Business
U.S. Seizes Fentanyl Shipment From Canada In Seattle, As Washington Pressures Ottawa on Crime Networks
U.S. Customs and Border Protection officers have intercepted a shipment containing more than one pound of fentanyl from Canada, marking the latest sign of an accelerating crisis along the BC-Washington border. The fentanyl, concealed within a package believed to have originated in British Columbia, was discovered during a targeted enforcement operation at a Seattle shipping facility on February 6.
The package contained a brown, rock-like substance wrapped in plastic bags. Subsequent testing confirmed it was fentanyl, the synthetic opioid driving tens of thousands of overdose deaths in North America each year.
Area Port Director Rene Ortega, speaking about the seizure, underscored its broader implications. “Fentanyl is an extremely dangerous synthetic drug that continues to devastate communities across the United States,” Ortega said. “CBP remains committed to using every available tool to stop these lethal substances before they reach our streets.”
The latest seizure is part of an escalating pattern that has prompted increasingly aggressive responses from Washington. President Donald Trump has warned of sweeping tariffs in the coming weeks unless Ottawa delivers a credible, actionable plan to crack down on transnational crime networks driving fentanyl production. These networks—operating primarily out of British Columbia—are deeply entrenched with organized crime groups from China and Mexico.
The Bureau has reported extensively on Washington’s mounting frustration with Canada’s handling of the fentanyl crisis. BC Mayor Brad West, who has been in direct communication with senior U.S. officials, has described an urgent shift in tone from American law enforcement and intelligence agencies. In a high-level 2023 meeting with U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken, West was briefed on just how seriously Washington views Canada’s role in the illicit drug trade.
“This is no longer just a Canadian domestic issue,” West told The Bureau. “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.”
Concerns extend beyond law enforcement. According to multiple sources with direct knowledge of U.S. intelligence assessments, American agencies have begun withholding key evidence from their Canadian counterparts, citing a lack of confidence that Ottawa will act on it. West confirmed that in his ongoing discussions with senior U.S. officials, they have voiced alarm over the level of access major figures in Asian organized crime appear to have within Canada’s political class.
“They’re basically asking, ‘What’s going on in Canada?’” West said.
The frustration is not new. For years, U.S. and international law enforcement agencies have sought to curb the transnational reach of organizations like Sam Gor, the powerful Asian organized crime syndicate that dominates much of the fentanyl precursor supply chain. But Canada’s response has been widely seen as inadequate. Critics argue that political sensitivities and reluctance to confront entrenched criminal networks have left Canadian law enforcement hamstrung.
The question now is whether Ottawa will take decisive action. Bringing forward measures as sweeping as a RICO-style anti-mafia statute or invoking the notwithstanding clause to bypass legal obstacles to tougher enforcement would represent a sharp departure from the status quo. Both approaches would require confronting entrenched political, legal and economic interests, as well as explaining why existing laws have failed to secure convictions against the most powerful actors in organized crime.
West believes the shifting geopolitical landscape may force Ottawa’s hand. Washington’s patience, he warns, ran thin years ago—and the U.S. is now signaling it will no longer wait.
The Bureau is a reader-supported publication.
To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
From the Fraser Institute
By Tegan Hill
According to this week’s fiscal update, amid falling oil prices, the Alberta government will run a projected $6.4 billion budget deficit in 2025/26—higher than the $5.2 billion deficit projected earlier this year and a massive swing from the $8.3 billion surplus recorded in 2024/25.
Overall, that’s a $14.8 billion deterioration in Alberta’s budgetary balance year over year. Resource revenue, including oil and gas royalties, comprises 44.5 per cent of that decline, falling by a projected $6.6 billion.
Albertans shouldn’t be surprised—the good times never last forever. It’s all part of the boom-and-bust cycle where the Alberta government enjoys budget surpluses when resource revenue is high, but inevitably falls back into deficits when resource revenue declines. Indeed, if resource revenue was at the same level as last year, Alberta’s budget would be balanced.
Instead, the Alberta government will return to a period of debt accumulation with projected net debt (total debt minus financial assets) reaching $42.0 billion this fiscal year. That comes with real costs for Albertans in the form of high debt interest payments ($3.0 billion) and potentially higher taxes in the future. That’s why Albertans need a new path forward. The key? Saving during good times to prepare for the bad.
The Smith government has made some strides in this direction by saving a share of budget surpluses, recorded over the last few years, in the Heritage Fund (Alberta’s long-term savings fund). But long-term savings is different than a designated rainy-day account to deal with short-term volatility.
Here’s how it’d work. The provincial government should determine a stable amount of resource revenue to be included in the budget annually. Any resource revenue above that amount would be automatically deposited in the rainy-day account to be withdrawn to support the budget (i.e. maintain that stable amount) in years when resource revenue falls below that set amount.
It wouldn’t be Alberta’s first rainy-day account. Back in 2003, the province established the Alberta Sustainability Fund (ASF), which was intended to operate this way. Unfortunately, it was based in statutory law, which meant the Alberta government could unilaterally change the rules governing the fund. Consequently, by 2007 nearly all resource revenue was used for annual spending. The rainy-day account was eventually drained and eliminated entirely in 2013. This time, the government should make the fund’s rules constitutional, which would make them much more difficult to change or ignore in the future.
According to this week’s fiscal update, the Alberta government’s resource revenue rollercoaster has turned from boom to bust. A rainy-day account would improve predictability and stability in the future by mitigating the impact of volatile resource revenue on the budget.
Tegan Hill
Director, Alberta Policy, Fraser Institute
The Canadian Taxpayers Federation is criticizing the Memorandum of Understanding between the federal and Alberta governments for including higher carbon taxes.
“Hidden carbon taxes will make it harder for Canadian businesses to compete and will push Canadian entrepreneurs to shift production south of the border,” said Franco Terrazzano, CTF Federal Director. “Politicians should not be forcing carbon taxes on Canadians with the hope that maybe one day we will get a major project built.
“Politicians should be scrapping all carbon taxes.”
The federal and Alberta governments released a memorandum of understanding. It includes an agreement that the industrial carbon tax “will ramp up to a minimum effective credit price of $130/tonne.”
“It means more than a six times increase in the industrial price on carbon,” Prime Minister Mark Carney said while speaking to the press today.
Carney previously said that by “changing the carbon tax … We are making the large companies pay for everybody.”
A Leger poll shows 70 per cent of Canadians believe businesses pass most or some of the cost of the industrial carbon tax on to consumers. Meanwhile, just nine per cent believe businesses pay most of the cost.
“It doesn’t matter what politicians label their carbon taxes, all carbon taxes make life more expensive and don’t work,” Terrazzano said. “Carbon taxes on refineries make gas more expensive, carbon taxes on utilities make home heating more expensive and carbon taxes on fertilizer plants increase costs for farmers and that makes groceries more expensive.
“The hidden carbon tax on business is the worst of all worlds: Higher prices and fewer Canadian jobs.”
Carney fails to undo Trudeau’s devastating energy policies
New airline compensation rules could threaten regional travel and push up ticket prices
Landmark 2025 Study Says Near-Death Experiences Can’t Be Explained Away
Freedom Convoy protestor Evan Blackman convicted at retrial even after original trial judge deemed him a “peacemaker”
I Was Hired To Root Out Bias At NIH. The Nation’s Health Research Agency Is Still Sick
Move over Soviet Russia: UK Police Make 10,000 Arrests Over “Offensive” Online Speech
Roblox to Mandate Facial and ID Verification
-
International2 days agoAmerica first at the national parks: Trump hits Canadians and other foreign visitors with $100 fee
-
Agriculture2 days agoHealth Canada indefinitely pauses plan to sell unlabeled cloned meat after massive public backlash
-
Alberta1 day agoAlberta and Ottawa ink landmark energy agreement
-
Crime2 days agoFBI Seizes $13-Million Mercedes Unicorn From Ryan Wedding’s Narco Network
-
Energy23 hours agoPoilievre says West Coast Pipeline MOU is no guarantee
-
Artificial Intelligence2 days agoTrump’s New AI Focused ‘Manhattan Project’ Adds Pressure To Grid
-
International1 day agoAfghan Ex–CIA Partner Accused in D.C. National Guard Ambush
-
Crime2 days agoMexico’s Constitutional Crisis