Connect with us

Business

U.S. ‘Losing Faith’ in Canada’s Ability to Combat Industrial-Scale Fentanyl

Published

11 minute read

Sam Cooper

BC Mayor Warns of Asian Organized Crime’s Surprising Access to Canada’s Political Class, Echoing US Agency Concerns

In a high-level meeting in 2023—one participant representing the head of state of the world’s most powerful nation, the other a popular small-town mayor in British Columbia—candid warnings emerged about Canada’s capacity to confront the industrial-scale production of fentanyl. Mayor Brad West, a longstanding critic of transnational drug networks in his province, recalls Secretary of State Antony Blinken stressing that Washington believes Beijing is effectively weaponizing fentanyl against North Americans—and that Canada stands out as a worrisome weak link in the global supply chain.

On Tuesday, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s government moved to address growing U.S. alarm by appointing former RCMP deputy commissioner Kevin Brosseau as Canada’s new “fentanyl czar.” Announced as part of an agreement to forestall potential American tariffs in a tense trade dispute, the position mandates “accelerating Canada’s ongoing work to detect, disrupt, and dismantle the fentanyl trade,” according to the Prime Minister’s Office. Brosseau, who most recently served as deputy national security and intelligence adviser to Trudeau, will work closely with U.S. agencies to tackle a crisis that has claimed tens of thousands of lives across North America. Still, questions remain about whether he has the standing in Washington—and the authority in Ottawa—to enact meaningful reforms.

West, reflecting on his encounter with Blinken, doubts that incremental measures will suffice. He argues that only bold legislative change, coupled with a willingness to challenge entrenched legal barriers, can dispel the U.S. government’s unease over Canada’s approach. “Secretary Blinken specifically noted the lack of a RICO-style law in Canada,” West said. “He talked about how, in the United States, that law had been used to take down large portions of the mafia. Then he looked at us—one of America’s closest allies—and saw a very concerning weak link.”

According to West, Blinken pointed to China’s role in funneling precursor chemicals into fentanyl labs. He warned that China’s government, if inclined, could stem the flow but has little interest in doing so. “He was incredibly candid and very serious about the threat fentanyl poses to North America,” West recalled. “He confirmed the connection between the Chinese Communist Party, the triads, and the Mexican cartels, telling me these groups are working together—and it’s Canada where they’re finding a safe operating base.”

West says American frustration revolves around high-profile law enforcement stumbles in Canada, notably the E-Pirate investigation into Silver International, an alleged underground bank in Richmond, B.C., believed to have laundered more than a billion dollars a year for global syndicates. Touted as a signal that Canadian authorities could clamp down on transnational money laundering, the case nevertheless collapsed with no convictions. “He expressed genuine dismay that we haven’t secured meaningful convictions,” West said, paraphrasing Blinken. “When our most prominent laundering case ends with zero prison time, you can see why the Americans are alarmed.”

Blinken also conveyed to West that U.S. agencies have grown hesitant to share certain intelligence with their Canadian counterparts.
“He told me that U.S. intelligence and law enforcement are withholding some evidence because they don’t believe we’ll act on it,” West explained. “They’ve lost confidence.”

West added that in ongoing communications, he has learned American officials are shocked that major figures in Asian organized crime “seem to have so much access to our political class. They’re basically saying, ‘What’s going on in Canada?’”

A major concern, according to West, is how known criminals manage to appear at political events or fundraisers with little oversight.
“It’s not necessarily that politicians are complicit, but our political structures have weak guardrails,” West said. “The Americans see pictures of transnational criminals mingling at official gatherings and find it baffling.”

West insists that Canada must enact a legal framework akin to the U.S. Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act to truly “detect, disrupt, and dismantle” the fentanyl trade. “We don’t have anything like it, and until we do, I worry the new czar’s hands could be tied by the legal status quo,” West said. “Ottawa might resist, but we need it. We should have enacted it yesterday.”

He also decries what he calls “egregious rulings” that free major traffickers or launderers on technicalities. West cites a prominent British Columbia case in which a suspect found with more than 27,000 fentanyl pills was released because a police dog had not fully performed its required sitting motion before searching a vehicle. “When a decision like that happens, we’re letting criminals exploit minutiae while countless people die,” he said. “We need a government that has the courage to challenge those judicial outcomes.”

In pursuit of that goal, West is willing to suggest the targeted use of the notwithstanding clause, a rare constitutional tool allowing governments to override parts of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms for up to five years. Typically employed in language or education disputes, it has scarcely been used in criminal proceedings. “When the Charter is being weaponized by sophisticated organizations, the government should consider all tools,” he insisted. “The right of Canadians not to be killed by a drug of this scale ought to supersede a procedural glitch.”

The severity of the fentanyl crisis in British Columbia, which has seen the majority of Canada’s overdose deaths, offers a striking backdrop for West’s urgings. He emphasizes that the torrent of precursor chemicals from China has supercharged local labs, embedding crime syndicates in global narcotics pipelines. Profits from these vast operations, in his words, flow through real estate, casinos, and underground banks with little interference.

Whether Ottawa has the political will to implement measures as sweeping as a RICO-style statute or invoke the notwithstanding clause remains uncertain. Both actions would require confronting powerful interests and explaining why existing laws have failed to secure convictions against top offenders. But West argues that mounting American impatience has changed the equation. “This is no longer just a Canadian domestic issue,” he said. “Secretary Blinken made it clear that the Biden administration sees fentanyl as an existential threat. They’re building a global coalition and need Canada fully on board. If we don’t show real progress, the U.S. will protect itself by any means—tariffs or otherwise.”

“People have been calling for something like RICO in Canada for years,” West added. “Silver International was the textbook illustration of why we need it. We had it all—massive money laundering, triads with direct links to Mexican cartels tied to fentanyl labs—and it collapsed because our system couldn’t handle a case of that complexity. That can’t keep happening, or else we’ll remain the hub of a deadly trade.”

West also revealed he would have accepted the fentanyl czar position himself if asked. “I love being mayor, but this is one of the biggest challenges facing our country,” he said. “I’d pour my heart into it. It demands relentless follow-through: legislation, expanded police powers, educating the public, and yes, taking on the courts if necessary.”

Whether Brosseau wields enough clout remains to be seen. West hopes the appointment signals a turning point from what he calls “a fragmented, complacent approach” to one that confronts the crisis on all fronts. “I’ve seen too many half-measures,” he said. “But maybe this time it’ll be different. The Americans have made their position crystal clear, and we need to demonstrate that we can protect ourselves. Otherwise, we fail both our citizens and our closest ally.”

West still recalls Blinken’s direct plea: “He basically said, ‘We need a partner we can trust, one that can disrupt these networks and secure convictions,’” West noted. “If Canada doesn’t step up, I believe the Americans will respond in ways that damage our relationship—and meanwhile, we’ll continue losing people to a drug that’s tearing families apart. We just can’t let that happen.”

The Bureau is a reader-supported publication.

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

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Business

Ethics on Ice: See You Next Year

Published on

The Opposition with Dan Knight

Dan Knight's avatar Dan Knight

Democracy Watch reveals the Prime Minister’s ethics firewall is riddled with loopholes—while the Privy Council delays access to records that could expose just how deep the conflicts run

Ottawa’s most creative writers don’t work at the CBC. They work at the Privy Council Office, where “transparency” now means grabbing a lawful deadline by the collar and hurling it four months down the road. According to Democracy Watch’s October 16 press release, the PCO was legally required to respond by September 25 to an Access to Information request filed August 28. What did the request ask for? National secrets? State security files? No—it asked for basic stats and documentation about Prime Minister Mark Carney’s so-called ethics “screens.”

Read the full press release here

Specifically:

  • The date his personal screens came into force
  • The identities of those enforcing them
  • The number of decisions flagged for review
  • And how many times Carney recused himself from Cabinet discussions

You’d think if those screens were doing anything meaningful, the answers would be simple—ready to go. But instead of complying with the deadline, the PCO told Democracy Watch they now need until January 25, 2026 to respond. Why? They claim they need to conduct a “consultation.” Over what? No private info was requested, no corporate secrets, no personal data—just raw numbers and public official names the PCO has on hand every single day if the screens are actually being enforced.

Here’s the con: Mark Carney straps on an “ethics screen,” gives the cameras his best global finance smirk, and strolls right back into the room. Why can he do that? Because in Ottawa’s broken ethics law, there’s a magical phrase that turns a real, direct financial conflict into a non-issue with a single bureaucratic flourish. That phrase is: “general in application.”

As Democracy Watch lays out in their October 16 press release, this loophole isn’t just a flaw in the system—it is the system. The federal Conflict of Interest Act says that if a government decision affects a broad class of people or entities, then it doesn’t count as a “private interest,” even if it directly benefits a company the Prime Minister owns shares in. That’s right. If the impact is spread out enough—if the policy touches lots of players—Carney can stay at the table, vote, advise, shape, and spin, even if his own investments stand to gain.

Democracy Watch calls this out as part of what they’ve labeled the “dirty dozen” loopholes—12 major escape hatches in Canada’s ethics laws that allow top officials to profit while pretending to recuse themselves. And this one is the crown jewel. It essentially allows the Prime Minister to participate in nearly every federal decision—from regulatory changes to tax policies to infrastructure contracts—even if his private holdings are directly tied to the outcome.

And make no mistake: Carney’s holdings are not theoretical. According to Democracy Watch, he’s invested in over 550 companies, including a huge financial stake in Brookfield Corporation and Brookfield Asset Management, where he previously held senior roles. His so-called “blind trust”? Not blind at all. He picked the trustee. He knows what’s in it. He can give instructions like “don’t sell,” and he still holds stock options he can’t divest for years. So yes, he knows exactly what he stands to gain.

But thanks to the “general in application” clause, Carney can sit in on policies that steer money toward sectors he’s tied to, influence regulatory landscapes that shape Brookfield’s future, and greenlight decisions that send his portfolio climbing—all while claiming he’s acting ethically because it affects “everyone.”

It’s the most cynical kind of legal gymnastics. And as Democracy Watch rightly points out, it makes the ethics “screen” nothing more than a smokescreen—a PR tool to assure Canadians their Prime Minister is above reproach, while the mechanics of power still tilt in his financial favor.

This isn’t conflict of interest prevention—it’s institutionalized denial. It’s Ottawa’s version of “these aren’t the droids you’re looking for.” Wave the hand, invoke the clause, and suddenly there is no conflict, even when the money trail says otherwise.

You can smell the boardroom cologne from here. The man spent years in the C-suite orbit, and now we’re told that a couple of screens and a “blind trust” will purify the air. Blind? Don’t insult the country. He knows what he put in it, picked the trustee, can give instructions, and—minor detail—still sits on stock options he can’t sell for years. That’s not blind; that’s a portfolio with push notifications.

Meanwhile, the screens perform their real function: hiding recusals. The law says public declarations are required when you step aside. The workaround says, “Nah, just put up a screen and pretend it’s automatic.” It’s ethics by decorative throw pillow, looks tasteful, does nothing.

And when Democracy Watch asks for the most basic receipts—start date, who enforces, how many flags, how many recusals—the PCO collapses onto the nearest fainting couch like a silent-film star. “Oh dear, a request… for numbers?” Numbers! The scandal. Spare us. This isn’t decrypting alien radio; it’s checking a ledger. If the tally weren’t humiliating, they’d punch it into a calculator, hit “equals,” and email it before their Tim Horton’s muffins cool at the morning briefing.

Let’s be adults: if this “screen” actually had teeth, they’d mount the skulls on the wall. We’d get glossy dashboards, color-coded bar charts, triumphal pressers—“Look at all the times the PM bravely recused himself!” Instead, we get a bureaucratic calendar punt past Christmas. Why? So the Prime Minister can keep cosplaying as “arm’s length” while still grazing every file that moves a share price.

And the choreography is always the same: stall, euphemize, declare victory. First the delay, then the jargon—“consultations,” “processing,” “complexity”—all to avoid admitting the obvious: either the screen caught almost nothing, or what it caught is too awkward to show you. If this thing had bite marks, we’d see them. Instead, we’re told to admire the muzzle while the dog keeps chewing the furniture.

And that’s the point, isn’t it? The so-called “ethics screen” isn’t a safeguard—it’s set dressing. It’s the cardboard scenery they roll out behind the Prime Minister every time someone asks about his investments. The whole thing’s a pantomime of virtue. The script says “public service,” but the plot twist is always the same: self-service.

And look at how allergic this government is to sunlight. Democracy Watch’s request gets punted to January, and now our own request—for the same basic documents—gets quietly shoved down the road to June. June! Past the next controversy, past the next budget, probably past the next scandal. It’s the oldest Ottawa trick: when the fire’s burning, move the deadline to when everyone’s forgotten the smoke.

Here’s the ugly truth: every day this file sits buried in the government’s filing cabinet of shame, the Prime Minister keeps right on shaping policies that could pump up the value of the very companies he’s tied to. He’s not waiting for the ethics commissioner; he’s waiting for the news cycle to move on. And while the bureaucrats “consult,” he’s still in the room, still making calls that ripple through the markets.

And every delay, every “extension,” every smug little shrug from the Privy Council Office is another giant, flashing neon sign that says: “We think you’re stupid. We think you’ll forget.” They’re counting on it. They’re betting you’re too busy, too distracted, too demoralized to notice while they drag this thing past winter, past spring, right into a bureaucratic black hole where inconvenient truths go to die.

And the state broadcaster? The CBC won’t touch this with a ten-foot carbon-neutral pole. Not while it risks putting their favorite global finance guru in a bad light. You won’t see a Fifth Estate exposé, no stern voiceovers about conflicts of interest, no dramatic music. But guess what? I’m following it. I’m not letting it go. Because this isn’t a paperwork mix-up. This is a full-scale cover operation dressed up as “consultation.” And if they’re hiding the numbers, it’s because the numbers are bad.

Because here’s what’s really going on: the people writing the rules are also holding the shares. They’re voting in Cabinet while their investments sit in the exact sectors they’re regulating. They’re shaping fiscal policy while their portfolios quietly hum in the background. That’s not democracy. That’s not public service. That’s a rigged casino where the dealer already knows which cards are coming.

And the longer these records stay buried, the more obvious it gets. If this ethics screen was real, they’d have shown it to you already. If the Prime Minister was actually recusing himself, the list would be public. But it’s not. Instead, they’ve given themselves months—into NEXT YEAR—to keep this locked away, far past the next scandal, long after the press loses interest.

Let me be absolutely clear: the Prime Minister is could be profiting from the very policies he’s enacting, and no one in Ottawa wants to talk about it. That should enrage you. Because if the guy running the country is making money off your mortgage rates, your tax dollars, your energy bills—while hiding behind an ethics “screen” so flimsy it might as well be cling wrap—that’s not just unethical, it’s corrupt. And every Canadian deserves to know.

For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.

Continue Reading

Business

Canada has an energy edge, why won’t Ottawa use it?

Published on

Energy abundance, properly managed, isn’t just Canada’s strategic edge—it’s our ace in the hole while allies scramble to rearm their energy systems and competitors sprint ahead. We can keep sleepwalking through the annual ritual of self-imposed shackles, watching golden opportunities slip through our fingers, or we can finally show up as a serious player in the energy security game we’re already knee-deep in.

What the public doesn’t see behind all the climate summit fanfare is a carefully choreographed performance where capitals everywhere scramble to perfect their lines for the UN’s annual pageant. COP30 descends on Brazil in mid-November, and once again Ottawa looks primed to arrive clutching a stack of promises, desperately hoping that thunderous applause will somehow count as tangible progress in the real world.

Thanks to years of bureaucratic capture, our government keeps churning out the measures most fervently demanded by the climate lobby, and this ritual proceeds as if “net zero” were still a credible roadmap rather than a marketing slogan stretched so transparently thin it’s practically see-through. But out in the real world—away from the theatrical staging—the energy system keeps issuing updates of its own that no amount of wishful thinking can erase. The question this year cannot be what flashy new prohibition Ottawa can unveil on cue: are our leaders finally prepared to read the room? Away from the virtue-signalling theatre, countries are quietly adjusting to immovable realities: demand keeps climbing, reliability actually matters, and security trumps sermonizing—and we should be looking south to see what’s really working.

From 2005 to 2023, U.S. per-capita CO₂ emissions from energy plummeted by nearly a third. Not because of performative pledges or green grandstanding, but because coal quietly gave way to natural gas, with renewables filling in around the edges where they actually made sense. Pick almost any grid that made this pragmatic switch, and you’ll discover the same inconvenient pattern that climate absolutists prefer to ignore: fewer emissions and electricity you can actually count on when you flip the switch. Maryland serves as a clean example, where coal shrank from the backbone to a footnote as gas surged, helping keep the lights blazing when people needed them most.

Canada should pay very close attention to these uncomfortable truths. We benefit from hydro and nuclear in some regions, but what the green lobby doesn’t want to acknowledge is that our electricity demand is climbing relentlessly. Population growth alone would guarantee that outcome. Add the explosion in AI technology and it becomes utterly unavoidable, despite the silence from environmental groups. Even the cheerleaders of the new digital economy are brutally honest about this reality when pressed. The head of the world’s biggest AI chipmaker isn’t jesting when he bluntly tells the U.K. it will need gas turbines alongside nuclear and renewables to power its tech ambitions—inconvenient facts that shatter green fairy tales.

Another stubborn reality that doesn’t make it into climate summit speeches is that the International Energy Agency estimates oil and gas companies spend roughly half a trillion dollars every year just to keep output flat—a financial reality that exposes the “stranded assets” narrative as wishful thinking. Without this continual reinvestment, U.S. shale would crater within a single year. It’s rather difficult to describe that as a system drifting quietly into retirement, rather than an industrial backbone that still carries most of the load while activists pretend otherwise. If you’re Canada, that looks less like a looming problem than a golden opening that our competitors are already seizing.

Geopolitics is saying the same thing out loud, for those willing to listen beyond the climate activism echo chamber. J.P. Morgan bluntly calls this the “new energy security age,” and Europe is working frantically to end its dependence on Russian LNG—not for climate reasons, but for survival. Japan is expanding its LNG fleet, and Mexico is inking billion-dollar supply deals while climate campaigners aren’t looking. Strip away all the green branding and virtue-signalling, and you get a core calculation that energy security is nothing short of national security—and countries that get snookered by activist rhetoric into forgetting that harsh reality lose far more than bragging rights at international summits.

The Woodfibre LNG site is seen on Howe Sound in Squamish, B.C. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Darryl Dyck

Our allies have been leaning on us to quit sitting on the sidelines and deliver something concrete. And back home, even Ottawa’s mandarins are finally muttering what everyone else has known all along. For the next several years, at minimum, gas remains the most economical, rock-solid baseload option across vast stretches of the continent. Meeting that surging demand would deliver high-paying jobs, bulletproof alliances, and slash global emissions compared to the world burning more coal. Turning our backs on it means standing idle while rival producers rush to fill the void—all so we can pat ourselves on the back for warming the bench.

If this strikes you as abstract theorizing, cast your eyes toward California. A righteous crusade to shutter refineries didn’t magically eliminate the appetite for fuel—it simply exported the dirty work elsewhere, shipping out the jobs and the supply cushion that shields consumers from price shocks. The Golden State now scrambles like a panicked shopper whenever supply chains hiccup, because when push comes to shove, affordability draws the hard red line on what voters will tolerate. Meanwhile, the global landscape has shifted dramatically, with the United States now claiming the crown as top exporter of refined petroleum and LNG.

The lofty rhetoric of “climate solidarity” has quietly faded into something far more practical—nations ruthlessly pursuing their own interests. Even the most progressive speechwriters now pepper their drafts with buzzwords like ‘pragmatism’ and ‘realism.’ It represents nothing short of a grudging acknowledgment that wishful thinking won’t keep the lights on when the grid starts groaning.

British Columbia, meanwhile, sits perched atop the Montney—one of the continent’s most spectacular gas reservoirs—boasting the shortest shipping lanes to Asian markets. Indigenous nations are shrewdly securing equity stakes in LNG ventures while demanding genuine partnership—a blueprint that marries reconciliation with cold, hard prosperity. Those outbound cargoes are displacing coal-fired power overseas. If your genuine goal involves slashing real-world emissions, that achievement trumps a dozen flowery Ottawa press releases.

So no, the magic formula isn’t “all of the above,” but rather “the best of the above.” It demands deploying hydro, nuclear, and renewables where they deliver maximum punch, with natural gas serving as the indispensable bridge that keeps systems humming while breakthrough technologies mature. We must construct infrastructure that performs when sidewalks turn into skating rinks and when asphalt starts melting like butter.

We’ve also absorbed some hard-earned lessons about the political theatrics that spook serious capital. At COP28 in Dubai, then–environment minister Steven Guilbeault sported a baseball cap emblazoned with “emissions.” Emissions cap—catch the clever wordplay? The joke bombed spectacularly with investors. The policy proposal fared no better; its most vocal champion is reportedly eyeing the exit door, while nearly a hundred Canadian oil and gas CEOs have now fired off two blunt open letters to the new prime minister, spelling out precisely what the cap would accomplish: driving investors to pack their bags for friendlier jurisdictions. If your economic blueprint hinges on attracting capital, avoid crafting policies that essentially scream ‘beat it.’

World leaders at COP29 in Baku, Azerbaijan.

Energy abundance, properly managed, isn’t just Canada’s strategic edge—it’s our ace in the hole while allies scramble to rearm their energy systems and competitors sprint ahead. We can keep sleepwalking through the annual ritual of self-imposed shackles, watching golden opportunities slip through our fingers, or we can finally show up as a serious player in the energy security game we’re already knee-deep in.

What would that look like at COP30? It would sound nothing like the strangely self-defeating Canadian speeches of years past, which have been heavy on confessional hand-wringing, light on genuine intent, drowning in performative self-flagellation, and starved of actual competence. If Ottawa wants to prove it has finally woken up from its ideological slumber, it should ditch the tired theatre and roll out policies that actually unleash investment instead of strangling it: streamlined approvals with firm timelines that mean something; predictable fiscal treatment that doesn’t shift with every political breeze; a clear path for Indigenous equity in major projects; and an explicit commitment to “best of the above” power and fuels. Pair that with a forthright message to allies that cuts through the usual diplomatic fog: Canada intends to supply reliable, cleaner energy to the democracies that desperately need it.

It’s not capitulating to industry to stop pretending we can wish away reality. It’s the path that lets us grow the economy, slash global emissions faster than sanctimonious lectures ever will, and strengthen the alliances that keep free countries from getting steamrolled. If we want Canada to matter in this new energy security age instead of being relegated to the sidelines, we should start acting like we mean business. COP30 is the stage. Time to scrap the old script and write one that actually works.

Continue Reading

Trending

X