Connect with us

Opinion

February 8 City Council may be allowing more parkland to be developed.

Published

3 minute read

During an in-camera session at city hall, which excludes others, city council dealt with the park land at the end of Stanley Crescent. In camera means top secret but I was told that when “the” developer presents his plans the residents of Sunnybrook will be given an opportunity to offer input.

The houses around this area were built in the 60s and 20 years ago, the city assured me that the land was designated for the park system. A few months ago during the Molly Banister debate several people including councillors assured me there would be no development or that Spruce Drive would be extended south of 32 St.

What happened to protecting the wildlife corridor, or maintaining beautiful trail systems. The trail will most likely just run along the fences of housing south of 32 Street.

We have been lucky. For decades I have been able to look at trees from my livingroom, watch the deer and moose, the occasional skunk, porcupine and coyote but that will be coming to an end. I will miss it but I always expected that the city will need the money and destroy the parkland these animals call home.

This is not like the proposed bridge on the Molly Banister extension, this is not a fenced in cow pasture this is actually home to many animals. Will the environmentalists get ready to rumble? Don’t bother. There are a few city councillors fighting for the environment, give them a chance.

This area back onto 32 Street in the north end and I cannot see million dollar homes being built backing on to 32 St. The city requires a density of 17 housing units per hectare so I suspect they will build 12 suite apartments on the north side and million dollar homes along the creek.

Stanley Crescent has 6 houses on it now with about a dozen vehicles and the deer often sit in the yards watching the scenery, that will change as even 1 apartment building would triple the traffic.

All said in done, I cannot complain, I will miss the serenity of my front yard and the view but I count my blessings for all the years I had it.

A lot of trees will come down and the animals will move on, and I suspect we will move on too, because we were spoiled for so many years.

The city needs the money, because with stagnant growth we definitely do not need more houses.

It is what it is. Thank you.

2025 Federal Election

Canadian Banks Tied to Chinese Fentanyl Laundering Risk U.S. Treasury Sanctions After Cartel Terror Designation

Published on

Sam Cooper

TD and other banks face new scrutiny under U.S. anti-terror laws as Chinese-linked superlabs in Canada churn out fentanyl, meth, and ecstasy for U.S. streets, expert tied to Trump administration warns

In an explosive, sweeping interview, former senior State Department investigator David Asherā€”closely connected to the Trump administrationā€™s financial and national security apparatusā€”warned that Canadian banks could soon face a ā€œnew universeā€ of regulatory scrutiny, including from the U.S. Treasury, due to the recent designation of Mexican cartels as foreign terrorist organizations.

Asher, who contends that the ā€œcommandā€ for Western Hemisphere money laundering of synthetic narcoticsā€”including fentanyl, methamphetamine, and ecstasy sourced from Chinese precursorsā€”is ā€œlargely run by Chinese triads in Canada,ā€ also argues that this interconnected transnational network presents profound risks to Canadian financial institutions.

Speaking bluntly about theĀ nexusĀ between Chinese Triads and Mexican cartels operating in Canada, Asher said: ā€œOf course, theyā€™re in bed with each other. This is why Tse Chi Lop lived in Torontoā€¦ These cartels are now designated as terrorist organizations. That changes everythingā€”how we prosecute them, and what tools we can use.ā€

Asher, along with Canadian law enforcement experts such as former RCMP intelligence analystĀ Scott McGregor,Ā believes a rarely discussed Canadian legal barrierā€”Stinchcombeā€”must be overcome. They argue Canada could unlock powerful new authorities if it begins treating cartel-connected Chinese money laundering networks as accessories to terrorism.

The rule, derived from the 1991 Supreme Court caseĀ R. v. Stinchcombe, requires Canadian law enforcement to disclose nearly all investigative material to the defense. While intended to ensure a fair trial, critics say it severely hampers complex RCMP investigations, especially those relying on wiretaps or sensitive intelligence, and risks blowing the cover of international partners and covert operations.

Asher didnā€™t mince words: ā€œEvery case I worked in Canadaā€¦ the Stinchcombe thing ended up [inhibiting investigations]ā€”we were targeting phone numbers tied to Canadian money launderers who were Chinese. And they got told after 90 days that we were going after them. Then they just changed numbers and changed their OPSEC. Itā€™s a farce.ā€

He sees the recent terrorism designation of Mexican cartels as a legal pivot point: ā€œThat whole Stinchcombe thing should be thrown out the door because we can now use counter-terrorism authorities.ā€

Asher believes that if Canadian law enforcement engages more directly with U.S. authorities, the financiers and money launderers tied to Chinese triads in Canada can be directly linked to fentanyl-trafficking Mexican cartels. If Canadian banks are shown to be facilitating these funds, even passively, they may be subject to U.S. regulationsā€”including terrorism finance sanctions.

The implications for Canadian institutions are profound. ā€œIf any of these financial institutions are picking up a dollar for the cartels at this stage and we can prove it, then theyā€™re engaged in terrorism financing.ā€

Asher also pointed to marijuana trafficking from Canada into the United Statesā€”not as a separate criminal enterprise, but as part of the same transnational fentanyl networks. He said Chinese Triads, with ties to the Chinese Communist Party, sit atop this narcotics pyramid and are exploiting Canadaā€™s legal marijuana system.

ā€œThe illegal potā€”marijuana from Canada that comes into the New York State tri-state area and into the Pacific Northwest states of the United StatesĀ is huge.Ā And now weā€™re seeing the integration of fentanyl into marijuana in some cases.ā€

The flow of narcotics south and criminal proceeds north continues largely unabated, Asher warned, with superlabs in British Columbia and other areas of Canada producing meth, ecstasy, and fentanyl.

On Canadaā€™s enforcement efforts and the outcomes of official inquiries into Chinese criminal and influence networks, Asher was scathing: ā€œWhat have you done to follow up on [the Cullen Commission]? Nothing. And then you had this Hogue inquiry about Chinese influence in politics. What have you done about that? It looks to me like practically nothing.ā€

He called on Canada to show resolve on investigations that impact the United States: ā€œFrankly, one of the first things you still need to do is: why is TD Bank Canada not being charged? And do we have charges against some of the executives, whether theyā€™ve been publicly named or not?ā€

His core message is that Canada must shake off legal andĀ political inertia:Ā ā€œWhy wouldnā€™t Canada want to protect itself? Youā€™re losing thousands of people every year, sometimes tens of thousands, due to overdoses and poisonings and basically murder in the form of these narcotics networks.ā€

The consequences of inaction, Asher warned, could be direā€”not only for Canadian sovereignty and public health, but for its banking sectorā€™s international standing. ā€œCanadian money laundering command and control remains a huge issue for drug trafficking across the United Statesā€¦ Thatā€™s just the bottom line.ā€

The following transcript has been edited for clarity and brevity. Some passages have been removed to streamline the discussion while preserving its core insights.

Sam Cooper:Ā What is the key change that designating the Sinaloa cartel and these other Mexican cartels as terrorist networksā€”because Canada followed President Trump on that. So now this anti-terrorism law should be applicable in Canada. One, does that change the calculus of the U.S. working with the Canadian government in going after cartels in Toronto, Vancouver, and Montreal? And two, in your view, are these cartels operative with Chinese command-and-control financiers that underwrite their operations across North America?

David Asher:Ā First of all, of course, theyā€™re in bed with each other. I mean, this is the reason why Tse Chi Lop lived in Canada and in Toronto. I mean, the Sinaloa cartel has significant operations with partners and proxies in Canada, both for distribution and, increasingly, we believe with productionā€”the rise of these super labs.

And so, the way I define it: we can do law enforcement top down. We use their intelligence, use their sources. We know who the leadership are, we know where the money is. Rather than build a case from the bottom up and start with dime bags on the streets of Chicago or Vancouver, we say we know these cartels are designated, and now these cartels are terrorist organizations. That changes everything in terms of how we could prosecute them and what type of tools we can use. Because that wholeĀ StinchcombeĀ thing should be thrown out the door because we can now use counter-terrorism authorities. Because Canada does have a reasonably strong counter-terrorism law.

So if we treat these cartels as terroristsā€”which they areā€”and youā€™ve designated them, we can use our signals intelligence and all sorts of other tools to much more robustly target them without them knowing it. Because every case I worked in Canada, theĀ StinchcombeĀ thing ended upā€”we were targeting phone numbers tied to Canadian money launderers who were Chinese, and also actually some Italian mob guys too, and Iranian mob guys. And they got told after 90 days that we were going after them. And then they just changed numbers and they changed their OPSEC. Itā€™s a farce, you know that. But I mean, just like with the terrorism designations, I think weā€™re in a new universe here.

So now that the Latin cartels have been designated as terrorists, your Anti-Terrorism Act of 2017 willā€”it has these four key provisions: prevent terrorists from getting into Canada and protect Canadians from terrorist acts; activate tools to identify, prosecute, and convict terrorists; keep the border secure and contribute to economic security; and work with the international community to bring terrorists to justice and address root causes of violence.

All these aspects are fundamentally game changers. I mean, if you apply that, I think that you treat these cartels as terrorists, you start to prosecute them. We could do it jointly. And their partners tooā€”I mean, theyā€™re accessories to terrorism. So if the Chinese are laundering the money, and if TD Bank, letā€™s say, is accepting the money? Then TD Bank is involved in terrorism finance. Suddenly, then, the whole tapestry of authorities has changed, and we should not have to follow theĀ StinchcombeĀ thing anymore. It should be that we have a direct way to secretly target the communications and follow the money through the cartels, now that theyā€™re basically the same as Hezbollah and the Quds Force and Al-Qaeda.

And then thereā€™s Chinese partners. Frankly, if theyā€™re working with them in a partnership, you should be able to approach them as accessories to terrorism from a legal standpoint. That would change your prosecution. It would change your intelligence collection capability, and it would actually conform with the facts, frankly.

And I think also anybody whoā€™s getting the Chinese guys youā€™ve profiled, like Paul King Jin and all these Chinese United Front actors in Vancouverā€”I mean, they are now effectively accessories to a terrorist organizationā€™s finances.

So I have to assumeĀ that your politiciansĀ are not going to meet with accessories to terrorist organizations anymore. I hope what this is doing in the U.S. is that all U.S. banks now are under warning that the Anti-Terrorism Act will be applied to them if they take one dollar of Sinaloa money.

I think that people are starting to realize that. And I think thereā€™s muchā€”I think itā€™s hardly that TD was the only Canadian bank that was involved in laundering money.

Sam Cooper:Ā Can you expand on that?

David Asher:Ā Youā€™ve got other banks, like BMO. Iā€™m not saying itā€™s laundering money, but Iā€™m not saying it isnā€™t. I donā€™t know, but they have huge operations in Mexico, so obviously they should be looked at. But if any of these financial institutions are picking up a dollar for the cartels at this stage and we can prove it, then theyā€™re engaged in terrorism financing. I mean, the U.S. government will go after banks anywhere in the world that are engaged in terrorism financing, Canadian or otherwise.

And I donā€™t think the U.S. government is satisfied at all with the Canadian response at this stage. But there is great hope because if you start to crack down using your Anti-Terrorism Act, I think that we have an opportunity to change the framework for collective action and have a much better relationship.

But itā€™s going to mean taking on the Chinese because the money laundering for terrorist dollars is material support for terrorism, and itā€™s going to require going after the distribution of not just fentanyl, but letā€™s not forget thereā€™s massive amounts of methamphetamine produced in Canada. And by the way, no oneā€™s talking about all the meth from Canada thatā€™s entering the United States. President Trump isnā€™t just concerned about fentanyl. I mean, for years weā€™ve had methamphetamine coming out of Canada into the United States.

Sam Cooper:Ā Well, I recently did a story on aĀ major Sinaloa Cartel cellĀ set up on the British Columbia border near the Peace Arch crossing. They were dealing with [Sinaloa Cartel boss] El Mayo directly, which says a lot, right?

And they were raidedā€“mind you no one is even incarceratedā€”but they face civil forfeiture. And they found Mexican passports, fentanyl, MDMA, methamphetamine, ketamine, fake Xanax, incredible weapons caches. And youĀ alsoĀ just had another major smuggling operation of MDMA from B.C. justĀ prosecutedĀ in Washington state. So the U.S. government is concerned with all these precursors from China and that includes ecstasy as well, right?

David Asher:Ā Yes. And of course, the illegal potā€”marijuana from Canada that comes into the New York State tri-state area and into the Pacific Northwest states of the United States is huge. And now weā€™re seeing the integration of fentanyl into marijuana in some cases.

I think that the Canadian defense that statistics show Canada is innocent in fentanyl trafficking across North America is just bullshit. I mean, something like probably 80% of the money laundering networks in the U.S. that are Chinese are in direct contact with numbers in Canada every day. And we donā€™t know who those subscribers are. Weā€™re not allowed to spy on Canada.

Sam Cooper:Ā Alright. Can I ask you this? I heard from a senior U.S. narcotics expert with deep knowledge that the pot being run down from Ontario into New York and the tri-state area was coming inĀ tonsĀ ā€” and that they believed this was command-and-control Chinese organized crime in Toronto. They said the fundsĀ connected to allĀ of that was collected in the U.S. and ultimately coming back up to Toronto banks.

Like you said, the money comes back to be laundered where command is. So that’s the legalā€”or really, illegalā€”pot trade from Canada, mixed with the fentanyl trafficking networks directed from Canada. The drugs go south, the cash is collected, and itā€™s laundered back up through Canadian banks.

Thatā€™s your TD Bank case, right?

David Asher:Ā Itā€™s all part of the same drug trafficking organizations.

But look, we donā€™t have super labs in the United States, and this idea that, well, we have super labs in Canada, but theyā€™re not targeting the United Statesā€”how the hell do you know that? I mean, you just stumbled upon this super lab out in British Columbia. How many others? Weā€™ve heard from dozens of sources that there are a number of labs like that in Canada. I mean, thereā€™s no way theyā€™re not going to be involved in exporting to the United States.

But even if they arenā€™t, itā€™s a huge threat to Canada. And we have to assume that itā€™s an incoming threat to the United States. But putting aside fentanyl super labs, youā€™ve got super methamphetamine labs too, and youā€™ve got the marijuana business, ecstasy businessā€”itā€™s all drug business. Theyā€™re all interlinked. And letā€™s not forget that Tse Chi Lop served, I donā€™t know about nine years in prison in the United States. We arrested him well before he was identified publicly, and when he was based in Canada.

You showed in your bookĀ Wilful BlindnessĀ that Paul King Jin, all these guys come down to Las Vegas to launder money. Remember, you can take these chips from these casinos and you can exchange them internationally. Theyā€™re like bearer bonds practically. You can take them and settle them elsewhere. The chips are fungible. So the idea that these major Chinese networks in Canada are not cross-border into the U.S. is also bullshit.

Sam Cooper:Ā Absolutely, yes.

David Asher:Ā Thatā€™s not some secret. Everybody knows that who works organized crime cases. So whatā€™s going on in British Columbia, which your Cullen CommissionĀ reporting detailedĀ in mind-altering detail. What has Canada done to follow up on that? Nothing. And then you had this Hogue inquiry about Chinese influence in politics. What has Canada done about that? It looks to me like practically nothing. I think thereā€™s a lot we can do though. And there are people in the Canadian government that want to work this positively, and I think there should be more receptivity to it in the United States.

But I think weā€™d like to see the Canadians put some meat on the plate. Can they help us target the Sinaloa cartelā€™s operations in partnership with Chinese triads, not just in Canada, but in the U.S. too, and maybe even in Mexico?

I mean, have they come forward with a plan of attack together? I donā€™t think so. And if they did, it would be helpful. But frankly, one of the first things you still need to do is: why is TD Bank Canada not being charged?

And do we have charges against some of the executives, whether theyā€™ve been publicly named or not? Itā€™s in the document that the Department of Justice released that there were a number of people theyā€™ve identified for criminal prosecution. I mean, in the U.S. weā€™re fining TD $3.1 billion. Whatā€™s Canada done? Like aĀ $9 million fineĀ against TD Corporate in Toronto. Seriously? The people in Toronto were running the money laundering network in the United States of America.

Sam Cooper:Ā What more can you say about that piece?

David Asher:Ā There are other people you should talk to about that. But we know there was command and control for the money laundering in Toronto. Thatā€™s why the CEO of TD Canada resigned. He took the blame, but he hasnā€™t been charged. I expect that that case has not ended yet. I think thereā€™s a high probability that it will be continuing. I donā€™t know this for certainā€”Iā€™m not involvedā€”but from what I can see, the facts are pretty clear in the document that was put out by the Department of Justice. I donā€™t think that thereā€™s grounds for this investigation into TDā€™s money laundering activity at the headquarters level to stop.

But why isnā€™t the Canadian government looking into them? This is the largest money laundering bank in the history of the United States of America. Itā€™s Canadian. Have you ever thought that you guys might be able to charge them for money laundering too? What about anything theyā€™re doing today?

At this point, I know theyā€™ve hired people as consultants to try to supposedly clean up the bank, but you know what? Theyā€™ve got a long way to go. They have to close accounts. Theyā€™ve got to screen every relationship theyā€™ve got. And even then, if the Department of the Treasury is satisfied, the Department of Justice might have a different view of it.

But I think that we know this: at the end of the day, the Canadian money laundering command and control remains a huge issue for drug trafficking of all sorts across the United States of America. And so I think thatā€™s just the bottom line.

Sam Cooper:Ā Okay. Letā€™s talk more aboutĀ StinchcombeĀ and Canadaā€™s courts and cross-border crime, because this is a major cause of friction fundamentally for Canada and the U.S. as allies I believe.

Can you explain more about the extreme impediments that Canadian police work under, so that U.S. international enforcement is totally frustrated, loss of confidence, canā€™t work with Canada. Could you briefly describe to the readers whatĀ StinchcombeĀ means in terms of your and the U.S. governmentā€™s frustration in not being able to go up on [establish wiretaps] on Iranian, Chinese, and Mexican operatives in Canada?

David Asher:Ā Well, we could go up on them, but then they had to be told we were going up on them. I mean, thereā€™s this disclosure rule. Iā€™m not an expert on Canadian law, but I can tell you that we had multiple casesā€”including [Asher names an alleged Iran-regime connected criminal in Toronto that allegedly laundered several billion dollars in major Canadian banks] against the Iran network.

We actually did have a case into Tse Chi Lop as well that was significant with the Australians, but it was DEA-led. And weā€™ve had so many others, including against the Hells Angels of Canada, who were a big problem. I mean, those guys, theyā€™ve been trafficking into the United States. And as far as I can understand it, every time we want to target someone, they end up getting told that theyā€™re being targeted. I mean, you canā€™t build an undercover criminal investigation if the cover gets blown after 90 days because of some Canadian law or rule.

And the fact is, but now with this terrorism designation, at least when it comes to the cartels and their facilitating partiesā€”and that could be the Hells Angels, that could be the Wolf Pack, that could be the Chinese triadsā€”it doesnā€™t really matter. Theyā€™re facilitating terrorism.

And Canada would need to start to make cases on your own to identify, prosecute, and disable and dismantle these networks. Your government knows where these networks exist. It just acts like itā€™s powerless to do anything. Itā€™s just not true. Iā€™ve always felt that there was a compromiseā€”because we were dealing with, in some of these Iran cases, we were dealing with terrorism. We had direct Hezbollah and Iranian IRGC connections in Canada. So it baffled us why the criminals were being told that they were being targeted or how they found out.

Whether it was throughĀ StinchcombeĀ or leaks or whatever. But all I can say is: whenā€™s the last time we did a major case together between U.S. and Canada to take down a network? Seriously? Can you name one?

Sam Cooper:Ā I canā€™t. No.

David Asher:Ā Exactly. So thereā€™s none, basically, thatā€™s of any note. And itā€™s not just to blame Canada. Iā€™m saying letā€™s just turn this into an opportunity for justice, because at the end of the day, your people are getting murdered by these cartels. And the cartels are making money because they can launder through these Chinese networks. And if they canā€™t make money, theyā€™ll go out of business. So our job is not to protect Canada, but weā€™re certainly happy to help.

But I think that this needs to beā€”and itā€™s unfortunate that things have started off in an adversarial way between Washington and Ottawa. But I think that thereā€™s just a lot of frustration. And I know it exists at the Treasury Department, not just the Department of Justice.

Youā€™ve got a ways to go, and I think that your new Prime Minister will hopefully be able to navigate this, and weā€™ll see a new way of working these things together.

And I think, again, this terrorism designation is huge, but someone has to start by saying, okay, now weā€™ve got a terrorism designation. What do we do with it? And right now, I donā€™t think you should wait for the U.S. to come and complain or appeal to you to do it. You should do this yourselves. Why wouldnā€™t Canada want to protect itself? Youā€™re losing thousands of people every year, sometimes tens of thousands, due to overdoses and poisonings and basically murder in the form of these narcotics networks. And then, basically, youā€™ve created a countrywide environment thatā€™s permissive to criminal organizations, and people are suffering. The fact is, this enormous amount of real estate thatā€™s been bought across Canada, especially in British Columbia and the Toronto area, has been bought with money thatā€™s been laundered. It makes Miami in the 1980s look minor league.

Sam Cooper:Ā Yeah. The estimates I’m getting now are over a trillion dollars in Toronto and Vancouver, connected to mortgage fraud and underground banking since 2010.

David Asher:Ā Yeah, itā€™s massive. And it has to be fixed. I mean, seriously, this is an opportunity.

Sam Cooper:Ā Itā€™s an opportunity to improve both our nations.

David Asher:Ā Correct. And I think if Canada came forward and said, we just identified the following networks and individuals who are laundering money for Chinese money laundering organizations, and weā€™re going to take them down, the U.S. would probably be impressed. Right now, youā€™re showing videos of dogs on the border and helicoptersā€”that doesnā€™t do anything. Make some arrests, take down some criminals.

The Bureau is a reader-supported publication.

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

Continue Reading

Addictions

Thereā€™s No Such Thing as a ā€œSafer Supplyā€ of Drugs

Published on

By Adam Zivo

Sweden, the U.K., and Canada all experimented with providing opioids to addicts. The results were disastrous.

[This article was originally published inĀ City Journal, a public policy magazine and website published by the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research. We encourage our readers to subscribe to them for high-quality analysis on urban issues]

Last August, Denverā€™s city councilĀ passed a proclamationĀ endorsing radical ā€œharm reductionā€ strategies to address the drug crisis. Among these was ā€œsafer supply,ā€ the idea that the government should give drug users their drug of choice, for free. Safer supply is a popular idea among drug-reform activists. But other countries have already tested this experiment and seen disastrous results, including more addiction, crime, and overdose deaths. It would be foolish to follow their example.

The safer-supply movement maintains that drug-related overdoses, infections, and deaths are driven by the unpredictability of the black market, where drugs are inconsistently dosed andĀ often adulteratedĀ with other toxic substances. With ultra-potent opioids like fentanyl, even minor dosing errors can prove fatal. Drug contaminants, which dealers use to provide a stronger high at a lower cost, can be just as deadly andĀ potentially disfiguring.

Because of this, harm-reduction activists sometimes argue that governments should provide a free supply of unadulterated, ā€œsafeā€ drugs to get users to abandon the dangerous street supply. Or they say that such drugs should beĀ sold in a controlled manner, like alcohol or cannabisā€”an endorsement of partial or total drug legalization.

But ā€œsafeā€ is a relative term: the drugs championed by these activists includeĀ pharmaceutical-grade fentanyl, hydromorphone (an opioid as potent as heroin), andĀ prescription meth. Though less risky than their illicit alternatives, these drugs are still profoundly dangerous.

The theory behind safer supply is not entirely unreasonable, but in every country that has tried it, implementation has led to increased suffering and addiction. In Europe, onlyĀ Sweden and the U.K.Ā have tested safer supply, both in the 1960s. The Swedish model gave more than 100 addicts nearly unlimited access through their doctors to prescriptions for morphine and amphetamines, with no expectations of supervised consumption. Recipients mostly sold their free drugs on the black market, often through a network of ā€œsatellite patientsā€ (addicts who purchased prescribed drugs). This led to an explosion of addiction and public disorder.

Most doctors quickly abandoned the experiment, and it was shut down after just two years and several high-profile overdose deaths, including that of a 17-year-old girl.Ā Media coverageĀ portrayed safer supply as a generational medical scandal and noted that the British, after experiencing similar problems, also abandoned their experiment.

While the U.S. has never formally adopted a safer-supply policy, it experienced something functionally similar during theĀ OxyContin crisis of the 2000s. At the time, access to the powerful opioid was virtually unrestricted in many parts of North America. Addicts turned to pharmacies for an easy fix and often sold or traded their extra pills for a quick buck. Unscrupulous ā€œpill millsā€ handed out prescriptionsĀ like candy, flooding communities with OxyContin and similar narcotics. The result was a devastating opioid epidemicā€”one that rages to this day, at a cumulative cost ofĀ hundreds of thousands of American lives. Canada was similarly affected.

The OxyContin crisis explains why many experienced addiction expertsĀ were aghastĀ when Canada greatly expanded access to safer supply in 2020, following a four-year pilot project. They worried that the mistakes of the recent past were beingĀ made all over again, and that the recently vanquished pill mills had returned under the cloak of ā€œharm reduction.ā€

Subscribe for free to get BTNā€™s latest news and analysis ā€“ or donate to our investigative journalism fund.

Most Canadian safer-supply prescribers dispense large quantities of hydromorphone with little to no supervised consumption. Patients can receive up to 40 eight-milligram pills per dayā€”despite the fact that just two or three are enough to cause an overdose in someone without opioid tolerance. Some prescribers also provide supplementaryĀ fentanyl, oxycodone, or stimulants.

Unfortunately, manyĀ safer-supply patients sell or tradeĀ a significant portion of these drugsā€”primarily hydromorphoneā€”in order to purchase more potent illicit substances, such as street fentanyl.

The problems with safer supplyĀ entered Canadaā€™s consciousnessĀ in mid-2023, through anĀ investigative reportĀ I wrote for theĀ National Post. I interviewed 14 addiction physicians from across the country, who testified that safer-supply diversion is ubiquitous; that the street price of hydromorphone collapsed by up to 95 percent in communities where safer supply is available; that youth are consuming and becoming addicted to diverted safer-supply drugs; and that organized crime traffics these drugs.

Facing pushback, I interviewedĀ former drug users, who estimated that roughly 80 percent of the safer-supply drugs flowing through their social circles was getting diverted. I documentedĀ dozens of examplesĀ of safer-supply trafficking online, representing tens of thousands of pills. I spoke with youth who hadĀ developed addictionsĀ from diverted safer supply and adults who hadĀ purchased thousands of such pills.

After months of public queries, the police department of London, Ontarioā€”where safer supply was first pilotedā€”revealed last summer that annual hydromorphone seizuresĀ rose over 3,000 percentĀ between 2019 and 2023. The department later held a press conference warning that gangsĀ clearly traffic safer supply. The police departments of two nearby midsize citiesĀ also sawĀ their post-2019 hydromorphone seizures increase more than 1,000 percent.

The Canadian government quietly dropped its support for safer supply last year,Ā cutting fundingĀ for many of its pilot programs. The province of British Columbia (the nexus of the harm-reduction movement) finally pulled back support last month, after aĀ leaked presentation confirmedĀ that safer-supply drugs are getting sold internationally and that the government is investigating 60 pharmacies for paying kickbacks to safer-supply patients. For now, all safer-supply drugs dispensed within the province must beĀ consumed under supervision.

Harm-reduction activistsĀ have insistedĀ that no hard evidence exists of widespread diversion of safer-supply drugs, but this is only because they refuse to study the issue. Most ā€œstudiesā€ supporting safer supply are produced by ideologically driven activist-scholars, who tend toĀ interview a small number of program enrollees. These activists also rejectĀ attempts to track diversionĀ as ā€œstigmatizing.ā€

The experiences of Sweden, the United Kingdom, and Canada offer a clear warning: safer supply is a reliably harmful policy. The outcomes speak for themselvesā€”rising addiction, diversion, and little evidence of long-term benefit.

As the debate unfolds in the United States, policymakers would do well to learn from these failures. Americans should not be made to endure the consequences of a policy already discredited abroad simply because progressive leaders choose to ignore the record. The question now is whether we will repeat othersā€™ mistakesā€”or chart a more responsible course.

Our content is always free ā€“

but if you want to help us commission more high-quality journalism,

consider getting a voluntary paid subscription.

Continue Reading

Trending

X