The system is designed to move quickly and process an incredible volume. I think the witnesses who will be appearing will provide some information.
I also met with the manufacturers. Certain things have to be done, but is it up to Canada Post to do them or is it up to the recipient? We have not got into the management of the mail as such. We said we would give the police the power to intervene, and when the police go to Canada Post, the inspectors will cooperate and say, “Yes, we will help you because you have the legal authority and the law requires us to help you.”
Senator Forest: If the bill is passed, the amendment will not get through as easily as a letter sent by mail through Canada Post?
Senator Dalphond: I hope they will receive it like another letter in the mail.
Senator Forest: Thank you.
[English]
Senator Prosper: Within the bill, there are a couple of provisions with respect to liability associated with seizure and limited liability in that regard. Can you get into some of the potential liability issues that we are looking at here?
Senator Dalphond: There is a kind of summary; we are just adding the words here and there. However, the law already provides a limitation of liability for Canada Post.
Right now, you work on the assumption that when you put something in the mailbox, it will end up at the place you want it to be delivered to and that it will not be interfered with. Then, if the bill is adopted, the police will be able to interfere with it. They can say to Canada Post that they have a warrant, want help finding parcels or letters and want them remitted or transmitted to them.
We provided that to say that, if it happens, you can’t sue Canada Post, saying, “You did not deliver as I was expecting,” or for interruption of delivery. That is the sole purpose.
The Deputy Chair: I would like to thank the witnesses for being with us today to answer our questions. We will now welcome our next panel.
We are pleased to welcome, from RaySecur, Pascale Gagnon, Sales Executive; and the Honourable David Pratt, Principal, David Pratt & Associates, previously from the other place.
Welcome. Thank you for joining us today. We will start with opening comments from Ms. Gagnon before we move to senators. The floor is yours for five minutes each.
Pascale Gagnon, Sales Executive, RaySecur: Hello. Thank you to the chair, Senator Dalphond and members of the committee for inviting me to speak to you today.
Let me begin by offering my congratulations and thanks to Senator Dalphond for presenting, through his bill, a very practical solution to the problem of mail security. As someone who has been working in this field for eight years, I believe the senator’s legislation is long overdue to help address a societal problem that regrettably has not received as much attention as it deserves.
I would like to begin by telling you a bit about the Canadian origins of RaySecur and to give you a sense of the unique capabilities of its MailSecur technology with millimetre waves. RaySecur is now a global company, but it has origins in Quebec. It was the result of a request from the Government of Canada to deal with increasing mail threats and the gap that X-rays can’t cover. RaySecur, through years of innovation, has developed the MailSecur device, which is the only technology in the world able to detect all nine threats identified by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security without compromising the integrity of the mail. The device detects powders, liquids, toxins, drug-treated papers and other contraband and dangerous substances inside sealed envelopes and packages without opening the parcel or envelope.
MailSecur combines multiple technologies to detect these threats. Drug-treated papers, powders and liquids are the most common twenty-first century mail-borne threats. No other technology detects the small amounts of them that MailSecur does. MailSecur displays a dynamic 3-D video of mail contents in real time and is completely safe for the operator to use. I can describe the mechanism to you, but I would also urge you to request a demonstration of the device, which we can do in an office, here in the committee chamber or even virtually. Such an opportunity to see the device in action will give you a clearer idea of how simple, effective and non-invasive the millimetre wave technology is.
The MailSecur device is already in use here in Canada. It is also in use all over the United States. Four of the five most valuable companies in the U.S. use the MailSecur device. Leading companies in finance, tech, pharma, manufacturing and many other industries trust MailSecur to detect the new threats of today. Election offices, state and federal elected officials, health care delivery institutions and educational institutions have all chosen to use a low-cost, fully secure way of screening their mail for contraband and other threats.
RaySecur is supplying correctional institutions all over the United States with the MailSecur device to protect both the prison staff and inmates. Just a few weeks ago, a prison guard died in California from opening an envelope containing weaponized fentanyl. He only touched the envelope with his fingers. It was a treated paper, and he died on the way to the hospital. Our device, quite simply, would have detected the substance inside the unopened envelope and prevented the death.
Similarly, under the ambitions of Senator Dalphond’s bill, the MailSecur device would allow non-invasive, fully legally compliant screening of mail items to detect and prevent the distribution in the mail of potentially lethal fentanyl. As Senator Dalphond has noted in his press release, Maclean’s reported in 2019 that for fentanyl traffickers, Canada Post is the shipping method of choice. Since 2016, 47,000 apparent opioid-related deaths have occurred in Canada, with deaths increasing by 91% during the pandemic and remaining at a similar level since. Overdoses are the leading cause of unnatural death in British Columbia, with over six lives lost every day to illicit drugs. Just 30 grams of fentanyl — an amount that can fit in a letter-sized item — can cause 15,000 potentially fatal overdoses.
Senator Dalphond has told me that when 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 entire country. An inspector could then find a way to inspect a parcel and retain it if illegal material is detected 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 substance — 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.
The MailSecur device, as demonstrated in correctional institutions and public offices across the United States, allows any and all mail to be screened without compromising the integrity of the mail or conflicting with the Canada Post Corporation Act. Because the seal is not broken, the contents — if they are not soaked with contraband or containing powder or other material that is illegal — are not seen or revealed to the operator.
I say “soaked” because the device can detect paper soaked or sprayed with drugs. It does not confuse perfume-scented paper with fentanyl-soaked paper. Everyone asks that question.
The Deputy Chair: Excuse me, Ms. Gagnon, could you please wrap up in 10 seconds or so? Then we will ask questions.
Ms. Gagnon: Yes. When we consider populations that are vulnerable, one such population is remote Indigenous reserves, many of which are struggling with opioids and drugs being sent through the mail. It is perhaps a separate conversation, but RaySecur has the solution to prevent this from happening.
Thank you so much for your time.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you very much. I appreciate that.
The Honourable David Pratt, P.C., Principal, David Pratt & Associates, RaySecur: I’m here to support Ms. Gagnon. I’ve been working with RaySecur for a number of years. I’m a consultant helping RaySecur deal with the federal government on various issues.
I wanted to mention — and I think Senator Dalphond made reference to this — that the mail that comes into the Parliamentary Precinct, the Senate and the House of Commons, is screened by RaySecur. There’s a separate company that is involved in that screening called SCI, and they produce regular reports on how many threats they’ve detected over the course of a month or year. Some of the other departments that are protected in downtown Ottawa include Global Affairs, and they actually use some of RaySecur’s devices in some of the foreign missions we have.
Other departments, such as the Prime Minister’s Office, the Privy Council Office, Public Safety, Finance, Transport, Environment and the Department of National Defence, or DND — I can’t forget DND — would all be protected by the RaySecur product. However, outside of Ottawa, no such protection exists. You may be aware that going back a year ago, May 2023, there was an incident at the Canada Revenue Agency office in Sudbury where a few employees had their hands burned from substances that were in the mail. A lot of these security incidents are not reported, so we don’t really have a grasp of how many issues are out there.
My experience with RaySecur has certainly been that they have a fabulous technology, an innovative Canadian technology developed here in Canada, and they’re doing wonderful business in the United States right now in terms of the number of institutions and private companies that are protected. However, it has been a difficult road in Canada to obtain widespread acceptance of the device. I’m hoping that on the basis of Ms. Gagnon’s testimony, you might ask for a demonstration of the device, because it really does protect the integrity of the mail in terms of privacy. You cannot see any of the printed words on any of the material that is in the mail. However, it does, as Ms. Gagnon mentioned, reveal substances, chemical-soaked papers and drug-soaked papers. It really is quite an amazing technology that could solve some of the problems that we’re having here in Canada.
In reference to the Indigenous reserves, I think there’s an opportunity there for Indigenous bands to come to grips with some of the problems that they’re facing on reserves, where mail is coming in with drugs. This would give them the opportunity to address the problem.
I’ll leave my comments at that, and hopefully there will be a lot of questions from committee members. Thank you.
The Deputy Chair: Excellent. Thank you very much. Thank you both for your remarks. I’ll now turn it over to questions from senators. We’ll start with the sponsor of the bill, Senator Dalphond.
Senator Dalphond: Thank you for being here. I’ve met with you before, of course. I also saw the demonstration of the performance of the machine.
Maybe you could describe it for my colleagues, because what you’re proposing, in a sense, is that the recipients of the letters be equipped with a screening device.
Ms. Gagnon: Yes, it could be the recipient, with the inspectors at the final destination where they dispatch where the mail goes to. It can be in certain areas where there are more problems with drugs or contraband, potentially. So, yes, that would be exactly where we would put that.
Mr. Pratt: There are probably logistical issues related to the amount of mail coming in and that can be screened by the MailSecur device. Those issues must be sorted out, but certainly, it does provide a level of protection that would be required to prevent threats from reaching their destination through the mail.
Senator Dalphond: In terms of cost, what are we talking about? You say Parliament is screening all the mail that is coming here — I suppose there’s less mail now than there used to be, but there is still a certain amount of letters we get at the office. So is it something that is an affordable option for a remote community, for example?
Ms. Gagnon: It is certainly affordable. We do offer the device, and for the service, we have 24-7 support. It’s a dedicated law enforcement or EOD expert who will be available remotely to help the screeners if they see something suspicious. They can build the standard operating procedures, or SOPs.
Mr. Pratt: It’s worth reminding committee members that under the Treasury Board regulations, there’s a duty of care that must be exercised by the government in terms of protecting employees, so that’s another consideration that should be taken into account. And the cost of injury can be very significant in terms of lost days or, potentially, fatalities.
Senator Prosper: I have two questions. I’ll start with you, Ms. Gagnon.
You mentioned, I think, nine threats that your technology was able to deal with. What are those threats?
In addition to that, could you share any insights about the level of technology that exists with Canada Post now? Is it outdated, or do they have a similar process to RaySecur’s or anything of that nature?
Ms. Gagnon: I cannot speak for Canada Post.
I have a background working for a big company. They don’t necessarily screen mail, or they will use an X‑ray, but the X-rays — when we were talking about detecting nine threats, we were designated under the Safety Act by the Department of Homeland Security in the United States because we can detect all nine CBRNE, which includes explosive, nuclear, liquids, biological, chemical, et cetera. I can send you more details about all nine threats. A regular X-ray can detect three out of nine.
That is why this technology was first born in Canada. When the Government of Canada legalized cannabis, it received a lot of mail threats, and the X-rays were not able to catch all of those kinds of threats. So our national lab out of Quebec found a solution using millimetre waves technology, and we built a scanner that is portable, non-ionizing and very small.
Senator Prosper: My next question is for you, Mr. Pratt.
You mentioned that this technology doesn’t really exist outside Ottawa, or something to that effect.
Mr. Pratt: Ms. Gagnon would be better equipped to address that in terms of the RaySecur devices, but my understanding is that from a Government of Canada standpoint, the device is not in use by departments outside Ottawa.
Senator Prosper: Okay.
There was another point you made that I was curious about. I think you said it was difficult to get widespread recognition of this technology; it’s been a difficult road. Can you elaborate on that? What are some of the challenges you see with respect to this kind of technology? Is it competitors or something else?
Mr. Pratt: I think Ms. Gagnon could probably address some of that as well, but from my experience in the defence and security industry — and maybe you have heard this story before — it is often the case that Canadian companies will develop a new technology and have more success overseas, selling in the United States and Europe, than they will selling in Canada. If you hear from the people at the Canadian Association of Defence and Security Industries, or CADSI, they will tell you that in spades — that getting acceptance of new technologies has been a real problem.
From my own experience, there’s risk aversion within the Government of Canada in terms of trying devices, technology, et cetera, that are new. In support of Canadian companies that have new technology — and in many cases they develop this technology with government funding — it would be useful for the government to take advantage, at least in a sort of buy-and-try program, to see whether the technology developed really suits their needs.
Senator Prosper: Thank you.
The Deputy Chair: I have a few questions.
First of all, RaySecur specializes in detecting threats in mail and parcels — and perhaps other things, but those are the ones you’ve discussed. In your opinion, what are the main challenges that law enforcement faces in detecting small quantities of illegal substances like fentanyl in postal shipments?
Ms. Gagnon: Currently, if they’re using X-rays, the X-rays are too powerful, so that technology will not be able to catch small amounts of powders or drug-treated paper. That is why RaySecur was born, and that is what we’re able to detect. These are the new threats that are out there.
The Deputy Chair: Yes, that was helpful information you gave us before, about how X-rays detect only three out of the nine threats and your technology detects all nine. That would be helpful if you could provide our committee with more information about those different threats, as you indicated.
My second question is this: How could technologies like the one you’ve developed via RaySecur be integrated into the framework of the new measures proposed by Bill S-256 to enhance the detection of drugs or other illegal substances in postal shipments?
Ms. Gagnon: I can go into the details. I have some of the documentation about the nine CBRNE: We can detect chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, and explosive dangerous items, contraband, suspicious powder and threatening content. A regular X-ray can detect explosives, dangerous items and some contraband as well in different amounts. That is with respect to the first question.
The Deputy Chair: And how could those technologies you have be integrated and used to enhance detection under a bill like Bill S-256?
Ms. Gagnon: This would cover the gap where there is no screening at all or where the X-ray screening is lacking. We would be able to catch all kinds of contraband coming through the mail. It could be Suboxone strips, drug-soaked paper, fentanyl — you would be impressed, because it sometimes picks up kids’ drawings that are impregnated with drugs that can get into the mail. We can do that without compromising the integrity of the mail, so everything will remain sealed and unopened.
Senator Patterson: I defer to Ms. Gagnon on this, but it might be possible to equip the postal inspectors with a RaySecur device, so that if they have a suspicious parcel they want to examine and ensure is safe and doesn’t contain any toxic or illicit materials, they can determine that with a device set up at a Canada Post facility.
I should mention there is a significant amount of information available on the RaySecur website, www.raysecur.com. There, you can see a visual demonstration of how the product works. It’s really quite instructive.
Also, if the committee is interested in seeing the device up close to see how it operates, I’m sure RaySecur would be more than happy to provide a device for that purpose.
The Deputy Chair: Are these devices portable? Would this be the kind of thing that with the 25 inspectors who exist across the country, they could each have one? Is that how it would work?
Ms. Gagnon: That is how it will work. We’re doing a lot of executive protection, or protecting a lot of ministers everywhere around the world. It’s easy to have a device in an office. It’s 31 by 31 by 19 inches, 80 pounds and non-ionizing. You don’t need any certification; you don’t need to be an expert to manipulate it. We have some people who can put one in the trunk of a Suburban, because you only need a regular 110 or 120 volts, and it would be able to work.
Mr. Pratt: It’s about the size of a tabletop printer.
Senator Simons: Thank you to our witnesses. I admire your entrepreneurial zeal in coming to give us a sales pitch for your product. It’s not exactly what we were talking about tonight. Since you are here in support of this bill, are you suggesting that all Canada Post mail-sorting facilities ought to have such a device? It’s one thing to have one in prison, where people have given up their civil liberties because they have been convicted of crimes. It’s another thing to have it in a minister’s office that has received threats and has opted for it. I would suggest it’s quite a different thing entirely to subject the mail of ordinary Canadian citizens to this kind of fishing trip.
Mr. Pratt: First, in reference to ministers’ offices, for instance, the mail for ministers’ offices is already screened through the MailSecur device, as mentioned earlier.
Senator Simons: But that is because of specific threats.
Mr. Pratt: Yes, absolutely. I don’t think there’s a suggestion that every mail facility in Canada should have a MailSecur device. Logistically, that would be untenable.
What is important, though, is that when postal inspectors are looking at something particular, and they see, perhaps, with the help of intelligence agencies, mail that has maybe come from a particular location to another particular location that may be suspicious, they are able, without opening the mail, to determine whether there’s anything illicit, toxic or dangerous in that parcel.
Now, that, from my perspective, at least — and I’m very sensitive to issues of human rights and protection of privacy — does not constitute an invasion of privacy, where you have a package that could be dangerous to mail handlers, the person that receives it or a person with a warrant who opens it. This is not a question of a sales pitch but of public safety, generally.
Senator Simons: You mentioned, Mr. Pratt, deaths — plural. Well, after Ms. Gagnon’s presentation, I looked up the story from the United States. As near as I can tell from looking at the stories from this August, there was no evidence that the man who died had died of a fentanyl overdose. I want us to be careful here in our understanding. If the purpose of this exercise in this legislation is to look for contraband, drugs and alcohol specifically targeted at Northern and Indigenous communities, I don’t want us to run away with a concern that people are dying left, right and centre because of fentanyl-laced letters.
Ms. Gagnon: If I may answer the question, the reason why I have this information is that we were called to go to this facility two weeks ago, and this is what we were told by the people there who knew.
Senator Simons: From what I can read in the news, the letter was laced with fentanyl and he did die after opening it. But sometimes, cause and effect is a little more difficult to demonstrate.
Mr. Pratt: It’s important to keep in mind, as was mentioned by Ms. Gagnon, the shipper of choice for illicit drugs like fentanyl and dangerous substances like — you name the substance — ricin, carfentanil. There’s a whole list.
Senator Simons: Remember anthrax?
Mr. Pratt: Absolutely. In the case of overdoses, a lot of those overdoses are a result of fentanyl coming through the mail. It’s not a question of touching it. It’s a question of ingesting a certain amount and causing an overdose, and the numbers speak for themselves. They’re horrendous numbers, from 2016 to March of this year.
Senator Simons: Nobody, believe me, is minimizing the severity of the opioid crisis. I just don’t know what percentage of people dying of fentanyl overdoses on the streets of my city are getting it through the mail.
Mr. Pratt: I think it’s important to keep in mind as well that, just as Senator Dalphond said his legislation is not necessarily a silver bullet, this technology is not necessarily a silver bullet either. It’s not going to eradicate the problem of fentanyl being shipped in the mail, but it is a prudent measure to be taken to reduce injury and death in the public.
Senator Simons: Thank you very much.
The Deputy Chair: I would note that when we studied this earlier as part of the Budget Implementation Act, we were looking at it as the government trying, somewhat, to close a loophole that existed because private courier companies carrying that type of parcel could be searched and seized, but Canada Post could not. This was viewed at that time, and I think it continues, that Canada Post was an absolute loophole for drug dealers to use. We had previous evidence, and maybe we’ll have more as we continue this study, about the significant threat that it did actually pose.
Mr. Pratt: I want to add one thing in answer to the question that the senator asked. This particular technology is not specifically targeted at Indigenous communities. It’s intended as a public safety device that could assist a wide range of affected communities, whether it’s a prison population, Indigenous community or halfway house. There are a lot of populations that could benefit from the use of this device.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you; I appreciate that.
[Translation]
Senator Audette: I have been a senator for three years. Ethics have been part of my life before I was appointed and during my time here. I might have sensed that was a sales argument. I will try to forget that and look only at your expertise. That means we have a responsibility to bring in other similar expertise or to stop with you. We have that responsibility as well.
This is not to promote your business, but there have been random stops and screening at the airport since September 11. It is a federal organization. Sometimes they even open our suitcases in front of everyone. People see our personal things. That culture already exists. Is your technology newer than what is used at airports?
Secondly, I understand that this is a problem not just for First Nations, but for all communities. Drugs are a scourge. In your data, have you seen any success stories where communities have been able to use your technology to stop or intercept drug dealers or drug trafficking?
Ms. Gagnon: It is not a question of replacing existing technologies; far from that.
We were not trying to make a sales pitch. We are concerned with the drug problems in Indigenous communities, the resulting deaths, the families affected and everything happening around us. They resonate with us as they would in any other community.
Essentially, it is a machine that identifies drugs. It has limits, as any other machine does. It is not necessarily the same thing.
Yes, though, millimetre wave technology is the same technology that is used in the big body scanners at airports. We use another technology to process mail, one that now addresses the new threats.
Could you repeat your second question?
Senator Audette: Have Indigenous communities used that technology and been able to stop or intercept…?
Ms. Gagnon: Great question. It is a fairly new technology. We have not yet had the chance to work with Indigenous communities. We have however worked with a number of correctional facilities in the United States where we have seen a big change: Trafficking was stopped in three weeks. People will of course find other ways to get drugs in. So it might be effective for one aspect, as Senator Dalphond said, but we can’t eliminate everything.
Senator Audette: Thank you.
[English]
Senator Clement: Thank you for your testimony. I’m having several reactions as I’m hearing you. I am quite supportive of the bill; I have said that already. Also, I was not sufficiently aware of my mail as a parliamentarian being screened, so I found that interesting. I have a parallel life as a person who represents injured workers, so protecting workers is important to me. I know the people who bring my mail by name as well, and the thought of them being at risk — I didn’t realize that, so it is interesting.
However, I think my role here is to push back a little.
Does your company talk about its failures and what those might be, and what the complaints might have been about your technology? You say you are in U.S. prisons. This is very tricky, so could you speak transparently about some of the complaints or weaknesses? Further, does your company have ethics policies around storage of data and the proper use of emerging technologies, if you know what I mean?
Ms. Gagnon: These are very good questions as well. I am not the expert. I have colleagues who are in corrections institutions or in other places, like psychiatric hospitals, pretty much day and night.
Yes, our technology has limitations. One is that it can’t see through metal because it uses radio waves, but we use that to our advantage because any metal is shown as a dark, dense item, and you are not supposed to see those in mail either.
Most of our customers are really happy with it, but it will take more time to screen the mail. That’s one other thing. It will probably take eight seconds per piece of mail to make sure there is nothing dangerous inside the envelopes.
That was the first question.
Senator Clement: I am concerned about the flip side. Are there complaints about this technology or how it’s being used? Do you have an ethics policy as a corporation around the use of technology?
Because technology is dazzling to us, and we appreciate a lot of it, but there is always a flip side. There is always someone who will be potentially affected or over-policed. Do you see what I’m getting at?
Ms. Gagnon: Yes. Honestly, we could have one of my colleagues who are always in the field give an answer about what they see there. I know it is very good overall, but I’m sure there are some things.
Regarding the integrity, it is air-gapped from any network. We don’t use any AI. Everything is stored locally on the device, so we don’t have access to anything. It is all the customer’s or the government’s data. It is not going to us.
Mr. Pratt: Senator, I’m sure that Ms. Gagnon could take your question as notice to provide information on the ethics policy of the company —
Senator Clement: Sure.
Mr. Pratt: — because virtually every company that I deal with has an ethics policy of some sort.
Senator Clement: It would be interesting to have that because we are dealing with sensitive things. I appreciate that. Thank you.
Mr. Pratt: Again, in terms of some of the issues surrounding mail — I’m thinking principally of prisons here — there have been instances where legal mail is typically privileged. Any mail coming into a correctional institution to a prisoner from a lawyer is privileged, but in the past, there have been instances where these letters have been soaked in substances, drugs, and that’s one place where the MailSecur device would be very useful.
Senator Clement: And you said it does not detect the printed word.
Mr. Pratt: It does not, no. The other thing about the MailSecur device is that it’s not a silver bullet in terms of correctional institutions. Inmates find ingenious ways of getting drugs or weapons into prisons. You have probably heard of the use of drones to bring in drugs and potentially weapons as well. There are a lot of issues out there, and this device does not resolve all of those issues but does help in specific circumstances.
Senator Clement: Thank you.
The Deputy Chair: One of the things I wanted to clarify is that one of the issues you mentioned before is that your technology has the ability to leave the parcels or mail unopened and yet still do this detection. Is that right?
Ms. Gagnon: Right.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: I imagine it can detect things without opening letters, which is the first principle of privacy.
Is your technology being used? You said it is being used in prisons in the U.S. Is it being used by companies such as Purolator or other types of companies that deliver packages or mail?
Ms. Gagnon: It is being used; by SCI, which is part of Canada Post, and by Purolator, I believe.
It is also being used by big companies and hospitals. We also work with Moderna, to be specific, with sports teams, just about anywhere that mail is received. It is like insurance for those who are at greater risk, of course. We are even in schools and some universities, both in Canada and the United States; we are all over.
Senator Forest: Essentially, your technology is a tool, not an end in itself. If the bill is passed, it will be one of the technologies available, and I imagine there will be a call for tenders with specifications, for instance, as prescribed for public service procurement.
You said the substances that can be detected are drugs and explosives. What range of substances exactly can be detected with your technology?
Ms. Gagnon: Just about anything. Anything from Spice/K2 to Raid — sometimes that is put on paper. It could be fentanyl, anthrax or ricin. It could also be firearms, 3D weapons. It could also be liquid chemicals; that could be anything, including bodily fluids. We see and detect all kinds of things. With the technology, we can also use spyware to see through packages.
Senator Forest: I don’t understand the reluctance to use to your technology or some other one. An organization such as Canada Post could use this kind of technology, whether from your company or another company, to safeguard the workers who handle hundreds of thousands of letters and packages. To my mind, that would be more reassuring than troubling.
From your meetings with Canada Post, have you been able to understand the reason for their reluctance?
Ms. Gagnon: Not necessarily with Canada Post itself because I have not had that conversation with them. It is a question of time and volume.
Those companies often receive a high volume of packages and letters, so adding another screening step when they are pressed for time…. Greater attention will be paid if there are suspicious items for specific individuals or specific communities.
It is all done manually because the object underneath can be manipulated. It takes a bit more time, but an employee who is experienced in screening can process 300 to 400 items per hour.
[English]
The Deputy Chair: Thank you to our witnesses. We invited you and appreciate you taking time out of your busy schedules to be here today. As you heard, we have had some government agencies who are not accepting our invitations. It is helpful for us to get practical information on this. Thank you for your participation and presence today.
Thank you also to my colleagues.
Before we adjourn, I remind everyone that our committee now meets on Thursdays, with 11:30 a.m. as its start time. Thank you, senators.
(The committee adjourned.)