National
The elements of Marc Garneau – A special report from Paul Wells
|
|
He was trained to admit every error. Then he went into politics. A feature interview with the retiring MP for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Westmount
Introduction
When you resign your seat in the House of Commons, you get to keep your phone for 90 days. The deadlines for cleaning out your offices on Parliament Hill and in your riding are tighter but still civilized. Soon Marc Garneau will leave his constituency office on the third floor of a nondescript office building in Westmount, the affluent anglophone enclave west of downtown Montreal, for the last time. But there’s no rush, so he met me there on Monday.
Trying to get politicians to speak frankly while they’re still in office is not always rewarding, It gets easier quickly once they leave. So I thought a visit with Garneau was worth the drive to Montreal, even though he’s been cagey in his remarks to journalists since he announced his retirement on March 8. I’ll cut to the chase: His interview with me wasn’t the work of a rebel either. Garneau remains a gentleman and a Liberal. He offered only praise for Justin Trudeau. But on several issues — communications philosophy; the handling of the Freedom Convoy occupation of Ottawa; and the proper attitude toward one’s own fallibility — he drew occasional sharp distinctions between his attitude and the Trudeau government’s.
I took the scenic route to get to that stuff. Garneau was the first Canadian to fly in space. He was a national celebrity before Trudeau finished high school. And while that’s a historic distinction, Garneau shares with many more parliamentarians a long career outside politics that preceded, and informed, his career in elected office. Not all of that is the stuff of every conversation, but this one was valedictory in tone. I thought it best to start at the beginning.
This is an unusually long post on the Paul Wells newsletter. I figured I owed everyone a good feature read. I’m leaving the paywall off. You can help spread word about the writing I do by sharing this with a friend or with your networks.
I also want to remind readers that writing this newsletter is what I do for a living. When you decide to become a paid subscriber, you help support this work. You also make it possible for me to do things too few of my colleagues elsewhere are able to do — things like travelling, or paying a professional photographer properly to illustrate my work.
1. Water
 |
I began by asking him about the year and a half he spent as a combat systems engineer on the HMCS Algonquin. When he arrived on board, it was the newest destroyer in the Canadian Navy.
“It was what I had dreamt of from the beginning of my life,” he said. “My first love was the Navy.” His father’s family was francophone Quebecers, soldiers from way back. His father fought in the infantry in WWII and was posted in Germany for two years as the Cold War settled in. “I crossed the ocean with my parents in 1956 coming back from Germany,” he said. “We came back on a ship that was on its last voyage, the Samaria, and I just fell in love with the ocean. A few years later, we went back to England on the Empress of Britain. Those confirmed for me that I wanted to be in the Navy.”
The Algonquin, a big boat with 280 crew, spent three months doing exercises as part of STANAVFORLANT, NATO’s multinational Standing Naval Force Atlantic, which would pretend the Soviet Union was up to various kinds of risky business and figure out ways to respond. Off Puerto Rico he led tests of the new Sea Sparrow missile system. Around Newfoundland’s outports, the Algonquin took the province’s lieutenant governor on an annual tour.
Young Garneau wasn’t particularly interested in moving up the ranks. “I’m an engineer. I didn’t want to be the ship captain. I wanted to be the engineer that kept the equipment going. That may not sound very exciting. But for me that was exciting, because it’s quite a job to keep all that equipment operational in case you had to go into conflict.”
2. Air
 |
Advancement for its own sake held no appeal. But when he saw a nondescript ad from the National Research Council calling for applicants for Canada’s first astronaut corps, that sounded better than a promotion. “Wow. The idea of possibly going into space just blew me away. At the same time, I thought my chances [of being chosen] were pretty close to zero.”
In May of 1983 there were 4,200 applicants. Six months later, six remained. It became clear pretty soon the program wasn’t just looking for technical expertise but for — well, for heroes. Or at least for people who wouldn’t screw up the illusion.
“They wanted us to write essays about why we thought that we were particularly well suited. Did we realize that we would become public figures? And were we ready for that? And did we think it was important for Canada? Medical [exams] like you’d never had before. Every single thing checked, because you had to be 100% fit. Then they brought us in for the last week and and they subjected us to a whole bunch of things.
“We had to give presentations in front of the selection board. Any attempted humour was met with a stone-cold face. I remember coming out of it thinking, ‘I’ve totally bombed this.’ But they’d all been trained not to react to anything.
“Do you remember somebody called Keith Morrison?” I sure do. TV reporter and anchor, CTV to the CBC to NBC. He actually interviewed me once, when that was an odd thing to do, and I remember he was good at it. “Well, Keith was hired for the week. And he put us through our paces, sort of doing the interview thing. So that was another thing they wanted to know, if you’d be able to do that. They had us in social settings, like a cocktail kind of thing. [They wanted to see] whether you were relatively comfortable in the company of total strangers, that kind of thing. So it’s a pretty thorough week. And by the end of that, they said, ‘Look, stand by your telephone between five and seven on the third of December and you’ll get a call.’ We’re 20 at that point. ‘It’ll either be to say, sorry you didn’t make it, or, you made it.’ And I was fortunate to be one of the six chosen. They called about six o’clock. They didn’t beat around the bush. ‘Look, you made it. Congratulations. Keep it private and we’ll trot you out on the following Monday.’ Which they did.”
When you know what happened next in Garneau’s career, all this prodding and profiling and media scrutiny takes on a different meaning. He started to meet prime ministers.
Pierre Trudeau: “Man of powerful intellect. Everyone knows that. There are warmer people than Pierre Trudeau. But very cordial.”
Brian Mulroney: “Mulroney had just been elected. He wanted to meet Ronald Reagan right away… I was summoned, along with two of my crew members, Bob Crippen and Kathryn Sullivan. Which, by the way, is a total no-no. You do not take the next crew that’s going to fly in three weeks out of their bubble of training and getting ready. Except if it’s POTUS. Reagan thought it was good idea, so we were summoned. I spent time in the Oval Office with with Reagan, whom I liked right away, and Mulroney, whom I also liked right away…. I was even at the Shamrock Summit a couple of months later in Quebec City. I wasn’t quite so happy with what PMO told me to do, which is to come up through the floor on a thing that was raising me up with smoke and lighting on me, dressed in my flight suit, and having to say, ‘Take me to your leader,’ which the crowd liked. And I thought, ‘I’m making a fool of myself here.’”
On the first trip, Garneau was a payload specialist, which meant he had responsibility for a suite of Canadian scientific experiments and little else. But he had two audiences he wanted to please. NASA was the first. “I had to make a good impression so that, based on a sample of one, they’d say, ‘Okay, he did pretty well. Let’s keep inviting Canadians to fly.’ And quite a few Canadians have flown.”
Canadians were the second audience. “I wanted Canadians to be proud of me.”
Both audiences gave him the thumbs up. Today there’s a high school in Toronto named after him. In 1992 Garneau and Chris Hadfield reported for training to become mission specialists, with much broader responsibility for mission success. It took another year of training before Garneau was eligible for his second flight, in 1996. His third and final mission was at the end of 2000. There were Russians waiting at the International Space Station when the shuttle Endeavour delivered Garneau and the others. Relations with Russia were as warm as they’ve ever been. “It was more than cordial. Frankly our lives depended on one another.”
It was a longer acquaintance with higher stakes than most of us ever experience. “One of the things I loved the most about NASA was that if you fuck up” — he paused before using the salty word — “you confess. That is the culture there.”
Probably this does not need to be spelled out, but here goes anyway. This culture of honesty was not a simple preference. Shuttle crews rode a lake of liquid fuel and twin towers of solid fuel at speeds their own ancestors could not have imagined. If a bug slipped into the system it could kill them and set spaceflight back decades, as indeed it did, twice. Owning up to error was the primary method of keeping colleagues, and the dream of spaceflight, alive.
“I did hundreds of simulations. I was the first non-American CAPCOM ever. CAPCOM’s the guy who talks to the crew in orbit for Mission Control. And we did hundreds of simulations. I covered 17 missions, just as CAPCOM. And after every simulation, where the crew, perhaps, had not picked up the problem and had not reacted properly to it, we’d do a post mortem.
“And that culture of honesty and openness, which you absolutely need in the space business — you can’t have people making excuses or trying to hide things — that’s what I love the most. And I wish it existed in all facets of life, including the one I ended up in.”
3. Earth
 |
Garneau first ran for Parliament in 2006, just west of Montreal Island, and lost, in the first of three elections when losing was most of what Liberals did. He was interested in Outremont in a 2007 by-election. So was Justin Trudeau. Stéphane Dion was the leader, though, and he thought a political scientist was just the ticket. Dion’s designated nominee, Jocelyn Coulon, did not fare well.
In 2008 Garneau inherited the Liberal nomination, essentially a Wonka golden ticket, in Westmount, as solid a Liberal fortress as any in Canada. Only a catastrophe could lose Westmount for the Liberal. In 2011 it almost happened — Garneau beat the New Democrat by only 642 votes in the party’s worst national defeat in since Confederation. Soon Peter C. Newman had a book out proclaiming the Liberals were history.
“There’s something intimate about being only 33 [MPs in the Liberal caucus], Garneau recalled. “We got to know each other in a kind of a relationship that you don’t get when you’re 150 or 160. So I really enjoyed the collegiality of having that small, small group. Although of course I was hoping it wouldn’t last too long.”
In 2013, Garneau, who hadn’t been interested in commanding a ship, decided to try his chances with a political party. He ran for the Liberal leadership. He had competition.
“I personally believe that I had good policy that I put in the shop window. What I didn’t have — what I still don’t have — is charisma. I’m not interested in charisma, by the way. I’ve lived my life very well without charisma. And I’m not saying the electorate chooses on a superficial basis. But there was something about Justin Trudeau that was incredibly appealing to people.”
Garneau bowed to the inevitable and dropped out of the race. Eighteen months later he was co-chair of the Liberal Party’s “International Affairs Council of Advisors,” with a threefold mission: Figure out the party’s foreign policy; teach foreign policy to a leader with extremely limited experience in the field; and be seen showing interest in foreign policy. The group met regularly. “Trudeau only came occasionally to meet everybody and to sort of stir stir things up and have a really good discussion,” Garneau said.
4. Fire
 |
As co-chair (with Andrew Leslie) of Trudeau’s Council of Advisors, Garneau figured he had a good chance to become foreign minister. He got Transport.
“You know, I’ve lived 17 years of my life abroad. And I love foreign policy. I wasn’t expecting Transport. And it turned out to be a job I loved. Although at first I thought, ‘Why’d he put me in transport?’
“When I got the call that, you know, ‘The Prime Minister wants to meet you,’ I thought — This is after the vetting process, ‘Are there any skeletons in your closet?’ — I thought, ‘What’s he going to put me in?’ I thought, Defence because of my background. I was in the regular forces. Or I thought, then, maybe Industry, because I was the president of the Canadian Space Agency and I worked for the Minister of Industry, Science and Technology at the time. And maybe even Foreign Affairs, because he’d had me in this job for the past two years. I wasn’t expecting Transport.” Garneau chuckled at the incongruity of it. “But now, after a little while, I saw the logic of it. I was in the Navy, ships, so I know the marine environment. I know the air environment. And so there is a certain logic to it. And it’s a job that I came to love.” He held the post for five and a half years. Only David Collenette and Lionel Chevrier lasted longer.
The new governing caucus had five times as many MPs as the Liberal caucus it replaced. “It was a heady experience,” Garneau said. “And there was a certain amount of chaos, which is understandable because it takes a couple of years to learn the basics of your job.”
It must have been a management challenge for the Prime Minister’s Office, I ventured. To have a finance minister, health minister, justice minister, defence minister who’d never been Members of Parliament before, let alone cabinet ministers. How did the PMO handle that? “It was a little bit like when you see kindergarten children all tied up with ropes, going down the street.”
Did the control ever chafe? “I had some times where I felt one way and and I felt that the centre did not necessarily agree with it. Yeah. That comes from the dynamic. If you’ve got your mandate letter, and you interpret that mandate letter the way you feel it must be implemented — you know, the vast majority of the time, no problem. But there was the odd occasion. You’ll forgive me if I don’t go into details on it. But I was very conscious of the fact [that] you have a chief of staff, your chief of staff is a key person for you. But that chief of staff reports to you, but also must report to the chief of staff of the Prime Minister. I made an indirect reference to it in my parting speech, that I sometimes made their life difficult because I might have wanted to go one way whilst the center didn’t necessarily want to go that way.”
We had been talking for more than an hour. I asked Garneau about the Freedom Convoy of January and February 2022, which has been on my mind. Specifically, I asked Garneau about his Liberal caucus colleague Joël Lightbound, who held an astonishing news conference in the second week of the Ottawa siege to say the Liberals’ COVID policy “stigmatizes and divides people.”
“I definitely took very much note of it,” he said of Lightbound’s surgical sortie. “Some of what he said is true. There were people on the Hill that were not extremists. They were just there because they felt that their rights were being not respected.” He faced his share of verbal abuse as he made his way to and from the Hill, but even still —
He paused. “I’ll be very candid. I don’t think we handled it as well as we could have.”
In what sense? “I think there was a sense that, ‘We’re not going to talk to you people. You’re just a bunch of troublemakers.’ I had always been brought up to not avoid dealing with difficult issues. This was an incredibly difficult issue.” Another pause. “So that’s just my personal comment.”
The other thing I wanted to ask him about was the tremendous controversy he and two other back-bench Liberals have stirred up over the interaction between Quebec’s newly beefed-up language law and Bill C-13, which proposes amendments to the federal Official Languages Act. This has put Garneau and his colleagues squarely on the side of Montreal’s anglophone population against a majority of Quebec’s elected politicians. And it’s brought Garneau in for some unaccustomed criticism. Barely two weeks before he resigned, he was complaining about the rough ride from Quebec commentators on Twitter.
12:40 PM ∙ Feb 18, 2023
Garneau’s comments on this were long, and would constitute inside baseball for most readers outside Quebec, but he didn’t like seeing Quebec’s language laws incorporated by reference into a federal bill. “I have very rarely disagreed with my party, but I disagreed with them on that.” It got worse for Garneau when he read 88 amendments introduced by the Bloc Québécois, five of which said that in case of a conflict between federal and provincial legislation, Quebec’s should predominate. Those amendments were eventually rejected, but by then Garneau was already on the record with his concerns. “I’m always ready to face criticism, but it got personal. And I think that’s sad.”
The controversy has been a much bigger deal inside Quebec than outside, but Garneau insisted it’s not why he’s leaving politics.
The reason I’m leaving is because I made that promise to my wife, and to my family. I actually told him after the 2019 election that that was my last election. I had been reappointed to Transport. And I thought, ‘Okay, this is a lovely way to finish.’
“Then in January of 2021, to my great surprise, the Prime Minister [shuffled Garneau.] I think it was motivated by the fact that Navdeep Bains pulled out. The Prime Minister, I personally think that he said, ‘Okay, I want François-Philippe to take over from that. And there’s a bit of musical chairs and I ended up in foreign affairs.
“But seven months later, an election was announced. And I felt, in all good conscience, that after seven months in that portfolio — to now say, ‘Sorry, I’m leaving,’ when I had been the fourth appointed in under six years, it just wouldn’t have been right.
“Now, if the prime minister had told me, ‘Mark, after this election, you won’t be in the cabinet,’ I wouldn’t have run. But he didn’t tell me that.
“I ran hoping to go back into that job. Because Lord knows there were things that I wanted to do. With respect to Afghanistan, China, the Indo-Pacific strategy, I’d been working all that stuff. But the bottom line was that he said, ‘You’re not in cabinet anymore.’
“And so, at this point, I felt it would be really not acceptable for me to say, ‘Okay, thank you for electing me three weeks ago, I’m leaving.’ So I felt I needed to put in some time. To my great personal satisfaction, I was given two things that I really enjoyed. One was to be chair of the Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee, which I think has an important role with respect to reconciliation. And the other one was kind of unexpected… medical assistance in dying, where I was co-chair with a senator on this special mixed committee.”
That committee presented its final report in February. Garneau resigned three weeks later. He was already in the history books before he ever ran for office. Would he run now, in the atmosphere of today’s politics, if he were just starting out? Is there still room in politics for an engineer who just wants to make things work better? These are eternal questions, and I had already asked Garneau enough questions for one day.
For the full subscriber experience, upgrade your subscription.
espionage
U.S. Experts Warn Canada Is Losing the Fight Against PRC Criminal Networks—Washington Has Run Out of Patience
Video evidence of a cash delivery at a TD Bank branch in the DOJ case.
In Part 2 of The Bureau’s exclusive series, a senior U.S. government intelligence expert on Chinese threat networks offers a sobering warning: as U.S. authorities continue an aggressive clampdown on fentanyl supply routes at the southern border, Canada is fast becoming a replacement hub.
The expert says Canada’s lax financial controls and underpowered legal tools are attracting transnational criminal groups from both China and Mexico. Not only is Canada serving as a backdoor for fentanyl and money laundering—it is increasingly functioning as a production and redistribution proxy for Chinese triads and cartel-linked operations based in Toronto and Vancouver.
The second half of this explosive interview reveals the extent to which U.S. authorities believe Canadian financial institutions—specifically TD Bank—have become vulnerable to infiltration by Chinese drug syndicates.
“TD has some serious exposure—directly—from victims,” the expert said. “Think about the 500,000-plus Americans that died [from 2015 to 2024]. Yes, $9 million fine in Canada. But it’s not done.”
They added a simplistic focus on fentanyl as the only toxic commodity that U.S. national security is concerned with, misses the point.
Canadian cannabis, grown legally or under false licensing schemes, is now a major export commodity for these Chinese crime networks, the expert said. Black-market marijuana is flooding into New York and New Jersey, undercutting legitimate growers in both countries. But more alarmingly, marijuana trafficking is being integrated with fentanyl operations.
“They’re polydrug traffickers, and they’re transnational. The fentanyl cash, the marijuana, the ketamine—it’s all moving through the same networks.”
In one investigation, U.S. agents uncovered evidence that a Chinese student hired to move fentanyl proceeds was also selling cannabis and ketamine. In Vancouver, The Bureau reported, authorities found precursor chemicals and crystalline substances at Chinese mafia-run cannabis farms. The expert confirmed this is no coincidence.
“Absolutely. I’ve seen marijuana laced with all kinds of substances—including fentanyl.”
This hybrid Western Hemisphere trafficking model, U.S. experts contend, is now headquartered in Canadian cities. In the assessment of some analysts, Chinese-Canadian crime lords have eclipsed their Mexican-Chinese counterparts. Whatever the hierarchy—fluid, compartmentalized, and shaped by Chinese political dynamics—it remains of interest to Western intelligence. Figures such as Tse Chi Lop, Xizi Li, and Zhenli Ye Gon are not mere criminal outliers. They are billionaire architects of underground economies, maneuvering through illicit financial systems and Communist Party influence networks with the sophistication of multinational CEOs.
“Very easy for them to stash $200 or $300 million in one of their properties,” at any time, the senior U.S. expert confirmed.
The only difference between these financial masters and traditional corporate barons, is that toxically fatal synthetic drugs and weaving blood money into China’s global economic footprint is their main business line.
The second half of this interview begins with a crucial question for Canada’s financial system and governance: Are Canadian banks exposed directly to Chinese organized crime—and could U.S. government criminal investigations and civil actions reach into corporate and government realms in Canada?
The U.S. government expert makes the sensitive observation that in the TD Bank case, senior management appears to have turned a blind eye to branches staffed by, and serving, the Chinese community—branches that accepted massive deliveries of drug cash. The deliveries can be seen on video tapes from the DOJ’s case.
In The Bureau’s own investigation into a scheme involving massive, fraudulent Chinese income mortgage loans in Toronto, branch-level staff at HSBC serving the Chinese community were implicated. Offshore income verifications were signed off for earnings that were plainly absurd and easily disprovable: individuals living in Toronto during the COVID-19 pandemic claiming to earn over $300,000 in remote-work jobs purportedly based in China.
According to a whistleblower, the same community-level structure and lax compliance oversight at senior levels were clearly at play. Documents in this groundbreaking report support those claims—drawing striking parallels between the U.S. Department of Justice’s investigation into TD Bank and The Bureau’s own findings in Toronto diaspora community banking.
 |
Additionally, the U.S. senior expert spoke to the political and financial turmoil surrounding President Donald Trump’s global tariff regime, which appears to be tied to the growing risk of direct superpower conflict. The expert connected these events to U.S. government efforts to secure North America—and degrade China’s economic and warfighting capacity—through trade and financial network regulation and realignment.
“Listen, the world is not what it was 10 years ago,” they said.” You have wars in Ukraine. You’ve got Gaza-Israel. You have Taiwan. You have Iran. You’ve got Yemen. So you have a lot of instability. And the one thing we’re going to do as a nation is make sure that our borders are safe—especially in an unstable world. So I think that’s also part of the much broader geopolitical picture of what’s going on.”
To begin the second half of the interview, the U.S. expert offered this blunt observation:
“It’s an interesting take on TD. I remember that case vividly—bags of cash going straight into the bank. I mean, if you or I brought a bag of cash into a branch, what would happen to us? Right?”
This interview was edited lightly for length and clarity.
Sam Cooper: So let me ask you this—because I really want to dig into this. I broke the story about the bags of cash moving through casinos in British Columbia, and now I’m seeing some clear connectivity. Is that what made TD Bank an outlier?
Senior U.S. Expert: I think the highest-level actors we saw were Chinaloa and her husband, Xizi Li. In recent years, from a money laundering perspective, he was designated a CPO for the DEA—that’s a Consolidated Priority Organization Target. Basically, he reached the level of a top-tier target. He’s kingpin level. I mean, the guy owned casinos too.
Can I say I know they had many pickups that they orchestrated in New York? Absolutely. The issue is you’re in an Asian community, Chinese organized crime, and you’ve got access to millions of dollars in cash, and you need to get it into a system—culturally—if a Chinese national comes in with $100,000, most people in the community would say, “Oh, you saved that.” Whereas maybe if I went and did that, it would set off alarms everywhere, right?
Sam Cooper: It’s not happening.
Senior U.S. Expert: But if you’ve got a 21-year-old showing up with $3 million, $4 million, $5 million, $6 million—and you have multiple students now going to the same branch, dropping off millions of dollars—and you’re only issuing suspicious activity reports.
Because now, you’re doing the regulatory responsibility of “Let me cover my ass.”
The problem that we’ve seen is the accounts stay open. And the flow of money, without any kind of diligence on that, is tremendously problematic. And the money continues to flow. So the bank is doing great. I’m a branch. I’m bringing in 10X my closest bank branch. Now you’re getting kudos. That manager is being looked at as extremely successful.
So from my risk perspective, I look at it and say, “There’s something going on.” At what level are the protocols in place for that bank to be able to determine that risk? And is it just here—granular, right at the branch level? Is there a regional? Is there a national? Is there an international level? And I think that that was the wake-up call for TD. Now, let me say this to you: I don’t think it’s done with TD.
Sam Cooper: Well, that is something that frankly, really should be important to a lot of the political discussion and national conversation in Canada. It should be part of our current election discourse. Can you talk more about that?
Senior U.S. Expert: I think TD now—because of that indictment—think about the victims. Think about the 500,000-plus Americans that died. This is 2015 to 2024 of overdoses and poisonings. I think TD has some serious exposure—directly—from victims.
So what’s the next phase then? Civil litigation. Yes, $9 million fine in Canada, but it’s not done.
Sam Cooper: This raises what I wanted to ask you. In my mind—and I’m thinking I guess along the lines of natural principles of justice, I’m not a trained lawyer—why would they not go after the Canadian government?
Because I’ve read a massive FINTRAC report—one that’s particularly revealing when it comes to the Chinese actors involved, as well as the lawyers and law firms it touches on. I’ve seen wire transfers coming in from Hong Kong to a Chinese politically exposed individual in Toronto who is closely connected to Justin Trudeau at a high political level. The same people I’ve investigated in election interference networks—I’m now seeing them show up in FINTRAC.
And so in essence, this massive FINTRAC court disclosure provides visibility over the system that you are telling me about in the U.S. government TD Bank case on the student cash collectors.
It also brings in wire transfers from Hong Kong. Essentially, it says: “Here’s a group of students in Vancouver and Toronto, and here are electronic funds purportedly sent to cover tuition and housing costs.” But for some reason, these random students are being flagged for moving large sums into not just TD Bank, but most major Canadian banks.
From my read, FINTRAC clearly understands the entire scheme.
But my point here is: what’s the Canadian government done to stop it?
Senior U.S. Expert: Well, I mean, listen, you’ve heard my opinions on what needs to happen. So again, we are talking about hundreds of law enforcement entities that are also seizing drugs coming down from Canada. It is not only CBP at the border with Canada.
Now, listen, Sam, I think the issue with Canada and drug trafficking is a growing issue. I mean, it’s pretty clear if you seize dozens of laboratories since 2018 in Canada, laboratories to me are a strong indicator that the Mexican cartels and the U.S. drug flows are not meeting the demand in Canada.
So now the production is going to increase to meet that demand in Canada. So they’re way more susceptible to that problem that is continuing to grow.
Sam Cooper: Okay, I want to be clear and underline this because it is really contentious in Canada. I’m speaking to a senior U.S. expert that has said that for Canadians, whether they’re in media or government, to focus on 1% on CBP seizure—one, that doesn’t capture all the other reporting. Two, they’re not looking at the super labs, they’re not looking at Chinese Triad command and control in Toronto. They’re not looking at the banks. And they’re basically wrong?
Senior U.S. Expert: Sam, they’re wrong. The issue isn’t a lack of skill—there are tremendously capable investigators in the RCMP. The problem is they don’t have the legal tools to back them up.
For example, if I seize a drug lab, I’m required to immediately disclose the evidence. That exposes our tradecraft. Once the network knows it’s being investigated, we can’t pursue them effectively anymore.
So, in effect, the laws are protecting these criminal groups. That’s why they’re expanding—they’re not going away.
Sam Cooper: And that’s why they’re bigger in Canada.
Senior U.S. Expert: Exactly. And this is a critical point I want to make. As the U.S. tightens control over the southwest border and ramps up efforts against cartels in Mexico, what do you think happens in Canada? The demand from the U.S. doesn’t go away. So who becomes the supplier?
It won’t be the U.S.—we’ll shut down those labs, just like we did with the biker gangs in the ’80s and ’90s.
But Canada? Canada’s role will grow. That’s my prediction: as the southern border tightens and fewer drugs get through, drug production in Canada will increase.
Sam Cooper: That explains the super labs we’re seeing. It all adds up. So just to reiterate—Dr. David Asher, a senior U.S. expert, says the Stinchcombe disclosure rule is enabling Chinese triads and cartels to thrive in Canada. And as the U.S. cracks down, it’s only going to get worse north of the border. And you agree with Asher?
Senior U.S. Expert: That’s right.
Sam Cooper: Can you expand on this a bit more? You’ve said that the tri-state investigation—and parts of the TD Bank case—show that the U.S. government understands Chinese organized crime is operating across the border. They’re running pill presses in both countries. They’re laundering money from Canada. And Canadian cannabis—whether legally grown with licenses in Canada or not—is flowing into the U.S.
Senior U.S. Expert: That’s right. We call it black-market marijuana here. So even if it’s legal in a Canadian province or a U.S. state, once it crosses the border illegally, it’s black market. And it’s flooding the U.S. It’s undercutting legitimate cannabis businesses down here. We’re seeing criminal organizations making billions off Canadian black-market marijuana.
Sam Cooper: And you’d link that to the fentanyl networks too?
Senior U.S. Expert: Here’s how they’re connected, Sam. In an investigation into a fentanyl distribution ring in New York, we discovered that the traffickers—let’s say a Dominican distributor—would deliver cash proceeds to a Chinese student. But that same student was also selling marijuana and ketamine.
So we start seeing overlap: fentanyl cash, black-market marijuana, ketamine—it’s all flowing through the same networks. They’re polydrug traffickers, and they’re transnational. That’s the real challenge—these networks aren’t siloed. They’re integrated and global.
Sam Cooper: That connects to something I saw in Canada. In a bust involving high-level Chinese Communist Party–connected organized crime in Vancouver, they raided a grow-op and found chemical crystals—brown and other colors—in the workshop. That suggests to me they might be lacing the cannabis with serious chemicals.
So that brings together the medical pot licenses in Canada and the Chinese precursor networks in Vancouver. And raised concerns maybe about fentanyl. Have you seen anything like that?
Senior U.S. Expert: Absolutely. I’ve seen marijuana laced with all kinds of substances—including fentanyl. One big trend in certain U.S. states is cannabis laced with PCP.
Sam Cooper: Okay, let’s pivot back to the major players at the top in Canada and Mexico. Are you able to color in anything more about this Tse Chi Lap network in Toronto?
Senior U.S. Expert: What I know about him is—he was one of these guys that came across our radar early on, but more heavily Asia- and Canada-focused. He crossed into the U.S. He was one of the biggest guys in the world at the time.
And now that he kind of opened a door for a lot of this—in my opinion—he’s one of those guys that was a trailblazer in international crime in the Chinese community.
So that’s how I see him. I kind of see him—You remember Zhenli Ye Gon?
Sam Cooper: Yeah. The $200 million seized in his hacienda in Mexico City, right?
Senior U.S. Expert: $207 million—that was reported. Where was the other $300 million?
My point is that you’re talking about these high-level, high-stakes movers and shakers that are connected to the government of China, to organized crime, and to other international organized crime groups. The other thing is the portion of that money was in euros. So how is he getting euros in Mexico City? So it wasn’t like he was just making money in the United States. It was literally a global empire.
Sam Cooper: He’s international. So you put Tse Chi Lap from Toronto of Sam Gor in that type of placement?
Senior U.S. Expert: I’d say absolutely. He’s operating at that level. No question about it—if not higher.
Sam Cooper: And to put it in perspective—these are the type of people that in one of their mansions that are around the world, at any time you could find $200–300 million, just sitting around.
Senior U.S. Expert: Yes. Very easy. Or it’s invested in other areas. I think there was so much money with Zhenli Ye Gon, there was more money in the financial system that I think was never tracked.
Arguably there’s well over half a billion still out there. So that’s the sort of level that you’re operating on.
And now—quite frankly—things have changed from then to now. I think because there’s a lot more scrutiny, but at least in the U.S.—not the same in Canada.
I think Canada is behind the U.S. in their ability to go after these international criminal networks. And I think that as talented as many of their investigators are, I think there’s a plan for change. At least there’s a fundamental plan for change in law enforcement in Canada.
The issue is the law. I understand that there’s a balance between privacy and security. I completely respect that. But you’ve got to be able to save human lives.
Because the impact of a criminal group is not just the most obvious impact—someone dies. It’s the community. It’s the family. It’s the town. It’s the village. It’s the city.
It’s all the ramifications of the healthcare system, of the criminal justice system. All those things are now impacted by criminality and to the tunes of unimaginable amounts of money.
So as a country, it’s a balance. You have to have the tools and the ability to hold people accountable. It’s a very fundamental principle of human nature. Without it—it’s chaos.
Sam Cooper: I think you just very poetically nailed what I think—and what I believe that smart people with a lot of experience in the United States and Canada now feel. They know that Canada’s balance has gone off in that area. And that’s why some people up high in the U.S. government are looking at Canada.
Senior U.S. Expert: Yes. Because I think the balance has shifted in Canada in recent times. And that’s why you had a Trump administration very much focused on national security—and obviously the tariffs—but also, I think that all goes hand in hand. I don’t think it’s one versus the other. I think it’s all part of a much broader strategy.
That we have to safeguard our economies. We have to safeguard our citizens. And Canada has to do the same thing. Canada has to do the same thing—especially going forward.
Listen, the world is not what it was 10 years ago. You have wars in Ukraine. You’ve got obviously Gaza-Israel. You have growing threats from China surrounding Taiwan. You have Iran. You’ve got Yemen. So you have a lot of instability.
And the one thing we’re going to do as a nation is make sure that our borders are safe—especially in an unstable world. So I think that’s also part of the much broader geopolitical picture of what’s going on.
Sam Cooper: So that’s a good message for Canadians that are upset and worried—and frankly, they feel disrespected—about the tariffs. But you’re saying there’s a bigger global picture—smart people are trying to secure themselves.
Senior U.S. Expert: Of course. Look what’s going on across the world. Why do you see Vice President Vance going to Greenland? I mean, why would we go there? This is why we’re in Panama.
You have 17 People’s Republic of China ports in the Western Hemisphere. Look at the port down in Peru they built. That’s a military-size port that’s run by a Chinese governor.
So we have changing conditions, changing environment.
And so it calls for tight security. Certainly, as an American, we see Canadians as our closest allies. That’s not going to change. We’re so similar. We are.
But we’re in precarious times right now, Sam. And so that’s why I say all these things are interconnected. It’s not just one percent of fentanyl coming from Canada to the United States.
And for someone to look at one piece of data—you’re missing the point completely. Right? So that’s what I would end with on that.
The Bureau is a reader-supported publication.
To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
Subscribe to The Bureau.
For the full experience, please upgrade your subscription and support a public interest startup.
We break international stories and this requires elite expertise, time and legal costs.
From Trish Wood is Critical
Peaceful convoy — violent voters. They convicted the wrong people.
TAMARA LICH, CHRIS BARBER AND THE OTHER TRUCKERS INSPIRED THIS: POLICE AND PROTESTORS HUGGING AND SINGING OH CANADA. THE TRUDEAU GOVERNMENT WAS ALREADY SMEARING THEM AS DANGEROUS.
In April of 2025, one day after the conviction of Lich and Barber for leading a protest with no violence, our politicians and media finally got what they wanted — division, and citizens absolutely hating each other. Watch these videos if you can, over and over again until it sinks in. View the one above and then the one below and decide who is harming the country.
Two middle-aged women had an “elbows up” fisticuffs yesterday near the waiting-to see-Mark-Carney line before an event. As you might figure, I was not surprised and knew violence was coming — not from a terror group and not from truckers. They pit us against each other with the full collaboration of paid-for media. We are broken, brainwashed and angry. We do not understand why our friends, neighbours and family vehemently support ideas that we know will harm the country.
They think we are monsters. And so it goes. Watch and compare to the scene above. And think about who was convicted this week.
Click image to see video
Our ideas can’t be discussed civilly and we must remain in our silos so as not to pose a threat to the elites — the way the Freedom Convoy did. This was Tamara and Chris’ mistake. They brought people together.
Liberals, and I would hazard all contemporary pols are not working to actually make our lives better. They seem to have their own agenda — even Trump whom I had some hope for.
Our lives get worse. They enrich themselves spending money overseas for wars we the people don’t want. And it seems they all walk away from “public service” with mucho brass in pocket.
The video of the fighting women shows the bread and circuses is now us. This ancient Roman idiom is defined as:
Bread and circuses” refers to pacifying people with food and entertainment to prevent them from taking action on civic duties.
During COVID-19, until January of 2022, they thought they had this modus operandi all locked-down. Canadians were compliant and some were even enjoying their marathons of garbage Netflix shows and soggy Door Dash deliveries. We were staying home, staying safe, getting fat and dependant on the government. Except the men and women who worked hard to keep the country running — like truckers. And those of us with a fully operative bullshit detector — you know, actual journalists.
There were many suicides, overdoses and other tragedies. Some of us allowed a sick parent to die alone. Our spiritual health declined and we closed off the part of our brain that safeguards our need for fellowship.
And then the Convoy happened and pulled back the curtain to reveal The Great and Mighty Oz manipulating the whole damn thing.
Yes, the Convoy’s presence in Ottawa was dangerous to the elites but not for the reasons they say. Of course it was disruptive for the citizens. Isn’t that what protests are supposed to be? But many forget that they were indirectly saving lives. I know it because people have told me.
The reason the Convoy had to be dramatically taken down and then punished for three years is because they reminded us – that we could push back and we were not alone. But when tyranny comes, united opposition must be crushed.
In the courtroom on Thursday, Justice Perkins-McVey went out of her way to speak highly of Tamara’s non-stop admonitions to the convoy that they stay peaceful, cooperate with police and put love at the top of their agenda. It was in almost every communication Tamara made to a big, burly group of mostly men who listened and then, even during the police violence were nearly Gandhi-like in their resistance. You can see it in the videos.
John Lennon would have been proud and in fact Imagine was played for the protestors who at one point sang along. But according to Judge Perkins-McVey, Lich’s commitment to keeping the peace will work only as mitigation during sentencing in a couple of weeks. She was found guilty of mischief in a definition so broad it includes everyone no matter what they actually did. I still can’t believe it.
The other revelation, I’m being sarcastic here, is that Chris Barber swears when he is talking to other truckers. I was uneasy that Perkins-McVey read out word-for-word an expletive-filled rant by an exhausted and frustrated Barber in which she herself repeated his words in the courtroom, F-bomb for F-bomb, making him sound like a crude, aggressive person. Which he is not. I could see he was embarrassed as his words were never meant for consumption in a setting like that.
It wasn’t necessary and to me, it felt like a swerve to appease the Crown. I have never heard Chris speak that way in front of civilians, even myself and I have been known to F-bomb in front of him on occasion – a kind of tacit permission that he has never accepted. In the heart of Ottawa, a city beset by gentility, it became clear in Courtroom Five that the subtext might be interpreted as — the crudeness of these working class protestors was an assault on the city’s good name and manners.
For all they did in Ottawa and for the country, Barber was reduced in that courtroom to an angry man who couldn’t control his potty-mouth. Talk about prejudicial. Maybe she was giving the defence a gift for the appeal. I hated it on a visceral level. This was not the kindly, thoughtful judge I had been observing through the course of the trial. How could she not know the affect she was having? Perhaps she did.
Ready for more?
Mark Carney refuses to clarify 2022 remarks accusing the Freedom Convoy of ‘sedition’
Poilievre To Create ‘Canada First’ National Energy Corridor
Are the Jays Signing Or Declining? Only Vladdy & Bo Know For Sure
Owner sells gas for 80 cents per litre to show Albertans how low prices ‘could’ be
-
2025 Federal Election19 hours ago
Mark Carney refuses to clarify 2022 remarks accusing the Freedom Convoy of ‘sedition’
-
2025 Federal Election23 hours ago
Poilievre To Create ‘Canada First’ National Energy Corridor
-
Bruce Dowbiggin21 hours ago
Are the Jays Signing Or Declining? Only Vladdy & Bo Know For Sure
-
2025 Federal Election22 hours agoFixing Canada’s immigration system should be next government’s top priority
-
Daily Caller20 hours agoBiden Administration Was Secretly More Involved In Ukraine Than It Let On, Investigation Reveals
-
Health2 days agoSelective reporting on measles outbreaks is a globalist smear campaign against Trump administration.
-
2025 Federal Election2 days agoCanada Continues to Miss LNG Opportunities: Why the World Needs Our LNG – and We’re Not Ready
-
2025 Federal Election2 days agoMark Carney is trying to market globalism as a ‘Canadian value.’ Will it work?