Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

Business

BREAKING ALERT: Trump Threatens 25% Tariff on All Goods From Canada and Mexico, Cites Flood of Fentanyl and Illegal Migrants

Published

1 month ago

4 minute read

In a stunning announcement Monday, President-Elect Donald Trump vowed swift action to combat what he described as a surge in fentanyl trafficking and illegal migration at the U.S. borders with Mexico and Canada.

Trump pledged to impose a 25% tariff on all imports from both countries, citing their alleged failure to address the crises. He announced the policy would be enacted through an Executive Order on January 20, the day he officially takes office.

“Thousands of people are pouring through Mexico and Canada, bringing Crime and Drugs at levels never seen before,” Trump said in a statement. He singled out an incoming “unstoppable” caravan from Mexico as emblematic of what he described as the failures of both neighboring countries to address the crisis.

“This Tariff will remain in effect until such time as Drugs, in particular Fentanyl, and all Illegal Aliens stop this Invasion of our Country!” Trump posted on his Truth Social platform.

The backdrop to Trump’s shocking policy against Canada—long perceived as a strong ally of the U.S.—includes a recent high-profile case against TD Bank in the United States, resulting in a multi-billion-dollar fine. Months prior to Trump’s announcement, David Asher, a former Trump administration official and consultant on DEA investigations related to the TD probe, told The Bureau that U.S. investigators believe the “command and control” for the fentanyl money-laundering networks allegedly cited in the TD case leads directly to Toronto and Vancouver.

These networks—according to Asher—involve transnational Triads laundering cash from fentanyl distributed in America by Mexican cartels, who source their precursors from China.

In an exclusive interview with The Bureau, Asher criticized the Canadian government for inadequate cooperation in broader fentanyl-trafficking and Triad money laundering investigations, pointing to gang leaders in Canada with alleged ties to Beijing. Asher suggested that possible political and financial influences are hampering effective law enforcement in Canada.

“The key thing is the Canadian connection, and in almost all the investigations as far as money laundering, we saw the command control seemed to go back to our network analysis. When we seized their phones, we’d see Canada light up like a Christmas tree, especially Toronto, and also British Columbia,” Asher said.

Regarding allegations that Triads in Toronto and Vancouver are running fentanyl money-laundering networks for Mexican cartels, Asher added: “The question is, what does the Canadian government know, and why haven’t they tried to judicially prosecute?”

Asher emphasized that the failure to disrupt these networks is contributing to the ongoing fentanyl crisis, which claims tens of thousands of lives annually in the U.S. and Canada.

Furthermore, Asher disclosed that U.S. Congressional investigators allege the People’s Republic of China is not only incentivizing fentanyl precursor exports but also methamphetamine sales.

The tariff, Trump emphasized, will remain until Mexico and Canada take what he called their “absolute right and power” to stop the flow of illegal drugs and migrants.

“We hereby demand that they use this power, and until such time that they do, it is time for them to pay a very big price,” Trump declared.

The announcement has already sparked sharp reactions from political leaders and trade experts. Critics warn that such sweeping tariffs could disrupt North American trade agreements and exacerbate economic tensions with key allies.

This is a developing story. Stay tuned to The Bureau for updates.

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

Related Topics:

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

More from this author
COVID-19 / 3 hours ago

Intelligence Blob Boxed Out Lab Leak Proponents As It Sold Fading Biden On Natural Origins Theory

Crime / 3 hours ago

New Allegations In Migrant’s Subway Fire Murder Case Somehow Even More Depraved

Business / 6 hours ago

Global Affairs Canada Foreign Aid: An Update

Business

Global Affairs Canada Foreign Aid: An Update

Published on December 26, 2024

By

The Audit

 

 David Clinton

Canadian Taxpayers are funding programs in foreign countries with little effect

Back in early November I reached out to Global Affairs Canada (GAC) for a response to questions I later posed in my What Happens When Ministries Go Rogue post. You might recall how GAC has contributed billions of dollars to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, only to badly miss their stated program objectives. Here, for the record, is my original email:

I’m doing research into GAC program spending and I’m having trouble tracking down information. For instance, your Project Browser tool tells me that, between 2008 and 2022, Canada committed $3.065 billion to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. The tool includes very specific outcomes (like a drop of at least 40 per cent in malaria mortality rates). Unfortunately, according to reliable public health data, none of the targets were even close to being achieved – especially in the years since 2015.

Similarly, Canada’s $125 million of funding to the World Food Programme between 2016 and 2021 to fight hunger in Africa roughly corresponded to a regional rise in malnutrition from 15 to 19.7 percent of the population since 2013.

I’ve been able to find no official documentation that GAC has ever conducted reviews of these programs (and others like it) or that you’ve reconsidered various funding choices in light of such failures. Is there data or information that I’m missing?

Just a few days ago, an official in the Business Intelligence Unit for Global Affairs Canada responded with a detailed email. He first directed me to some slightly dated but comprehensive assessments of the Global Fund, links to related audits and investigations, and a description of the program methodology.

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

To their credit, the MOPAN 2022 Global Fund report identified five areas where important targets were missed, including the rollout of anti-corruption and fraud policies and building resilient and sustainable systems for health. That self-awareness inspires some confidence. And, in general, the assessments were comprehensive and serious.

What initially led me to suggest that GAC was running on autopilot and ignoring the real world impact of their spending was, in part, due to the minimalist structure of the GAC’s primary reporting system (their website). But it turns out that the one-dimensional objectives listed there did not fully reflect the actual program goals.

Nevertheless, none of the documents addressed my core questions:

  • Why had the programs failed to meet at least some of their mortality targets?
  • Why, after years of such shortfalls, did GAC continue to fully fund the programs?

The methodology document did focus a lot of attention on modelling counterfactuals. In other words, estimating how many people didn’t die due to their interventions. One issue with that is, by definition, counterfactuals are speculative. But the bigger problem is that, given at least some of the actual real-world results, they’re simply wrong.

As I originally wrote:

Our World in Data numbers give us a pretty good picture of how things played out in the real world. Tragically, Malaria killed 562,000 people in 2015 and 627,000 in 2020. That’s a jump of 11.6 percent as opposed to the 40 percent decline that was expected. According to the WHO, there were 1.6 million tuberculosis victims in 2015 against 1.2 million in 2023. That’s a 24.7 percent drop – impressive, but not quite the required 35 per cent.

I couldn’t quickly find the precise HIV data mentioned in the program expectations, but I did see that HIV deaths dropped by 26 percent between 2015 and 2021. So that’s a win.

I’m now inclined to acknowledge that the Global Fund is serious about regularly assessing their work. It wouldn’t be fair to characterize GAC operations as completely blind.

But at the same time, over the course of many years, the actual results haven’t come close to matching the programs objectives. Why has the federal government not shifted the significant funding involved to more effective operations?

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

Continue Reading

Business

Canadian health care continues to perform poorly compared to other countries

Published on December 26, 2024

By

From the Fraser Institute

By Mackenzie Moir and Bacchus Barua

At 30 weeks, this year marked the longest total wait for non-emergency surgery in more than 30 years of measurement.

Our system isn’t just worsening over time, it’s also performing badly compared to our universal health-care peers.

Earlier this year, the U.S.-based Commonwealth Fund (in conjunction with the Canadian Institute for Health Information) released the results of their international health policy survey, which includes nine high-income universal health-care countries—Australia, Canada, France, Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom. Unfortunately, Canada continued to come in near or dead last on key measures of timely access. Most notably, Canada ranked worst for wait times for specialists and non-emergency surgery.

For example, whereas almost half (46 per cent) of Canadians surveyed indicated they waited two months or more for a specialist appointment, that number was just 15.1 per cent in the Netherlands and 13.2 per cent in Switzerland. And while one in five (19.9 per cent) Canadians reported waiting more than one year for non-emergency surgery, just half a per cent (0.6) of Swiss respondents indicated a similar wait. And no one in the Netherlands reported waiting as long.

What explains the superior performance of these two countries compared to Canada?

Simply put, they do universal health care very differently.

For example, the Netherlands, which ranked first on both indicators, mandates that residents purchase private insurance in a regulated but competitive marketplace. This system allows for private insurance firms to negotiate with health-care providers on prices, but these insurance firms must also accept all applicants and charge their policy holders the same monthly fee for coverage (i.e. they cannot discriminate based on pre-existing conditions).

In Switzerland, which ranked among the top three on both measures, patients must also purchase coverage in a regulated private insurance marketplace and share (10-20 per cent) of the cost of their care (with an annual maximum and protections for the most vulnerable).

Both countries also finance their hospitals based on their activity, which means hospitals are paid for the services they actually provide for each patient, and are incentivized to provide higher volumes of care. Empirical evidence also suggests this approach improves hospital efficiency and potentially lowers wait times. In contrast, governments in Canada provide hospitals with fixed annual budgets (known as “global budgets”) so hospitals treat patients like costs to be minimized and are disincentivized from treating complex cases.

It’s no surprise that in 2022, the latest year of available data, a lot more Swiss (94 per cent) and Dutch (83 per cent) reported satisfaction with their health-care system compared to Canadians (56 per cent).

No matter where you look, evidence on the shortcomings of Canada’s health-care system is clear. Fundamental reform is required for Canadians to have timelier care that matches what’s available in universal health-care countries abroad.

Continue Reading

Trending

X