National
Fentanyl, Firearms, and Failures: Canada’s Border in Crisis Mode

Opposition Exposes Legislative Gaps and Diplomatic Tensions as Trudeau Government Defends Record
In the latest session of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security (SECU), the Trudeau government’s border security strategy faced fierce scrutiny.
MPs from the Conservative Party, Bloc Québécois, and NDP unleashed a barrage of criticism, exposing deep flaws in how Canada handles fentanyl trafficking, organized crime, and illegal migration. Witnesses from the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) and Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) offered opening statements aimed at highlighting their agencies’ efforts but quickly found themselves on the defensive, trying to justify their performance amid systemic failures.
CBSA and RCMP: Opening Statements Outline Growing Challenges
CBSA President Erin O’Gorman opened the SECU meeting with what can only be described as a pre-packaged, self-congratulatory performance. She boasted about “proactive” border security measures, highlighting joint operations with U.S. Customs and Border Protection and investments in drones and sensors. Let me translate that for you: a handful of success stories sprinkled with just enough tech jargon to distract from the gaping holes in Canada’s border defenses.
RCMP Commissioner Michael Duheme followed suit, painting a rosy picture of collaboration through Integrated Border Enforcement Teams (IBETs) and intelligence-sharing with the U.S. He acknowledged the challenges of tackling synthetic drugs like fentanyl but stopped short of explaining why Canada still lacks the resources to do so effectively. It was the same tired tune—effort without impact, talking points without solutions.
But the cracks in their narrative were impossible to miss. Both officials hinted at the enormity of the task they face and the glaring limitations of current resources and laws. And as the opposition MPs made clear, the gaps in leadership and accountability couldn’t be ignored. For all the talk of “progress,” the testimony revealed a border security system teetering on the edge of failure.
Organized Crime: Exploiting Systemic Weaknesses
Testimony revealed the alarming extent to which organized crime syndicates exploit Canada’s border vulnerabilities. Commissioner Duheme admitted that smugglers are using well-established routes to move firearms, fentanyl, and other contraband. Conservative MP Dane Lloyd wasted no time zeroing in on this issue, pointing out that while 750 firearms have been seized in 2024, countless others continue to flood Canadian streets, fueling gang violence and crime.
But it didn’t stop there. O’Gorman acknowledged that stolen Canadian vehicles are regularly smuggled out of the country, with some linked to terrorism financing. She admitted that CBSA’s enforcement efforts are hampered by a glaring legislative gap: ports are not legally required to provide inspection spaces for exports. Lloyd slammed this lack of oversight, declaring, “How can this government allow stolen vehicles to fund terrorism while ignoring calls for mandatory inspections?”
Fentanyl Crisis: A Growing Threat
The fentanyl epidemic emerged as another key issue, with MPs challenging the adequacy of current policies. O’Gorman highlighted CBSA’s success in seizing 4.9 kilograms of fentanyl in 2024, most of which was destined for Europe rather than the U.S. However, she acknowledged that small shipments of fentanyl precursors—dual-use chemicals legally imported and diverted to illicit production—remain a significant challenge.
NDP MP Alistair MacGregor pressed the witnesses on why the government has not tightened regulations on precursors. “We know how these chemicals are being exploited, yet the system remains open to abuse,” he said. RCMP Commissioner Duheme supported calls for stronger regulations, noting that criminal networks are becoming increasingly sophisticated in circumventing existing controls.
Conservative MP Doug Shipley didn’t hold back in his critique of the Trudeau government’s apparent complacency when it comes to border security. Referencing President-Elect Donald Trump’s scathing comments about Canada’s role in the U.S. opioid crisis, Shipley’s line of questioning cut straight to the heart of the issue: why does the government only react when faced with external pressure?
“Why does it take U.S. pressure and Trump’s rhetoric to get this government to act?” Shipley demanded, pointing to a troubling pattern where meaningful action on key issues like fentanyl trafficking only occurs after international embarrassment. The timing of Canada’s recent policy adjustments, including visa tightening and enforcement boosts under the Safe Third Country Agreement, raises serious questions about whether these moves were proactive measures or hasty reactions to avoid diplomatic fallout.
Shipley underscored the growing perception that the Trudeau government is more concerned with managing optics than tackling the underlying problems. “We have a border security crisis that has been ignored for years,” he said. “The Liberals have known about these issues—the fentanyl, the illegal crossings, the smuggling—and yet, nothing changes until a spotlight is shone on Canada’s failures.”
The backdrop of Trump’s rhetoric added fuel to the fire. His comments have not only strained Canada-U.S. relations but also amplified the stakes, with the threat of economic consequences like tariffs looming in the background. Shipley’s frustration echoed a broader sentiment among opposition MPs: that Canada’s leadership lacks the urgency and resolve to address border security challenges head-on, instead waiting for external forces to dictate the agenda.
The question Shipley posed wasn’t just rhetorical—it struck at the core of a government that has repeatedly been accused of putting politics over public safety. And in a system where criminal networks and traffickers are thriving, the consequences of inaction are no longer hypothetical—they’re devastatingly real.
Illegal Migration and Diplomatic Tensions
Illegal migration across the Canada-U.S. border also came under intense scrutiny. Bloc MP Kristina Michaud raised concerns about the surge in southbound crossings, which peaked at 7,000 individuals in mid-2024, a 680% increase since 2015. Although O’Gorman pointed to policy changes like visa tightening and the expanded Safe Third Country Agreement (STCA) as reasons for recent declines, opposition MPs remained skeptical.
Conservatives also linked the migration issue to potential diplomatic fallout with the U.S., particularly Trump’s proposed 25% tariffs on Canadian goods. “If this government can’t control the border, how can we expect to maintain good relations with our largest trading partner?” asked MP Glen Motz.
Canada’s Border Crisis: Solutions Are Clear, Leadership Is Missing
Let’s be real: the state of Canada’s border security isn’t just a policy issue; it’s a crisis. But if we’re going to have an honest conversation about solutions—and not just rhetoric—then we need to ask tough questions about what’s really required to fix this mess.
First, funding. The government loves to talk about its investments, but where is the money actually going? Testimony at SECU made it clear: the agencies on the front lines, like CBSA and the RCMP, are being asked to do more with less. They’re intercepting firearms, stolen vehicles, and fentanyl shipments, but they’re stretched thin. If we want real results, we need to ensure funding increases are targeted—not just wasted on bureaucracy. Drones, sensors, and data-sharing systems need to be deployed across the board, not in isolated pockets.
Then there’s the legislation. Canada’s laws are riddled with loopholes that make life easier for smugglers and harder for law enforcement. Case in point: ports aren’t even required to provide inspection spaces for exports. Let me repeat that—criminals are smuggling stolen vehicles and contraband out of the country because our laws don’t demand basic oversight at our ports. This isn’t rocket science. Mandate those inspections. Close the gaps on precursor chemicals. Hold shipping companies accountable. What’s the holdup?
And finally, diplomacy. The Liberals love to brand themselves as global players, yet our closest ally—the United States—is threatening tariffs because they don’t think Canada is doing enough on border security. Instead of caving to political pressure, how about showing some backbone? Share the data. Prove our contributions. Demand that the U.S. work with us as partners, not as scapegoats. But that requires leadership—real leadership—which seems to be in short supply in Ottawa.
The solutions are on the table. What’s missing is the political will to act. This isn’t just about protecting our borders; it’s about protecting Canadian families, Canadian jobs, and Canadian sovereignty. If Trudeau’s government can’t deliver, it’s time for leadership that can.
Excuses vs. Accountability on Border Security
When it comes to Canada’s border security, the political divide couldn’t be clearer. On one side, you have the Trudeau Liberals, spinning their tired narrative of progress, insisting they’ve done enough to secure our borders. On the other, you’ve got the opposition—Conservatives, Bloc, and NDP MPs alike—hammering away at the glaring failures of this government. And let me tell you, the contrasts are striking.
The Liberals came to this SECU meeting armed with buzzwords. They touted investments in drones, sensors, and new technologies. Liberal MP Anita Vandenbeld claimed these measures have led to “real results,” pointing to declines in illegal crossings and seizures of fentanyl. Sounds good on paper, right? But dig a little deeper, and you’ll see the cracks.
Conservative MPs like Doug Shipley and Dane Lloyd weren’t buying it. Shipley grilled witnesses on why, despite all this so-called progress, southbound illegal crossings into the U.S. are up 680% since 2015. “Why does this government always wait for a crisis before taking action?” he asked. Lloyd, meanwhile, exposed how criminals are exploiting Canada’s ports to smuggle stolen vehicles overseas—vehicles that fund international terrorism. And what’s the Liberal response? More consultations, more discussions. In other words, nothing.
Then there’s the Bloc’s Kristina Michaud. She hammered away at the government’s inability to close legislative gaps, like mandating export inspections at ports. Michaud even questioned whether the Liberals have the political will to enforce their own policies. That’s a devastating critique from Quebec’s representative, and it highlights the regional frustrations with Ottawa’s top-down approach.
Even the NDP, who often side with the Liberals, weren’t letting them off the hook. Alistair MacGregor zeroed in on fentanyl precursors, pointing out how weak regulations allow criminal networks to exploit Canada’s legal system. “When will this government stop talking about solutions and start implementing them?” he demanded. A fair question, given that these loopholes have existed for years.
So here’s the divide: the Liberals are clinging to their talking points, pretending their investments are enough, while the opposition is laser-focused on the systemic failures, legislative inaction, and diplomatic blunders that have allowed this crisis to spiral.
It’s a classic case of two narratives—one selling excuses, the other demanding accountability. And the real tragedy? While Ottawa debates, Canadian families are left to deal with the consequences of illegal drugs, rising crime, and stolen property funding terrorism. This isn’t just a political debate; it’s a national emergency.
Final Thoughts
Canada is a nation built on resilience, hard work, and a commitment to protecting its people. But what we’re seeing now is a betrayal of those values. Our borders aren’t just weak—they’re dangerously open to exploitation by criminals, traffickers, and opportunists. The SECU hearings made one thing abundantly clear: the Trudeau government has failed to defend the integrity of this country.
Lack of resources. Outdated laws. Political inaction. This isn’t governance—it’s negligence. While the CBSA and RCMP are doing everything they can with the tools they’re given, it’s not enough. Why? Because the leadership they need is nowhere to be found. Instead, we have Justin Trudeau—Ottawa’s talking head—more concerned with photo ops and platitudes than with keeping Canadians safe.
This is a system designed to fail, and Canadians are paying the price. It doesn’t have to be this way. With real leadership—leadership that prioritizes security, accountability, and action—we can fix this. We can close the legislative gaps, give our border agencies the resources they need, and restore Canada’s sovereignty.
It’s time to demand more from Ottawa. Not excuses, not buzzwords, but real, tangible change. Because this isn’t just about border security—it’s about protecting Canadian families, defending our economy, and safeguarding the values that define us as a nation. Canada deserves better. And if Justin Trudeau can’t deliver, then it’s time for someone who can.
Subscribe to The Opposition with Dan Knight .
For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.
Business
Next federal government should reverse Ottawa’s plastics ban

From the Fraser Institute
By Julio Mejía and Elmira Aliakbari
As noted by the Trudeau government, plastic substitutes contribute to lower air quality and “typically have higher climate change impacts” due to higher GHG emissions.
Recently at the White House, President Donald Trump signed an executive order reversing the Biden administration’s plan to phase out plastic straws. The Trudeau government, however, continues with its plan to ban single-use plastics, even though this prohibition will have minimal impact worldwide, will actually increase waste in Canada, and force a transition to alternatives that impose greater environmental harm. Rather than doubling down on a flawed policy, the next federal government should reverse Trudeau’s plastic ban.
In 2021, the Trudeau government classified plastic items as “toxic,” paving the way for the ban on the manufacturing, importing and selling of checkout bags, cutlery, stir sticks and straws—all single-use plastics. In 2023, the Federal Court deemed the designation “unreasonable and unconstitutional”—but the Trudeau government defended the measure and is appealing, with a ruling expected this year.
According to the latest available data, Canada’s contributes 0.04 per cent to global plastic waste. The United States contributes 0.43 per cent—more than 10 times Canada’s share. But neither country is a major contributor to global plastic waste.
According to a 2024 article published in Nature, a leading scientific journal, no western country ranks among the top 90 global plastic polluters, thanks to their near-total waste collection and controlled disposal systems. Conversely, eight countries—India, Nigeria, Indonesia, China, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Russia and Brazil—generate more than half of global plastic waste. And nearly 75 per cent of the world’s ocean plastic comes from Asia with only six countries (Philippines, India, Malaysia, China, Indonesia and Myanmar) accounting for most of the world’s ocean plastic pollution.
The Trudeau government’s own science assessment, cited in the court appeal, states that 99 per cent of Canada’s plastic waste is already disposed of safely through recycling, incinerating and environmentally-friendly landfills. Despite these facts, plastic has become a target for blanket restrictions without fully considering its benefits or the downsides of switching to alternatives.
Consider this. Plastics are lightweight, durable and indispensable to modern life. From medical devices, food packaging, construction materials, textiles, electronics and agricultural equipment, plastics play a critical role in sectors that improve living standards.
Alternatives to plastic come with their own environmental cost. Again, according to the government’s own analysis, banning single-use plastics will actually increase waste generation rather than reduce it. While the government expects to remove 1.5 million tonnes of plastics by 2032 with the prohibition, it will generate nearly twice as much that weight in waste from alternatives such as paper, wood and aluminum over the same period. Put simply, the ban will result in more, not less, waste in Canada.
And there’s more. Studies suggest that plastic substitutes such as paper are heavier, require more water and energy to be produced, demand more energy to transport, contribute to greater smog formation, present more ozone depletion potential and result in higher greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
As noted by the Trudeau government, plastic substitutes contribute to lower air quality and “typically have higher climate change impacts” due to higher GHG emissions.
While plastic pollution is a pressing global environmental issue, Canada is not a major contributor to this problem. The rationale behind the Trudeau government’s plastic ban lacks foundation, and as major economies including the U.S. go back to plastic, Canada’s plastic prohibition becomes increasingly futile. The next federal government, whoever that may be, should reverse this plastic ban, which will do more harm than good.
Agriculture
Dairy Farmers Need To Wake Up Before The System Crumbles

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy
Without reform, Canada risks losing nearly half of its dairy farms by 2030, according to experts
Few topics in Canadian agriculture generate as much debate as supply management in the dairy sector. The issue gained renewed attention when former U.S. President Donald Trump criticized Canada’s protectionist stance during NAFTA renegotiations, underscoring the need to reassess the system’s long-term viability.
While proponents argue that supply management ensures financial stability for farmers and shields them from global market volatility, critics contend that it inflates consumer prices, limits competition, and stifles innovation. A policy assessment titled Supply Management 2.0: A Policy Assessment and a Possible Roadmap for the Canadian Dairy Sector, conducted by researchers at Dalhousie University and the University of Guelph, sheds light on the system’s inefficiencies and presents a compelling case for reform.
Designed in the 1970s to regulate production and stabilize dairy prices, Canada’s supply management system operates through strict production quotas and high import tariffs. However, as successive trade agreements such as the USMCA, CETA, and CPTPP erode these protections, the system appears increasingly fragile. The federal government’s $3-billion compensation package to dairy farmers for hypothetical trade losses is a clear indication that the current structure is unsustainable.
Instead of fostering resilience, supply management has created an industry that is increasingly dependent on government payouts rather than market-driven efficiencies. If current trends persist, Canada could lose nearly half of its dairy farms by 2030 — regardless of who is in the White House.
Consumer sentiment is also shifting. Younger generations are questioning the sustainability and transparency of the dairy industry, particularly in light of scandals such as ButterGate, where palm oil supplements were used in cow feed to alter butterfat content, making butter harder at room temperature. Additionally, undisclosed milk dumping of anywhere between 600 million to 1 billion litres annually has further eroded public trust. These factors indicate that the industry is failing to align with evolving consumer expectations.
One of the most alarming findings in the policy assessment is the extent of overcapitalization in the dairy sector. Government compensation payments, coupled with rigid production quotas, have encouraged inefficiency rather than fostering innovation. Unlike their counterparts in Australia and the European Union — where deregulation has driven productivity gains — Canadian dairy farmers remain insulated from competitive pressures that could otherwise drive modernization.
The policy assessment also highlights a growing geographic imbalance in dairy production. Over 74% of Canada’s dairy farms are concentrated in Quebec and Ontario, despite only 61% of the national population residing in these provinces. This concentration exacerbates supply chain inefficiencies and increases price disparities. As a result, consumers in Atlantic Canada, the North, and Indigenous communities face disproportionately high dairy costs, raising serious food security concerns. Addressing these imbalances requires policies that promote regional diversification in dairy production.
A key element of modernization must involve a gradual reform of production quotas and tariffs. The existing quota system restricts farmers’ ability to respond dynamically to market signals. While quota allocation is managed provincially, harmonizing the system at the federal level would create a more cohesive market. Moving toward a flexible quota model, with expansion mechanisms based on demand, would increase competitiveness and efficiency.
Tariff policies also warrant reassessment. While tariffs provide necessary protection for domestic producers, they currently contribute to artificially inflated consumer prices. A phased reduction in tariffs, complemented by direct incentives for farmers investing in productivity-enhancing innovations and sustainability initiatives, could strike a balance between maintaining food sovereignty and fostering competitiveness.
Despite calls for reform, inertia persists due to entrenched interests within the sector. However, resistance is not a viable long-term strategy. Industrial milk prices in Canada are now the highest in the Western world, making the sector increasingly uncompetitive on a global scale. While supply management also governs poultry and eggs, these industries have adapted more effectively, remaining competitive through efficiency improvements and innovation. In contrast, the dairy sector continues to grapple with structural inefficiencies and a lack of modernization.
That said, abolishing supply management outright is neither desirable nor practical. A sudden removal of protections would expose Canadian dairy farmers to aggressive foreign competition, risking rural economic stability and jeopardizing domestic food security. Instead, a balanced approach is needed — one that preserves the core benefits of supply management while integrating market-driven reforms to ensure the industry remains competitive, innovative and sustainable.
Canada’s supply management system, once a pillar of stability, has become an impediment to progress. As global trade dynamics shift and consumer expectations evolve, policymakers have an opportunity to modernize the system in a way that balances fair pricing with market efficiency. The recommendations from Supply Management 2.0 suggest that regional diversification of dairy production, value-chain-based pricing models that align production with actual market demand, and a stronger emphasis on research and development could help modernize the industry. Performance-based government compensation, rather than blanket payouts that preserve inefficiencies, would also improve long-term sustainability.
The question is no longer whether reform is necessary, but whether the dairy industry and policymakers are prepared to embrace it. A smarter, more flexible supply management framework will be crucial in ensuring that Canadian dairy remains resilient, competitive, and sustainable for future generations.
Dr. Sylvain Charlebois is senior director of the agri-food analytics lab and a professor in food distribution and policy at Dalhousie University.
-
Censorship Industrial Complex2 days ago
Misinformed: Hyped heat deaths and ignored cold deaths
-
National1 day ago
Trudeau fills Canadian courts with Liberal-appointed judges before resigning as prime minister
-
International1 day ago
Commerce Secretary on Oval Office debacle: Zelensky flies to Washington to sign deal then scuttles it
-
Business1 day ago
Trump’s trade war and what it means for Canada
-
Alberta1 day ago
Securing the Alberta-U.S. border
-
Business2 days ago
Trump could announce tariff compromise Wednesday
-
Business1 day ago
Next federal government has to unravel mess created by 10 years of Trudeau policies
-
Business14 hours ago
Bitcoin hits $90K as Trump plans U.S. crypto reserve