Connect with us
[bsa_pro_ad_space id=12]

Opinion

One of the world’s leading progressives says “I’m out”

Published

21 minute read

This is a compelling read because of the insight but it’s even more remarkable considering the author.  Michael Schellenberger not only founded and lead “Environmental Progress“, he was an Invited IPCC Reviewer and was named by Time Magazine “Hero of Environment”.  Schellenberger is still a leading environmentalist, but his views have changed significantly over the years as he’s become disillusioned with the movement.  

Michael Shellenberger is author of the best-selling “Apocalypse Never”

This newsletter was sent out to Michael Schellenberger’s subscribers on Substack

Why I Am Not A Progressive

And Why, From Climate Change to Homelessness, Liberal People Are Giving Up

For all of my adult life I have identified as a progressive. To me, being a progressive meant that I believed in empowerment. In 2002, when I co-founded a labor-environmental coalition to advocate for renewable energy, the symbol we chose to represent us was of Rosie the Riveter, an image of a woman factory worker during World War II flexing her muscle beneath the words, “We Can Do It!”. When President Barack Obama ran for office in 2008, it seemed fitting to me that he chose the slogan, “Yes we can!”

But now, on all the major issues of the day, the message from progressives is “No, you can’t.” No: poor nations like Bangladesh can’t adapt to climate change by becoming rich, insist progressives; rather, rich nations must become poor. No: we can’t prevent the staggering rise of drug deaths in the U.S., from 17,000 in 2000 to 93,000 in 2020, by helping people free themselves from addiction; rather, we must instead provide Safe Injection Sites and Safe Sleeping Sites, in downtown neighborhoods, where homeless addicts can use fentanyl, heroin, and meth safely.

Progressives insist they are offering hope. Many scientists and activists yesterday said that, while we have gone past the point of no return, when it comes to climate change, and that “No one is safe,” we can make the situation less bad by using solar panels, windmills, and electric cars, albeit at a very high cost to the economy. And in California, progressive leaders say that we just need to stick with the progressive agenda of Safe Injection Sites and Safe Sleeping Sites until we can build enough single unit apartments for the state’s 116,000 unsheltered homeless, most of whom are either addicted to hard drugs, suffering from untreated mental illness, or both.

But progressives are talking out of both sides of their mouth. Yesterday I debated a British climate scientist named Richard Betts on television. After I pointed out that he and his colleagues had contributed to one out of four British children having nightmares about climate change he insisted that he was all for optimism and that he agreed with me about nuclear power. But just hours earlier he had told the Guardian that we were “hopelessly unprepared” for extreme weather events, even though deaths from natural disasters are at an all time low and that, objectively speaking, humankind has never been more prepared than we are today.

And on the drug deaths crisis, the consensus view among Democrats in Sacramento is that “the problem is fundamentally unsolvable,” according to one of the Capitol’s leading lobbyists. Facing a recall that is growing in popularity, Governor Gavin Newsom yesterday tried to demonstrate that he believes he can solve the problem. He came to Berkeley California and cleaned up garbage created by an open air drug scene (“homeless encampment”) underneath a freeway underpass. A reporter for Politicoposted a picture of Newsom who he said was “looking tired, sweaty and dirty.” But a commenter noted that the video was shot at 12:12 pm and by 12:25 pm Newsom was holding a press conference. The governor hadn’t even bothered changing out of his Hush Puppies into work boots. People close to the governor say that it is Newsom himself who believes homelessness is a problem that cannot be solved.

The reason progressives believe that “No one is safe,” when it comes to climate change, and that the drug death “homelessness” crisis is unsolvable, is because they are in the grip of a victim ideology characterized by safetyism, learned helplessness, and disempowerment. This isn’t really that new. Since the 1960s, the New Left has argued that we can’t solve any of our major problems until we overthrow our racist, sexist, and capitalistic system. But for most of my life, up through the election of Obama, there was still a New Deal, “Yes we can!,” and “We can do it!” optimism that sat side-by-side with the New Left’s fundamentally disempowering critique of the system.

That’s all gone. On climate change, drug deaths, and cultural issues like racism, the message from progressives is that we are doomed unless we dismantle the institutions responsible for our oppressive, racist system. Those of us in Generation X who were raised to believe that racism was something we could overcome have been told in no uncertain terms that we were wrong. Racism is baked into our cultural DNA. Even apparently positive progressive proposals are aimed at fundamentally dismantling institutions. The Democrats’ $1 trillion infrastructure bill, supported by many Republicans, and their $3.5 trillion budget proposal, contain measures that would finance the continuing degradation of our electrical grids by increasing reliance on unreliable, weather-dependent renewables, and establish racial incentives for industries including trucking, where there is already a shortage of drivers in large measure because not enough of them can pass drug tests. And does anyone really believe that, if those bills pass, progressives will abandon their dark vision of the future and return to Rosie the Riveter?

Meanwhile, at the state and local level, progressive governments faced with worsening racial disparities in education and crime, are attempting to “solve” the problem by eliminating academic standards altogether, and advocating selective enforcement of laws based on who is committing them. Such measures are profoundly cynical. Progressives are effectively giving up on addressing racial disparities by ignoring them. But such is the logical outcome of victim ideology, which holds that we can divide the world into victims and oppressors, that victims are morally superior and even spiritual, and no change is possible until the system that produces victims and oppressors is overthrown.

To some extent none of this is new. After World War II, it was progressives, not conservatives, who led the charge to replace mental hospitals with community-based care. After the community-based care system fell apart, and severely mentally ill people ended up living on the street, addicted to drugs and alcohol, progressives blamed Reagan and Republicans for cutting the budget. But progressive California today spends more than any other state, per capita, on mental health, and yet the number of homeless, many of whom are mentally ill and suffering addiction, increased by 31% in California since 2010 even as they declined by 18 percent in the rest of the US.

Also after World War II, it was progressives, not conservatives, who insisted that the world was coming to an end because too many babies were being born, and because of nuclear energy. The “population bomb” meant that too many people would result in resource scarcity which would result in international conflicts and eventually nuclear war. We were helpless to prevent the situation through technological change and instead had to prevent people from having children and rid the world of nuclear weapons and energy. It took the end of the Cold War, and the overwhelming evidence that parents in poor nations chose to have fewer children, as parents in rich nations had before them, where they no longer needed them to work on the farm, for the discourse to finally fade.

But the will-to-apocalypse only grew stronger. After it became clear that the planet was warming, not cooling, as many scientists had previously feared, opportunistic New Left progressives insisted that climate change would be world-ending. There was never much reason to believe this. A major report by the National Academies of Science in 1982 concluded that abundant natural gas, along with nuclear power, would substitute for coal, and prevent temperatures from rising high enough to threaten civilization. But progressives responded by demonizing the authors of the study and insisting that anybody who disagreed that climate change was apocalyptic was secretly on the take from the fossil fuel industry.

Where there have been relatively straightforward fixes to societal problems, progressives have opposed them. Progressives have opposed the expanded use of natural gas and nuclear energy since the 1970s even though it was those two technologies that caused emissions to peak and decline in Germany, Britain and France during that decade. Progressive climate activists over the last 15 years hotly opposed fracking even though it was the main reason emissions in the US declined 22 percent between 2005 and 2020, which is 5 percentage points more than President Obama proposed to reduce them as part of America’s Paris climate agreement.

The same was the case when it came to drug deaths, addiction, and homelessness. People are shocked when I explain to them that the reason California still lacks enough homeless shelters is because progressives have opposed building them. Indeed, it was Governor Newsom, when he was Mayor of San Francisco, who led the charge opposing the construction of sufficient homeless shelters in favor of instead building single unit apartments for anybody who said they wanted one. While there are financial motivations for such a policy, the main motivation was ideological. Newsom and other progressives believe that simply sheltering people is immoral. The good is the enemy of the perfect.

As a result, progressives have created the apocalypse they feared. In California, there are “homeless encampments,” open drug scenes, in the parks, along the highways, and on the sidewalks. But the problem is no longer limited to San Francisco. A few days ago somebody posted a video and photo on Twitter of people in Philadelphia, high on some drug, looking exactly like Hollywood zombies. The obvious solution is to provide people with shelter, require them to use it, and mandate drug and psychiatric treatment, for people who break laws against camping, public drug use, public defecation, and other laws. But progressives insist the better solution is Safe Sleeping Sites and Safe Injection Sites.

Should we be surprised that an ideology that believes American civilization is fundamentally evil has resulted in the breakdown of that civilization? Most American progressives don’t hold such an extreme ideology. Most progressives want police for their neighborhoods. Most progressives want their own children, when suffering mental illness and addiction, to be mandated care. And most progressives want reliable electrical and water management systems for their neighborhoods.

But most progressives are also voting for candidates who are cutting the number of police for poor neighborhoods, insisting that psychiatric and drug treatment be optional, and that trillions be spent making electricity more expensive so we can harmonize with nature through solar panels made by enslaved Muslims in China, and through industrial wind projects built in the habitat of critically endangered whale species.

Does pointing all of this out make me a conservative? There are certainly things I support that many progressives view as conservative, including nuclear power, a ban on public camping, and mandating drug and psychiatric treatment for people who break the law. But other things I support might be fairly viewed as rather liberal, or even progressive, including universal psychiatric care, shelter-for-all, and the reform of police departments with the aims of reducing homicides, police violence, and improving the treatment of people with behavioral health disorders, whether from addiction or mental illness.

And there is a kind of victim ideology on the Right just as there is on the Left. It says that America is too weak and poor, and that our resources are too scarce, to take on our big challenges. On climate change it suggests that nothing of consequence can be done and that all energy sources, from coal to nuclear to solar panels, are of equal or comparable value. On drug deaths and homelessness it argues that parents must simply do a better job raising their children to not be drug addicts, and that we should lock up people, even the mentally ill, for long sentences in prisons and hospitals, with little regard for rehabilitation.

The two grassroots movements I have helped to create around energy and homelessness reject the dystopian victim ideologies of Right and Left. There are progressive and conservative members in both coalitions. But what unites us is our commitment to practical policies that are proven to work in the real world. We advocate for the maintenance and construction of nuclear plants that actually exist, or could soon exist, not futuristic reactors that likely never will. We advocate for Shelter First and Housing Earned, universal psychiatric care, and banning the open dealing of deadly drugs because those are the policies that have worked across the U.S. and around the world, and can be implemented right away.

If I had to find a word to describe the politics I am proposing it would be “heroic,” not liberal, conservative, or even moderate. We need a politics of heroism not a politics of victimhood. Yes, Bangladesh can develop and save itself from sea level rise, just as rich nations have; they are not doomed to hurricanes and flooding. Yes, people addicted to fentanyl and meth can recover from their addictions, with our help, and go on to live fulfilling and rewarding lives; they are not doomed to live in tents for the rest of their shortened lives. And yes, we can create an America where people who disagree on many things can nonetheless find common ground on the very issues that most seem to polarize us, including energy, the environment, crime, and drugs.

On October 12 HarperCollins will publish my second book in two years, San Fransicko, focused on drugs, crime, and homelessnes. It and Apocalypse Never will constitute a comprehensive proposal for saving our civilization from those who would destroy it. What both books have in common is the theme of empowerment. We are not doomed to an apocalyptic future, whether from climate change or homelessness. We can achieve nature, peace, and prosperity for all people because humans are amazing. Our civilization is sacred; we must defend and extend it.

San Fransicko was inspired, in part, by the work of the late psychiatrist, Victor Frankl, who was made famous by a book where he described how he survived the Nazi concentration camps by fixating on a positive vision for his future. During the darkest moments of Covid last year I was struck by how much my mood had improved simply by listening to his 1960s lectures on YouTube. Why, I wondered, had progressives embraced Frankl’s empowering therapy in their personal lives but demonized it in their political lives? Why had progressives, who had done so much to popularize human potential and self-help, claimed that promoting self-help in policies and politics were a form of “blaming the victim?”

Few of my conclusions will surprise anyone, though the agenda, and philosophy, that I am proposing might. It truly is a mix of values, policies, and institutions that one might consider progressive and conservative, not because I set out to make it that way, but because it was that combination that has worked so often in the past. But beyond the policies and values I propose there is a spirit of overcoming, not succumbing; of empowerment, not disempowerment; and of heroism, not victimhood. That spirit comes before, and goes beyond, political ideology and partisan identity. It says, against those who believe that America, and perhaps Western Civilization itself, are doomed: no they’re not. And to those who think we can’t solve big challenges like climate change, drug deaths, and homelessness, it says yes we can.

After 15 years as a TV reporter with Global and CBC and as news director of RDTV in Red Deer, Duane set out on his own 2008 as a visual storyteller. During this period, he became fascinated with a burgeoning online world and how it could better serve local communities. This fascination led to Todayville, launched in 2016.

Follow Author

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