In a high-level meeting in 2023—one participant representing the head of state of the world’s most powerful nation, the other a popular small-town mayor in British Columbia—candid warnings emerged about Canada’s capacity to confront the industrial-scale production of fentanyl. Mayor Brad West, a longstanding critic of transnational drug networks in his province, recalls Secretary of State Antony Blinken stressing that Washington believes Beijing is effectively weaponizing fentanyl against North Americans—and that Canada stands out as a worrisome weak link in the global supply chain.
On Tuesday, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s government moved to address growing U.S. alarm by appointing former RCMP deputy commissioner Kevin Brosseau as Canada’s new “fentanyl czar.” Announced as part of an agreement to forestall potential American tariffs in a tense trade dispute, the position mandates “accelerating Canada’s ongoing work to detect, disrupt, and dismantle the fentanyl trade,” according to the Prime Minister’s Office. Brosseau, who most recently served as deputy national security and intelligence adviser to Trudeau, will work closely with U.S. agencies to tackle a crisis that has claimed tens of thousands of lives across North America. Still, questions remain about whether he has the standing in Washington—and the authority in Ottawa—to enact meaningful reforms.
West, reflecting on his encounter with Blinken, doubts that incremental measures will suffice. He argues that only bold legislative change, coupled with a willingness to challenge entrenched legal barriers, can dispel the U.S. government’s unease over Canada’s approach. “Secretary Blinken specifically noted the lack of a RICO-style law in Canada,” West said. “He talked about how, in the United States, that law had been used to take down large portions of the mafia. Then he looked at us—one of America’s closest allies—and saw a very concerning weak link.”
According to West, Blinken pointed to China’s role in funneling precursor chemicals into fentanyl labs. He warned that China’s government, if inclined, could stem the flow but has little interest in doing so. “He was incredibly candid and very serious about the threat fentanyl poses to North America,” West recalled. “He confirmed the connection between the Chinese Communist Party, the triads, and the Mexican cartels, telling me these groups are working together—and it’s Canada where they’re finding a safe operating base.”
West says American frustration revolves around high-profile law enforcement stumbles in Canada, notably the E-Pirate investigation into Silver International, an alleged underground bank in Richmond, B.C., believed to have laundered more than a billion dollars a year for global syndicates. Touted as a signal that Canadian authorities could clamp down on transnational money laundering, the case nevertheless collapsed with no convictions. “He expressed genuine dismay that we haven’t secured meaningful convictions,” West said, paraphrasing Blinken. “When our most prominent laundering case ends with zero prison time, you can see why the Americans are alarmed.”
Blinken also conveyed to West that U.S. agencies have grown hesitant to share certain intelligence with their Canadian counterparts.
“He told me that U.S. intelligence and law enforcement are withholding some evidence because they don’t believe we’ll act on it,” West explained. “They’ve lost confidence.”
West added that in ongoing communications, he has learned American officials are shocked that major figures in Asian organized crime “seem to have so much access to our political class. They’re basically saying, ‘What’s going on in Canada?’”
A major concern, according to West, is how known criminals manage to appear at political events or fundraisers with little oversight.
“It’s not necessarily that politicians are complicit, but our political structures have weak guardrails,” West said. “The Americans see pictures of transnational criminals mingling at official gatherings and find it baffling.”
West insists that Canada must enact a legal framework akin to the U.S. Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act to truly “detect, disrupt, and dismantle” the fentanyl trade. “We don’t have anything like it, and until we do, I worry the new czar’s hands could be tied by the legal status quo,” West said. “Ottawa might resist, but we need it. We should have enacted it yesterday.”
He also decries what he calls “egregious rulings” that free major traffickers or launderers on technicalities. West cites a prominent British Columbia case in which a suspect found with more than 27,000 fentanyl pills was released because a police dog had not fully performed its required sitting motion before searching a vehicle. “When a decision like that happens, we’re letting criminals exploit minutiae while countless people die,” he said. “We need a government that has the courage to challenge those judicial outcomes.”
In pursuit of that goal, West is willing to suggest the targeted use of the notwithstanding clause, a rare constitutional tool allowing governments to override parts of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms for up to five years. Typically employed in language or education disputes, it has scarcely been used in criminal proceedings. “When the Charter is being weaponized by sophisticated organizations, the government should consider all tools,” he insisted. “The right of Canadians not to be killed by a drug of this scale ought to supersede a procedural glitch.”
The severity of the fentanyl crisis in British Columbia, which has seen the majority of Canada’s overdose deaths, offers a striking backdrop for West’s urgings. He emphasizes that the torrent of precursor chemicals from China has supercharged local labs, embedding crime syndicates in global narcotics pipelines. Profits from these vast operations, in his words, flow through real estate, casinos, and underground banks with little interference.
Whether Ottawa has the political will to implement measures as sweeping as a RICO-style statute or invoke the notwithstanding clause remains uncertain. Both actions would require confronting powerful interests and explaining why existing laws have failed to secure convictions against top offenders. But West argues that mounting American impatience has changed the equation. “This is no longer just a Canadian domestic issue,” he said. “Secretary Blinken made it clear that the Biden administration sees fentanyl as an existential threat. They’re building a global coalition and need Canada fully on board. If we don’t show real progress, the U.S. will protect itself by any means—tariffs or otherwise.”
“People have been calling for something like RICO in Canada for years,” West added. “Silver International was the textbook illustration of why we need it. We had it all—massive money laundering, triads with direct links to Mexican cartels tied to fentanyl labs—and it collapsed because our system couldn’t handle a case of that complexity. That can’t keep happening, or else we’ll remain the hub of a deadly trade.”
West also revealed he would have accepted the fentanyl czar position himself if asked. “I love being mayor, but this is one of the biggest challenges facing our country,” he said. “I’d pour my heart into it. It demands relentless follow-through: legislation, expanded police powers, educating the public, and yes, taking on the courts if necessary.”
Whether Brosseau wields enough clout remains to be seen. West hopes the appointment signals a turning point from what he calls “a fragmented, complacent approach” to one that confronts the crisis on all fronts. “I’ve seen too many half-measures,” he said. “But maybe this time it’ll be different. The Americans have made their position crystal clear, and we need to demonstrate that we can protect ourselves. Otherwise, we fail both our citizens and our closest ally.”
West still recalls Blinken’s direct plea: “He basically said, ‘We need a partner we can trust, one that can disrupt these networks and secure convictions,’” West noted. “If Canada doesn’t step up, I believe the Americans will respond in ways that damage our relationship—and meanwhile, we’ll continue losing people to a drug that’s tearing families apart. We just can’t let that happen.”
The Bureau is a reader-supported publication.
To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
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.
“So we’re going to have an order on that pretty soon – we can’t do that to our farmers and leisure too, hotels, we’re going to have to use a lot of common sense on that.”
President Donald Trump said Thursday that changes are coming to his aggressive immigration policies after complaints from farmers and business owners.
“Our great Farmers and people in the Hotel and Leisure business have been stating that our very aggressive policy on immigration is taking very good, long time workers away from them, with those jobs being almost impossible to replace,” Trump wrote in a social media post Thursday morning. “In many cases the Criminals allowed into our Country by the VERY Stupid Biden Open Borders Policy are applying for those jobs. This is not good. We must protect our Farmers, but get the CRIMINALS OUT OF THE USA. Changes are coming!”
Later Thursday, Trump made it clear that businesses need workers.
“Our farmers are being hurt badly. They have very good workers – they’re not citizens, but they’ve turned out to be great. And we’re going to have to do something about that,” the president said.
He added: “We can’t take farmers and take all their people and send them back because they don’t have, maybe, what they’re supposed to have.”
Just how Trump may change his approach to immigration enforcement remains unclear, but he said he wants to help farmers and business owners.
“You go into a farm and you look and people, they’ve been there for 20 or 25 years and they work great and the owner of the farm loves them and you’re supposed to throw them out. You know what happens? They end up hiring the criminals that have come in, the murderers from prisons and everything else,” Trump said.
Trump said changes would be coming soon, but gave little detail on how policies could change.
“So we’re going to have an order on that pretty soon – we can’t do that to our farmers and leisure too, hotels, we’re going to have to use a lot of common sense on that.”
In a later post on Truth Social, Trump said illegal immigration had destroyed American institutions.
“Biden let 21 Million Unvetted, Illegal Aliens flood into the Country from some of the most dangerous and dysfunctional Nations on Earth — Many of them Rapists, Murderers, and Terrorists. This tsunami of Illegals has destroyed Americans’ Public Schools, Hospitals, Parks, Community Resources, and Living Conditions,” the president wrote. “They have stolen American Jobs, consumed BILLIONS OF DOLLARS in Free Welfare, and turned once idyllic Communities, like Springfield, Ohio, into Third World Nightmares.”
He added that deportations would continue: “I campaigned on, and received a Historic Mandate for, the largest Mass Deportation Program in American History. Polling shows overwhelming Public Support for getting the Illegals out, and that is exactly what we will do. As Commander-in-Chief, I will always protect and defend the Heroes of ICE and Border Patrol, whose work has already resulted in the Most Secure Border in American History. Anyone who assaults or attacks an ICE or Border Agent will do hard time in jail. Those who are here illegally should either self deport using the CBP Home App or, ICE will find you and remove you. Saving America is not negotiable!”
For years, Canada’s political class sold us on the idea that carbon taxes were clever policy. Not just a tool to cut emissions, but a fair one – tax the polluters, then cycle the money back to regular folks, especially those with thinner wallets.
It wasn’t a perfect system. The focus-group-tested line embraced for years by the Trudeau Liberals made no sense at all: we’re taxing you so we can put more money back in your pocketbooks. What the hell? If you care so much about my taxes being low, just cut them already. Somehow, it took years and years of this line being repeated for its internal contradiction to become evident to all.
Yet, even many strategic conservative minds could see the thinking had internal logic. You could sell it at a town hall. As an editorial team member at an influential news organization when B.C. got its carbon tax in 2008, I bought into the concept too.
And now? That whole model has been thrown overboard, by the very parties had long defended it with a straight face and an arch tone. In both Ottawa and Victoria in 2025, progressive governments facing political survival abandoned the idea of climate policy as a matter of fairness, opting instead for tactical concessions meant to blunt the momentum of their foes.
The result: lower-income Canadians who had grown accustomed to carbon tax rebates as a dependable backstop are waking up to find the support gone. And higher earners? They just got a tidy little gift from the state.
The betrayal is worse in B.C.
This new chart from economist Ken Peacock tells the story. He shared it last week at the B.C. Chamber of Commerce annual gathering in Nanaimo.
Ken-Peacock- B.C. Chamber of Commerce annual gathering in Nanaimo.
What is shows is that scrapping the carbon tax means the poor are poorer. The treasury is emptier.
What about the rich?
Yup, you guessed it: richer.
Scrubbing the B.C. consumer carbon tax leaves the lowest earning 20 percent of households $830 per year poorer, while the top one-fifth gain $959.
“Climate leader” British Columbia’s approach was supposed to be the gold standard: a revenue-neutral carbon tax, accepted by industry, supported by voters, and engineered to send the right price signal without growing the size of government.
That pact broke somewhere along the way.
Instead of returning the money, the provincial government slowly transformed the tax into a $2 billion annual cash cow. And when Mark Carney won the federal election, B.C. Premier David Eby, boxed in by his own pledge, scrapped the tax like a man dropping ballast from a sinking balloon. Gone. No replacement. No protections for those who need them most.
Filling the gas tank, on the other hand, is noticeably cheaper. Of course, if you can’t afford a car that might not be apparent.
Spare a thought for the climate activists who spent 15 years flogging this policy, only to watch it get tossed aside like a stack of briefing notes on a Friday afternoon.
Who could not conclude that the environmental left has been played. For a political movement that prides itself on idealism, it’s a brutal lesson in realpolitik: when power’s on the line, principles are negotiable.
But here’s the thing: maybe the carbon tax model deserved a rethink. Maybe it’s time for a grown-up look at what actually works
With B.C. now reviewing its CleanBC policies, here’s a basic question: what’s working, and what’s not?
A lot of emission reductions in this province didn’t come from government fiat. They were the result of business-led innovation: more efficient technology, cleaner fuels, and capital discipline.
That, plus a hefty dose of offshoring. We’ve pushed our industrial emissions onto other jurisdictions, then shipped the finished goods back without attaching any climate cost. This contradiction particularly helped to fuel the push to dump carbon pricing as a failed solution.
The progressives’ choice was made once the anti-tax arguments could no longer be refuted: to limit losses it would be necessary to deep six an unpopular strand of the overall carbon strategy. This, to save the rest. That’s why policies like the federal emissions cap haven’t also been abandoned.
To give another example, it’s also why British Columbia’s aviation sector is in a flap over the issue of sustainable aviation fuel. Despite years of aspirational policy, low emissions jet fuel blends remain more scarce than a long-haul cabin upgrade. The policy’s designers correctly anticipated that refiners would never be able to meet the imposed demand, and so as an alternative they provided a complex carbon credit trading scheme that will make the cost of flying more expensive. For those with a choice, nearby airport hubs in the United States where these policies do not apply will become an attractive alternative, while remote communities that have no choice in the matter will simply have to eat the cost. (Needless to say, if emissions reduction is your goal this policy isn’t needed anyways, since the decisions that matter in reducing global aviation emissions aren’t made in B.C. and never will be.)
I’m not showing up to bash those who have been genuinely trying to figure things out, and found themselves in a world of policy that is more complicated and unpredictable than they realized. Simply put, the chapter is closing on an era of energy policy naïveté.
The brutally honest action by Eby and Carney to eject carbon taxes for their own political survival could be read as a signal that it’s now okay to have an honest public conversation. Let’s insist on that. For years now, debate has been constrained in part by a particular form of linguistic tyranny, awash in terminology designed to cow the questioner into silence. “So you have an issue with clean policies, do you? What kind of dirty reprobate are you?” “Only a monster doesn’t want their aviation fuel to be sustainable.” Etc. Now is the moment to move on from that, and widen the field of discourse.
Ditching bad policy is also a signal that just maybe a better approach is to start by embracing a robust sense of the possibilities for energy to improve lives and empower all of the solutions needed for tomorrow’s problems. Because that’s the only way the conversation will ever get real.
Slogans, wildly aspirational goal setting and the habit of refusing to acknowledge how the world really works have been getting us nowhere. Petroleum products will continue to obey Yergin’s Law: oil always gets to market. China and India will grow their economies using reliable energy they can afford, having recently approved the construction of the most new coal power plants in a decade amid energy security concerns. Japan, which has practically worn itself out pleading for natural gas from Canada, isn’t waiting for the help of last-finishing nice guys to guarantee energy security: today, they are buying 8% of their LNG imports from the evil Putin regime.
Meanwhile, we’re in the worst of both worlds: our courageous carbon tax policy that was positioned as trailblazing not just for B.C. residents but for the world as a whole – climate leadership! – is gone, the poorest are puzzling over why things feel even more expensive, and nobody knows what comes next.
Ken-Peacock- B.C. Chamber of Commerce annual gathering in Nanaimo.
