Connect with us

National

Fentanyl, Firearms, and Failures: Canada’s Border in Crisis Mode

Published

17 minute read

The Opposition with Dan Knight

Opposition Exposes Legislative Gaps and Diplomatic Tensions as Trudeau Government Defends Record

In the latest session of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security (SECU), the Trudeau government’s border security strategy faced fierce scrutiny.

MPs from the Conservative Party, Bloc Québécois, and NDP unleashed a barrage of criticism, exposing deep flaws in how Canada handles fentanyl trafficking, organized crime, and illegal migration. Witnesses from the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) and Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) offered opening statements aimed at highlighting their agencies’ efforts but quickly found themselves on the defensive, trying to justify their performance amid systemic failures.


CBSA and RCMP: Opening Statements Outline Growing Challenges

CBSA President Erin O’Gorman opened the SECU meeting with what can only be described as a pre-packaged, self-congratulatory performance. She boasted about “proactive” border security measures, highlighting joint operations with U.S. Customs and Border Protection and investments in drones and sensors. Let me translate that for you: a handful of success stories sprinkled with just enough tech jargon to distract from the gaping holes in Canada’s border defenses.

RCMP Commissioner Michael Duheme followed suit, painting a rosy picture of collaboration through Integrated Border Enforcement Teams (IBETs) and intelligence-sharing with the U.S. He acknowledged the challenges of tackling synthetic drugs like fentanyl but stopped short of explaining why Canada still lacks the resources to do so effectively. It was the same tired tune—effort without impact, talking points without solutions.

But the cracks in their narrative were impossible to miss. Both officials hinted at the enormity of the task they face and the glaring limitations of current resources and laws. And as the opposition MPs made clear, the gaps in leadership and accountability couldn’t be ignored. For all the talk of “progress,” the testimony revealed a border security system teetering on the edge of failure.

Organized Crime: Exploiting Systemic Weaknesses

Testimony revealed the alarming extent to which organized crime syndicates exploit Canada’s border vulnerabilities. Commissioner Duheme admitted that smugglers are using well-established routes to move firearms, fentanyl, and other contraband. Conservative MP Dane Lloyd wasted no time zeroing in on this issue, pointing out that while 750 firearms have been seized in 2024, countless others continue to flood Canadian streets, fueling gang violence and crime.

But it didn’t stop there. O’Gorman acknowledged that stolen Canadian vehicles are regularly smuggled out of the country, with some linked to terrorism financing. She admitted that CBSA’s enforcement efforts are hampered by a glaring legislative gap: ports are not legally required to provide inspection spaces for exports. Lloyd slammed this lack of oversight, declaring, “How can this government allow stolen vehicles to fund terrorism while ignoring calls for mandatory inspections?”


Fentanyl Crisis: A Growing Threat

The fentanyl epidemic emerged as another key issue, with MPs challenging the adequacy of current policies. O’Gorman highlighted CBSA’s success in seizing 4.9 kilograms of fentanyl in 2024, most of which was destined for Europe rather than the U.S. However, she acknowledged that small shipments of fentanyl precursors—dual-use chemicals legally imported and diverted to illicit production—remain a significant challenge.

NDP MP Alistair MacGregor pressed the witnesses on why the government has not tightened regulations on precursors. “We know how these chemicals are being exploited, yet the system remains open to abuse,” he said. RCMP Commissioner Duheme supported calls for stronger regulations, noting that criminal networks are becoming increasingly sophisticated in circumventing existing controls.

Conservative MP Doug Shipley didn’t hold back in his critique of the Trudeau government’s apparent complacency when it comes to border security. Referencing President-Elect Donald Trump’s scathing comments about Canada’s role in the U.S. opioid crisis, Shipley’s line of questioning cut straight to the heart of the issue: why does the government only react when faced with external pressure?

“Why does it take U.S. pressure and Trump’s rhetoric to get this government to act?” Shipley demanded, pointing to a troubling pattern where meaningful action on key issues like fentanyl trafficking only occurs after international embarrassment. The timing of Canada’s recent policy adjustments, including visa tightening and enforcement boosts under the Safe Third Country Agreement, raises serious questions about whether these moves were proactive measures or hasty reactions to avoid diplomatic fallout.

Shipley underscored the growing perception that the Trudeau government is more concerned with managing optics than tackling the underlying problems. “We have a border security crisis that has been ignored for years,” he said. “The Liberals have known about these issues—the fentanyl, the illegal crossings, the smuggling—and yet, nothing changes until a spotlight is shone on Canada’s failures.”

The backdrop of Trump’s rhetoric added fuel to the fire. His comments have not only strained Canada-U.S. relations but also amplified the stakes, with the threat of economic consequences like tariffs looming in the background. Shipley’s frustration echoed a broader sentiment among opposition MPs: that Canada’s leadership lacks the urgency and resolve to address border security challenges head-on, instead waiting for external forces to dictate the agenda.

The question Shipley posed wasn’t just rhetorical—it struck at the core of a government that has repeatedly been accused of putting politics over public safety. And in a system where criminal networks and traffickers are thriving, the consequences of inaction are no longer hypothetical—they’re devastatingly real.


Illegal Migration and Diplomatic Tensions

Illegal migration across the Canada-U.S. border also came under intense scrutiny. Bloc MP Kristina Michaud raised concerns about the surge in southbound crossings, which peaked at 7,000 individuals in mid-2024, a 680% increase since 2015. Although O’Gorman pointed to policy changes like visa tightening and the expanded Safe Third Country Agreement (STCA) as reasons for recent declines, opposition MPs remained skeptical.

Conservatives also linked the migration issue to potential diplomatic fallout with the U.S., particularly Trump’s proposed 25% tariffs on Canadian goods. “If this government can’t control the border, how can we expect to maintain good relations with our largest trading partner?” asked MP Glen Motz.

Canada’s Border Crisis: Solutions Are Clear, Leadership Is Missing


Let’s be real: the state of Canada’s border security isn’t just a policy issue; it’s a crisis. But if we’re going to have an honest conversation about solutions—and not just rhetoric—then we need to ask tough questions about what’s really required to fix this mess.

First, funding. The government loves to talk about its investments, but where is the money actually going? Testimony at SECU made it clear: the agencies on the front lines, like CBSA and the RCMP, are being asked to do more with less. They’re intercepting firearms, stolen vehicles, and fentanyl shipments, but they’re stretched thin. If we want real results, we need to ensure funding increases are targeted—not just wasted on bureaucracy. Drones, sensors, and data-sharing systems need to be deployed across the board, not in isolated pockets.

Then there’s the legislation. Canada’s laws are riddled with loopholes that make life easier for smugglers and harder for law enforcement. Case in point: ports aren’t even required to provide inspection spaces for exports. Let me repeat that—criminals are smuggling stolen vehicles and contraband out of the country because our laws don’t demand basic oversight at our ports. This isn’t rocket science. Mandate those inspections. Close the gaps on precursor chemicals. Hold shipping companies accountable. What’s the holdup?

And finally, diplomacy. The Liberals love to brand themselves as global players, yet our closest ally—the United States—is threatening tariffs because they don’t think Canada is doing enough on border security. Instead of caving to political pressure, how about showing some backbone? Share the data. Prove our contributions. Demand that the U.S. work with us as partners, not as scapegoats. But that requires leadership—real leadership—which seems to be in short supply in Ottawa.

The solutions are on the table. What’s missing is the political will to act. This isn’t just about protecting our borders; it’s about protecting Canadian families, Canadian jobs, and Canadian sovereignty. If Trudeau’s government can’t deliver, it’s time for leadership that can.


Excuses vs. Accountability on Border Security

When it comes to Canada’s border security, the political divide couldn’t be clearer. On one side, you have the Trudeau Liberals, spinning their tired narrative of progress, insisting they’ve done enough to secure our borders. On the other, you’ve got the opposition—Conservatives, Bloc, and NDP MPs alike—hammering away at the glaring failures of this government. And let me tell you, the contrasts are striking.

The Liberals came to this SECU meeting armed with buzzwords. They touted investments in drones, sensors, and new technologies. Liberal MP Anita Vandenbeld claimed these measures have led to “real results,” pointing to declines in illegal crossings and seizures of fentanyl. Sounds good on paper, right? But dig a little deeper, and you’ll see the cracks.

Conservative MPs like Doug Shipley and Dane Lloyd weren’t buying it. Shipley grilled witnesses on why, despite all this so-called progress, southbound illegal crossings into the U.S. are up 680% since 2015. “Why does this government always wait for a crisis before taking action?” he asked. Lloyd, meanwhile, exposed how criminals are exploiting Canada’s ports to smuggle stolen vehicles overseas—vehicles that fund international terrorism. And what’s the Liberal response? More consultations, more discussions. In other words, nothing.

Then there’s the Bloc’s Kristina Michaud. She hammered away at the government’s inability to close legislative gaps, like mandating export inspections at ports. Michaud even questioned whether the Liberals have the political will to enforce their own policies. That’s a devastating critique from Quebec’s representative, and it highlights the regional frustrations with Ottawa’s top-down approach.

Even the NDP, who often side with the Liberals, weren’t letting them off the hook. Alistair MacGregor zeroed in on fentanyl precursors, pointing out how weak regulations allow criminal networks to exploit Canada’s legal system. “When will this government stop talking about solutions and start implementing them?” he demanded. A fair question, given that these loopholes have existed for years.

So here’s the divide: the Liberals are clinging to their talking points, pretending their investments are enough, while the opposition is laser-focused on the systemic failures, legislative inaction, and diplomatic blunders that have allowed this crisis to spiral.

It’s a classic case of two narratives—one selling excuses, the other demanding accountability. And the real tragedy? While Ottawa debates, Canadian families are left to deal with the consequences of illegal drugs, rising crime, and stolen property funding terrorism. This isn’t just a political debate; it’s a national emergency.

Final Thoughts

Canada is a nation built on resilience, hard work, and a commitment to protecting its people. But what we’re seeing now is a betrayal of those values. Our borders aren’t just weak—they’re dangerously open to exploitation by criminals, traffickers, and opportunists. The SECU hearings made one thing abundantly clear: the Trudeau government has failed to defend the integrity of this country.

Lack of resources. Outdated laws. Political inaction. This isn’t governance—it’s negligence. While the CBSA and RCMP are doing everything they can with the tools they’re given, it’s not enough. Why? Because the leadership they need is nowhere to be found. Instead, we have Justin Trudeau—Ottawa’s talking head—more concerned with photo ops and platitudes than with keeping Canadians safe.

This is a system designed to fail, and Canadians are paying the price. It doesn’t have to be this way. With real leadership—leadership that prioritizes security, accountability, and action—we can fix this. We can close the legislative gaps, give our border agencies the resources they need, and restore Canada’s sovereignty.

It’s time to demand more from Ottawa. Not excuses, not buzzwords, but real, tangible change. Because this isn’t just about border security—it’s about protecting Canadian families, defending our economy, and safeguarding the values that define us as a nation. Canada deserves better. And if Justin Trudeau can’t deliver, then it’s time for someone who can.

Subscribe to The Opposition with Dan Knight .

For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Energy

The Carney Government is Hijacking the Phase “Energy Superpower” to Advance Their Agenda

Published on

From Energy Now

By Jim Warren

Lately, the spin doctors in the prime minister’s office (PMO) have been hijacking perfectly good words and altering their meaning in the service of the Liberal agenda.


Get the Latest Canadian Focused Energy News Delivered to You! It’s FREE: Quick Sign-Up Here


For budgetary purposes “operating expenses” have become “investments.”  Similarly, the term “energy superpower” no longer means what people typically think it means. Back in the day when the concept “energy superpower” was popularized, it was used to describe oil rich countries like Saudi Arabia, the other Gulf states and OPEC members.

Those countries are home to the oil sheiks—the leaders of OPEC who capitalized on their dominant position in global energy markets to affect the global oil supply and prices. They also used their control over oil as a source of leverage in the realm of geopolitics.

Wikipedia, the font of knowledge for lazy columnists, describes the traditional meaning of energy superpower as follows “…a country that supplies large amounts of energy resources (crude oilnatural gascoal, etc.) to a significant number of other countries – and therefore has the potential to influence world markets for political or economic gains. Energy superpower status might be exercised, for example, by significantly influencing the price on global markets or by withholding supplies.”

During the 2025 election campaign Mark Carney’s notion of what constitutes an energy superpower was aligned with the conventional definition.  A CTV news report the day after the federal election reminded viewers that on “April 8 at a campaign stop in Calgary, Carney pledged to position Canada as a ‘world energy superpower,’ calling for new [oil] pipelines, including one to Eastern Canada.”

By September of 2025, Carney and his Energy Minister Timothy Hodgson had obviously adopted a new definition. They still boast about making Canada an energy superpower but no longer referred to oil production and new export pipelines as things integral to that goal.

But wait, on Friday November 7 the prime minister told attendees at Canadian Club event in Toronto not to worry the long sought pipeline “was going to happen.”

Pardon me if I’m not convinced. Over the three months prior to Friday the Liberals had left us to assume becoming an energy superpower could happen without increasing oil production and exports.

We are still left with a riddle—what do the Carney Liberals actually mean when they promise Canadians we will achieve “energy superpower” status if crude oil, Canada’s single most valuable export commodity is no longer one of the key components of the strategy to get us there?

Actually, Canada was well on its way to achieving the status of a world class energy superpower until the Trudeau Liberals assumed office. Our budding superpower ambitions were foreclosed on by the Liberals’ growth killing BANANA* legislation which thwarted efforts to increase oil production and exports. The blue-eyed sheiks of Western Canada have been handcuffed and denounced as authors of the upcoming climate apocalypse.

(*BANANA – Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything)

The communications wizards in the PMO abandoned the traditional definition without actually telling anyone they were doing so. They have quietly adopted a fossil fuel-free version of what it means to be a supremely powerful purveyor of energy, but haven’t explained what that entails.

If they chose to be honest with Canadians they would say what they really mean is “green energy superpower.” But if they came clean, it would probably trigger a national unity crisis. Better to leave things loose until the budget has been approved.

Despite wishful thinking in Ottawa, Canada is a long way from winning the race for medals in the field of clean, green energy production. But, we’re so far behind the leaders that Mark Carney thinks he’s first.

Powering the dream of a net zero world will presumably rely heavily on the approximately 28 critical minerals and rare earths required for wind turbines, advanced electric motors and batteries. Canada makes it to the medals podium for just three of the 28. According to a 2024 report published by Our World in Data, Canada is in third place globally for uranium and aluminum production, and cobalt refining.

Australia, a Western-style capitalist democracy which punches close to our weight by many economic measures is far ahead of Canada when it comes to critical minerals production and proven reserves. China is in a class of its own—clearly the world leader in rare earth production and proven reserves, miles ahead of the rest of the world. When it comes to mining and refining of critical minerals Canada has a lot of catching up to do.

Canada is similarly a long way from superpower status when it comes to the manufacturing of polysilicon, the compound required to produce solar electricity, and wind turbines.

Canada does not have any commercial level producers of polysilicon. China has several firms that manufacture it, one of which GCL-Poly has a 22% share of the global market. Polysilicon is also produced by firms in the US, South Korea, Germany, Japan, Norway and Qatar. There once was a company in Canada which imported polysilicon from China which it then used to make solar panels. Apparently it has moved its operations to the US.

Globally, there are approximately 39 manufacturers of large, grid-scale wind turbines located in some 14 different countries. The world’s largest manufacturer, Vestas, is headquartered in Denmark. No large wind turbines are manufactured in Canada. Our role is limited to installation, operations and maintenance.

And, given recent events it is unlikely Canada is going to become a global superpower for the manufacturing of electric vehicles any time soon.

Canada is in third place globally for the production of hydroelectricity, although our 364.2 terawatt-hours (TWH) of electricity we generate pales in comparison with China’s 4,183.4 TWH of hydroelectric production. While the environmentally virtuous may find grounds for bragging rights with respect to our country’s hydro production, it means little in terms of leverage in a global market place. Sure Canadian producers sell electricity into the US power grid, but they are unable to sell it anywhere else. Ocean spanning transmission lines won’t work, too much power is lost when sending power long distances and selling electricity stored in batteries is not commercially viable—the batteries required are simply too big and insanely expensive.

For the foreseeable future the only way Canada can claim superpower status as a producer of clean energy is if the definition is radically changed. Apparently being identified as a clean green energy superpower can now mean that a country makes use of an impressive level of the stuff—the criteria required to be deemed an “impressive producer” is apparently one of those post-modern woke notions whereby each country is entitled to its own green energy truth.

This echoes the casual way social media mavens award superpower status to supposedly inspiring personal characteristics – my superpower is multi-tasking, or baking sourdough bread, or being an avid recycler. It makes about as much sense as claiming you are a hero because you held a guy’s mitts so he could dial 911 to report an accident.

It is sad, but true, that Canada was well on its way to energy superpower status prior to the federal Liberals coming to office in 2015. Crude oil was then and remains Canada’s single most valuable export product. We currently export approximately 4.2 million barrels per day which was worth 153 billion USD in 2024. Back in 2013 and early 2014 when world prices were good the oil industry was generating as much as three to four percent of Canada’s GDP.

Clearly Canada could be doing a whole lot better economically if the federal government got behind the oil industry and removed the barriers to growth in production and exports. Danielle Smith has been trying to alert the Canadian government and public to the reality that completion of a single million barrels per day oil pipeline from Alberta to Prince Rupert could contribute $20 to $30 billion in new revenues to Canada’s GDP, depending on world prices.

That would be a giant leap forward on the path to being a real energy superpower.

Continue Reading

Business

Canada is failing dismally at our climate goals. We’re also ruining our economy.

Published on

From the Fraser Institute

By Annika Segelhorst and Elmira Aliakbari

Short-term climate pledges simply chase deadlines, not results

The annual meeting of the United Nations Conference of the Parties, or COP, which is dedicated to implementing international action on climate change, is now underway in Brazil. Like other signatories to the Paris Agreement, Canada is required to provide a progress update on our pledge to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 40 to 45 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030. After decades of massive government spending and heavy-handed regulations aimed at decarbonizing our economy, we’re far from achieving that goal. It’s time for Canada to move past arbitrary short-term goals and deadlines, and instead focus on more effective ways to support climate objectives.

Since signing the Paris Agreement in 2015, the federal government has introduced dozens of measures intended to reduce Canada’s carbon emissions, including more than $150 billion in “green economy” spending, the national carbon tax, the arbitrary cap on emissions imposed exclusively on the oil and gas sector, stronger energy efficiency requirements for buildings and automobiles, electric vehicle mandates, and stricter methane regulations for the oil and gas industry.

Recent estimates show that achieving the federal government’s target will impose significant costs on Canadians, including 164,000 job losses and a reduction in economic output of 6.2 per cent by 2030 (compared to a scenario where we don’t have these measures in place). For Canadian workers, this means losing $6,700 (each, on average) annually by 2030.

Yet even with all these costly measures, Canada will only achieve 57 per cent of its goal for emissions reductions. Several studies have already confirmed that Canada, despite massive green spending and heavy-handed regulations to decarbonize the economy over the past decade, remains off track to meet its 2030 emission reduction target.

And even if Canada somehow met its costly and stringent emission reduction target, the impact on the Earth’s climate would be minimal. Canada accounts for less than 2 per cent of global emissions, and that share is projected to fall as developing countries consume increasing quantities of energy to support rising living standards. In 2025, according to the International Energy Agency (IEA), emerging and developing economies are driving 80 per cent of the growth in global energy demand. Further, IEA projects that fossil fuels will remain foundational to the global energy mix for decades, especially in developing economies. This means that even if Canada were to aggressively pursue short-term emission reductions and all the economic costs it would imposes on Canadians, the overall climate results would be negligible.

Rather than focusing on arbitrary deadline-contingent pledges to reduce Canadian emissions, we should shift our focus to think about how we can lower global GHG emissions. A recent study showed that doubling Canada’s production of liquefied natural gas and exporting to Asia to displace an equivalent amount of coal could lower global GHG emissions by about 1.7 per cent or about 630 million tonnes of GHG emissions. For reference, that’s the equivalent to nearly 90 per cent of Canada’s annual GHG emissions. This type of approach reflects Canada’s existing strength as an energy producer and would address the fastest-growing sources of emissions, namely developing countries.

As the 2030 deadline grows closer, even top climate advocates are starting to emphasize a more pragmatic approach to climate action. In a recent memo, Bill Gates warned that unfounded climate pessimism “is causing much of the climate community to focus too much on near-term emissions goals, and it’s diverting resources from the most effective things we should be doing to improve life in a warming world.” Even within the federal ministry of Environment and Climate Change, the tone is shifting. Despite the 2030 emissions goal having been a hallmark of Canadian climate policy in recent years, in a recent interview, Minister Julie Dabrusin declined to affirm that the 2030 targets remain feasible.

Instead of scrambling to satisfy short-term national emissions limits, governments in Canada should prioritize strategies that will reduce global emissions where they’re growing the fastest.

Annika Segelhorst

Junior Economist

Elmira Aliakbari

Elmira Aliakbari

Director, Natural Resource Studies, Fraser Institute
Continue Reading

Trending

X