Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

National

EXCLUSIVE: Charges Dropped Against Chinese Scientist in Vancouver Tied to Xi’s “Talents” Program and Canada’s Synthetic Drug Pipeline

Published

14 minute read

The Bureau uncovers how a CCP-linked academic hired under China’s “Talents” plan evaded prosecution after allegedly being caught with precursors shipped from PRC

Canadian prosecutors have quietly dropped charges against a Chinese scientist in Vancouver accused of importing more than 100 kilograms of a narcotics precursor, raising serious questions about her connections to Chinese academic programs and networks suspected of links to espionage, foreign interference, and transnational crime, The Bureau has learned.

The 57-year-old chemist, referred to here as Dr. X due to the unusual termination of the case, has documented affiliations with Chinese institutions flagged for military research and intelligence collaboration. According to filings from a bio-pharmaceutical company with ties to the University of British Columbia that hired her to lead large-scale cannabinoid extraction, Dr. X was reportedly working within Canadian universities under Beijing’s “Talents” plan—a recruitment initiative expanded under President Xi Jinping and described by U.S. intelligence as a platform for espionage and dual-use technology transfer.

British Columbia court records confirm that Dr. X, a graduate of Zhejiang University—an institution associated with China’s Ministry of State Security—was charged in June 2022 with importing and exporting a controlled substance.

Sources familiar with the court file informed The Bureau that Dr. X was accused of importing over 100 kilograms of PMK ethyl glycidate, a synthetic chemical widely used in the production of MDMA (ecstasy). Dr. X was allegedly caught retrieving the shipment in Richmond, British Columbia.

The Bureau’s investigation into her international academic, corporate, and legal affiliations reveals links to suspects, residences, and shipping hubs in Vancouver associated with the Sam Gor syndicate—a sprawling transnational drug cartel including triad leaders based in Vancouver and Toronto, with documented ties to Chinese Communist Party–aligned foreign influence networks operating across North America.

Despite the gravity of the charges and over ten court appearances for Dr. X within three years, the Public Prosecution Service of Canada issued a stay of proceedings on March 31, 2025, quietly shelving the unreported case without public explanation.

“The Crown has an ongoing obligation to assess its cases to ensure they continue to meet the standard for prosecution,” a spokesperson for the prosecution service in Ottawa told The Bureau. “In this case, the Crown determined that the standard was no longer met and, in accordance with Section 579 of the Criminal Code, directed a stay of proceedings.”

The timing of the decision is troubling.

This year U.S. authorities have increasingly identified Vancouver as a global hub for precursor chemical smuggling and lab production for synthetic narcotics—including fentanyl, MDMA, and methamphetamine. The opaque dismissal of such a serious case raises urgent public interest concerns about legal failures, political reluctance, and Canada’s lack of enforcement tools to dismantle foreign-linked criminal networks operating across the nation with near-total impunity.

In a parallel case that sources say is linked to a major superlab investigation in British Columbia, stemming from U.S. DEA probes, the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control in October 2023 sanctioned Vancouver-based businessman Bahman Djebelibak and his companies—Valerian Labs Inc. and Valerian Labs Distribution Corp.—for their alleged role in a China-based network trafficking precursors for fentanyl, methamphetamine, and MDMA.

According to Treasury, the Port Coquitlam firms were major clients of Jinhu Minsheng Pharmaceutical Machinery, a Chinese supplier of pill presses and dies used to manufacture counterfeit oxycodone tablets. Valerian Labs allegedly received shipments of methylamine hydrochloride, a chemical precursor for meth and MDMA.

Djebelibak has denied the allegations, stating that his companies legally produced health supplements under Health Canada licences.

The Bureau’s deeper investigation into Dr. X’s career reveals a complex web of institutional and corporate ties—spanning academic programs and research partnerships with universities in Ontario, Sweden, and the University of British Columbia, as well as a cluster of bio-pharma ventures in Vancouver, Oregon, and Suzhou, China.

Some of the most concerning connections emerge from a detailed review of filings from a now-delisted Canadian cannabinoid extraction company—referred to here as Company A. Once licensed by Health Canada, the firm was suspended from trading on Canadian stock exchanges amid a $50-million investment fraud scandal involving a Chinese family from West Vancouver, accused of operating illegal cannabis dispensaries in British Columbia and Ontario, with reported ties to organized crime.

A 2016 corporate filing shows that Company A appointed Dr. X as Director of Science and Technology, citing her portfolio of more than 20 patents and her work assisting manufacturers worldwide with securing financing, project evaluation, equipment procurement, and the design and construction of extraction facilities. The same filing disclosed that Dr. X was “currently appointed as overseas talent for the Chinese government” and identified her as an expert consultant for the Zhejiang University Innovation Research Institute.

Zhejiang University is designated high-risk in the Australian Strategic Policy Institute’s Defence Universities Tracker, due to its links to military laboratories, cyber-espionage programs, and China’s defense industrial base. A 2012 U.S. Congressional report identified the university as a recipient of research funding from the Ministry of State Security (MSS), China’s sprawling civilian intelligence agency. The MSS is now widely described as the world’s most aggressive and expansive foreign interference entity, with an estimated hundreds of thousands of officers and affiliated operatives.

In 2013, U.S. officials arrested cancer researcher Huajun Zhao for attempting to send proprietary biomedical materials from the Medical College of Wisconsin to Zhejiang University—an alleged act of espionage.

Notably, Dr. X’s patent portfolio spans a broad range of technologies, including chemical extraction and separation for cannabinoid pill and vape applications, novel cancer research, and electroluminescent devices used in display technologies.

By 2017, Dr. X’s Vancouver-based Company A had partnered with a biotech and pharmaceutical firm in Suzhou, China, importing proprietary machinery and processing technology to its Vancouver facility. Internal documents outlined plans to process 50,000 kilograms of hemp biomass per day, with a 600-ton extraction plant under construction to produce 150 tons of purified CBD isolate annually for export to Europe, Asia, and Australia.

In an investor briefing that same year, Dr. X described the Suzhou equipment as “the only extraction technology capable of processing industrial-scale volumes” of hemp, capable of isolating its compounds to achieve high purity levels.

Also in that briefing, a clinical researcher and assistant professor from the University of British Columbia who had joined Company A’s board, stated: “We are eager to bring this technology to [Company A’s] lab to verify its capabilities.”

In 2018, Dr. X co-founded a nearly identical company outside Portland, Oregon, operating a hemp extraction facility licensed by the Oregon Department of Agriculture. The company, reportedly processing 1,000 kilograms of hemp biomass daily, is listed as a subsidiary of a Chinese biotechnology firm directed by Chinese nationals—raising further questions about cross-border chemical flows and Dr. X’s ongoing ties to Chinese pharmaceutical supply chains.

Further review of Company A’s board and Canadian court filings reveals that one director was a key business associate of a Richmond-based lawyer implicated in the RCMP’s largest-ever money laundering investigation, Project E-Pirate. That probe uncovered a vast underground banking network tied to the Sam Gor syndicate, which allegedly moved hundreds of millions—if not several billion—in drug proceeds through British Columbia government casinos, hundreds of Chinese bank accounts, and interconnected cash pools stretching across diaspora communities in Canada and Latin America.

Canada’s Border Blind Spot

The Bureau’s investigation into Dr. X’s case and related networks in British Columbia reveals a sweeping failure in Canada’s border controls and financial oversight of chemical precursor imports—an unchecked vulnerability that has drawn no acknowledgment or scrutiny from Prime Minister Mark Carney’s government, even as President Donald Trump threatens staggering trade tariffs and presses Ottawa to confront its role in the global fentanyl trade.

This regulatory vacuum has allowed Chinese, Mexican, and Iranian threat networks to exploit Vancouver as a global hub for narcotics precursor production and transshipment.

Official data underscores the scale of the problem. Between 2013 and 2018, Canada issued 11,774 Business Numbers (BNs) to Non-Resident Importers (NRIs)—foreign entities with no Canadian physical presence—representing a 75 percent increase in just five years. According to Canada Border Services Agency analysis, entities from China and Hong Kong accounted for 2,045 unauthorized registrations during that period.

While data beyond 2018 remains unpublished, expert sources told The Bureau that NRI-linked imports of precursor chemicals for fentanyl, MDMA, and methamphetamine have exploded since 2021. The volume of such imports flowing into Vancouver’s ports now far exceeds Canada’s domestic drug demand, indicating that exports to the U.S., Europe, Australia, and Japan are being routed through Canadian infrastructure tied to China’s narcotics supply chain.

CBSA reporting reveals widespread non-compliance, including false declarations, misclassification of goods, and undervaluation. Many Non-Resident Importer entities lack GST tax accounts, submit incomplete or fraudulent data, and fail to disclose beneficial ownership or corporate control—making criminal risk assessments virtually impossible.

These vulnerabilities mirror the same regulatory loopholes exploited by the Sam Gor syndicate and its casino and banking clients to penetrate Canadian-regulated financial systems with fraudulent identify filings.

With Canada’s border business number system routinely missing critical client information—and the Canada Border Services Agency unable to verify the legitimacy of foreign importers or their Canadian consignees—the border remains deeply porous. The result: foreign nationals can register companies in Canada and use them to import goods from abroad, often with little more than a proxy name and mailing address. In most cases, CBSA approval is a rubber-stamp process with no meaningful verification or follow-up.

Worsening the problem, several massive warehouse complexes in China have been granted special logistics status with North American shipping companies. These facilities consolidate shipments from multiple origins, re-label the cargo, and fly it directly to Canada. The consequence for Canadian law enforcement and border agents is stark: they are effectively blind to the true origin or contents of these packages.

National targeting centres in Ottawa do not flag these shipments until they are physically scanned at the Canada Border Services Agency’s commercial facility at Vancouver International Airport—by which point, tens of thousands of parcels may already be moving through the system unchecked.

As a result, CBSA seizures of precursors for fentanyl, methamphetamine, and MDMA—not to mention the lab equipment and pill press machines used to manufacture these deadly narcotics in Canada—often come down to a game of chance, occasionally aided by strong intelligence sharing and effective policing.

The Bureau is a reader-supported publication.

To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Invite your friends and earn rewards

If you enjoy The Bureau, share it with your friends and earn rewards when they subscribe.

Invite Friends

Business

Carney’s Deficit Numbers Deserve Scrutiny After Trudeau’s Forecasting Failures

Published on

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

By Conrad Eder

Frontier Centre for Public Policy study reveals a decade of inflated Liberal forecasts—a track record that casts a long shadow over Carney’s first budget

The Frontier Centre for Public Policy has released a major new study revealing that the Trudeau government’s federal budget forecasts from 2016 to 2025 were consistently inaccurate and biased — a record that casts serious doubt on the projections in Prime Minister Mark Carney’s first budget.

Carney’s 2025–26 federal budget forecasts a $78.3-billion deficit — twice the size projected last year and four times what was forecast in Budget 2022. But if recent history is any guide, Canadians have good reason to question whether even this ballooning deficit reflects fiscal reality.

The 4,000-word study, Measuring Federal Budgetary Balance Forecasting Accuracy and Bias, by Frontier Centre policy analyst Conrad Eder, finds that forecast accuracy collapsed after the Trudeau government took office:

  • Current-year forecasts were off by an average of $22.9 billion, or one per cent of GDP.
  • Four-year forecasts missed the mark by an average of $94.4 billion, or four per cent of GDP.
  • Long-term projections consistently overstated Canada’s fiscal health, showing a clear optimism bias.

Eder’s analysis shows that every three- and four-year forecast under Trudeau predicted a stronger financial position than what actually occurred, masking the true scale of deficits and debt accumulation. The study concludes that this reflects a systemic optimism bias, likely rooted in political incentives: short-term optics with no regard to long-term consequences.

“With Prime Minister Carney now setting Canada’s fiscal direction, it’s critical to assess his projections in light of this track record,” said Eder. “The pattern of bias and inaccuracy under previous Liberal governments gives reason to doubt the credibility of claims that deficits will shrink over time. Canadians deserve fiscal forecasts that are credible and transparent — not political messaging disguised as economic planning.”

The study warns that persistent optimism bias erodes fiscal accountability, weakens public trust and limits citizens’ ability to hold government to account — a threat to both economic sustainability and democratic transparency.

Click here to download the full study.

Continue Reading

Business

Here’s what pundits and analysts get wrong about the Carney government’s first budget

Published on

From the Fraser Institute

By Jason Clemens and Jake Fuss

Under the new budget plan, this wedge between what the government collects in revenues versus what is actually spent on programs will rise to 13.0 per cent by 2029/30. Put differently, slightly more than one in every eight dollars sent to Ottawa will be used to pay interest on debt for past spending.

The Carney government’s much-anticipated first budget landed on Nov. 4. There’s been much discussion by pundits and analysts on the increase in the deficit and borrowing, the emphasis on infrastructure spending (broadly defined), and the continued activist approach of Ottawa. There are, however, several critically important aspects of the budget that are consistently being misstated or misinterpreted, which makes it harder for average Canadians to fully appreciate the consequences and costs of the budget.

One issue in need of greater clarity is the cost of Canada’s indebtedness. Like regular Canadians and businesses, the government must pay interest on federal debt. According to the budget plan, total federal debt will reach an expected $2.9 trillion in 2029/30. For reference, total federal debt stood at $1.0 trillion when the Trudeau government took office in 2015. The interest costs on that debt will rise from $53.4 billion last year to an expected $76.1 billion by 2029/30. Several analyses have noted this means federal interest costs will rise from 1.7 per cent of GDP to 2.1 per cent.

These are all worrying statistics about the indebtedness of the federal government. However, they ignore a key statistic—interest costs as a share of revenues. When the Trudeau government took office, interest costs consumed 7.5 per cent of revenues. This means taxpayers were foregoing 7.5 per cent of the resources they sent to Ottawa (in terms of spending on actual programs) because these monies were used to pay interest on debt accumulated from previous spending.

Under the new budget plan, this wedge between what the government collects in revenues versus what is actually spent on programs will rise to 13.0 per cent by 2029/30. Put differently, slightly more than one in every eight dollars sent to Ottawa will be used to pay interest on debt for past spending. This is one way governments get into financial problems, even crises, by continually increasing the share of revenues consumed by interest payments.

A second and fairly consistently misrepresented aspect of the budget pertains to large spending initiatives such as Build Canada Homes and Build Communities Strong Fund. The former is meant to increase the number of new homes, particularly affordable homes, being built annually and the latter is intended to provide funding to provincial governments (and through them, municipalities) for infrastructure spending. But few analysts question whether or not these programs will produce actual new spending for homebuilding or simply replace or “crowd-out” existing spending by the private sector.

Let’s first explore the homebuilding initiative. At any point in time, there are a limited number of skilled workers, raw materials, land, etc. available for homebuilding. When the federal government, or any government, initiates its own homebuilding program, it directly competes with private companies for that skilled labour (carpenters, electricians, etc.), raw materials (timber, concrete, etc.) and the land needed for development. Put simply, government homebuilding crowds out private-sector activity.

Moreover, there’s a strong argument that the crowding out by government results in less homebuilding than would otherwise be the case, because the incentives for private-sector homebuilding are dramatically different than government incentives. For example, private firms risk their own wealth and wellbeing (and the wellbeing of their employees) so they have very strong incentives to deliver homes demanded by people on time and at a reasonable price. Government bureaucrats and politicians, on the other hand, face no such incentives. They pay no price, in terms of personal wealth or wellbeing if homes, are late, not what consumers demand, or even produce less than expected. Put simply, homebuilding by Ottawa could easily result in less homes being built than if government had stayed out of the way of entrepreneurs, businessowners and developers.

Similarly, it’s debatable that infrastructure spending by Ottawa—specifically, providing funds to the provinces and municipalities—results in an actual increase in total infrastructure spending. There are numerous historical examples, including reports by the auditor general, detailing how similar infrastructure spending initiatives by the federal government were plagued by mismanagement. And in many circumstances, the provinces simply reduced their own infrastructure spending to save money, such that the actual incremental increase in overall infrastructure spending was negligible.

In reality, some of the major and large spending initiatives announced or expanded in the Carney government’s first budget, which will accelerate the deterioration of federal finances, may not deliver anything close to what the government suggests. Canadians should understand the real risks and challenges in these federal spending initiatives, along with the debt being accumulated, and the limited potential benefits.

Jason Clemens

Executive Vice President, Fraser Institute

Jake Fuss

Director, Fiscal Studies, Fraser Institute
Continue Reading

Trending

X