Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

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.

Alberta

Punishing Alberta Oil Production: The Divisive Effect of Policies For Carney’s “Decarbonized Oil”

Published on

From Energy Now

By Ron Wallace

The federal government has doubled down on its commitment to “responsibly produced oil and gas”. These terms are apparently carefully crafted to maintain federal policies for Net Zero. These policies include a Canadian emissions cap, tanker bans and a clean electricity mandate.

Following meetings in Saskatoon in early June between Prime Minister Mark Carney and Canadian provincial and territorial leaders, the federal government expressed renewed interest in the completion of new oil pipelines to reduce reliance on oil exports to the USA while providing better access to foreign markets.  However Carney, while suggesting that there is “real potential” for such projects nonetheless qualified that support as being limited to projects that would “decarbonize” Canadian oil, apparently those that would employ carbon capture technologies.  While the meeting did not result in a final list of potential projects, Alberta Premier Danielle Smith said that this approach would constitute a “grand bargain” whereby new pipelines to increase oil exports could help fund decarbonization efforts. But is that true and what are the implications for the Albertan and Canadian economies?


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


The federal government has doubled down on its commitment to “responsibly produced oil and gas”. These terms are apparently carefully crafted to maintain federal policies for Net Zero. These policies include a Canadian emissions cap, tanker bans and a clean electricity mandate. Many would consider that Canadians, especially Albertans, should be wary of these largely undefined announcements in which Ottawa proposes solely to determine projects that are “in the national interest.”

The federal government has tabled legislation designed to address these challenges with Bill C-5: An Act to enact the Free Trade and Labour Mobility Act and the Building Canada Act (the One Canadian Economy Act).  Rather than replacing controversial, and challenged, legislation like the Impact Assessment Act, the Carney government proposes to add more legislation designed to accelerate and streamline regulatory approvals for energy and infrastructure projects. However, only those projects that Ottawa designates as being in the national interest would be approved. While clearer, shorter regulatory timelines and the restoration of the Major Projects Office are also proposed, Bill C-5 is to be superimposed over a crippling regulatory base.

It remains to be seen if this attempt will restore a much-diminished Canadian Can-Do spirit for economic development by encouraging much-needed, indeed essential interprovincial teamwork across shared jurisdictions.  While the Act’s proposed single approval process could provide for expedited review timelines, a complex web of regulatory processes will remain in place requiring much enhanced interagency and interprovincial coordination. Given Canada’s much-diminished record for regulatory and policy clarity will this legislation be enough to persuade the corporate and international capital community to consider Canada as a prime investment destination?

As with all complex matters the devil always lurks in the details. Notably, these federal initiatives arrive at a time when the Carney government is facing ever-more pressing geopolitical, energy security and economic concerns.  The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development predicts that Canada’s economy will grow by a dismal one per cent in 2025 and 1.1 per cent in 2026 – this at a time when the global economy is predicted to grow by 2.9 per cent.

It should come as no surprise that Carney’s recent musing about the “real potential” for decarbonized oil pipelines have sparked debate. The undefined term “decarbonized”, is clearly aimed directly at western Canadian oil production as part of Ottawa’s broader strategy to achieve national emissions commitments using costly carbon capture and storage (CCS) projects whose economic viability at scale has been questioned. What might this mean for western Canadian oil producers?

The Alberta Oil sands presently account for about 58% of Canada’s total oil output. Data from December 2023 show Alberta producing a record 4.53 million barrels per day (MMb/d) as major oil export pipelines including Trans Mountain, Keystone and the Enbridge Mainline operate at high levels of capacity.  Meanwhile, in 2023 eastern Canada imported on average about 490,000 barrels of crude oil per day (bpd) at a cost estimated at CAD $19.5 billion.  These seaborne shipments to major refineries (like New Brunswick’s Irving Refinery in Saint John) rely on imported oil by tanker with crude oil deliveries to New Brunswick averaging around 263,000 barrels per day.  In 2023 the estimated total cost to Canada for imported crude oil was $19.5 billion with oil imports arriving from the United States (72.4%), Nigeria (12.9%), and Saudi Arabia (10.7%).  Since 1988, marine terminals along the St. Lawrence have seen imports of foreign oil valued at more than $228 billion while the Irving Oil refinery imported $136 billion from 1988 to 2020.

What are the policy and cost implication of Carney’s call for the “decarbonization” of western Canadian produced, oil?  It implies that western Canadian “decarbonized” oil would have to be produced and transported to competitive world markets under a material regulatory and financial burden.  Meanwhile, eastern Canadian refiners would be allowed to import oil from the USA and offshore jurisdictions free from any comparable regulatory burdens. This policy would penalize, and makes less competitive, Canadian producers while rewarding offshore sources. A federal regulatory requirement to decarbonize western Canadian crude oil production without imposing similar restrictions on imported oil would render the One Canadian Economy Act moot and create two market realities in Canada – one that favours imports and that discourages, or at very least threatens the competitiveness of, Canadian oil export production.


Ron Wallace is a former Member of the National Energy Board.

Continue Reading

Fraser Institute

Long waits for health care hit Canadians in their pocketbooks

Published on

From the Fraser Institute

By Mackenzie Moir

Canadians continue to endure long wait times for health care. And while waiting for care can obviously be detrimental to your health and wellbeing, it can also hurt your pocketbook.

In 2024, the latest year of available data, the median wait—from referral by a family doctor to treatment by a specialist—was 30 weeks (including 15 weeks waiting for treatment after seeing a specialist). And last year, an estimated 1.5 million Canadians were waiting for care.

It’s no wonder Canadians are frustrated with the current state of health care.

Again, long waits for care adversely impact patients in many different ways including physical pain, psychological distress and worsened treatment outcomes as lengthy waits can make the treatment of some problems more difficult. There’s also a less-talked about consequence—the impact of health-care waits on the ability of patients to participate in day-to-day life, work and earn a living.

According to a recent study published by the Fraser Institute, wait times for non-emergency surgery cost Canadian patients $5.2 billion in lost wages in 2024. That’s about $3,300 for each of the 1.5 million patients waiting for care. Crucially, this estimate only considers time at work. After also accounting for free time outside of work, the cost increases to $15.9 billion or more than $10,200 per person.

Of course, some advocates of the health-care status quo argue that long waits for care remain a necessary trade-off to ensure all Canadians receive universal health-care coverage. But the experience of many high-income countries with universal health care shows the opposite.

Despite Canada ranking among the highest spenders (4th of 31 countries) on health care (as a percentage of its economy) among other developed countries with universal health care, we consistently rank among the bottom for the number of doctors, hospital beds, MRIs and CT scanners. Canada also has one of the worst records on access to timely health care.

So what do these other countries do differently than Canada? In short, they embrace the private sector as a partner in providing universal care.

Australia, for instance, spends less on health care (again, as a percentage of its economy) than Canada, yet the percentage of patients in Australia (33.1 per cent) who report waiting more than two months for non-emergency surgery was much higher in Canada (58.3 per cent). Unlike in Canada, Australian patients can choose to receive non-emergency surgery in either a private or public hospital. In 2021/22, 58.6 per cent of non-emergency surgeries in Australia were performed in private hospitals.

But we don’t need to look abroad for evidence that the private sector can help reduce wait times by delivering publicly-funded care. From 2010 to 2014, the Saskatchewan government, among other policies, contracted out publicly-funded surgeries to private clinics and lowered the province’s median wait time from one of the longest in the country (26.5 weeks in 2010) to one of the shortest (14.2 weeks in 2014). The initiative also reduced the average cost of procedures by 26 per cent.

Canadians are waiting longer than ever for health care, and the economic costs of these waits have never been higher. Until policymakers have the courage to enact genuine reform, based in part on more successful universal health-care systems, this status quo will continue to cost Canadian patients.

Mackenzie Moir

Senior Policy Analyst, Fraser Institute
Continue Reading

Trending

X