Connect with us

Business

Long Ignored Criminal Infiltration of Canadian Ports Lead Straight to Trump Tariffs

Published

16 minute read

Sam Cooper

Briefings to Liberal Government on Chinese Infiltration of Vancouver Port and Canada’s Opioid Scourge Ignored

Trump Tariffs Loom as Critics Decry Ottawa’s “Fox in the Hen House” Approach to Border Security

As President Donald Trump readies sweeping tariffs against Canada on Saturday—citing Ottawa’s failure to secure its shared North American borders from fentanyl originating in China—The Bureau has obtained a remarkable December 1999 document from a senior law enforcement official, revealing Ottawa’s longstanding negligence in securing Vancouver’s port against drug trafficking linked to Chinese shipping entities.

The Bureau is a reader-supported publication.

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

The letter, drafted by former Crown prosecutor Scott Newark and addressed to Ottawa’s Security Intelligence Review Committee (SIRC), urged the body to reconsider explosive findings from a leaked RCMP and CSIS report detailing the infiltration of Canada’s “porous” borders by Chinese criminal networks.

Titled “Re: S.I.R.C. Review in relation to Project Sidewinder,” Newark’s letter alleges systemic failures that enabled Chinese State Council owned shipping giant COSCO and Triads with suspected Chinese military ties to penetrate Vancouver’s port system. He further asserts that federal authorities ignored repeated briefings and warnings from Canadian law enforcement—warnings based on intelligence gathered by Canadian officials in Hong Kong, who initiated the Sidewinder review.

Newark also warned that Liberal Prime Minister Jean Chrétien’s decision to dismantle Canada’s specialized Ports Police and privatize national port control had left the country dangerously exposed to foreign criminal networks, noting he had personally briefed the Canadian government on these concerns as early as 1996.

Addressing his letter to SIRC’s chair, Quebec lawyer Paule Gauthier, Newark wrote:

“As the former (1994-98) Executive Officer of the Canadian Police Association, I was assigned responsibility for dealing with the issue of the federal government’s changes to control of the national ports and policing therein.”

“This involved close examination of matters such as drug, weapon, and people smuggling through the national ports and, in particular, both the growing presence of organized criminal groups at ports and the ominous hazard control of those ports by such groups represented.”

Newark’s letter goes on to allege widespread failures in Ottawa that facilitated Chinese Triad infiltration of Vancouver’s port, revealing federal authorities’ reluctance to act on warnings from RCMP officer Garry Clement and immigration control officer Brian McAdam—former Canadian officials based in Hong Kong who had sounded the alarm, prompting the Sidewinder review.

Newark explained to SIRC’s chair that, during his tenure as Executive Officer of the Canadian Police Association, he prepared approximately fifty detailed policy briefs for the government and regularly appeared before parliamentary committees and in private ministerial briefings.

“I can assure you that in all of that time, no clearer warning was ever given by Canada’s rank and file police officers to the national government than what was done in our unsuccessful attempt to prevent the disbandment of the specialized Canada Ports Police in combination with the privatization of the ports themselves,” Newark’s letter to SIRC states.

The letter continues, noting that in October 1996, Newark met with Chrétien’s Transport Minister David Anderson—later addressing the Transport Committee—to highlight the imminent threat posed by Asian organized crime’s infiltration of port operations. Newark’s written briefing to the Minister underscored the gravity of the situation with a blunt question:

“Who exactly are the commercial port operators?”

Citing the Anderson briefing document, Newark’s letter to SIRC states that Anderson had been warned:

“We are, for example, aware of serious concerns amongst the international law enforcement community surrounding the ownership of ports and container industries in Asia and, in particular, Hong Kong, Taiwan, and the People’s Republic of China. There is simply no longer any doubt that drugs like heroin are coming from these destinations through the Port of Vancouver, moved by organized criminal gangs whose assets include ‘legitimate’ properties.”

The Anderson briefing also referenced a British Columbia anti-gang unit report, titled “Organized Crime on Vancouver Waterfront,” which made clear that the Longshoreman’s Union had been infiltrated by the Hells Angels.

“The movement of goods through Canada’s ports requires an independence in policing that is impossible without public control,” the report warned.

It concluded:

“This report should be taken as a specific warning to this Government that, prior to downloading operational control over the ports themselves to private interests, Government be absolutely certain as to who owns what—and that it can continue that certainty with power to refuse acquisition of port assets in the future.”

Scott Newark’s letter to SIRC then turns to new intelligence—gathered from Canadian and U.S. officials—that further underscored the vulnerability created by Chrétien’s border policies.

“To now learn that law enforcement and public officials in Canada and the United States have linked a company (COSCO), granted docking and other facilities in Vancouver, to Asian organized crime, arms and drug smuggling is, to say the least, disturbing,” Newark’s December 1999 letter states.

“That this company, its principals, subsidiaries, and partners have been associated with various military agencies of a foreign government—agencies themselves identified by Canadian and American officials as having unhealthy connections to Triad groups—makes a bad situation even worse.”

Newark next addressed the broader implications of Canada’s failure to enforce border security, particularly in relation to the deportation of foreign criminals—a process he had sought to reform while serving with the Canadian Police Association.

Drawing on his experience, he described a deeply flawed immigration enforcement system, one that allowed individuals with serious criminal records to remain in Canada indefinitely. The problem, he wrote, was twofold: not only were foreign criminals able to enter Canada with ease, but authorities also failed to deport those with outstanding arrest warrants.

Newark recounted how, in 1996, a Cabinet Minister requested that he meet with Brian McAdam, a former senior foreign service officer in Hong Kong who had spent years uncovering organized crime’s grip on Canada’s immigration system. McAdam’s detailed revelations, he wrote, had directly led to the launch of Project Sidewinder.

Newark told SIRC that even after leaving the Canadian Police Association in 1998, he remained in contact with McAdam and other officials working to expose this vast and complex national security risk posed by foreign criminal networks.

It was this ongoing communication that led to an even more alarming discovery. Newark wrote that he was stunned to learn that Canada’s government had not only terminated Project Sidewinder but had gone so far as to destroy some related files.

The Bureau is a reader-supported publication.

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

Newark suggests SIRC’s chair, in her review of Sidewinder, should determine whether “Sidewinder should not have been cancelled … why such inappropriate action was taken and at whose direction this was done.”

He concludes that SIRC should also freshly examine why intelligence reporting from the Canadian officials in Hong Kong, Brian McAdam and Garry Clement had been ignored in Ottawa.

Newark’s letter to SIRC says these failures to act on intelligence included the “Inappropriate granting of visas to Triad members or associates” and “Granting of docking facilities with attendant consequences to COSCO”—and “Failure of CIC and Foreign Affairs to respond appropriately to the various information supplied by McAdam and Clement in relation to material pertaining to Sidewinder.”

In an exclusive interview with The Bureau, Garry Clement, who contributed to investigations referenced in Newark’s letter, corroborated many of its claims and provided further insight. Clement recalled his role in Project Sunset, a 1990s investigation into Chinese Triads’ efforts to gain control over Vancouver’s ports.

“I can remember having a discussion with Scott when he wrote that to SIRC because Scott and I go back a long time,” Clement said. “I knew about him writing on it, but I knew it was also buried.”

He described his own intelligence work during the same period:

“I wrote in the nineties when I was the liaison officer in Hong Kong, a very long intelligence brief on the Chinese wanting to basically acquire or build out a port at the Surrey Fraser Docks area. And it was going to be completely controlled by that time, with Triad influence, but it was going to be controlled by China.”

Clement expressed frustration that decades of warnings had gone unheeded:

“The bottom line is that here we are almost 40 years later, talking about an issue that was identified in the ‘90s about our ports and allowing China to have free access—and nothing has been done over that period of time.”

Newark’s urgent recommendation for SIRC to reconsider Sidewinder’s warnings on Vancouver’s ports was never acted upon.

“We still don’t have Port Police. We got nobody overseeing them,” Clement added. “The ports themselves, it’s sort of like putting a fox in the hen house and saying, ‘Behave yourself.’”

Finally, when asked about the Trudeau government’s claim this week that Canada is responsible for only one percent of the fentanyl entering the United States—a figure reported widely in Canadian media—Clement’s response was unequivocal.

“The fact that we’ve become a haven for transnational organized crime, it’s internationally known,” he said. “So when I read that, with the fentanyl—Trump is wrong in that there’s less than 1% of our fentanyl going to the United States. That’s a crock of shit. If you look at the two super labs that were taken down in British Columbia—I think there’s three now—the amount they were capable of producing was more than the whole Vancouver population could have used in 10 years. So we know that Vancouver has become a transshipment point to North America for opiates and cocaine and other drugs because it’s a weak link, and enforcement is not capable of keeping up with transnational organized crime.”

The Bureau is a reader-supported publication.

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

That opinion is evidently acknowledged by British Columbia Premier David Eby, according to documents from Canada’s Foreign Interference Commission that say Eby sought meetings with Justin Trudeau’s National Security Advisor.

A record from the Hogue Commission, sanitized for public release, outlines the “context and drivers” behind Eby’s concerns, including “foreign interference; election security; countering fentanyl, organized crime, money laundering, corruption.”

The documents state Ottawa’s Privy Council Office—which provides advice to Justin Trudeau’s cabinet—had recommended that British Columbia continue to work with the federal government on initiatives like the establishment of a new Canada Financial Crimes Agency to bolster the nation’s ability to respond swiftly to complex financial crimes.

Additionally, the PCO highlighted that Canada, the United States, and Mexico were supposedly collaborating on strategies to reduce the supply of fentanyl, including addressing precursor chemicals and preventing the exploitation of commercial shipping channels—a critical area where British Columbia, and specifically the Port of Vancouver, plays a significant role.

Eby acknowledged the concerns again this week in an interview with Macleans.

“I understood Trump’s concerns about drugs coming in. We’ve got a serious fentanyl problem in B.C.; we see the precursor chemicals coming into B.C. from China and Mexico. We see ties to Asian and Mexican organized crime groups. We’d been discussing all of that with the American ambassador and fellow governors. That’s why it was such a strange turnaround, from ‘Hey, we’re working together on this!’ to suddenly finding ourselves in the crosshairs.”

Yet, despite Eby’s claims of intergovernmental efforts, critics—including Garry Clement—argue that nothing has changed. Vancouver’s port remains alarmingly vulnerable, a decades-old concern that continues to resurface as fentanyl and other illicit drugs flood North American markets.

The Bureau is a reader-supported publication.

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

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

Follow Author

More from this author

Business

Federal government could save $10.7 billion this fiscal year by eliminating eight ineffective spending programs

Published on

From the Fraser Institute

By Jake Fuss and Grady Munro

The federal government could save up to $10.7 billion this fiscal year by ending eight ineffective spending programs, finds a new report published today by the Fraser Institute, an independent, non-partisan Canadian public policy think-tank.

“Canada’s federal finances have deteriorated markedly over the last decade, largely due to a rapid run up in spending, deficits and debt,” said Jake Fuss, director of fiscal studies at the Fraser Institute.

“As previous governments have done before, a comprehensive line-by-line review of Ottawa’s spending is required to identify those programs or initiatives that are not fulfilling their purpose, or are not providing good value for tax dollars.”

The study, Identifying Potential Savings from Specific Reductions to Federal Government Spending, highlights eight federal programs where government spending
does not appear to be accomplishing its stated goals, or where government funding is unnecessary:

– $1.5 billion — Regional Development Agencies
– $1.7 billion — Federal support for journalism
– $587.6 million — Federal support for electric vehicle production and purchases
– $340.0 million — Two Billion Trees program
– $3.5 billion — Canada Infrastructure Bank
– $2.4 billion — Strategic Innovation Fund
– $202.3 million — Global Innovation Clusters
– $530.0 million — Green Municipal Fund

Critically, eliminating these eight programs could reduce federal government spending by $10.7 billion in 2024-25: “Though just a starting point, a savings of $10.7 billion would meaningfully improve federal finances and help Ottawa put the country’s finances back on a stable footing,” Fuss said.

This study is part of a larger series of collected essays on federal policy reforms, Federal Blueprint for Prosperity, edited by Fraser Institute Senior Fellows Jock Finlayson and Lawrence Schembri.

The essay series, also released today, details federal policy reforms in health care, environmental and energy regulations, tax policy, immigration, housing, trade, etc. to increase prosperity for Canadians and improve living standards.

To learn more and to read the entire collected essay series, visit www.fraserinstitute.org.

 

Identifying Potential Savings from Specific Reductions in Federal Government Spending

  • A marked deterioration in the state of Canada’s finances, driven largely by rapidly increasing spending, has created a need to review federal government spending to identify programs that are inefficient and/or ineffective. This study highlights eight spending areas that have easily identifiable problems, and should be a starting point for a more comprehensive review.
  • The eight spending areas identified are: Regional Development Agencies, Government Supports for Journalism, Federal Support for Electric Vehicle Production and Purchases, the 2 Billion Trees Program, the Canada Infrastructure Bank, the Strategic Innovation Fund, the Global Innovation Clusters, and the Green Municipal Fund.
  • These programs represent instances where government spending does not appear to be accomplishing the stated goals, and where government involvement is questionable.
  • For instance, despite research suggesting business subsidies do little to promote widespread economic growth, the seven regional development agencies report vague objectives and results that make it difficult for government officials or Parliamentarians to assess the efficacy of the spending.
  • Since the Canada Infrastructure Bank was first established in 2017, it has approved up to $13.2 billion in investments across 76 projects, but only two projects have been completed. These projects represent just $93.2 million (or 0.71 percent) of the total approved investments.
  • The federal government could save $10.7 billion in 2024–25 alone if it eliminated spending in these eight areas. This amount would be impactful in improving the state of Canada’s finances, and more savings could be achieved through a comprehensive review of all spending.
Continue Reading

Business

Musk vs. the bureaucracy vs. Congress: Who has the power to cut spending?

Published on

From The Center Square

By 

The Trump administration’s all-of-Washington shake-up has resulted in hundreds of lawsuits and cries of a “constitutional crisis,” with Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency at the heart of many complaints from Democrats.

Critics of the department say its on shaky legal footing and have questioned whether Musk’s role violates the U.S. Constitution, as higher-ranking government officials often must be appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. The White House has maintained that, despite Musk being the public face of the department and seemingly directing its activities, he is only a “special government employee.” As such, he isn’t subject to a Senate confirmation.

But legal experts disagree on Musk’s role and authority within the federal government.

The Pacific Legal Foundation’s Michael Poon works for the foundation’s separation of powers practice group. Now that the White House has revealed the identity of the DOGE’s administrator as Amy Gleason, a healthcare technology executive who served under Presidents Donald Trump and Joe Biden, Poon likened Musk’s role to that of a “DOGE czar,” or even the president’s chief of staff – neither of which are senate-confirmed positions. Because Musk isn’t the department’s administrator, he doesn’t seem to have any formal authority, according to Poon.

“Agency heads have the power to ignore him because he doesn’t actually have formal power himself,” Poon continued, “but they probably listen because Musk is understood to have the president’s confidence,” similar to other positions Poon mentioned, including Trump’s border czar, Tom Homan, who also isn’t Senate confirmed but works side by side with the Department of Homeland Security. whose secretary, Kristi Noem, is Senate-confirmed.

“This kind of arrangement makes Musk informally powerful, but the power comes from the expectation that the president would back him, not any power that is, sort of, inherent in his position,” Poon said.

While Poon doesn’t think Musk’s role violates any constitutional requirements, he does appreciate the sudden interest the public is taking in the role of unelected federal officials in general. But since their function in the federal government has developed over many decades, it’s unlikely that anything resulting from the DOGE-Musk controversy would go very far in solving the problem.

“It’s appropriate to be scrutinizing of unelected officials and the power that they wield,” Poon said. “But it’s a concern that has been put to the side for the last hundred years, over which both major parties have worked to weaken these protections against unelected officials.”

If Americans want less power and more guardrails for unelected officials, it will take time to achieve, according to Poon.

“I don’t think that, as the current case law stands, Elon Musk’s role contravenes the Constitution, but if we think those protections should be strengthened…  that’s something that takes a concerted effort and it can’t vary depending on who is in control of the executive branch,” Poon said.

Thomas Berry, director of the Cato Institute’s Robert A. Levy Center for Constitutional Studies, finds the lack of transparency around DOGE and Musk’s role troubling.

“I think there’s very serious concerns about what exactly is happening with DOGE,” Berry said.

A lot of concerns with DOGE have to do with the Appointments Clause, which is the basis for Senate confirmations of presidential appointees and creates a system of accountability.

“The Appointments Clause of the Constitution says that the final decision maker on a lot of issues needs to be either the president or someone appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate,” Berry said. “When the public perception is that Musk or anyone who’s not Senate-confirmed is making these decisions, you don’t have any elected person to blame.”

Even if the administration were to eventually reveal that the president approved all of Musk’s actions, the lack of transparency now is problematic for the public, according to Berry.

As for questions about Trump’s authority to establish DOGE and Musk’s role within it, President of the Liberty Justice Center Jacob Huebert thinks they’re unfounded.

“Article II of the Constitution gives all executive power to the president,” Huebert said. “As long as the president has ultimate decision-making authority here, I don’t see any problem with that.”

He applauds what he sees as Trump’s revision of the executive branch, bringing it closer to what it was intended to be.

“It’s the president deciding how the executive branch is going to run, which is very much the opposite of how it has long been run, where the bureaucracy is kind of leading things even though the bureaucracy doesn’t have any constitutional authority whatsoever,” Huebert said.

As far as Trump’s efforts to cut government spending through DOGE, Huebert’s unsure how it will play out, though he thinks it’s a valiant aim. The Constitution grants Congress power over the government’s purse, and some lawsuits are challenging the president’s attempts to cut spending that Congress has already appropriated. Even if DOGE were able to get federal agencies to cut their budgets and the courts ruled in their favor, Huebert thinks it will be difficult to motivate Congress to pass significantly smaller budgets.

“That to me seems like the biggest challenge for DOGE if part of the goal is to cut spending because Congress really likes to spend, including most of the Republicans in Congress, and the reasons that they’ve had to spend so much money have not gone away,” Huebert said. “All the incentives to spend, or most of them, are still there. So I don’t know how Trump or Elon Musk, if they want to bring it under control, can bring it under control.”

Continue Reading

Trending

X