---

THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS

EVIDENCE

---

OTTAWA, Thursday, September 26, 2024

The Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs met with videoconference this day at 11:30 a.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: Welcome to this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs.

My name is Brent Cotter. I’m a senator from Saskatchewan, and I am the chair of this committee. I’m going to invite my colleagues to introduce themselves, beginning on my left with our deputy chair.

Senator Batters: Denise Batters, senator from Saskatchewan.

Senator Dalphond: Senator Pierre Dalphond from Quebec.

Senator McCallum: Mary Jane McCallum, Manitoba.

Senator Prosper: Paul Prosper, Nova Scotia, Mi’kma’ki territory.

Senator Simons: Paula Simons, Alberta, Treaty 6 territory.

[Translation]

Senator Clement: Bernadette Clement, from Ontario.

Senator Oudar: Manuelle Oudar, from Quebec.

[English]

The Chair: Before we begin, I would like to bring to your attention the cards in front of you with respect to the guidelines to prevent audio feedback incidents. Please try to keep your earpiece away from all microphones at all times. When you’re not using the earpiece, there is a little spot on your table some distance from the microphone on which you can place the earpiece. Thank you for your consideration in this.

Honourable senators, we are meeting to continue our study of Bill S-256, An Act to amend the Canada Post Corporation Act (seizure) and to make related amendments to other Acts.

Today, for our first panel, we’re pleased to welcome, from the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, Rachel Huggins and Michael Rowe; and from Mushkegowuk Council, Kate Siemiatycki. Welcome and thank you for joining us.

We’re going to begin with opening remarks from each of you. We’ll start with Ms. Huggins, followed by Ms. Siemiatycki. The floor is yours for approximately five minutes each, which will be followed by questions from senators.

Rachel Huggins, Deputy Director and Co-chair of the Drug Advisory Committee, Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police: Good morning and thank you for the opportunity to address this committee.

In May 2023, we appeared before you as part of your review of Bill C-47. The focus at that time was specifically on section 41(1) of the Canada Post Corporation Act related to the inspection of mail. The enactment of this provision in June 2023 successfully restored the power of postal inspectors to open any mail, other than a letter, if they have reasonable grounds to do so.

While the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, or CACP, applauded this important step forward, we recognized that it did not address the fact that the police remain unable to lawfully obtain a judicial authorization to search and seize items that are in the course of post.

Bill S-256 addresses this gap by proposing changes that would remove the barriers that obstruct police officers from investigating offences involving the mail.

The amendments to section 40(3) and section 41(1) of the Canada Post Corporation Act would close the loopholes that too many criminals have been exploiting to commit criminal acts that result in large profits for organized crime groups and significant risks to the health and safety of Canadians.

Canada’s antiquated legislation impedes potential cooperation between police officers and postal inspectors who are responsible for identifying non-mailable matter, but who are obligated to work independently of police criminal investigations.

Non-mailable matter often consists of illegal substances like fentanyl or the chemicals that make methamphetamine, prohibited weapons or counterfeit products. These postal items represent the crucial evidence that the police are seeking to support criminal investigations.

Bill S-256 would allow the police to conduct judicially authorized searches and seizures of contraband contained in parcels and letters before the postal items enter the hands of people who introduce them into communities.

The CACP believes that Canadian laws must be modernized so that they include the necessary judicial oversight to protect privacy and safeguard citizens from harmful material being trafficked through the postal system.

I now invite my colleague Inspector Michael Rowe to address the committee.

Michael Rowe, Inspector, Law Amendments Committee, Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police: Thank you, Ms. Huggins.

Sections 40(3) and 41(1) of the Canada Post Corporation Act create a significant barrier to police investigations. Simply put, because of how this act is written, meaningful charges against people trafficking in dangerous or controlled goods are being stayed or thrown out by the courts.

This act allows dangerous contraband to be delivered to an addressee by Canada Post in circumstances where police have reasonable grounds to obtain a warrant to examine, seize or further investigate the delivery of the package or letter.

Letter mail weighing 500 grams or less is completely off limits to be inspected or seized by anyone, even with a warrant. However, the same letter mail sent by private courier services can be searched and seized — with the proper legal authorizations — in transit.

Letter mail can easily conceal unadulterated fentanyl, which could potentially contribute to tens of thousands of fatal overdoses and profits of as much as $30,000 for organized crime groups.

These profits are not being reinvested in a legitimate or constructive way into our communities’ economic or social growth; these profits are often used to fund violence in our cities.

Currently, there are no investigative techniques or strategies that allow the police to seize or examine packages or letters in the course of post. These limitations are known by criminal groups who are specifically exploiting Canada Post to deliver controlled substances and contraband to urban, rural, remote and Indigenous communities across the country.

Bill S-256 is an opportunity for the government to mitigate the investigative risks associated with the current process of outsourcing package examinations to postal inspectors. It would prevent their involvement in investigative processes which are outside of their professional responsibilities, and it would protect them from threats to their safety from the criminal element.

This bill would also enhance privacy protections for Canadians by ensuring that an objective standard justifying a search is applied, thereby introducing judicial oversight into a process which currently relies on warrantless searches under the Canada Post Corporation Act.

Finally, Bill S-256 would disrupt the flow of dangerous goods being mailed across Canada by allowing the police to apply for warrants to inspect and seize materials before they make their way to their intended destination and to hold those people exploiting our national postal service to account for their actions.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Rowe. Ms. Siemiatycki, the floor is yours.

Kate Siemiatycki, Counsel, Mushkegowuk Council: Good morning, honourable committee members and fellow guests. I am here today on behalf of Mushkegowuk Council. I would like to thank the committee for its invitation to provide input on this important bill, as well as Senator Dalphond for his continued leadership on this critical issue.

Mushkegowuk Council represents seven First Nations in northeastern Ontario, four of which are located along the James Bay coast and are inaccessible by road for most of the year. These include Fort Albany First Nation, Kashechewan Cree First Nation, Attawapiskat First Nation and Moose Cree First Nation.

I am here today to voice the support of Mushkegowuk Council for Bill S-256. The bill will close important gaps in Canada Post’s ability to inspect letter mail and law enforcement’s ability to secure warrants to seize, detain and search items in the post.

I am also here to ask this committee to adopt additional amendments that will increase First Nations’ ability to stop the flow of deadly drugs entering their communities.

Specifically, Mushkegowuk Council would like to see a provision added to the Canada Post Corporation Act that permits Canada Post to conduct unobtrusive screenings on all mail bound for a First Nation where it has been authorized to do so in a First Nation law or bylaw.

In other words, it is our position that Canada Post should be permitted to set up routine screening systems — whether via technology such as MailSecur, which we heard about yesterday, or via canine detection services — for all mail entering a First Nation if that is what the First Nation believes they require.

The exact proposed wording of the additional amendment has been provided to the committee via supplementary materials. But I would like to highlight a few critical elements of the proposal before getting into why this addition is both appropriate and necessary.

First, the proposed screening power would not provide any new authority for Canada Post to open mail. Opening mail would continue to require reasonable grounds under section 41(1) of the act. Instead, we are talking about a non-invasive screening with the goal of detecting illegal drugs that are easily trafficked via the post, such as fentanyl, methamphetamine, cocaine and heroin.

This type of preliminary screening is taking place all around us: at airports, in courthouses, during randomized roadside sobriety tests and in mailrooms across Ottawa. It has also been upheld by Canadian courts in the context of baggage searches by First Nations for arriving passengers.

Second, the proposed provision would not force Canada Post to undertake this screening role, nor would it impose the regime on any First Nation. It would be up to each First Nation to decide whether this is a tool that makes sense for their community.

Finally, the existing regulations and procedures for Canada Post would remain the same if illegal drugs are identified as part of the initial screening program.

Why is this important?

Put simply, without initial screening, most drugs will continue to enter remote First Nations via Canada Post. If drugs continue to enter First Nations at the current rate, these communities will never be able to rebuild from the devastation that the current toxic drug epidemic has already brought.

The bill, as it currently stands, would allow Canada Post inspectors to inspect all types of mail when they have reasonable suspicion that the letter or package contravenes regulations or contains non-mailable matter. But we know that this will only be in a small fraction of cases where Canada Post either receives a tip or the drugs are poorly disguised.

In all other cases, savvy traffickers will continue to be able to send deadly drugs undetected to First Nations via Canada Post.

It has become tragically rote in this type of proceeding to list off statistics about the compounding crises facing First Nations across Canada. There is an undeniable numbing effect. But for Mushkegowuk Council and other First Nations, the numbers are their families, friends and community. As of 2023, the rate of sudden death due to drug toxicities in Mushkegowuk communities was at least triple that of the Ontario average. In 2021, the annual rate of hospital visits for opioid-related toxicity among First Nations people was nine times higher than the Ontario average. These numbers represent real people — mothers, fathers, sons, daughters, brothers and sisters — who are having their lives destroyed and dying unnecessarily from illegal drugs.

It should be up to each First Nation to determine how they will address the public health and safety crises that have, in large part, been the consequence of Canadian colonial practices and policies.

This is the only path that supports self-government and reconciliation while ensuring compliance with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

I would like to thank you again for the opportunity to provide input. I look forward to answering any questions you may have.

I would also like to add that I know our supplementary materials were likely received late last night or early this morning. In the event there are further questions, we would be happy to attend again by Zoom to answer those questions or work with your staff. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Siemiatycki. The material that you provided is in the process of being translated and then being shared with committee members.

We’ll now turn to questions, and we’ll begin with the deputy chair, Senator Batters.

Senator Batters: Thanks to all of you for being here. It is much appreciated. Thank you, Ms. Siemiatycki, for providing us with a real example of why this bill is important and why this issue is important. It’s one thing to hear about the numbers, but it’s quite another to hear about the concrete examples of people dying from fentanyl. Thank you.

My first question is to the individuals from the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police. Since 2015, the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police has emphasized that criminals exploit a legislative loophole preventing the police from intervening in suspicious postal shipments. There was some cover provided for that in 2023, but obviously not enough.

Can you provide us with concrete examples of situations in which law enforcement was unable to act because of that legislative loophole?

Mr. Rowe: I can answer that. I’m able to provide a number of examples, and from talking to my peers across Canada, including throughout the North and Indigenous communities, I know that these same examples are coming up over and over again across Canada.

The prime example of where police are unable to act is when we learn through an investigation or through obtaining information that a package contains controlled substances, but once that package is dropped off and is in the course of post — whether that’s dropped off at a mailbox, a Shoppers Drug Mart or some postal outlet — we then cannot intercept that package. There are many investigative techniques that police can do to mitigate the risk of whatever is in that package. We’ve talked about fentanyl and various drugs being mailed, but there are other issues including firearm parts and weapons. There are other types of contraband and illegal material being mailed through Canada Post. We have various investigative techniques that allow us to obtain warrants through judicial authorization to intercept those packages, search them, mitigate the risk of whatever is contained in that package and, most importantly, take enforcement action on the person receiving that package and potentially the person who sent it and who will then stand up in court.

Unfortunately, right now, with the way the act is and with our reliance on postal inspectors, our ability to gather lawful evidence is significantly impeded. We’re unable to take any enforcement action on that package when it’s in the course of post. We’re unable to mitigate the risk to the public. When we rely on postal inspectors, we’re introducing judicial scrutiny within our investigations because we’re relying on a warrantless search power where we would have liked to turn to a warrant power given by judicial authorization.

We’re facing an investigative risk — a risk to the success of our investigations — but we’re also unable to mitigate the risk to the public of what’s contained in those packages.

Senator Batters: Thank you. To the two of you, private courier services like FedEx, DHL, UPS and Purolator already allow the police to conduct searches and seizures under judicial authorization. What lessons have law enforcement agencies learned from those interactions with private courier services, and how could those practices be applied to the public postal system? Canada Post declined the invitation to testify before our committee about this important issue, and, according to an access to information request, they previously expressed concerns about the negative impact on their operations if the police were granted the power to open letters.

What’s your view on those concerns, and do you think it could significantly impact Canada Post’s operations?

Mr. Rowe: Thank you for the question. I believe that law enforcement across Canada, regardless of what community they’re in, would be able to execute their duties without negatively impacting the postal service. As you mentioned, we have a lot of experience doing this with private couriers, from FedEx to DHL to Purolator, which is owned by Canada Post. We are used to executing search warrants on corporations, schools or hospitals — anywhere information is held, the police have had to execute judicial authorizations in order to obtain that. We’re able to do it in a manner by working with those agencies so that it doesn’t disrupt their daily business or any of their systems, which allows us to obtain the information that we are authorized to obtain by the judiciary without causing any issues for them. I’m very confident that we would be able to execute warrants and judicial authorizations within Canada Post without negatively impacting their operations at all.

Senator Batters: As you say, Purolator is owned by Canada Post, so it seems like a strange situation that they refuse to come and testify. Perhaps they want us to believe that part of their reasoning is they don’t know enough about this, but they know very well because of all the dealings they’ve had for years of Purolator being subject to this.

Mr. Rowe: Yes, in all honestly, the current process of having to deal with postal inspectors would be more onerous than the police coming in and executing a judicial authorization. Under the current system, we have to engage quite heavily with the postal inspectors. We have to help provide the necessary information for them to conduct their own independent investigations. Then they have to go out and develop grounds to determine reasons why they wish to search a package. If it were the police executing judicial authorizations, we could simply come in, provide a copy of the judicial authorization — which could be given to us based on the grounds in our investigation and based on the information we’ve developed — execute that, gather the information we need and be on our way, thereby freeing up postal inspectors to continue with their important duties.

Senator Batters: Thank you.

Senator Dalphond: Thank you to the panellists. I appreciate your support. We all worked together when I prepared this bill. I’ll go straight to the potential amendments since we are here. You won’t be here when we do clause-by-clause consideration, so we’ll take advantage of your presence today.

Before I do that, I will ask the following: How many tips do you receive — from inspectors to the police — to set into motion an investigation? Is that rare, or does that happen many times per year? I know there are 25 inspectors working for Canada Post who cover the whole country.

Mr. Rowe: I’m not able to speak for all police officers across Canada. However, in my experience — and I do have significant experience working to combat drug trafficking in organized crime and in our gang sections — when conducting drug trafficking investigations, typically the police approach the Canada Post inspectors with information, rather than the other way around.

I am aware that when Canada Post does intercept packages containing non-mailable material that is illegal — whether it be firearm parts or controlled substances — they are responsible for turning those packages over to the police of jurisdiction in the town where that post office or mail sorting centre is located. I am certain that cities with large mailing centres would get files from Canada Post turned over to them.

As far as larger investigations go, typically it’s the police who approach the postal inspectors to seek their assistance.

Senator Dalphond: The proposal that you are suggesting is enlarging the power of inspectors because we codified the rule that they need reasonable grounds to suspect. Before there were no parameters, and the court in Newfoundland struck it down as unconstitutional. The bill corrected that. But letters are excluded; it’s everything in the mail except letters.

Do you think if the inspectors were entitled to open letters, it would help the police work?

Mr. Rowe: I’m here on behalf of the CACP, and we’re advocating for the ability for law enforcement — for police — to open letters with a judicial authorization.

Senator Dalphond: That is the purpose of the bill.

Mr. Rowe: Yes.

Senator Dalphond: But in your brief, you suggest that we enlarge the power of the inspectors.

Mr. Rowe: Yes. I think that it is a wise idea to increase the power of the inspectors as well in order to be able to examine the letters. As we’ve been able to show and as we have seen, time and again, the definition of a letter is very broad, and what can be contained in a letter now can have grave consequences for our communities. I believe that all of these people should be able to examine letters.

Senator Dalphond: Ms. Siemiatycki, welcome. Thank you very much for your support and also the original structures of the council, where we can communicate and receive feedback. I appreciate that.

You propose that for all mail items that have been received, the recipients are in one of these special codes — most reserves will have one code?

Ms. Siemiatycki: As you know, there are over 600 First Nations across Canada.

Senator Dalphond: How can we identify the mail going there?

Ms. Siemiatycki: I’m so sorry; would you like to finish your question?

Senator Dalphond: No, I’m finished. I understand the idea, and I know it’s a sophisticated system that sorts the letters and parcels. Is there a way to program the machine to classify these codes or addresses as out of the system, since you are proposing to inspect only those that are out of the system?

Ms. Siemiatycki: Right now, the proposed language, which you will hopefully see soon, is as follows:

The corporation, or its agent, may screen any mail with an addressee on a First Nation reserve if so authorized by a law or bylaw duly passed by that First Nation.

The second subsection is as follows:

Screening under subsection 1 shall not include opening mail; may include scanners or K-9 detection; and shall be limited to identifying the presence of a controlled substance, as defined under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

You’ll notice that the proposal, at this point, does not contain operational or implementation types of provisions. That is purposeful. The reason for that is because there are over 600 First Nations across Canada, each of which has unique geographic and economic circumstances and different relationships with their local Canada Post. Our position is that it would make the most sense to include broad, permissive language in the text of this bill, which would then allow individual First Nations or groups of First Nations to work together with Canada Post to operationalize this in the way that makes the most sense.

To your question about postal codes, for many First Nations, it will be that there is one distinct postal code just for that reserve. There may be others where it’s different. That would be something that could be defined between Canada Post and the First Nations.

Senator Dalphond: The burden on Canada Post would be limited because it would be only the items mailed to a specific address, which probably represents a small fraction of the overall mail that is processed?

Ms. Siemiatycki: Yes. We heard yesterday from RaySecur, for example, about that technology. I believe Ms. Gagnon said the screening machines on MailSecur could deal with 400 pieces of mail an hour or something like that. The volume is quite high in terms of those technologies. In comparison to the relatively small number of residents in First Nations in general and the likely volume of mail that we would be talking about, I don’t think it would be overly burdensome on Canada Post.

Senator Dalphond: The price of losing lives is much more expensive than buying a few machines.

Ms. Siemiatycki: Absolutely.

Senator Dalphond: Thank you.

Senator Prosper: Thank you, witnesses, for coming in and sharing your knowledge and expertise. I have a couple of questions. I’ll begin with you, Mr. Rowe.

What we have been hearing — certainly in the last panel — is a bit of dialogue on privacy considerations, and you said something related to that which I want to delve into a bit further. You said this will enhance privacy by coming up with objective standards. Can you expand upon that a bit?

Mr. Rowe: Yes, sir. Thank you for the question.

What we are proposing will certainly enhance the privacy of Canadians who use Canada Post because we, the police, are simply looking to be able to introduce judicial oversight into the process of searching packages. Currently, under the process, we, the police, can’t examine packages, as you’re aware. The postal inspectors examine them based on a warrantless system and based on powers given to them under the Canada Post Corporation Act.

We, the police, are required to go out and seek judicial authorization. When we examine packages and letters that are in the course of post, we had to apply to a judge or justice of the peace in order to obtain a warrant to do that. We would already have provided our grounds to the judiciary who would decide whether they’re sufficient enough for us to examine that package or letter.

Senator Prosper: Thank you. I have a further question, if I may. This is for Ms. Siemiatycki.

I want to delve into your suggested amendment, and I’m quite familiar with band bylaws with respect to those having a land code or something like that.

I was a chief within a community, and we always had a hard time getting bylaws implemented and recognized — forgive me — through the police at times and even getting those enforced within a tribunal or court. There are always issues around the implementation of bylaws. The potential numbers, as you mentioned, are many because there could be a bylaw for every band.

Do you think that your amendment would contribute and help resolve some of those issues with respect to the implementation of bylaws? Thank you.

Ms. Siemiatycki: Thank you so much, senator, for the question.

My answer is going to be twofold. First, I would say that Mushkegowuk Council experiences, recognizes and has worked for a long time on the issue of enforcement and prosecution of First Nations laws and bylaws, and it is certainly a concern.

In this context, we believe that actually legislating the authority for Canada Post to undertake these initial screenings — which could then lead to the rest of the procedures under the act if non-mailable matter or toxic drugs, for example, are found, where law enforcement would be contacted — and by specifically referring to First Nations laws and bylaws as the source for this process, it will increase the likelihood that Canada Post, law enforcement and the courts understand and recognize the legitimacy of those laws and act on them.

Regarding the amendments overall in relation to section 48 as it is currently worded, that’s why we very much support the inclusion of First Nations laws or bylaws either in the definition of “enforcement statute” under section 2 or under the overall amendment to section 48 so that, exactly as you’re saying, we begin to tackle the risk aversion that is often present in law enforcement to act on these laws and bylaws.

Senator Prosper: I agree. Thank you very much.

Senator Simons: Thank you very much to all of our witnesses. First, I have a question for Ms. Huggins and Mr. Rowe.

With the way the language of the bill is worded, Senator Dalphond has indicated that law enforcement officers would require a warrant or judicial authorization to seize or open mail under the proposed amendment to section 40(3), but the definition of “enforcement statute” is very broad. Are there instances that you see where acts of Parliament or other laws or bylaws might authorize an officer to seize or open mail without a warrant, especially if there are exigent circumstances of some kind?

Mr. Rowe: Thank you very much for the question. Certainly under exigent circumstances, there can be situations where police may need to intercept a package that presents an immediate risk to a community or to life and safety.

Senator Simons: Anthrax or a bomb or something.

Mr. Rowe: That would certainly be covered off under an exigent power that the police have, and the police would likely do that in order to protect the community anyway.

Under the enforcement statute section, we’re looking for the ability to obtain warrants under the broadest section of laws — for us to be able to obtain warrants under both the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act as well as under the Provincial Offences Act and in support of different communities based on their unique needs. The offence enforcement statutes that are currently laid out allow the police and law enforcement to have the broadest ability to obtain judicial authorizations to conduct searches.

Senator Simons: This is what concerns me because it’s one thing to say we don’t want people shipping weapons or drugs, but if you allow any kind of law in Canada, it could give the police the potential to search for things that are far less exigent, whether that’s political speech or investigation of evidence in a murder. I think it’s interesting that these laws go back to Britain in 1844, where they were brought onto the books because the government was looking at letters between political activists; that is why we have such strong protections for the mail.

I guess I’m just wondering if you think there might not be a temptation in 5 or 10 years down the road for a law enforcement officer to use these powers for something that is not anticipated by the drafter of the amendment.

Mr. Rowe: Senator, my job that I do on a regular basis for the Vancouver Police Department is I’m the officer in charge of our major crimes section, which includes our homicide unit. I would respectfully argue that evidence in a murder is very important, exigent and worthy of the police tracking down and obtaining.

Now, once again, I believe that the introduction of judicial oversight into this process is what will prevent the abuse that you’re concerned about because we, as police officers, will have to continuously go before the judiciary and present them with our grounds — what we’re investigating and why we need to intercept this piece of mail. As we do when we search a phone, a bank account, a house or any other item that we’re allowed to search, we have to be able to justify that search to the judiciary. We would be required to do that under this act.

Senator Simons: My second question is for Ms. Siemiatycki. It’s funny that Cree and Slavic languages share a certain consonant jumble.

Ms. Siemiatycki: You can detect the Polish in my —

Senator Simons: Yes. The R. v. Gorman decision in Newfoundland laid out strongly the constitutional reasons why we don’t look at or screen people’s mail. I’m wondering if the amendment you’re suggesting doesn’t potentially create a situation where First Nations citizens living on-reserve might suddenly find themselves with fewer constitutional rights than people outside the reserve. I’m wondering, philosophically, if you believe that First Nations band councils should have the right to pass laws that could potentially be unconstitutional. At what point does their autonomy on their First Nation come into conflict with the Charter?

Ms. Siemiatycki: I’m being asked the easy questions today, I see.

Senator Simons: Did anyone tell you this is the easy committee?

Ms. Siemiatycki: I’m not sure I’m going to be able to answer the question you’ve just asked, in part because it could take hours to answer that question, and it would likely require constitutional experts and scholars who are far smarter than I am.

However, I’m going to try to start to answer it and certainly address the issue relating to the Gorman decision, which I think is important.

Senator, I heard the comments you made yesterday about the legacy of tampering with mail and of state surveillance; that’s not lost on me and that’s not lost on the council. Mushkegowuk Council takes very seriously the privacy and civil rights of its members.

However, having said that, both the Constitution and the R. v. Gorman decision recognize that the right to privacy is considered in a contextual framework and is based on a balancing of different interests: the individual interest and the public interest. We believe that the amendment we’re proposing strikes that balance. Again, first and most importantly, we are talking about screenings, not opening mail. In the R. v. Gorman decision, as you will remember, the inspector opened a package and then actually opened a package within the package. The depth and the scope of the inspection and search was far greater in that case. That’s the first thing.

This is the second thing: In the R. v. Gorman case, the judge recognized that what was required for inspectors to be able to open packages was not judicial authorization. You don’t need a warrant, actually, in that context based on all of the factors, if you consider them. What the judge said, and now what we see in the law, is that there needs to be a reasonable suspicion. Again, that reasonable suspicion is in relation to opening mail.

The amendment that we’re proposing is restricted to very unintrusive screenings. As you heard yesterday from Ms. Gagnon from RaySecur, the technology can’t read words or language. Unless things have changed, the canines can’t read the letters either. We are talking about — we would argue — a very conservative striking of the balance between the individual rights of First Nation community members and the overall shared public interests that this amendment would be targeting.

In relation to the Constitution and the Charter, as you likely know, First Nations governments are subject to the Charter, so their decisions and laws are subject to the Charter in Canadian courts. But very importantly, section 35 of the Constitution recognizes that self-government for Indigenous peoples is part of the inherent rights of First Nations. What is more fundamental to a government than deciding what can come in and out of their territory?

Senator Simons: I don’t love the optics of the Senate passing a bill that says, on the basis of race, we’re screening some people’s mail but not that of others. I understand what you’re saying: This is coming from one group of chiefs.

The Chair: I’m going to have to let you reflect on that, Senator Simons.

Senator McCallum: Thank you for your presentations. Mr. Rowe, you spoke about a significant barrier: Cases that you brought were stayed and thrown out of court. Does this mean that you were already searching? Why did this happen if you followed the law?

Mr. Rowe: Yes, ma’am. Thank you for the question. Under the current process, if there is a package within the mail that we believe contains some type of illegal material such as drugs or firearm parts, then the police are required to contact postal inspectors and advise them of the potential illegal material in the postal system. Then we rely on the postal inspectors to examine the packages that are in the course of post. Naturally, if it’s in a letter envelope, we’re unable to search that while it’s in the course of post.

However, if it’s a package, we rely on Canada Post inspectors to conduct the search. Unfortunately, the relationship between the Canada Post inspector and the police then faces great scrutiny by the courts when that case eventually reaches trial. We find that the courts are not supportive of the police using Canada Post inspectors to examine packages in the course of post. That’s why we’re losing predominantly drug investigations right now. That’s why it’s so important for the police to have the power to be able to obtain and execute judicially authorized warrants of their own on items that are in post.

Senator McCallum: Thank you. One of the senators had said that First Nations may find themselves with fewer constitutional rights. Well, we already do. Honestly, that is why people are in such a vulnerable state in the community, especially the ones who have been isolated — those four plus all the ones in Manitoba. When you look at that, how do you now protect the people who are in this situation because of legislation and because of how this country treated them, and where they’re at now? How do we do that? They seem to need more protection.

It is a slippery slope. You want more protection, but you still want privacy.

I would like to return to the First Nation bylaw that would direct Canada Post. On the floor, I have a bill on enforcement and prosecution, and they’re not allowed to prosecute if it’s under a First Nation bylaw. When you say that would happen, who would supersede whom if the First Nations laws say, “We want this,” but Canada Post says, “No”? How would that work out?

Ms. Siemiatycki: Thank you for the question, senator. As it is written now, the proposed amendment would not force Canada Post to enter into an agreement with a First Nation. In terms of the steps, to make this as plain language as possible, this law would allow a First Nation — let’s say Attawapiskat, for example — to pass a bylaw that says that Canada Post can conduct certain types of screenings on all mail that is bound for the Attawapiskat First Nation. From there, they would likely enter into dialogue with Canada Post about taking the steps to implement that.

I should say that in Mushkegowuk Council’s situation, they work very closely with the local postal inspector. It’s not that Canada Post locally is reticent to assist the First Nations in trying to stop this deadly influx of drugs; it’s just that the way the legislation is right now does not allow them to go much further.

The reason that we have constructed the amendment this way — so that it’s permissive and that it doesn’t require Canada Post to undertake the screening — is both because we recognize that each situation is going to be different and is going to require a specific type of implementation plan, and also to reduce the burden on First Nations to enter into complicated agreements or to undertake extra work that they don’t have the resources for. If, in certain circumstances, the bylaw can be passed and then Canada Post agrees to do this on an informal basis, that’s great and that works. We want to be able to allow for all different circumstances that best suit the needs of the First Nations.

Senator McCallum: When you receive a letter or mail, how long do you have it in hand before you can deliver it if there is nothing there?

Mr. Rowe: Sorry, ma’am, do you mean on behalf of Canada Post, or how long do you have it after the police have seized it?

Senator McCallum: With everything. They mail it, and then how long does it take?

Mr. Rowe: I don’t know, ma’am. I wouldn’t be able to answer that.

Senator McCallum: I was just curious.

Senator Dalphond: It takes about 48 hours.

Senator McCallum: Okay. That’s not bad then.

Senator Clement: Thank you to the witnesses for your work. I am supportive of this bill; I will say that first. I fully endorse the use of the word “antiquated” used by Ms. Huggins in her opening statement.

I think the amendment sounds good in terms of giving control to First Nations communities. I understand Senator Prosper’s concerns around operationalizing that. I found that to be a good direction.

I want to, though, speak to you, Mr. Rowe, about your use of the words “objective standard.” I want to come back to the question asked by Senator Prosper because I want to push back.

We’re supportive of the bill. We understand why. There are compelling reasons. But when certain communities — racialized communities — hear that there will be more policing and that the police will have more power, there are concerns because our system has systemic racism baked into it. So when I hear “objective standard,” I wonder what that means. Some of us wonder what that means.

Could any of you talk about whether you have turned your minds to this? Again, I’m supportive of this bill, but what are we doing to address that particular issue about over-policing, systemic racism and how this will impact people? Names sound different and will indicate belonging to certain groups. Let’s talk about that.

Also, before I turn it over, I wonder why we don’t have any civil liberties lawyers or academics as witnesses on this just to give us that pushback that we might need around those specific issues.

Ms. Huggins: Thank you for the question. I will start, and Mr. Rowe can weigh in as well.

With any piece of legislation that is being considered, reviewed or discussed today, we have to think about the impact on all people — all groups — especially ones where it’s about police powers.

I think that with this piece of legislation, the powers already exist. It is simply about saying that this is another aspect where police do require that information. And how do we do it in a way that includes the judiciary?

We count on the judiciary to ensure that police are not stretching the limits of their powers. This is another way to do that: By including that if they need something or part of their investigation involves the post, there is oversight considering all of those elements that you raised, which are very important to consider before they get the authorization to gain access to that piece of information in the post.

Mr. Rowe: Thank you very much for the question, ma’am. I appreciate the hard questions. They’re certainly necessary for us to understand this.

I would agree with my colleague Ms. Huggins that for the process of going to obtain that warrant, to obtain that judicial authorization or to search the mail — having done that many times myself where I had to stand before a justice or a judge to articulate my grounds, my reasons, for wanting to get that warrant — it takes substantially more than a name. It takes substantially more than a fleeting piece of information. You have to provide fairly substantial grounds in order to search an envelope, a piece of mail or a package and to be able to take that out of our postal system.

There is an additional layer of scrutiny after the fact when that goes to court. Should that case go to court, then both the judiciously authorized warrant that was used to search that piece of mail and the manner in which that search was conducted will be heavily scrutinized by our courts as well to ensure that it is fair, just and consistent with the expectations of Canadians across Canada.

I hope that by introducing that judicial oversight into this process, we’re introducing a level of fairness that doesn’t exist there right now.

Ms. Siemiatycki: In the context of the amendment that we’re proposing, I think that it’s important to keep in mind that First Nations are distinct entities with distinct rights recognized under the Constitution, and under the Indian Act, for example — which is one of a few ways that First Nations governments are able to pass laws — they have the right to pass bylaws on a variety of issues in their communities, including law and order and health and public safety.

I think that taking a lens of equality to First Nation and non-First Nation communities is very important, but it’s also important to do so in the context of understanding that First Nations governments have the right to determine how they will govern their communities in line with the Constitution.

Senator Clement: I understand the distinction for Indigenous communities, and that’s fair. I’m just pushing back because when you say the system is fair, some of us don’t think it is already. Even though we have judicial oversight, some communities don’t feel that we’re really addressing that the system has systemic issues baked in, but it’s distinct from Indigenous questions, absolutely. I just want to make that point. Thank you.

Senator Batters: I just wanted to respond to Senator Clement’s question about why no civil liberties lawyers are on the witness list. Sitting on the steering committee as the deputy chair, I know that we invited both the Canadian Bar Association, which declined, and also a prominent criminal defence lawyer. I had that same question, and I always want to ensure that there’s that balance. That person, unfortunately, declined as well. We have been having trouble getting witnesses from that point of view, but, yes, we did try.

The Chair: A point I don’t need now to communicate. Thank you, Senator Batters.

Senator Simons: Ms. Siemiatycki, in your communities, I assume it’s not house-to-house delivery. When the mail arrives, is there a period at which it is searchable before it goes to people’s boxes? How does it work?

Ms. Siemiatycki: Senator, I’d like to take that question back if that’s okay, because I don’t want to misspeak and misrepresent anything to the committee. It’s a good question, and it would be helpful for me to be able to canvass the communities.

Senator Simons: That’s a technical question that I wanted to understand. Thank you.

Senator Dalphond: Is there a postal station in each reserve?

Ms. Siemiatycki: No.

Senator Dalphond: Is it still in the mail when it’s in the postal station if it’s on the reserve? It’s still in the mail, so it cannot be seized until it is delivered to an address or somebody comes and picks it up. I was wondering if there are postal stations.

Ms. Siemiatycki: Again, I need to take it back, because I don’t want to make a statement for all seven of the communities that might not be correct. We have four remote communities that are fly-in. Regarding the way that the mail is delivered to those four communities — compared to the three communities that, while still rural, might be an hour or two hours from a local town — the situation of mail on the ground and how it’s operationalized will be different. I would be very happy to take that back, and we can provide further information about that to the committee.

The Chair: Thank you to our witnesses for the time and the responses to the questions that we have posed which advanced our understanding of the bill. I want to thank you for the time you’ve taken to come here and appear before us.

Colleagues, for our second panel, we are pleased to welcome Chief Michael Yellowback from Manto Sipi Cree Nation. Also at the table joining us is Chief Betsy Kennedy of the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs.

As well, joining us by video conference, from TITAN Detection, we welcome Ghenadie Odobescu, President; and Pierre Jacques, Vice-President, Special Projects. Unfortunately, due to technical dilemmas, we will not hear from Mr. Odobescu, but my understanding is that Mr. Jacques will deliver the main presentation.

We now invite each of you, Chief Yellowback and Mr. Jacques, to speak to us for roughly five minutes each, and that will be followed by questions and discussion with senators.

The floor is yours, Chief Yellowback.

Michael Yellowback, Chief, Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs: [Editor’s Note: Chief Michael Yellowback spoke in an Indigenous language.]

I welcome the opportunity from the Senate to make a statement representing the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs. I am Chief Michael Yellowback from the Manto Sipi Cree Nation. I wish to thank the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs for the opportunity to speak to you today on Bill S-256.

I am appearing before you today on behalf of the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs, or AMC. The AMC is the political and technical coordinating organization for all 63 First Nations in Manitoba. As a member of the AMC Chiefs Committee on Justice and in acknowledgement of the recent loss of Grand Chief Cathy Merrick, I will be providing AMC’s submissions to you today.

Drug and alcohol smuggling have been an ongoing and devastating issue for many First Nations in Manitoba. Manto Sipi Cree Nation is in a remote region of northern Manitoba where access is limited to winter road and air travel.

As Chief of Manto Sipi Cree Nation, I have seen the effects of drugs and alcohol on the lives of Manto Sipi Cree Nation citizens and the resulting destructive social issues such as the neglect of children, the abuse of elders and the loss of life.

Drug and alcohol smuggling were discussed at length by the AMC chiefs in October 2022 at the AMC annual general assembly. At this time, the chiefs-in-assembly discussed the issue of illegal items, including drugs, being sent to First Nations by mail, particularly to those in northern and isolated First Nations in Manitoba.

As part of this discussion, the chiefs-in-assembly noted that legislation authorizes Canada Post to open mail in certain situations. However, this authorization does not extend to letters. By excluding letters, this allows for the transport of items such as fentanyl. As you are likely aware, fentanyl is a powerful synthetic opioid which is substantially stronger than other opioids. Even a few grains of fentanyl could result in overdose or death.

The chiefs-in-assembly very strongly oppose any legislative loopholes whereby drugs can be transmitted to First Nations. As a result, AMC Resolution OCT-22.04 — seizure of contraband in First Nations — was passed calling for amendments to the existing legislation to stop contraband from entering First Nations.

At Manto Sipi Cree Nation, chief and council have been advocating for all available remedies to prohibit drug and alcohol smuggling. We have enacted a new bylaw under the Indian Act, and we are currently engaged in a pilot project whereby our trained First Nation safety officers are able to search bags and cargo at the Gods River Airport in Manto Sipi. When these searches started just two days ago, it resulted in large quantities of cocaine and crack cocaine being confiscated from one of the passengers who got off the scheduled airline flight.

Even with these measures, as long as the Canada Post Corporation Act excludes letters, drug trafficking through the mail will continue. This is having a profound impact. Drug traffickers use the mail system to transport drugs into our community. We’re helpless in this area because we’re not allowed to search Canada Post. Even when an individual comes out with their mail, we still cannot search. Whether it’s on-reserve or Canada Post, we are still limited. With this legislation, we’re hoping that it can be supported through this legislative process.

Our main priority here is saving the lives of our community members. Back in March of 2023, we lost an 18-year-old girl, who left behind a one-year-old child, because of the smuggling of alcohol into our community.

It has devastating impacts in our Indigenous communities, not just Manto Sipi. That is why we have been a strong advocate of making these legislative changes for our community in order to have a healthy community, where we can live as our people lived a long time ago — strong and sustaining people. It’s the remnants of the Indian residential school system that had an impact on our communities. Through this legislative process, we want to change part of Canada Post so that we can make a better environment for the communities involved. I’ll end it there for now.

The Chair: Thank you very much, chief. I call on Mr. Jacques to speak next.

[Translation]

Pierre Jacques, Vice President, Special Projects, TITAN Detection: Thank you. I’m sorry I can’t be with you today. I have COVID, otherwise I would have been happy to be there.

Mr. Chair, members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to share our thoughts and analyses, which are based on more than 35 years of work, research and operations, both as police dog-handlers, dog-handler instructors or emergency measures officers, as well as work for private service and protective services.

From the outset, I would like to confirm that we have read Bill S-256 and agree with what is proposed in it.

We would now respectfully like to make additional proposals on an aspect that seems to have been forgotten and that is unavoidable and indispensable to the success of the project: drug detection.

As you know, Canada, like most western countries, is grappling with an invasion of synthetic drugs, including fentanyl in particular. Unfortunately, Canada has earned a poor international reputation in this area, as was recently confirmed to me in my discussions with an express delivery provider who exports to Australia. Fentanyl and other synthetic drugs are wreaking havoc in our communities, and particularly in indigenous communities. I know Mr. Larose, Nunavik’s director of police, is well aware of the situation, as I have discussed it with him.

What we feel is missing from the bill involves specific actions that would allow Canada Post to prevent the distribution of these narcotics by intercepting certain packages in transit through communities. Intercepting packages before they reach their destination is crucial. We can decide to attack the problem upstream and downstream to be more successful, or we can do both.

When it comes to police prevention and repression, the human resources within our police forces quickly come up short. Budgetary reasons are partly to blame. We need to find a solution to support and reduce the costs associated with team training. In 2021, Canada Post had already considered setting up a detection unit using RCMP dogs. However, the lack of staff put a stop to this project. We were also contacted privately — I wasn’t with the company at the time, but the company was contacted.

In short, it is imperative for our communities and Canada as a whole to engage the private sector, which already has these capabilities in a program that currently exists for cargo and air freight explosives detection searches. This is Transport Canada’s EDDHT program. What’s more, the private sector is already securing stadiums or sports arenas or major events organized by promoters or companies, by employing sniffer dogs that assist local authorities.

The statistics speak for themselves. A single sniffer dog can inspect several parcels or mail items in a matter of seconds, with an excellent success rate. This is far more than can be achieved by visual inspections or searches with X-ray machines, which are costly and require constant maintenance and repairs, as is well known.

To ensure that such a service is established, we believe that the law must include the authority and function for a federal entity. This could be Canada Post or Health Canada, which already issues narcotics kits for training purposes, notably for the Border Services Agency and police organizations in Canada. You could thus allow this authority to legislate and set up a private team certification program, as Transport Canada already does for explosives detection.

In addition to ensuring better detection of illegal drug trafficking, several important social benefits would enhance the project. In fact, the implementation of such a service will create permanent jobs in the security industry and in indigenous communities, which will be able to retain the knowledge and expertise that will result, contribute substantially to the fight against drug trafficking, and improve Canada’s reputation in the fight against international and domestic traffickers. In short, we can even talk about countries — I’m sure you understand all that. It would be a win-win project, ultimately saving the lives of young Canadians and protecting and improving the quality of life of Canadian citizens.

Thank you again for the opportunity to share our experience and expertise with you. I look forward to continuing the discussion in your question period. Thank you.

[English]

Senator Batters: Thank you very much. First of all, to the chiefs from the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs, I want to express my condolences for the loss of your grand chief so recently — what a large hole that must leave you with personally and within your organization. Thank you very much for coming here today and explaining your concerns about this very important issue and how it relates to your community.

During the preparation of amendments to the Canada Post Corporation Act as part of Bill C-47 — when this was part of the budget implementation act by the government — I wonder if the government consulted with the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs at that point. If so, were they aware of the amendments that you wanted, such as removing the words “other than a letter” and the removal of section 40(3)? If so, what was their reaction to those recommendations?

Betsy Kennedy, Chief, Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs: Good afternoon. I am the spokesperson for the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs.

With regard to Canada Post for Bill C-47, we were not informed of any changes, but we had broader issues brought forward a number of times because of our concerns in our communities with drugs coming in. The individuals selling drugs are creating havoc, and we would like to ensure that any parcels coming in through Canada Post be checked, since these parcels are now being distributed within the community.

In other communities, there are also concerns since these are illicit drugs and are very dangerous. If we don’t do anything, we’ll have loss of our youth because in Canada there are concerns with loss.

I had been walking with families who have lost their young ones. They had not experimented before, and that was their first time using drugs. That is our concern. We would like to see these changes in the Canada Post Corporation Act and to have sniffer dogs for these packages. I understand that the canines are very good at what they do, and even if you have some kind of residue after being checked, another dog and another handler will go to that same person again. They are efficient in what they can do to help us. Thank you.

Senator Batters: I appreciate that. Was there anyone in government whom you relayed those concerns to? Please let me know about that. Also, do you think it’s crucial, given the concerns that you’ve raised, to allow for the inspection of letters by inspectors? Do you think that could concretely improve the safety of First Nations, particularly those in remote areas?

Mr. Yellowback: Thank you for the question. Regarding these individuals who are involved in illegal activities, they have creative ways of trying to smuggle illegal items into our community. There will be an increase in trying to smuggle into our community now that we’ve started searching at the airports. One of the things that we need to have is inspectors certified at our community level, because our First Nation safety officers are certified and authorized to search and seize any intoxicants that come in. If they discover drugs, they can confiscate these items and put them into a safe, and the RCMP can come in the following day to collect those items that have been confiscated.

For us in our community, we don’t have an RCMP detachment. It is difficult for us to stop everything; but, at the same time, we try to do our part. But now there’s a loophole through the Canada Post office. Some of these individuals use letters, and also individuals have smuggled in alcohol and drugs through the mail. One of the things that is prevalent is that although marijuana has been legalized, it’s still illegal in our community. There is an increase of marijuana being shipped into our community. This is one of the things that our young people are getting to, and even underage individuals are ordering marijuana online as well. They’re using adult names just to get it shipped up to them.

Something has to change because we need a stricter mechanism in place for these companies that sell online when they have minors ordering marijuana through the mail. Something is wrong with that picture.

Senator Batters: Especially given the mental health impacts for younger people. Thank you.

The Chair: Please go ahead, Senator Dalphond, who is the sponsor of the bill.

Senator Dalphond: I’ll start with the chiefs. Thank you very much for being here.

I share your grief on the sudden loss of Cathy Merrick. She was a great chief. She was answering questions from reporters, and she collapsed. It’s a tragic loss for everyone.

I also want to thank the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs because you adopted a motion to support my bill. I appreciate that.

I don’t know if you were here before, but we had the groups from Ontario that proposed that Indigenous groups be empowered with the ability to adopt bylaws or laws that would require Canada Post to screen all the mail items, letters and parcels being delivered in a specific reserve, for example. What do you think of that? Are you supportive of that?

Mr. Yellowback: We certainly support that. Our bylaw that we passed in August 2023 addresses intoxicants and any illegal items that are confiscated. Since 1989, we developed this intoxicant bylaw under the Indian Act. It has been a difficult time frame over the past 30 years to have this bylaw fully recognized and enforced by the RCMP and the legal community. We had to go through another avenue to have our bylaw fully enforced and recognized by the RCMP and the legal community. We had to participate through this pilot project with the chief’s organization to get this developed and recognized.

It has been successful for us because our community is leading the way in terms of this new bylaw that was developed. Also, we have had, under the provincial government, Canadian officials who have worked with us and partnered with us in that respect, including the RCMP and the Public Prosecution Service of Canada. So we’re happy in that respect, but it is still lacking, and that’s through Canada Post. We need to have a full comprehensive review to ensure that our bylaw extends to Canada Post to allow the searches of all mail coming in, including letters.

Senator Dalphond: That was my next question, and you’re going straight to it; I like it.

Did you have any discussions with Canada Post about ways to improve the system and protect you in a better way than just delivering products that are going to kill people? I understand that in Nunavik, they have police, and Canada Post had a special project which was very successful. Were there attempts from Canada Post to reach out to you and work out an arrangement to put an end to the distribution of dangerous products into your communities?

Mr. Yellowback: We had a meeting with Canada Post officials in the Manitoba region in 2023 and more recently this past February. We had discussed how Canada Post can help us in that respect. At the same time, they were limited in what they could do. We shared our intoxicant bylaw with them. At times, when they suspect a parcel contains intoxicants, they can seize them. There’s nothing they can do about any drugs and alcohol.

For any contraband where it deals with household drugs, like cocaine, crack cocaine and even marijuana, they are limited in that respect because our bylaw does not extend to those.

Senator Dalphond: Thank you.

Senator Prosper: Thank you, chiefs, for coming, and thank you to Mr. Jacques for being with us as well.

I want to first begin with you, Chief Yellowback, and recognize your efforts in getting your intoxicant bylaw recognized. I imagine it wasn’t an easy process.

Being from a First Nation community and previously being a chief of a First Nation community, I know the community can draft band bylaws and approve them, but it’s about getting other people to take them seriously too, whether it’s the courts or the RCMP.

Can you share a bit about the process you had to go through to have people take your law seriously?

Mr. Yellowback: It all started back in November of 2022. That’s when we had our first bylaw development. The reason why we did that was this: Back in December of 2020, five of our First Nation safety officers, including two elected council members, were charged by the RCMP for trying to prevent the flow of drugs to our community, instead of targeting the drug traffickers. At that point in time, the drug traffickers were parading around social media and the community, saying, “We are untouchable. The law is on our side.” To me, there was something wrong with that picture.

We have elected officials and people hired to protect our community, but they were charged trying to prevent the flow of drugs. That propelled my council and me to do something about this — to never, ever have it happen again where council members or even our First Nation safety officers are charged when what they are doing is right.

Instead, the law sided with the people who were doing wrong. That’s not right. For us, we went to senior officials of Public Safety, as well as the federal Justice Department and the provincial Justice Department. We echoed each time at these meetings that something is wrong. We need a better system in place.

As such, we are elected officials of our communities. We have the authority to develop any bylaws, as any elected government can develop these bylaws, such as municipal bylaws. They are recognized. They are enforced.

What is the difference with Indigenous governments developing their own bylaws? How come they’re not recognized? That’s one thing, too, that spearheaded our drive to get this recognized.

Piece by piece, it came together. When meeting with the senior officials from Canada here, we came to Ottawa several times for meetings, and we also met with the Province of Manitoba in Winnipeg. After that, we finally got the word we needed: We’re finally going to get our bylaw recognized by the RCMP, the legal community and the Public Prosecution Service of Canada.

It was a long, hard road. Unfortunately, as I mentioned earlier, the life of an 18-year-old girl was lost. That made our conviction even stronger. One life lost is one too many. Something needs to change. That’s why I’m here today to ensure that the legislation through Canada Post is passed, because we need our Indigenous people to be safe.

Start targeting these drug traffickers. We even have organized crime coming to our territories because they are told they can sell their illegal items to our community members.

It’s the people who are suffering. Our children are suffering. Our elders are being abused emotionally and financially. I know I get a little bit emotional and angered when I talk about the plight of my people.

I come here with my heart. They bestowed it upon me to put me in the position I hold to represent them strongly and advocate for their well-being.

Senator McCallum: I work often with Manitoba Keewatinowi Okimakanak and our people in Manitoba. How long will the pilot that you’re talking about last?

Mr. Yellowback: It’s supposed to end in June of next year. It’s also subject to being extended. We already have multiple communities in Manitoba that are interested in participating, and even across Canada as well.

Senator McCallum: When you look at how you decrease what’s coming in on the winter road, do you see an increase in them using the mail now? The RCMP inconsistently provides roadblocks, as I remember. They refused to have roadblocks at certain points.

Mr. Yellowback: Yes.

Senator McCallum: Even though they caught so many people.

Do you find there will be an increase in the mail?

Mr. Yellowback: Yes, there will be, especially with our First Nation safety officers under our new operating agreement; their authority to search and seize items is extended on our section of our winter road network.

Senator McCallum: Can you give us an example of what they caught when they did the roadblock? They only did it once last year, right?

Mr. Yellowback: There were drugs and large quantities of prescription pills. I believe there was a large amount of intoxicants like rye, vodka and drugs as well.

Senator McCallum: There were also people who were being searched by the police. I think they caught 75 of them.

Mr. Yellowback: Yes.

Senator McCallum: I wanted to show how targeted our communities are in terms of people making money in illegal ways. Even though they’re tiny and isolated, it’s very targeted. You do need the help of government to bring safety, right?

Mr. Yellowback: Yes, we do.

Senator McCallum: Okay.

Senator Simons: Ironically, senators are getting ready to take a picture for Orange Shirt Day. I think it’s more important that we be here right now.

Tansi and hiy hiy for being with us.

I want to know how effective your anti-intoxicant provisions have been at keeping drugs and alcohol out of your more remote reserves, and how big a problem organized crime is in relation to prohibition. The problem often is when you make something illegal, especially something like alcohol and cannabis which are legal elsewhere, it creates sometimes a bigger organized crime problem.

Can you tell me how successful the programs have been overall?

Mr. Yellowback: Under section 8 of the Indian Act, the ban of alcohol has always been there since its inception in the late 1870s, and when we’ve had these bylaws in place, it has been futile since the RCMP and the legal community have not recognized them.

With our enhanced intoxicant bylaw, it took us a while to enforce it, as we had to get our operating agreement enhanced as well and train our First Nation safety officers. So it’s only been the last couple of days that we have fully engaged to go back to —

Senator Simons: So this is very new for you?

Mr. Yellowback: Yes, it’s very new for us right now. It’s a new process for us, so it’s difficult to answer your question about what it will entail in the future. But we are also prepared for that because with the decrease of opioids and intoxicants, there are addicts who will be having withdrawals. We have mechanisms in place to support that, but, at the same time, we anticipate that the illegal items will increase coming through Canada Post.

Senator Simons: Chief Kennedy, you mentioned — and it’s true; fentanyl can kill you the first time you try it. I don’t want to minimize the problems with fentanyl, but is alcohol actually the biggest problem you have?

Ms. Kennedy: If you look at the stats in regard to alcohol, there have been many abuses through alcohol. That’s where it all started. We have had many of the First Nations succumb to alcohol addiction. I don’t think the word “addiction” came now; I think that it’s been there for a long time. Many times, people are still going through a lot of their traumas, and they have no way of accessing help — that’s just one of the ways that they cope, and the addiction is there.

Senator Simons: I wonder if it’s a bit like a dike with a bunch of holes in it, right? We are trying to stop the drugs from coming in. What does your community need to help your people go through addiction treatment, to go through mental health care and to give them jobs, training and hope so that they don’t fall into addiction in the first place? Putting Band-Aids on the problem is one thing, but it’s about actually solving and getting through the layers of intergenerational trauma to help people so that they’re healthy and well.

Ms. Kennedy: I’m glad you’ve mentioned that. We have been trying very hard to get help for our people with addictions.

It’s very hard trying to get help from Health Canada because they’re so limited in their resources that our members have to wait months before they can actually receive treatment. By that time, people probably can’t wait — no one cares, and they continue on with it.

If we had ways of preventing and helping with these addictions — how it happens and why it happens — I’m sure that they will get help and a way to be trained, as well as have trained people in our own communities to talk to because it’s going to our youth. Youth are starting very early now. One of the biggest right now is alcohol, and it contributes to others: stronger drugs.

Mr. Yellowback: If I can add to the devastation impact of alcohol in our communities. Personally, my son was killed by a drunk driver. He left behind four children. For me, I’ve had to live with that every day because a drunk driver took his life.

Also, when you talk about treatment centres, we always advocate to have treatment centres in our own backyards, where they don’t have it — because one of the things our elders have said to us in our communities is that we need to treat our own people. If they go out, they will relapse because there are many drugs and alcohol accessible where they’re going. If we have them in our own backyards, we have land-based programs and cultural camps in place in our communities that we can access and use as a treatment facility. But we need funding in place to support that instead of spending literally about $30,000 or $50,000 for these treatment centres when we send out our community members. That’s only one person.

Senator Simons: Thank you so much for sharing that very personal story. We’re all so sorry for your loss.

Senator Clement: Hello. Thank you. Like my colleagues, I offer condolences to you.

I also want to express gratitude to you, and I’ll say that by saying nia:wen, which is Mohawk for “thank you” because my home community is on traditional Mohawk territory. Nia:wen, thank you for being here and sharing.

I’m going to ask my questions and then get out of the way. I have one question for Mr. Jacques, which I will ask, and then I will engage with Chief Kennedy.

Chief Yellowback, thank you for speaking to us in your language. It’s important to hear it here in this space.

My first question is for Mr. Jacques.

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques, you mentioned sniffer dogs. This interests me. Yesterday, we had a presentation on technology to improve screening. You mentioned that sniffer dogs would be a project that would cost less than the technology. I find that interesting, because I and the communities I represent sometimes feel a certain distrust of technology, which tends to amplify systemic racism. I’d love to hear your comments on this.

Before that, however, I have a question for Chief Kennedy.

[English]

Chief Kennedy, I think you are the longest-serving woman chief in Manitoba. I’m so super honoured to exchange with you.

I asked Mr. Jacques a question about sniffer dogs, and you mentioned it in your comments. What comfort is there around the screening? I know this is beyond the scope, but we may be bringing amendments that facilitate screening and the use of screening in your communities. What is your reaction, or can you go more deeply into that?

Ms. Kennedy: We have a hydro facility that was working with many of our First Nations. We were concerned about drugs going into the hydro site and the compound. With 1,500 to 2,500 people working there, we were concerned about how the drugs were getting in. It took us two years, and then we asked for dogs to come in to ensure that our members were not bringing it home, because we had seen an increase in drugs being brought home in our community. Really, they had never — I shouldn’t say “never,” but the amount of drugs coming into the community had been from the camps, because they were experimenting.

When we addressed this as leaders within our area, they had brought in these canines to help with the drugs, and they were really efficient in what they do. When people first came in, they would sit in there and bring in the dogs. They wouldn’t say dates and times, but at any time. They would know which rooms. They were helpful in what they do, and that’s the reason why I had mentioned that earlier.

Senator Clement: It was a deterrent factor?

Ms. Kennedy: Yes.

Senator Clement: Thank you, Chief Kennedy.

How about Mr. Jacques?

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques: My answer will be twofold. I’ll start with the X-ray equipment. Of course, we need qualified technicians to operate these machines. These X-ray machines are very expensive to buy. Once the equipment is up and running, we have to calibrate it and make sure it’s working properly. Since we’re in Canada, we have to work in extreme temperatures, both cold and hot. Even though they’re located in warehouses, these devices have to be able to work well in this type of environment. This is a particular feature that must be dealt with, and it means that these devices often malfunction.

As for the second part, dog training, I’m not saying that there aren’t costs associated with this, and that’s why I addressed this issue in my introduction.

The RCMP and the Sûreté du Québec have already worked with Canada Post; they’re doing work with the staff they have in place, whether it’s the dog training centre in Rigaud, which trains Canada Border Services Agency dogs, or Correctional Service Canada; the instructors are very busy replacing teams or training new teams to replace those that are leaving.

Of course, if we’re asked to add teams, we’ll need to add training staff and improve the train-the-trainer structure. There will be an inherent cost to this.

It’s the same with police organizations. Each police organization has its own training staff to train its dogs. If I make the comparison with police dogs, they are often generalist dogs trained with a specialty in detection, particularly narcotics, but they can also detect different odours, such as Canadian and American money, firearms or even alcohol.

That’s why I have a proposal to make — and this already exists at Transport Canada — where it would be a third party, either Canada Post or Health Canada, that could legislate this program, but would put certifications in place for private teams. This would support police organizations or the Canada Border Services Agency in the fight against traffickers.

We’ve heard about the tragedies experienced by people in the communities; it’s hard to hear. What we’re trying to do here, obviously, is propose solutions to help these communities and the people in our municipalities and RCMs.

That would be my answer to your question. Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you very much.

[Translation]

Senator Dalphond: Mr. Jacques, I had the pleasure of visiting your facilities. Could you tell us what the success rate is for drug detection in American airports, where dogs are used regularly?

Mr. Jacques: In American airports, it’s the Transportation Security Administration, or TSA, that certifies these teams. Of course, I don’t have all the statistics here; I could send them to the committee later, if you wish.

There’s no denying that the use of sniffer dogs for narcotics detection is an invaluable asset. It’s just a question of training the dogs properly. That’s why I was asking earlier if Health Canada could be involved.

In 2017, the RCMP developed a dog-safe technique to be able to detect fentanyl. I think Health Canada chemists could be brought in to help us with opioids and get dogs to detect the drugs we’re looking for. We can train dogs with more targeted scents. If it’s methamphetamine, fentanyl or other substances, we can train dogs with that.

Earlier, I was listening to a speaker who was explaining that, in her community, it’s cannabis that’s a problem for young people, even though it’s legal. Currently, when it comes to police organizations, there are several organizations that no longer train their dogs to detect cannabis. I hope that answers your question. I’ll get back to you regarding the statistics.

[English]

The Chair: Let me extend my thanks particularly to Chief Yellowback and Chief Kennedy for travelling some distance to share their insights with all of us and to enable us to understand this bill better and the potential it can bring to address the challenges your communities so often face.

I also thank Mr. Jacques and Mr. Odobescu. A genuine thanks to all of you, and thanks to the senators for staying a little bit past our normal time. Also, thanks to the staff for doing the same.

Senator Batters: I wanted to bring up briefly that I received — and I’m sure many of you received this as well — an invitation from Justice Minister Virani to an informal social meeting at his office next week, and we had a similar invitation from Minister Virani when he first became the justice minister. We discussed it in open committee at this meeting, and there were a few of us — myself included and also Senator Jaffer and Senator Dupuis at the time — who expressed that we didn’t think it was appropriate.

In this invitation, I note that it is a form because it says, “Because of your involvement in the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee or your sponsorship of justice legislation” — it doesn’t say critic. It indicates that this would be to “discuss any justice priorities you may have for the upcoming session.” I note that the previous time there was such an invitation, it came through the committee, and perhaps that’s why this is a bit different coming from the minister directly. But I want to say I don’t think it’s appropriate. I’m not going to be attending. I think it’s preferable to have on-the-record, publicly televised conversations with the minister, where we can ask him questions that Canadians will see, rather than this type of off-the-record social gathering. I wanted to bring that to your attention since it was something we discussed at a previous meeting.

The Chair: Thank you, although I’m not sure whether it’s for the committee to decide one way or the other whether an informal conversation with the minister is off limits, and people should make their own judgment call, recognizing Senator Batters’ point that we do have an official role in relation to justice matters.

Thank you. I think this brings this meeting to an end.

(The committee adjourned.)