From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

By Brian Giesbrecht

Drug cartels, China, and Canada’s negligence are fueling the deadliest epidemic of our time

It took the threat of U.S. tariffs for Canada to wake up to the horrors of the fentanyl epidemic that is destroying young lives and shattering families. Canadians, who panicked over COVID-19 deaths, have hardly noticed that far more healthy Canadians and Americans are now dying from fentanyl overdoses than ever died from COVID.

Yet while Americans confront this deadly epidemic, Canada remains oblivious to how deeply the crisis has infiltrated our borders.

A grim milestone came in 2021 when U.S. opioid overdose deaths exceeded 100,000 in a single year. More than a million Americans have died from opioid overdoses since these highly addictive drugs first entered the market. Today, fentanyl overdose is the leading cause of death for Americans aged 18 to 25.

Behind every kilogram of fentanyl lies half a million potential deaths. Behind every pill—a game of Russian roulette.

Fentanyl is a synthetic opioid so powerful that one kilogram can kill 500,000 people. Its extreme potency makes it both highly dangerous and easy to smuggle. A single backpack thrown across the border can carry $1 million worth of the drug. It is easy to see why so many opportunists are willing to risk their lives producing and selling it. Overdose statistics fail to capture the bodies found in deserts or those murdered in the vicious drug trade.

Fentanyl is produced for a few cents per pill but sold on the street for many times that, making it both profitable and a cheap high. Incredibly addictive, it is found in virtually all street drugs, giving “the most bang for the buck.” Made by amateurs, these drugs are carelessly laced with lethal doses. And because the pills look identical, users never know whether a dose will get them high—or kill them.

But Canada is not just a bystander in this crisis. A loophole in our border laws—the “de minimis” exemption—has turned Canada into a gateway for fentanyl entering U.S. communities. This exemption allows exporters to ship small packages valued at less than $800 directly to customers with minimal border inspection. Chinese exporters exploit this loophole to ship fentanyl precursors into Canada, where they are processed into pills or moved to Mexico under the supervision of Mexican drug cartels.

The Trump administration has pressed Canada to close this loophole. That it has existed for years, almost unnoticed, should shock us to the core.

The problem of fentanyl production within Canada should not be minimized. The RCMP reports that fentanyl labs are appearing across B.C., often producing methamphetamine alongside fentanyl. These small labs supply both domestic and international markets. The threat is real, and it is growing.

Exactly how many Canadians have died from fentanyl overdoses is unclear. However, with Canada’s population roughly one-ninth of the U.S., it is reasonable to estimate that Canadian deaths are approximately one-ninth of U.S. numbers.

But overdose numbers alone don’t tell the whole story. The number of lives wrecked by this drug is staggering. Parents watch their children—once vibrant and full of promise—disappear before their eyes. Their beauty fades, their minds unravel, and their lives collapse into the desperate cycle of chasing the next fix. Some escape. Many don’t. Until death takes them, that is.

The new Trump administration has promised to confront this carnage. “This is a drug war,” Peter Navarro, assistant to the president and director of the Office of Trade and Manufacturing Policy, recently told reporters. “The Mexican cartels have expanded up to Canada, making fentanyl there and sending it down to the U.S. The Chinese are using Canada to send in small parcels below the radar. It’s important that Canadians understand we are trying to stop the killing of Americans by these deadly drugs.”

But while the U.S. acts, Canada hesitates. Trump is addressing the problem—Canada is enabling it.

The Trump administration also views Canada’s lax drug laws and casual attitude toward buying and selling even the most dangerous drugs as an exacerbating factor. However, on the fentanyl issue, it is clear Trump is determined to tackle a problem Canada has largely ignored. He should be commended for this, and Canada should start cleaning up its own mess.

Yet fentanyl smuggling from Canada is only part of a larger issue. Behind the drug trade lies an even more insidious enemy: the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).

The importation of fentanyl precursors from China, facilitated by Mexican cartels, has turned Vancouver into a money-laundering hub for the CCP. Investigative reporters like Sam Cooper and Terry Glavin have revealed the depth of this corruption, despite the Hogue Commission’s failure to expose it fully.

Ryan P. Williams, president of the Claremont Institute, warns that “The fentanyl crisis is part of a larger campaign by the CCP to destabilize Western nations. They flood our streets with poison while corrupting our institutions from within. If Canada doesn’t confront this threat, it will lose not only lives—but its sovereignty.”

Our new “fentanyl czar,” appointed by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, should not only address the drug crisis but also expose how deeply a hostile CCP has compromised Canada.

Tackling the fentanyl problem will be enormously difficult—likely impossible— for the Trump administration without cooperation from China, Mexico and even Canada. And forcing that cooperation is likely the first part of Trump’s plan.

Canada’s role may be small, but it must take full responsibility for securing its borders and confronting the fentanyl crisis. Trump has forced us to act. Now, if we are serious about restoring our nation’s integrity, we must break the CCP’s grip on our institutions.

In doing so, we will save Canadian lives.

Brian Giesbrecht is a retired Manitoba judge. He is a Senior Fellow at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy. He was recently named the ‘Western Standard Columnist of the Year.’

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

By Lee Harding

The Liberal Party has crowned Mark Carney leader, but his path to victory is riddled with obstacles

The Liberal Party of Canada has selected a non-MP to become prime minister, but precedent suggests he won’t last long. Mark Carney represents the worst aspects of both John Turner’s and Michael Ignatieff’s political rises and appears destined for the same electoral futility.

When Pierre Trudeau stepped down as Liberal leader in 1984 after more than 15 years as prime minister, he left behind a parting gift: over 200 Liberal patronage appointments. His successor, John Turner, agreed to another 70. These appointments became a burden, weighing down Turner’s leadership before it had even begun. Like Carney, Turner was not a sitting MP when he became leader. Forced to call a snap election, he watched the Progressive Conservatives secure the first of two successive majorities.

Now, history is repeating itself. Justin Trudeau’s cabinet made 70 appointments in its final days, including 12 judges. That number doesn’t include the 10 senators he appointed while Parliament was prorogued—nearly 10 per cent of the 105-seat chamber. Like Turner, Carney must navigate a leadership legacy tainted by patronage and an unpopular outgoing prime minister.

But does Carney’s experience, reputation, and distance from Trudeau offer him a fresh start? It seems unlikely. Unlike Turner, Carney has never held elected office.

Turner at least had a political track record. As a cabinet minister under two prime ministers, he handled high-profile Justice and Finance portfolios. He also benefited from a nine-year break from politics, distancing himself from the unpopular Trudeau. None of it mattered. Turner still lost.

Liberals hope Carney can ride a wave of popularity after a dominant leadership victory, securing 85 per cent support. But what did he really win? A former central banker, he climbed atop a heap of ruins.

His victory over Chrystia Freeland, Karina Gould, and former MP Frank Baylis was less a competitive race and more a coronation. Freeland carried the baggage of Trudeau’s policies, while the other two lacked national recognition. Carney, the only contender without direct ties to Trudeau’s government, was the default choice. The Liberal Party is adrift, and he simply took the helm.

But winning an uncontested leadership race is no guarantee of electoral success. Turner’s rise in 1984 was far more hard-fought—he overcame political heavyweights, including Jean Chrétien and four other cabinet ministers, in a real contest for the party’s future. Yet despite his credentials and broad support within the party, Canadians still rejected him.

And unlike Turner, Carney’s leadership victory raises serious legitimacy concerns. Liberal leadership races allow votes from permanent residents (non-citizens) and minors aged 14 to 17—groups that have no say in a general election. Even more troubling, of the 400,000 votes cast, only 147,000 were verified. Carney received 126,000 of those votes, but nearly two-thirds of ballots were rejected. Had those votes gone to any of his opponents, Carney’s win would have been far from certain.

A Rebel News petition calling for Elections Canada, CSIS, and the RCMP to audit the leadership vote is already circulating. While skepticism over the process is reasonable, it’s doubtful that meaningful answers will emerge.

Beyond legitimacy issues, Carney shares another unfortunate trait with a failed Liberal leader: Michael Ignatieff.

Ignatieff followed Stéphane Dion, whose push for a carbon tax proved deeply unpopular. The Conservatives quickly branded Ignatieff, a long-time Harvard professor, as an elitist disconnected from ordinary Canadians. Their “He didn’t come back for you” attack ads stuck, and Ignatieff led the Liberals to a historic defeat, falling to third-party status.

Carney faces the same vulnerability. After years in England, he will struggle to shake the image of an out-of-touch globalist. His French, weaker than Ignatieff’s, will also hurt him in Quebec, a province that abandoned the Liberals in 2011 in favour of the NDP.

History suggests Carney’s leadership will pave the way for another Conservative majority government—just as Turner and Ignatieff’s failures did.

Carney’s leadership campaign combines the worst aspects of 1984 and 2011. As an unelected, elitist ex-pat with weak French, he carries a Liberal banner weighed down by both Trudeau’s baggage and the deeply unpopular carbon tax.

A Conservative government with a mandate for reform is increasingly likely. A slimmed-down civil service, reduced regulations, the abolition of the carbon tax, and renewed pipeline construction could all be on the horizon. After nearly a decade of Liberal rule, Canada’s political pendulum seems set to swing back once again.

Lee Harding is Research Fellow for the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.