Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

Opinion

Tuesday-night Trudeau

Published

17 minute read

Justin Trudeau at Gatineau Airport, Oct 24 – Photo by PW

Posted with permission from Paul Wells


Justin Trudeau in a hangar, before the comeback, if there’s going to be one

If Justin Trudeau’s historic comeback happens, it will start sometime after Tuesday night, when he spoke to a Liberal Party of Canada fundraiser at the one-runway Gatineau Airport, 21 minutes’ drive from Rideau Cottage on the Quebec side of the river.

The prime minister is two months short of his 52nd birthday. Brian Mulroney was not quite 54 when he became the youngest undefeated prime minister, so far, to announce his retirement from politics. This is the sort of week when I look up numbers like that.

The polls since summer haven’t been kind to the Liberals. I have readers who get cross with me when I mention polls, but I cover the most polling-obsessed government in Canada’s history, and I must decline requests to unilaterally disarm.

Trudeau and his ministers do fundraisers all the time, as do the leaders and prominent MPs in other parties. The only difference on Tuesday was that I went to watch. After some embarrassing early headlines about fundraisers soon after the 2015 election, the Liberal Party changed its rules to increase transparency in fundraising. Now reporters get advance notice whenever Trudeau will be speaking at a fundraiser. I wanted to see what Trudeau says at such things these days, precisely because they’re routine events. Hearing how the prime minister talks to friendlies on a Tuesday night near home was, perhaps, the closest I could get to hearing how he talks to himself.

Paul Wells is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

This event was a fundraiser for Gatineau MP Steven MacKinnon, a former Liberal Party national director who is serving as the government’s house leader while Karina Gould is on maternity leave. Two cabinet ministers were on hand too, Jean-Yves Duclos and Anita Anand. An organizer told the audience he’d been asked to get a smallish crowd out, “a good 50 or so;” since 67 people bought tickets, he was pretty pleased. The party had announced a ticket price up to $1,500. The crowd was of the sort that routinely gets described as overwhelmingly white and male when it’s a Conservative event, which means it was overwhelmingly white and male, but Liberal.

Trudeau spoke for twelve minutes. He opened by saying nice things about MacKinnon and thanked the two cabinet ministers. Poor Duclos thought he was just out to socialize, Trudeau joked, but Duclos is the minister of public services and procurement, “and around here we talk about a bridge.” Gales of laughter from the crowd. The riding association guy had also mentioned a bridge. There has been endless talk about a sixth bridge between Ottawa and Gatineau; neighbours near the various possible routes are leery, but a lot of people hope a new bridge would improve traffic flow, which often includes bumper-to-bumper heavy trucks on ordinary streets through the middle of Ottawa. A lot of the people who want the bridge the most run businesses. Judging from the PM’s choice of comic patter, they won’t have to wait long.

Trudeau thanked the crowd for coming out. “I know very well that everyone has plenty of choices for the various activities they could undertake on a Tuesday night in the month of October,” he said. This may have flattered the selection of fun activities in Gatineau on a Tuesday.

“You chose to come participate in a democratic event,” Trudeau continued. This was an instinct he could only applaud: “We know very well these days that it’s not always very motivating to get involved in politics. To raise your hand and say, ‘No, no, no, I want to participate in our democracy in an active and involved way. To take part in the conversations we’re having as a country in these difficult moments.’”

Trudeau contrasted this positive spirit with what certain other people, so far unnamed, like to do. “It’s very easy to point our finger at politicians, to complain about inflation or the pandemic or interest rates or labour shortages or housing or all these issues. It’s very easy, and many people decide to turn toward anger, anxiety, fear or division. Because it really pays over the short term, in politics, to rely on fear and division. But it’s so much more important to have a responsible, sensible approach, anchored in shared values. To try to bring us together rather than to divide us in an attempt to win a few points in the polls.”

One sensed an emerging central theme of contrast. “Your choice to come tonight to this Liberal event is enormously touching to me,” Trudeau said. “Because for eight years now, we’ve tried to be a government that stayed rooted in real things. In facts. In shared values. We bring people together rather than divide them for strategic reasons.”

Not only does his government, in his telling, think like good people, it does things good people will like.

“We manage to deliver for people. Even in extremely difficult moments like the ones we’re living through. People are struggling, because of the global context, extremely complex geopolitics that have a direct impact on pocketbooks, on groceries and rent. We have an important role to play as a government, to respond to today’s needs. That’s why we’ve made investments to help people pay their bills, to increase competition among the big grocers. We’re there to provide more daycare spaces. We’re there to help with dental care. We’re there to help with the Canada Child Benefit, which has lifted half a million children out of poverty in recent years. We’re there to create economic growth even as we fight against climate change.”

His audience for the night being mostly Quebecers and, as far as I could tell, mostly in business, the Liberal leader refined his course of general flattery to one of specific business-oriented flattery.

“I’m very proud of what we’ve been able to deliver in Quebec: NorthvoltRio TintoREM… These are investments that show how much — here in Quebec where we’ve always understood that environmental protection and economic growth go together — everyone can make progress together.”

This was a pretty upbeat message, as partisan messages often are — we have the right ideas and the right results, and the other team is trying to wreck it all — but here again, as when he lamented how “not very motivating” the political life can be, Trudeau introduced a distinctly mournful note.

“As usual, it’s a bigger challenge to get this message out in the rest of Canada,” he said. At the risk of talking about polls, I couldn’t help thinking Trudeau was referring to recent pee oh ell ells that show Quebec as the only part of the country where his Liberals are in the lead. Despite big federal spending on Volkswagen ($13 billion) and Stellantis (probably more), the clean green future seems not to tempt a lot of Canadians. “It still feels far off, because the day-to-day is still difficult for many Canadians,” he said. “But we know very well that a society and a future are built step by step.…When we stay optimistic, when we’re reasonable, everything becomes possible in the future.”

Share

This, he said, summing up, was “the political debate we’re having now…. Within two years — probably in two years — we’ll have elections.” That’s when people will get a chance to choose directions.

“Will we go back to the Conservative ways of trickle-down, cuts to social programs, advantages for the well-off in the hopes that they’ll eventually give everyone opportunity? It’s never worked and it won’t work better now.” Or would voters stick with the government Trudeau sees in the mirror? “We’re going to stay responsible but we’re going to keep investing,” he said.

Only now, at the end of his remarks, did Trudeau switch from French to English. “It’s always an incredible pleasure to spend time with people who are dedicated every day to building stronger communities and a stronger country.” And that was the end of that. The applause lasted for sixteen seconds. PMO staff led reporters out of the room — our access ends when the big guy stops talking.

A few observations on all this.

First, I’m struck by the way Trudeau narrowed down his expectation of election timing: “Within two years — probably in two years.” Probably anyone in a position of responsibility in any party would say an election could come any time, it’s wise to be ready, and so on. But in Trudeau’s mind, the supply and confidence agreement with the NDP seems likely to hold. He is not in a rush. Judgment Day isn’t until 2025.

Second, if he’s getting any advice to hit pause on carbon taxes, he sure doesn’t sound like he’s getting ready to take the advice. The heart of his case for himself is the notion that you can have clean energy and a thriving economy, and indeed that the latter depends on the former. That argument doesn’t require a carbon tax — theoretically, if you subsidize enough battery plants gasoline will become obsolete — but nothing in Trudeau’s fundraiser stump speech sounded like he was laying the predicate for a major retreat on carbon taxes.


BIG HONKING UPDATE, MINUTES LATER:

The feds have made a large announcement that shows the risks in making predictions. I quote:

“The Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, today announced the government is moving ahead with doubling the pollution price rebate (Climate Action Incentive Payment) rural top-up rate, increasing it from 10 to 20 per cent of the baseline amount starting in April 2024. People who live in rural communities face unique realities, and this measure would help put even more money back in the pockets of families dealing with higher energy costs because they live outside a large city.

“Given the pressures faced by households and small businesses that use oil heating, the Prime Minister also announced that the government is moving ahead with a temporary, three-year pause to the federal price on pollution (fuel charge) on deliveries of heating oil in all jurisdictions where the federal fuel charge is in effect. This pause would begin 14 days from today. While the fuel charge is already returned to consumers through the pollution price rebate, this temporary pause would save a household that uses heating oil $250 at the current rate, on average, while the federal government works with provinces to roll out heat pumps and phase out oil for heating over the longer term.”


Third, and more generally, the case Trudeau was building was for more of the same. “It still feels far off, because the day-to-day is still difficult for many Canadians,” he said, which is how you talk when you’re hoping your ship comes in before people get a chance to pass judgment.

Incidentally, here I think it’s only fair to point out there’s been recent progress on files I often point to as evidence that Liberal plans never pan out. The Canada Growth Fund, the object of this newsletter’s first post, made its first investment this week, a $90 million equity play in a Calgary geothermal energy company. The Canada-US Energy Transformation Task Force held a second meeting. Maybe two years of process news like that will add up to an electorate that’s excited about Canada’s energy transformation. I mean, it’s possible.

Most of all, I was struck by how “more of the same” had better work for the Liberals, because if the boss has a better idea, he’s hiding it well. A leader who once ran on cost-of-living issues…

… is now running on the clean-energy future that feels tantalizingly out of reach, and lamenting his opponent’s insistence on running on cost-of-living issues. His best hunch about timing is that he has no reason to rush, and his best assessment of his work to date is that he needs to do more of it.

Liberals who feel more of a sense of urgency, futility or wasted energy will just have to get on board, I guess. The leader’s not for turning.

Subscribe to Paul Wells

Thousands of paid subscribers

Politics and culture as though they mattered.

Business

Canada must address its birth tourism problem

Published on

Macdonald-Laurier Institute

By Sergio R. Karas for Inside Policy

One of the most effective solutions would be to amend the Citizenship Act, making automatic citizenship conditional upon at least one parent being a Canadian citizen or permanent resident.

Amid rising concerns about the prevalence of birth tourism, many Western democracies are taking steps to curb the practice. Canada should take note and reconsider its own policies in this area.

Birth tourism occurs when pregnant women travel to a country that grants automatic citizenship to all individuals born on its soil. There is increasing concern that birthright citizenship is being abused by actors linked to authoritarian regimes, who use the child’s citizenship as an anchor or escape route if the conditions in their country deteriorate.

Canada grants automatic citizenship by birth, subject to very few exceptions, such as when a child is born to foreign diplomats, consular officials, or international representatives. The principle known as jus soli in Latin for “right of the soil” is enshrined in Section 3(1)(a) of the Citizenship Act.

Unlike many other developed countries, Canada’s legislation does not consider the immigration or residency status of the parents for the child to be a citizen. Individuals who are in Canada illegally or have had refugee claims rejected may be taking advantage of birthright citizenship to delay their deportation. For example, consider the Supreme Court of Canada’s ruling in Baker v. Canada. The court held that the deportation decision for a Jamaican woman – who did not have legal status in Canada but had Canadian-born children – must consider the best interests of the Canadian-born children.

There is mounting evidence of organized birth tourism among individuals from the People’s Republic of China, particularly in British Columbia. According to a January 29 news report in Business in Vancouver, an estimated 22–23 per cent of births at Richmond Hospital in 2019–20 were to non-resident mothers, and the majority were Chinese nationals. The expectant mothers often utilize “baby houses” and maternity packages, which provide private residences and a comprehensive bundle of services to facilitate the mother’s experience, so that their Canadian-born child can benefit from free education and social and health services, and even sponsor their parents for immigration to Canada in the future. The financial and logistical infrastructure supporting this practice has grown, with reports of dozens of birth houses in British Columbia catering to a Chinese clientele.

Unconditional birthright citizenship has attracted expectant mothers from countries including Nigeria and India. Many arrive on tourist visas to give birth in Canada. The number of babies born in Canada to non-resident mothers – a metric often used to measure birth tourism – dropped sharply during the COVID-19 pandemic but has quickly rebounded since. A December 2023 report in Policy Options found that non-resident births constituted about 1.6 per cent of all 2019 births in Canada. That number fell to 0.7 per cent in 2020–2021 due to travel restrictions, but by 2022 it rebounded to one per cent of total births. That year, there were 3,575 births to non-residents – 53 per cent more than during the pandemic. Experts believe that about half of these were from women who travelled to Canada specifically for the purpose of giving birth. According to the report, about 50 per cent of non-resident births are estimated to be the result of birth tourism. The upward trend continued into 2023–24, with 5,219 non-resident births across Canada.

Some hospitals have seen more of these cases than others. For example, B.C.’s Richmond Hospital had 24 per cent of its births from non-residents in 2019–20, but that dropped to just 4 per cent by 2022. In contrast, Toronto’s Humber River Hospital and Montreal’s St. Mary’s Hospital had the highest rates in 2022–23, with 10.5 per cent and 9.4 per cent of births from non-residents, respectively.

Several developed countries have moved away from unconditional birthright citizenship in recent years, implementing more restrictive measures to prevent exploitation of their immigration systems. In the United Kingdom, the British Nationality Act abolished jus soli in its unconditional form. Now, a child born in the UK is granted citizenship only if at least one parent is a British citizen or has settled status. This change was introduced to prevent misuse of the immigration and nationality framework. Similarly, Germany follows a conditional form of jus soli. According to its Nationality Act, a child born in Germany acquires citizenship only if at least one parent has legally resided in the country for a minimum of eight years and holds a permanent residence permit. Australia also eliminated automatic birthright citizenship. Under the Australian Citizenship Act, a child born on Australian soil is granted citizenship only if at least one parent is an Australian citizen or permanent resident. Alternatively, if the child lives in Australia continuously for ten years, they may become eligible for citizenship through residency. These policies illustrate a global trend toward limiting automatic citizenship by birth to discourage birth tourism.

In the United States, Section 1 of the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution prescribes that “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” The Trump administration has launched a policy and legal challenge to the longstanding interpretation that every person born in the US is automatically a citizen. It argues that the current interpretation incentivizes illegal immigration and results in widespread abuse of the system.

On January 20, 2025, President Donald Trump issued Executive Order 14156Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship, aimed at ending birthright citizenship for children of undocumented migrants and those with lawful but temporary status in the United States. The executive order stated that the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause “rightly repudiated” the Supreme Court’s “shameful decision” in the Dred Scott v. Sandford case, which dealt with the denial of citizenship to black former slaves. The administration argues that the Fourteenth Amendment “has never been interpreted to extend citizenship universally to anyone born within the United States.” The executive order claims that the Fourteenth Amendment has “always excluded from birthright citizenship persons who were born in the United States but not subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” The order outlines two categories of individuals that it claims are not subject to United States jurisdiction and thus not automatically entitled to citizenship: a child of an undocumented mother and father who are not citizens or lawful permanent residents; and a child of a mother who is a temporary visitor and of a father who is not a citizen or lawful permanent resident. The executive order attempts to make ancestry a criterion for automatic citizenship. It requires children born on US soil to have at least one parent who has US citizenship or lawful permanent residency.

On June 27, 2025, the US Supreme Court in Trump v. CASA, Inc. held that lower federal courts exceed their constitutional authority when issuing broad, nationwide injunctions to prevent the Trump administration from enforcing the executive order. Such relief should be limited to the specific plaintiffs involved in the case. The Court did not address whether the order is constitutional, and that will be decided in the future. However, this decision removes a major legal obstacle, allowing the administration to enforce the policy in areas not covered by narrower injunctions. Since the order could affect over 150,000 newborns each year, future decisions on the merits of the order are still an especially important legal and social issue.

In addition to the executive order, the Ban Birth Tourism Act – introduced in the United States Congress in May 2025 – aims to prevent women from entering the country on visitor visas solely to give birth, citing an annual 33,000 births to tourist mothers. Simultaneously, the State Department instructed US consulates abroad to deny visas to applicants suspected of “birth tourism,” reinforcing a sharp policy pivot.

In light of these developments, Canada should be wary. It may see an increase in birth tourism as expectant mothers look for alternative destinations where their children can acquire citizenship by birth.

Canadian immigration law does not prevent women from entering the country on a visitor visa to give birth. The Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) and the associated regulations do not include any provisions that allow immigration officials or Canada Border Services officers to deny visas or entry based on pregnancy. Section 22 of the IRPA, which deals with temporary residents, could be amended. However, making changes to regulations or policy would be difficult and could lead to inconsistent decisions and a flurry of litigation. For example, adding questions about pregnancy to visa application forms or allowing officers to request pregnancy tests in certain high-risk cases could result in legal challenges on the grounds of privacy and discrimination.

In a 2019 Angus Reid Institute survey, 64 per cent of Canadians said they would support changing the law to stop granting citizenship to babies born in Canada to parents who are only on tourist visas. One of the most effective solutions would be to amend Section 3(1)(a) of the Citizenship Act, making it mandatory that at least one parent be a Canadian citizen or permanent resident for a child born in Canada to automatically receive citizenship. Such a model would align with citizenship legislation in countries like the UK, Germany, and Australia, where jus soli is conditional on parental status. Making this change would close the current loophole that allows birth tourism, without placing additional pressure on visa officers or requiring new restrictions on tourist visas. It would retain Canada’s inclusive citizenship framework while aligning with practices in other democratic nations.

Canada currently lacks a proper and consistent system for collecting data on non-resident births. This gap poses challenges in understanding the scale and impact of birth tourism. Since health care is under provincial jurisdiction, the responsibility for tracking and managing such data falls primarily on the provinces. However, there is no national framework or requirement for provinces or hospitals to report the number of births by non-residents, leading to fragmented and incomplete information across the country. One notable example is BC’s Richmond Hospital, which has become a well-known birth tourism destination. In the 2017–18 fiscal year alone, 22 per cent of all births at Richmond Hospital were to non-resident mothers. These births generated approximately $6.2 million in maternity fees, out of which $1.1 million remained unpaid. This example highlights not only the prevalence of the practice but also the financial burden it places on the provincial health care programs. To better address the issue, provinces should implement more robust data collection practices. Information should include the mother’s residency or visa status, the total cost of care provided, payment outcomes (including outstanding balances), and any necessary medical follow-ups.

Reliable and transparent data is essential for policymakers to accurately assess the scope of birth tourism and develop effective responses. Provinces should strengthen data collection practices and consider introducing policies that require security deposits or proof of adequate medical insurance coverage for expectant mothers who are not covered by provincial healthcare plans.

Canada does not currently record the immigration or residency status of parents on birth certificates, making it difficult to determine how many children are born to non-resident or temporary resident parents. Including this information at the time of birth registration would significantly improve data accuracy and support more informed policy decisions. By improving data collection, increasing transparency, and adopting preventive financial safeguards, provinces can more effectively manage the challenges posed by birth tourism, and the federal government can implement legislative reforms to deal with the problem.


Sergio R. Karas, principal of Karas Immigration Law Professional Corporation, is a certified specialist in Canadian citizenship and immigration law by the Law Society of Ontario. He is co-chair of the ABA International Law Section Immigration and Naturalization Committee, past chair of the Ontario Bar Association Citizenship and Immigration Section, past chair of the International Bar Association Immigration and Nationality Committee, and a fellow of the American Bar Foundation. He can be reached at [email protected]. The author is grateful for the contribution to this article by Jhanvi Katariya, student-at-law.

Continue Reading

Crime

DEA Busts Canadian Narco Whose Chinese Supplier Promised to Ship 100 Kilos of Fentanyl Precursors per Month From Vancouver to Los Angeles

Published on

Sam Cooper's avatar Sam Cooper

 A Hollywood-style DEA sting revealed a seamless pipeline from Vancouver brokers to Los Angeles cartel operatives and Australian drug markets.

A senior Indo-Canadian gangster from an ultra-violent British Columbia–based fentanyl trafficking gang with ties to Latin cartels, Chinese Triads, and Hezbollah was taken down in a stunning U.S. government sting that saw a thick-accented Chinese narco casually promise an undercover agent at a Vancouver café that he could ship 100 kilograms of fentanyl precursors per month from Vancouver to Los Angeles, using his trucking company fronted by an Indo-Canadian associate.

The case is detailed in a sprawling DEA probe spanning Turkey, Mexico City, Dubai, Australia, Toronto, Vancouver, Montreal, Hong Kong, and Los Angeles — all captured in a 29-page affidavit with scenes so surreal they could rival a Hollywood script, complete with underworld nicknames like “Burger,” “Queen,” and “Darth Vader.”

At the center is Opinder Singh Sian, a Canadian national and longtime Lower Mainland underworld figure who survived targeted shootings and reportedly leads the Brothers Keepers gang — a key proxy for the Sinaloa cartel in Canada, interoperable with other Latin American cartels, Chinese Communist Party chemical suppliers, and working alongside the Kinahans, a notorious Irish crime family now based in Dubai and closely linked to Hezbollah finance networks.

Sian has been arrested in Arizona and indicted in a sweeping U.S. case that underscores British Columbia’s critical role as a global trafficking hub, bringing together Mexican cartels and Chinese precursor suppliers that operate with near impunity in Vancouver but are increasingly the focus of elite U.S. law enforcement.

The affidavit illustrates how Vancouver’s criminal networks have funneled Chinese precursors into the United States and directly tied them to methamphetamine deals with Mexican gangsters on Los Angeles streets — part of one of the most sophisticated narcotics smuggling conspiracies ever uncovered in North America.

The explosive details are laid out in a newly unsealed affidavit filed by U.S. federal agent Albert Polito in support of a criminal complaint and arrest warrant against Sian. Sworn in 2024, the document offers a rare inside look at how Vancouver’s street-level crews transformed into global brokers bridging continents and more sophisticated criminal syndicates.

Much of the case focuses on methamphetamine shipments from Los Angeles to Australia, orchestrated by Sian, who acted as a proxy for more senior transnational Mexican, Chinese, and Iranian networks, experts say.

“Local gangs like Brothers Keepers aren’t just street crews — they’re frontline proxies in transnational narcoterror networks,” former Canadian intelligence analyst Scott McGregor, an expert on the nexus of Chinese and Iranian threats and foreign interference, commented on X. “Ignoring them as low-level threats misses their role in laundering, logistics, and hybrid warfare.”

But the penultimate finding — likely of high interest in Washington political circles — came from a stunning investigative meeting. In August 2023, the DEA affidavit describes how a shadowy U.S. undercover source known as “Queen” or CS-1 sat across from a man in Vancouver speaking with a thick Chinese accent.

The man, later identified as Peter Peng Zhou, explained in detail how he could “receive fentanyl precursor chemicals from China into Vancouver” and “send 100 kilos of chemicals per month to Los Angeles” using his British Columbia trucking company run by an Indo-Canadian associate.

Zhou allegedly told CS-1 that he had been doing this for about ten years and remembered when these kilograms of chemicals were upwards of $300,000 each. He claimed he knew how to make fentanyl and methamphetamine from the chemicals and emphasized that he would require upfront payment before sending any shipments south to Los Angeles.

Demonstrating how casually Vancouver’s narcos blend into upscale environments, the affidavit describes how Sian first dined at a downtown restaurant with his wife, child, and CS-1 before taking “The Queen” to meet his precursor suppliers at a coffee house.

The Bureau is a reader-supported publication.

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

That critical meeting, involving Sian, Zhou, and other associates, provided prosecutors with some of the clearest evidence yet of a direct chemical pipeline from Chinese suppliers into North American distribution networks, routed first through Vancouver’s port and trucking infrastructure.

The investigation began in June 2022 when DEA agents in Ankara, Turkey, received intelligence about an opportunity to embed a confidential source into a global trafficking organization. This network needed help moving large shipments of methamphetamine and cocaine from Southern California to Australia — one of the world’s most lucrative drug markets.

DEA agents provided their Ankara counterparts with the phone number of CS-1 — known in global gang networks as “Queen” — who posed as an international logistics coordinator. A Turkish narco, Ibrahim Ozcelik, made initial contact and then passed CS-1’s details to a North American leader: Opinder Singh Sian.

After initial communications, Sian and CS-1 arranged an in-person meeting in Vancouver on February 1, 2023. During this pivotal encounter, Sian claimed to work closely with Irish organized crime — specifically the Kinahan family — as well as Italian groups and other powerful Canadian gangs. Outside Canada, he described sourcing drugs directly from major Mexican and South American cartels, reinforcing his role as a cross-border broker capable of linking multiple criminal networks. He also said he collaborated with a known Turkish drug kingpin, Hakan Arif, highlighting the global scope of his alliances.

While in Vancouver, Sian introduced CS-1 to two male associates. They explained they had about 500 kilograms of cocaine stockpiled and needed help moving it through Los Angeles ports and on to Australia. CS-1 claimed they could facilitate offloading in Los Angeles, repackaging, and onward shipping via container vessel — a scheme designed to tap into Australia’s sky-high wholesale prices, which exceed $200,000 per kilogram.

In March 2023, Sian and CS-1 met again at a restaurant in Manhattan Beach, California, to discuss expanding into methamphetamine smuggling. “Queen” also brought along a DEA undercover agent (“UC-1”), posing as a cousin who worked at the Port of Long Beach and helped move narcotics undetected.

At the meeting, Sian expressed caution, acknowledging they could get in trouble just for meeting. He said his first shipment would be “200,” consistent with earlier encrypted text conversations. UC-1 advised doing fewer but larger shipments to reduce detection risk, emphasizing this was only done for CS-1 as “family.”

Sian pressed for details about the port, probed UC-1’s connections, and mentioned knowing other contacts at the port, the DEA alleges.

By June 2023, the plan to move large methamphetamine shipments into the U.S. began to accelerate. Sian advised that he and his associates would deliver an estimated 500 to 750 kilograms of methamphetamine in separate drops coordinated by his network. On June 13, 2023, Sian created an encrypted chat group using the alias “Cain,” adding “Sticks” (later identified as Sebastian Rollin, a Canadian based in Montreal) and CS-1.

Rollin allegedlly informed CS-1 that his crew would soon deliver 30 pounds of methamphetamine in Southern California as part of the first staged shipment.

Another trafficker known as “El R” or “The R,” later identified as Ruben Chavez Ibarra, entered the operation.

The DEA’s Los Angeles operation revealed gritty street-level deals directly tying Sian’s Indo-Canadian group to “Queen’s” Mexican networks. On July 6, 2023, after days of negotiation, Jorge Orozco-Santana arranged a pick-up in Anaheim using a white Mercedes. He verified the deal with the serial number of a dollar bill token, handed over two plastic bins containing 84.6 kilograms of methamphetamine. The DEA tied this deal to the Montreal network involved in Sian’s encrypted chats.

On July 29, 2023, Sian created a new Threema group chat including a new associate using the moniker “AAA,” later identified as Tien Vai Ty Truong — a dual citizen of Vietnam and Canada, with narco operations in Toronto and Vancouver directed from Hong Kong, according to the DEA affidavit.

The group discussed the 30-pound and 200-pound loads and planned their shipment to Australia. On August 1, Sian asked CS-1 to call an associate named Kular to manage mounting anxiety among Mexican sources over shipment delays.

Meanwhile, CS-1 began discussing fentanyl precursor chemicals with Kular and Sian.

This line of discussion began because Kular had first asked CS-1 whether her networks could receive direct ketamine shipments into Mexico City — a question that suggested to the DEA that Sian’s network likely had direct access to Chinese Communist Party–linked drug suppliers and large-scale chemical manufacturing channels.

In response, the DEA’s High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area Group 48 team prompted “Queen” to pivot and ask about fentanyl precursors. Queen did so, requesting prices on two critical compounds: 1-BOC-4-piperidone and 1-BOC-4-anilinopiperidine. Kular replied that the price would be $225 for the first chemical and $750 for the second, plus $1,000 for shipping.

Shortly after, on July 25, 2023, Sian himself directly contacted Queen, claiming he could supply those same precursors directly and even provide initial samples. He said he could get the chemicals “straight from China,” and proposed shipping them by container into the Port of Long Beach.

To build trust, Sian offered to mail a sample first. On July 29, Queen provided Sian with an undercover DEA-controlled PO box. That same day, Sian confirmed he had sent 20 grams of 1-BOC-4-piperidone and said he would accept cryptocurrency (specifically USDT, also known as Tether) for future large orders. By August 10, Sian informed Queen that the sample shipment had been sent, though it might not arrive until the following week — further confirming the group’s operational capacity to source Chinese precursors and move them into the U.S.

This was the evidence the DEA needed to take the Vancouver port fentanyl sting into high gear.

Returning to Vancouver in August, the headline-making fentanyl meeting came into full context. On August 16, 2023, CS-1 met Sian and his wife and child for lunch in downtown Vancouver. After lunch, Sian drove CS-1 to meet two individuals capable of sending bulk fentanyl precursor chemicals into the United States.

At a coffee shop, Peter Peng Zhou — speaking with a heavy Chinese accent — described how he could receive precursor shipments from China into Vancouver and move 100 kilograms per month to Los Angeles using his British Columbia trucking company.

In an almost absurdly candid aside, Zhou introduced his partner, known as “Burger,” described as a Southeast Asian male who managed “the money side” of the business for him. According to the DEA affidavit, Burger bluntly said he was involved because “his wife was very greedy and wanted him to make more money.”

The pivotal Vancouver coffee meeting also brought in more connections to Mexican operatives in California. During the same meeting, Sian mentioned a contact named Orlando, referring to Orlando Escutia, a Bakersfield, California–based associate. Sian explained that Escutia would be delivering CS-1 an additional 50 kilograms of methamphetamine the following week for shipment to Australia.

Zhou further revealed he could start acquiring a new fentanyl precursor with a CAS number ending in 228, describing it as a “newer and better” chemical for making fentanyl. He elaborated that when he shipped these chemicals by mail, he used a special bag designed to evade law enforcement detection, the DEA alleges.

Later that same day, CS-1 and Sian met with another key figure known as “ABC,” later identified as Kular, at a restaurant in downtown Vancouver. Kular claimed that his own boss, “AAA” — later identified as Tien Truong — was a Chinese national about 55 years old, mainly operating in the Toronto area. According to Kular, Truong’s bosses were ultimately based out of Hong Kong and specialized in moving large quantities of cocaine and methamphetamine around the world.

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

Continue Reading

Trending

X