THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY, DEFENCE AND VETERANS AFFAIRS
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Wednesday, February 11, 2026
The Standing Senate Committee on National Security, Defence and Veterans Affairs met with videoconference this day at 11:34 a.m. [ET] to study Bill C-12, An Act respecting certain measures relating to the security of Canada’s borders and the integrity of the Canadian immigration system and respecting other related security measures.
Senator Hassan Yussuff (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Good morning. I am joined by my fellow committee members. I welcome them to introduce themselves before we begin. Before we do that, I am sure many of you are aware of a very tragic event that happened yesterday in our country. We are all dealing with this on many different levels, both here in Parliament and across the country. Canadians are trying to find ways to recognize what has happened and how we confront these challenges.
Before we start our meeting this morning and introduce ourselves, I think we should take a moment of silence in regard to those who lost their lives yesterday and to express our solidarity with the community who are struggling today to find ways to explain this tragedy. If you don’t mind, we will take a minute of silence before we begin.
(Those present then stood in silent tribute.)
Thank you, colleagues. I’m sure we’ll find time to talk about this more, but we’ll begin by asking each of you to introduce yourself. We’ll start with our deputy chair.
Senator Al Zaibak: Mohammad Al Zaibak, Ontario.
Senator Dasko: Donna Dasko, Ontario.
Senator White: Judy White, Newfoundland and Labrador.
Senator Wilson: Duncan Wilson, British Columbia.
[Translation]
Senator Youance: Suze Youance from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Anderson: Margaret Dawn Anderson, Northwest Territories.
Senator M. Deacon: Welcome. Marty Deacon, Ontario.
Senator McNair: John McNair, New Brunswick.
Senator Kutcher: Stan Kutcher, Nova Scotia.
The Chair: Today, we continue our study of Bill C-12, An Act respecting certain measures relating to the security of Canada’s borders and the integrity of the Canadian immigration system and respecting other related security measures.
For the first panel, we have the pleasure of welcoming via video conference Cody Diabo, Grand Chief of the Mohawk Council of Kahnawà:ke, or MCK. Thank you for joining us today. We will begin by inviting you to provide opening remarks, to be followed by questions from our members. I remind you that you have five minutes for your opening remarks.
Grand Chief, you may begin when you’re ready.
Cody Diabo, Grand Chief, Mohawk Council of Kahnawà:ke, Assembly of First Nations[Indigenous language spoken.]
I am here in place of representatives from the Assembly of First Nations, or AFN. The MCK itself, as a body, directly represents rights holders within Kahnawà:ke. We were not contacted previously, so we could not prepare a submission ahead of time.
The first order of business is that the federal Government of Canada needs to engage directly with rights holders and not take the easy way and engage with the AFN. The AFN is an advocacy organization funded by Canada. When issues arise that affect First Nations rights and rights holders, engagement cannot be done solely with the AFN. The AFN can be a resource in directing the federal government where to go, but they don’t speak on our behalf.
To begin, we agree that the security of our peoples is paramount. Our concern is Canada is going to use this to further discriminate against First Nations people. Currently, we are engaged in discussions with Canadian officials on Canada’s acceptance of the Jay Treaty Border Alliance, a treaty signed and acknowledged by the United States and Great Britain. Canada has yet to adopt stand-alone legislation incorporating the Jay Treaty, even though Great Britain accepted and signed the treaty when they still held Canada’s Constitution. My brothers and sisters still have a difficult time coming to and from their homelands by CBSA and need to jump through hoops to visit family, friends and their land.
Further powers granted to CBSA will have long-lasting impacts on First Nations. Our concerns will be racial profiling and increased and further discrimination when it comes to transporting culturally sensitive and sacred items.
Some of the expanded powers in the bill have us greatly concerned with the Canadian Coast Guard. First Nations have authority over our waters. No Canadian legislation will diminish our jurisdiction and inherent right to protect our lands and water. Partnership is key, though. You can’t speak of national security without First Nations being in the room.
In recent weeks, the Mohawk Council of Kahnawà:ke not only reminded Prime Minister Carney but all Canadians of the vital role that Mohawks played in defending this land from American expansion back in the early 1800s. Our land agreements and treaties still stand, and we need to work together to protect our peoples and the land.
There are some concerns about money. Many First Nations economies are heavily cash-based, and this is not because we wish it to be so. It’s due to current restrictions that criminalize First Nations businesses pertaining to tax rights and different things like that.
Concerning combatting organized crime, Kahnawà:ke knows very well the need to work together to fight organized crime. We are one of two First Nations communities that currently have an agreement with Public Safety Canada to combat organized crime, and we are currently engaged with partners in the U.S. to combat organized crime as well. We will be hosting these partners in the weeks to come.
Again, thank you for allowing me to be here.
The Chair: Thank you for your presentation. Grand Chief, we will proceed with questions from my colleagues on the committee. The first question goes to our deputy chair, Senator Al Zaibak.
Senator Al Zaibak: I will yield my time to my colleagues.
Senator Anderson: My question is this: Can you elaborate on some of your concerns regarding the Jay Treaty, discrimination against Indigenous Peoples and the lack of consultation?
Mr. Diabo: Where do I begin? I am one of the co-chairs of the Jay Treaty Border Alliance. We had many discussions with ministers during the Trudeau era, trying to get stand-alone legislation to allow our brothers and sisters from south of, as we say, the Medicine Line to freely come to and enter their homelands and visit family, similar to what we have going down south when we show a status card. That’s not the case right now. They have to apply under Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada. I know Marc Miller, when he was the minister, did all he could within his authority as minister to try to expedite that, but First Nations people are not immigrants, and we are certainly not refugees. Because of the colonial past, a lot of our lands were divided, so people were either stuck on one side of the border or the other. Those are some of the things we want to have going forward, particularly the stand-alone legislation to the Jay Treaty so it does not fall under immigration.
Senator Anderson: In your opinion, as it pertains to the specific bill, what needs to happen?
Mr. Diabo: We need to address further hurdles for First Nations people. For “U.S. born” — and I put that in quotations. For us, it’s not viewed that way, but for our discussion, I’ll use that terminology. For those people, it’s very difficult to come back to visit family or see their homeland.
I can’t speak in terms of all the details on Akwesasne. Although they are our sister community, they do represent themselves. For Akwesasne or Kahnawà:ke, we are Mohawk at the end of the day. There, it’s a little different. They have a different arrangement with the border, but if they want to come to work or reside in Canada, they have to go through an entire process within immigration, as opposed to when First Nations or Mohawk people go into the United States. We don’t need to get green cards. We don’t need to get permanent residency. We have that right under the Jay Treaty.
Senator Kutcher: Thank you very much, Chief. I want to follow up on some of the questions that Senator Anderson asked you for a bit more understanding and detail.
First, are there any specific aspects of this bill that either improve or worsen the current situation for Indigenous Peoples?
Second, is there anything that you think this committee could put forward as an observation on the bill to help address the challenges that you raised in response to Senator Anderson’s questions?
Mr. Diabo: Regarding the different aspects of the bill, if we’re still talking about the Jay Treaty and border crossing, alignment with Jay Treaty Border Alliance objectives, formally recognizing and implementing an Indigenous right of entry into Canada and requiring consultation with affected Indigenous nations before the Governor-in-Council issues any order that may impact Indigenous border mobility are key. A lot would improve by engaging with the Jay Treaty Border Alliance. We are having discussions on a technical level. We’re still waiting for the ministerial meetings. Obviously, things were put on hold when Canada went into their election almost a year ago, but we were in discussions in October 2024, so we’re still waiting for those to resume. We provided numerous documents and are hoping that this issue makes its way up into cabinet at some point.
Other things we would like to see or have concerns about include the integrated management plans for inland waters where the Canadian Coast Guard will implement its new security mandate. We would like to ensure that the Coast Guard is not affecting Indigenous right to travel and harvest the waters. As I said in my opening remarks, Indigenous Peoples have an inherent right to protect our lands and our water. Partnerships are always key, though. We understand organized crime will try to influence or infiltrate wherever it can. Having these key strategic meetings and partnerships always benefits everyone at the end of the day.
We don’t want to see an influx of crime any more than the next person, but we also can’t be pushed to the side and state that only the Coast Guard or only Canada has jurisdiction. We’re still waiting for the formal designation of First Nations policing as an essential service. That’s key to protecting our lands and anything that comes to or from the territories.
Those would be the conversations that we need to have directly to see how we can ensure that the partnerships are there and that no one entity has sole jurisdiction over the other.
As I stated, in terms of the money laundering provisions, transactions with members and other Indigenous communities are ultimately a formal consultation process to develop regulations that accommodate the realities of cash-based Indigenous economies. A lot of things that Indigenous people do are criminalized simply because it’s our right not to be taxed. There are always different issues when it comes to banking and setting up corporations. It leaves First Nations people to rely solely on cash, and we see the benefits of being able to utilize infrastructure like banks and so on.
The Chair: Next, we’ll move to Senator White. I know you were out of the room, so we want to get you back on the agenda.
Senator White: Sorry about that. I apologize, Chief, for being out of the room.
I’d like to hear a little bit more about your concerns around the Canadian Coast Guard in terms of the powers they have and the security that they’ll be providing to the North. If you could reconcile that for me, I would appreciate it.
Mr. Diabo: I can’t really speak to the North too much because I’m not in the North. I can speak to my location. We have the St. Lawrence Seaway that crosses through our territory. We know it’s international waters. Some concerns that we have are the patrolling of the Coast Guard or them trying to intervene. We have people who utilize that passage to get to the river. We have our own police force that has their own vessel, so being able to monitor it ourselves or in partnership would be key. There have been incidents where ships have been stuck or frozen in the ice.
We want to have a collaborative approach on that and not be kicked to the side and have it be only Coast Guard jurisdiction. They are our waters at the end of the day. We recognize the importance of that, but First Nations are essentially cut out of any management aspect and from being involved in it. We would like to know what’s coming through our waters for our own safety as well. Really, we’d like to build on the partnership that we can establish and that we have in different aspects with surrounding law enforcement and so on.
Senator White: I have another question, then, Grand Chief: I am curious as to your thoughts on whether Bill C-12 actually aligns or fails to align with the Crown’s duty to consult with First Nations.
Mr. Diabo: Well, first, apologies if my answers are more vague; I’m here in place of the Assembly of First Nations, or AFN. Kahnawà:ke wasn’t contacted directly. We didn’t have time to prepare submissions, obviously. There is a lot of different legislation coming out that we are trying to keep track of. The consultation, in itself, is lacking on many different fronts. There needs to be a better way in terms of engaging rights holders directly.
In my opening remarks, I mentioned it’s easy to just go to the AFN, but the AFN is not a representative body. They’re an advocacy body, so I would propose, then, to engage with the AFN to say, “Who should we contact?”
There are, obviously, communities who aren’t surrounded by water or international water, so they don’t need to be contacted. However, communities like Kahnawà:ke, and like Akwesasne in the North, need to be consulted with and engaged directly and not just, “Submit something, and we’ll see.” Those are the things that we need. The duty to consult, in general, needs a lot of work. We’re not a simple check box at the end of the day. We certainly need to have these open dialogues.
I believe I’m the only one here, so I will be taking full advantage of my time. I have been in a few of these, and there are generally three to five participants, and we get very limited time. We just did one with the National Assembly of Quebec, and, essentially, having 43 communities bogs things down to about 15 seconds each, given the time we had. Getting your point across in 15 seconds isn’t good, and sometimes time isn’t always on our side, but we should make sure we find the time.
Senator White: I’m taking advantage of time as well, Grand Chief.
I’d like to hear, in a nutshell, what changes you think are needed to ensure that this bill delivers benefits rather than unintended harms to First Nations.
Mr. Diabo: Well, speaking globally, and without having too many of the granular details, I think further engagement. My understanding is that it’s already pretty far along in the process. Whenever, generally, it comes to safety and security, First Nations are concerned. Whenever the federal government tries to take on a little more authority, it definitely raises concerns with First Nations as a whole. We don’t have the greatest history in terms of federal overreach and the exercising of federal powers, so it definitely has us concerned.
As I said, I can understand from the sense of the organized crime aspect. We don’t want that in our communities. Regarding better protection, we all agree on that and can work together on that, for sure. We have resources and knowledge that can contribute to that. We have always worked together to defend our peoples, and I referenced the American expansion in the early 1800s. Kahnawà:ke and other First Nations were key to ensuring that America didn’t actually have Canada as a fifty‑first state.
Senator White: Thank you.
Senator M. Deacon: Thank you for being here today on short notice, and for some of that clarification with the AFN, which, I think, we always need to be reminded of.
I’m not going to repeat. My questions are very similar to those of my last three colleagues. I did, however, try to look through all the transcripts and the work done in the House, and I didn’t see that AFN or representatives had appeared in the House. I wanted to ask if there had been an opportunity to do so, or if a submission was done that I may have missed at the House level.
Mr. Diabo: Not to my knowledge from the Mohawk Council of Kahnawà:ke. I have been in contact with Ontario Regional Chief Abram Benedict, the former Grand Chief of Akwesasne. We are very close. I know that he was keeping a keen eye on it from our Jay Treaty Border Alliance group, but I don’t recall if they ended up doing any type of submission.
Regarding Bill C-2, it changed a bit and things were pulled out. We weren’t quite sure, either, how the bill was progressing in general, so we didn’t submit anything.
Senator M. Deacon: Thank you. Again, at the risk of repeating questions, we just want to ensure that, as you said, you’re taking advantage of being on your own today.
Is there anything that you have not shared with us that you want to ensure we take away from this opportunity to connect with you today?
Mr. Diabo: I would say a little bit more engagement, then, especially if, in the House, there were no submissions from First Nations. This will be key because a lot of First Nations either border international waters or land borders, so we definitely need to have our say regarding increased powers for the Canadian Coast Guard and/or border patrol agencies.
[Translation]
Senator Youance: Thank you for joining us, Grand Chief. My questions concern the economic and business impact of Bill C-12 on your communities. Is the bill likely to affect business activities in Kahnawake? Specifically, have you identified any particular risks for Mohawk businesses, workers or members who regularly travel across the border?
[English]
Mr. Diabo: It is definitely always a concern when we’re talking about economics. Kahnawà:ke — I’m not sure if everybody is aware — are part of the Iroquois Caucus. That is our body between the Iroquois communities on the — we’ll say — Canadian side of the border.
There are six communities. We recently signed our trade protocol to do intercommunity trade. Of course, we want to extend it to our brothers and sisters down south, so if there is going to be any type of increased presence or authorities, we definitely have concerns in terms of that.
I’m not able to dive too much into it, either, from the Iroquois Caucus level. A lot of it is still unknown in terms of those expanded powers.
I know, from the Jay Treaty side, that we have a lot of issues of members reporting incidents coming over land borders with sacred items, or they’re in the United States for a prolonged time. Coming back, there is a limit on what they can bring back. For us, that’s never been our intent or our understanding of what the Jay Treaty should be.
Again, it is a little bit different, from our perspective, because coming from Canada and going to the south, they recognize the Jay Treaty. It’s when we come back; Canada doesn’t recognize the Jay Treaty yet.
[Translation]
Senator Youance: Thank you. Do you see this bill as a threat, a good opportunity or a cue for new discussions between the various nations and the federal government?
[English]
Mr. Diabo: Well, I think anything can be an opportunity, for sure. I’m a little bit unprepared today to give more facts, and that just shows that the consultation wasn’t happening ahead of time with the bill, engaging directly with affected First Nations. Right now, we can take it is an opportunity to say that we need to have those discussions without pushing this bill too fast or too far down the road.
As I stated before, as it currently stands, there is a lot of concern. We don’t know how the practicality is going to be at the end. It’s always the implementation. We can put something on paper in words not having that intent, but then when it comes to reality, that is what ends up happening.
Circling back to any time the federal government expands its authority, history hasn’t shown it going very well for First Nations at the end of the day. Let’s take the chance now to have those specific meetings and the dialogue before the bill progresses to see how it can benefit both. As I stated, the safety and security of everybody are key. We don’t want anything to happen to our people any more than to your people and vice versa. That is our hope.
Senator Al Zaibak: Thank you, Grand Chief Diabo, for appearing before us today.
Given the limited or lack of meaningful consultation in preparing for this bill, I wonder if you have any specific amendments or reporting mechanisms you would recommend to ensure Bill C-12 is implemented in a way that strengthens security without undermining reconciliation objectives.
Mr. Diabo: Without having it fully in front of me with all of our notes, the only thing I can state at this moment is ensuring that First Nations have a place in partnership. I hate using the words “in consultation with” because the broadening of consultation, depending on the interpreter, could have very different meanings. Things like that go a long way — having that language directly in bills. The vagueness is what scares us sometimes. Sometimes being direct helps. Obviously, maybe it doesn’t serve the purpose that’s needed.
Without having all of the sections laid out internally yet, I wouldn’t be able to provide that here, but I would commit to following up and ensuring that’s submitted regarding our position.
Senator Al Zaibak: Thank you. In your view, what role should Indigenous governments play in the implementation and oversight of border security measures affecting their territories?
Mr. Diabo: Being at the front lines, for sure, I used to always say the relationship between Canada and the United States — obviously, that’s not the same anymore since last year around this time. But being partners, at the end of the day, and working together, that’s the relationship that we should have, not simply that we fall under the federal government; rather, we are an equal partner in defending our territories and our people.
The Chair: Senator Kutcher, did you have a follow-up question?
Senator Kutcher: Thank you very much. Pardon my lack of knowledge of this. I’m asking you to help educate me.
Free movement of people is one thing. Free movement of goods is an important thing. You mentioned cultural and sacred items. I’m not sure I have a deep enough understanding of what kinds of items you would be talking about. Could you help me understand that a bit better with some examples?
Mr. Diabo: Of course. They could range from a variety of things, whether it’s headdresses or specific items that some people might interpret as a weapon.
As was recently in the news, First Nations people use eagle staffs. Of course, that wasn’t permitted in the Quebec Assembly, but we have different things, like sage, medicines or tobacco. I could go through a whole list of things, for sure; I’m cognizant of the time, though. A lot of people get stopped at the border because they don’t know the history or relevance of these objects. I don’t think it is intentional, but they will be destroyed or touched in a certain way that they are not supposed to because it has spiritual significance to people if they’re travelling to a funeral or certain other events.
For the Iroquois Caucus communities and the Haudenosaunee, we do great readings, so we bring items. Sometimes it’s read in Onondoga, near Syracuse; sometimes it is on the Canadian side. Those things get inspected. Border agents are just doing their job, but often without having the sensitivity around what things are. It could have some spiritual effects on individuals, for sure. In a broad sense, those are the things I mean.
Senator Kutcher: I appreciate that.
[Translation]
Senator Youance: I would like to explore the potential impact of Bill C-12 on peacekeepers in Kahnawake. Can you talk about the potential impact on the work of peacekeepers in Kahnawake, with the increased searches and security procedures?
[English]
Mr. Diabo: That is a good question. Did you mean it more in terms of First Nations inspecting and coming across the border?
[Translation]
Senator Youance: Could the Mohawk vision, community safety and a more coercive federal approach to the work of peacekeepers come into conflict?
[English]
Mr. Diabo: The peacekeepers have a good relationship with the border. It can always be improved, for sure. We’re partners regarding any types of illegal activities that are happening, of course, depending on our view of different industries. The translation was a bit off, so I’m just trying to get everything. Could you repeat it one more time?
[Translation]
Senator Youance: I wanted to know how the additional security measures in Bill C-12 would affect the work of peacekeepers. Could we see a jurisdictional encroachment and a possible increase in interactions between federal-level security and the peacekeepers? I was trying to understand how all this will work, both for people who cross the border regularly and for trade in goods.
[English]
Mr. Diabo: Thank you very much for that. We are about 30 to 40 minutes from the border. Not having a full, in-depth understanding of the law itself and engaging with the peacekeepers, it’s hard to say at this moment. That’s probably more a question for Akwesasne. It’s a very good question in terms of law enforcement that’s right on the border where people are crossing immediately. Here, there’s a bit of a distance when somebody crosses before they get to Kahnawà:ke.
If we’re trying to import different goods from the United States, could there be an impact? It wouldn’t necessarily be a peacekeeper thing. It would be government to government. If we’re bringing in food, material or lumber, then when it gets to the border, we’d have to have some type of discussion on that, for sure, not necessarily on the peacekeepers.
If there’s anything in terms of public safety or related to organized crime that stems from the border, I know our peacekeepers have a relationship in context with the border, so if there are any joint operations that must be performed, the peacekeepers are definitely a partner in those.
[Translation]
Senator Youance: I have a second part to my question. Given the new powers of federal border officers, do you think that they can carry out operations in the territory without consultation? We’re back to the issue of consultation, but in terms of operations.
[English]
Mr. Diabo: Again, that is unknown at this point. I would hope that they wouldn’t try to do some type of operation in Kahnawà:ke without working with the peacekeepers. We have that relationship with the RCMP and the Sûreté du Québec, or SQ. Any type of surveillance or anything that’s going to happen on the territory has to be in conjunction with or approved by the Kahnawà:ke peacekeepers. I would hope that the border would also follow that and not take it upon themselves to say they have the jurisdiction to do that.
[Translation]
Senator Youance: Thank you.
[English]
Senator Al Zaibak: Just by way of follow-up, it would be helpful to have a submission with any proposed or planned amendments sent to us through the clerk and the chair of the committee as soon as you can so that we can consider your submission and propose amendments. Thank you.
Senator McNair: Grand Chief, thank you for being here on such short notice.
During your opening comments, you talked about potentially increasing racial profiling. Can you expand on that a little regarding your concerns with this legislation?
The other thing — this is more out of curiosity — regards when you mentioned border crossing. Depending on which direction you’re heading, south or north, you’re dealing with different countries’ border agents. Is one better? Does one have more Indigenous knowledge than the other — or are they both inconsistent?
Mr. Diabo: To answer your first question, it generally relies on the person themselves, obviously, and their discretion. Going southward, though, there is the Jay Treaty, which guides a lot of the interactions. It doesn’t with respect to coming north or back home. Those are the conversations that we would like to have separately. We have commitments from different ministers to engage in those discussions again.
Back to the first question, in terms of increasing, we do have, as part of our Jay Treaty Border Alliance, a border-crossing experience where we get numerous different complaints. We have contacts at CBSA to do more sensitivity training and to increase education in terms of sacred or spiritual items. A concern would be, if there are expanded powers, being able to go into things more fully; it’s a possibility that could maybe increase. From our end, that’s our concern: that it would. Until it is rolled out, I guess we can never know for sure in terms of the expanded powers.
Senator McNair: Thank you for clarifying.
The Chair: On behalf of the committee, Grand Chief, I want to thank you very much for taking the time to be here today. Thank you for sharing your concerns. My colleague, Senator Al Zaibak, asked if you had some thoughts about a written submission. We are on a very tight schedule here, trying to get that and reflect on how it might impact what the report will say. We don’t want to put any pressure on you, obviously, in this regard, but if you could try to get us something before Thursday, that would be appreciated. We have a meeting on Thursday where we’ll be starting to think about a report. We would certainly be informed by it, and it would guide us a bit with regard to our thoughts about the report itself.
Thank you again for taking the time. Thank you for your thoughtfulness in how you approached this. I hope the points you made today and the commitment you’ve got from the federal government with regard to consultation — we will reflect on that equally, how that was not the case in this particular bill. Again, thank you for taking the time. We’re pleased that you were able to be with us today to present.
For our second panel, we are pleased to welcome Kevin Brosseau, Commissioner of Canada’s Fight Against Fentanyl, from the Privy Council Office.
Colleagues, in case you’re not aware or were not paying attention to your phone, today, in the chamber after statements, the Senate will adjourn. We are around the same time frame with regard to our hearings today, but if we’re ahead of the game, we will adjourn whenever we get there. I just want colleagues to know, with regard to our schedule, that’s where the chamber will be. But if the chamber will adjourn and we’re still in session, we also need to respect the same agreement reached over there.
Commissioner, thank you for taking the time to be here today. We begin by inviting you to make opening remarks, followed by questions from our colleagues. You have five minutes for your remarks, and then my colleagues will certainly have questions for you. Thank you very kindly for being here.
Kevin Brosseau, Commissioner of Canada’s Fight Against Fentanyl, Privy Council Office: Thank you, Mr. Chair and honourable senators. It is with a heavy heart that I’m here today. It is a very difficult day, and my thoughts and prayers are certainly with the people of Tumbler Ridge.
[Translation]
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss Canada’s ongoing efforts to combat the illicit fentanyl trade and safeguard our borders, and specifically Bill C-12. I’ll keep my comments short to allow sufficient time for your questions.
[English]
Much like the rest of the world, Canada is contending with transnational organized crime syndicates that seek to exploit gaps in regulations and global supply chains to profit from the sale of toxic drugs.
[Translation]
We recognize the complexity of the problem and we’re adapting at the pace of the threat by updating our laws, policies, tools and partnerships. This is exactly why we’re taking a deliberate and whole-of-government approach that targets the root causes of addiction coupled with strong law enforcement.
[English]
My role is to integrate and coordinate Canada’s overall response to fentanyl, aimed at both supply and demand.
Since my appointment, I have worked with partners across all levels of government and law enforcement agencies, as well as with U.S. and international organizations, to accelerate Canada’s efforts to detect, disrupt and dismantle the fentanyl trade, a scourge that has led to the deaths of over 50,000 Canadians since 2016.
[Translation]
I have also heard directly from families and frontline stakeholders across Canada in key sectors. They each have a role to play in the fight against fentanyl. Significant progress has been made this past year through substantial and necessary additional investments in law enforcement and legislative changes to make the borders more secure.
[English]
We are starting to see demonstrable, measurable improvements through our focused and coordinated efforts, with a suite of complementary measures coming together — for instance, the introduction of the bill that we are discussing today and regulatory changes by Health Canada — which will make it harder for criminals to manufacture illicit fentanyl, keeping our communities safer. A stronger anti-money-laundering framework, including intelligence-sharing partnerships with banks, is playing a key role in disrupting the financial flows that fuel trafficking.
Intensified, coordinated law enforcement operations are translating policy and legislative tools into concrete, on-the-ground action with major seizures and arrests that interrupt supply before it reaches communities.
Recent data from the Public Health Agency of Canada has shown encouraging trends at the national level. From July 2024 to June 2025, there has been a meaningful decrease in opioid-related deaths of 22% compared to the year before, the lowest observed since 2020, but a lot more needs to be done.
More information on what I have heard and the results of Canada’s efforts are available on the Privy Council Office website.
I look forward to your questions. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Brosseau.
Now we’ll proceed to questions. You will be with us until about 1:30 p.m. In that time, we’ll do our best to allow senators to ask their questions. Four minutes will be allotted for each question, including the answer. I ask you to keep your questions succinct in an effort to allow as many questions as possible.
I offer the first question to our deputy chair, Senator Al Zaibak. You may begin.
Senator Al Zaibak: Thank you, commissioner, for your opening remarks and for appearing before us today.
From your perspective, how does Bill C-12 improve whole-of-government coordination in Canada’s response to fentanyl trafficking compared to existing authorities and regulations?
Mr. Brosseau: Thank you. You probably want the answers as succinct as the questions, Mr. Chair.
I’d say that this is an ecosystem — and I treat it as an ecosystem — whereby what’s global is local and what’s local is global. A suite of measures actually has an impact on either the supply or the demand.
In particular, with respect to Bill C-12, giving additional authorities to the Canada Border Services Agency on export controls is an important piece, i.e., setting those places aside for inspection.
The border, as you know, is northbound and southbound. It goes both ways. It’s in Canada’s interest to have a strong border, whether it be northbound or southbound.
Another important element is the additional authorities for Health Canada to be able to regulate and accelerate controls over precursor chemicals.
Fentanyl is, as you know, a synthetic opioid that is very different from non-synthetics or organic opioids and other drugs that have historically plagued this country.
In this case, it’s developed and manufactured on the basis of precursor chemicals that are often evolving and changing incredibly quickly, in many cases too quickly for regulators to keep up.
The additional authority for the health minister, to be able to regulate and prohibit particular precursors, is a very important piece.
Finally, some of the elements with respect to enhancing information sharing may not be directly related to fentanyl. However, in many cases, and as you heard from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police a couple days ago, when you deal with polycriminality, having information related to organizations involved in any type of criminality is important to be able to increase the effectiveness of organizations.
As I mentioned, criminal organizations are incredibly adept at exploiting gaps. The way that other organizations have historically operated in silos — criminal organizations don’t. They are fluid and collaborate better than most government departments. Those would be the elements that I would proffer.
Finally, with respect to money laundering, this is a highly lucrative enterprise. The additional authorities, or increasing the administrative monetary penalty limits the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada, or FINTRAC, is able to impose, are important to demonstrate the seriousness of the actions that the Government of Canada is taking vis-à-vis money laundering.
Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: The legislation allows precursors to be identified by order on a temporary basis for one year. I’m having trouble understanding why. Can you explain?
Mr. Brosseau: Thank you, Senator Carignan. In my opinion, the Health Canada officials could answer this question in greater detail.
I gather that this provides the authority required to regulate these precursors quickly, so that more in-depth studies can be carried out during the year. Border officers will see new products and even our international partners will see a new chemical composition and different molecules. This gives the minister the opportunity to regulate these precursors. It gives border officers the ability to stop them before these products enter Canada.
During the year, I believe that this gives the whole system the opportunity to regulate them on a more permanent basis.
Things are changing so quickly that experts, doctors and scientists are describing chemical compositions that I’ve never heard of before. Everything changes quickly to circumvent the legislation. This authority will be a good tool for the Minister of Health.
Senator Carignan: It’s disconcerting to see how easily people can obtain fentanyl, since the cost is extremely low. I find it sad to measure the effectiveness of the enforcement in terms of the decreasing number of deaths. Some people don’t die, but it seems that this phenomenon is spreading much further, despite the fewer number of deaths.
What’s your record of seizures of incoming precursor products? Obviously, precursors are being produced and consumed exponentially in Canada.
Mr. Brosseau: We see fentanyl in every city and town in this country, and the results are tragic. You’re right. It’s quite cheap to buy.
The effort should be multidimensional. We should focus our efforts on supply and demand, but also on the importation of precursors. That’s why I’m working closely with the Canada Border Services Agency, so that they dedicate a great deal of effort and energy to precursors, not just the other drugs. We must stop these precursors before they enter Canada.
It’s also one reason why I’m working with China, India and the United States. This global crisis requires a global effort. If we work together — countries, agencies and departments — we’ll be more successful.
You’re right. We shouldn’t measure our success by the number of deaths.
Senator Carignan: Do we have any figures on precursor seizures in the past four to five years?
Mr. Brosseau: Sorry, but I don’t have the figures. However, I can give them to the committee this afternoon or tomorrow.
Senator Carignan: Thank you.
[English]
Senator Kutcher: Thank you, Mr. Brosseau, for being here and for the great work that you’re doing to help keep the citizens of this country safe.
It must be completely frustrating that precursor chemicals usually come into the country in units of less than a kilogram. That’s tiny, a couple of tea bags’ worth, so trying to find them must be horrifically difficult.
I also understand that China’s lead regarding the precursor chemicals is now being threatened by the precursor powders coming from India. But wherever they come from, they have to come to labs, mostly in British Columbia. I understand that is where the labs are located.
I have two questions. First, does the bill strengthen the ability of police forces to deal with the labs? You can’t have fentanyl until the labs make it. If all the precursor chemicals are stopped, that’s great, but the labs make it. What are we doing about the labs? Does this bill help us with the labs?
Second, there has been a lot of talk about how much fentanyl goes across the border to the U.S., which I understand is less than 1% of all fentanyl seizures. Most of it comes from the Sinaloa cartel in Mexico. But the United States exports to us fentanyl, methamphetamine, cocaine and firearms. What is being done on that side of the equation?
Mr. Brosseau: Thank you for the questions. I will go to the first one. No specific authority exists with authorities with respect to labs or the production of fentanyl. But the ability of Health Canada to work closely with and to inform border services agencies so they can seize chemicals at the border is important, as well as the related authorities of the Minister of Health to regulate the precursors throughout the supply chain. Some of these, as you heard from Health Canada experts, can have legitimate or illegitimate purposes.
This is the operationalization of the legislation more than the legislation itself, but the intelligence-led approach — because you’re right; these are in small quantities — can be very different than when you see bales or multiple tonnes of different drugs. They are difficult to detect, so it’s really important that organizations collaborate and work together. We work with our international partners, et cetera, to be able to get that information shared. We’re targeting efforts to those who are the highest priority — the highest-value targets; I’ll use that type of language.
Fentanyl is produced quite easily. You don’t need a sophisticated lab to produce it. You can find the directions online, as sad as that is, given the devastating impacts it has on our communities.
With respect to the border and what is coming into Canada, the Canada Border Services Agency, or CBSA, and its almost 10,000 border services officers are very diligent in stopping as much as they can from coming in, using intelligence and their techniques to stop the northbound flow of drugs. The CBSA has run a couple of pretty significant projects with targeted enforcement around the high-priority or highest-flow areas. That work will continue.
Senator Wilson: Thank you, Mr. Brosseau, for the work that you do. We all wish you much success in terms of discharging those duties.
I want to ask you specifically about the new provisions around export inspections. I’m interested to know a bit more about at which kinds of border points — the land and marine borders, for example — those will be. In my experience, also, on the import side, when the CBSA is asked to do more inspections, the costs of those inspections are often downloaded to shippers, increasing the cost of trade.
Will the CBSA be funded for the infrastructure, technology and personnel that will be required to do this? Will costs be downloaded onto industry? Or will it be a combination of both?
Mr. Brosseau: Thank you for the question. I hate to do this, but I have to defer to the Canada Border Services Agency. I hope you will have an opportunity to talk with them in some detail. However, I’ll give you as much information as I have.
A landmark funding announcement of $1.3 billion was made as part of Canada’s border plan, to go to the RCMP and CBSA to carry out their duties and particularly to strengthen the border. The funds were for additional personnel but also additional tools: surveillance equipment, scanning technology, et cetera. It’s a given fact that if additional work will be needed, additional funding will be required. That was the first funding announcement.
The second big one was for the 1,000 additional CBSA officers and 1,000 more RCMP personnel. It’s a “B,” not an “M”; it’s not in the millions. It’s a big funding commitment to both of those organizations to deploy additional resources at the border.
As I understand it, with respect to the examination of goods destined for export, this provision is to provide access to CBSA officers to examine those facilities, again, with the understanding that the border goes both ways. It’s a northbound and a southbound border. Strengthening our southbound opportunities and authorities and posture will help in terms of what is coming into Canada as well.
Again, I’ll defer to my CBSA colleagues for additional details and for full confirmation, but that’s my understanding.
Senator Wilson: You’re speaking a lot about the land border. What about the marine borders? Will ports and points of export also be included?
Mr. Brosseau: My understanding is all ports of entry are part of that. Obviously, we have, from coast to coast to coast, a myriad of bays and inlets, but marine ports will be included. In fact, one of the areas of particular focus, where I have integrated much of the effort and added a lot of emphasis, is around all ports.
If all the emphasis is on land, as I mentioned, organized crime and those who pay attention could pivot quickly. Just like water, it will find the path of least resistance. Emphasizing land and avoiding rail or marine would be a mistake. Additional work on marine ports is being carried out and is important as well.
Senator M. Deacon: Thank you, Mr. Brosseau, for being here and for taking this job. It was helpful a few weeks ago to see you in Washington with representatives from Canada-U.S. borders and to get accurate data. We know that data is on the Privy Council website. We certainly wish all Canadians and Americans had the same level of accurate information.
We’ve talked a bit about precursors. I want to focus on criminalization. In our next panel, we’ll be talking about that. It is a concern that trying to stop criminalization could lead to new and novel drugs, which could actually be worse than what we know — or what we don’t know. Harm reduction needs to be a focus.
What do you see as the role for harm reduction? Do you think the best way to tackle drug use and deaths is to exclusively target supply?
Mr. Brosseau: Thank you for that question. It’s been a year since I began this job. Of course, we know the context of my appointment with respect to Canada-U.S. issues, but I’ve spent most of my life working in communities and trying to keep people in communities safe. A complex global and local issue, like fentanyl and synthetic opioids, requires, similarly, a global and local approach.
It also requires a balanced equilibrium between efforts on eradicating supply and reducing demand at the same time. Those who are willing to profit from death and despair must be held accountable, but at the same time, compassion must be demonstrated and shown to those who — for many reasons and through no fault of their own — find themselves in horrible circumstances. Proper pathways to recovery ought to be followed as well.
My other point, senator, would be that we ought to rely on what the evidence shows and the data demonstrates. The results of whatever intervention it is — whether it’s risk reduction, harm reduction or recovery — are what I rely upon. I don’t get caught up in the “what.” I will support whatever works.
A final point is that, in many cases — and I’ve heard this many times — this is very localized. What will work in one community may not work in another. We need to be thoughtful about that, engage the community, work with the community on things that they care about and, again, listen to the experts and the data to be able to show what the results will be.
Senator Dean: Thanks for being here. It’s great to see you again. Going back to what’s coming into and going out of the country, in terms of fentanyl and precursors, is Canada a net importer or a net exporter, or does this change over time?
Mr. Brosseau: The fentanyl trade has definitely changed. A finished product — I’ll use that language — historically was imported into Canada, but a few years ago, that really changed. Then precursors came in, and it was being manufactured in Canada, largely for a domestic market and to be consumed domestically.
The evidence shows — based on American data — that very little is going from Canada to the U.S. or being exported overseas.
What comes into the country? Largely, it is precursors from all over the world. It is very important then that we take a global, collaborative approach. In fact, Minister Anandasangaree recently hosted the G7 interior ministers, and this was one of the topics of conversation — how we collaborate internationally and add that additional collaborative pressure on all sides so there is no weak link in the chain. Thank you.
Senator Dasko: Thank you very much, Mr. Brosseau, for being here today to talk with us. I have a couple of questions based on your introductory comments. You told us that there has been a 22% reduction in deaths from fentanyl over the last year. That is very significant, and this is before the measures before us have been implemented but, of course, after your appointment as commissioner.
Can you tell us the reason behind the decline in deaths? Why have deaths declined so much in that period? That’s my first question. I will have another one after. Thank you.
Mr. Brosseau: As you know, I’m not a public health expert, but when the Public Health Agency of Canada released its latest round of statistics to show that decline. It is encouraging, but there are still 17 people dying per day, so we know we have a long way to go. Alongside the statistics, the Public Health Agency provided a number of potential reasons why this could be. These ranged from changes in supply to better intervention techniques, like the availability of naloxone, or Narcan, which can be easily deployed, given to somebody on a street or in a hospital by a medical practitioner.
Another theory is that the modality of ingestion has changed from injection to, for the most part, inhalation; it is smoked. That may be a reason why fewer people are dying as well.
It should be noted too, senator, that the same drop has occurred in the U.S. over the same period of time. It’s a pretty dramatic drop. Again, there are many theories. It feels to me as if the collaborative, integrated effort through the public health and public safety elements of all levels of government is having an impact in terms of the manner in which it’s responded to.
Finally — though because I live this every day, maybe I have a bias — it feels as if more people are aware of the dangers. That is an area where the government needs to double down. We need to do more with regard to awareness building, prevention activities, advertisements, et cetera, to ensure that every young person understands the associated risks.
In summary, senator, there are a few theories that the very wise experts in the public health sphere are trying to unpack to determine which intervention tools will keep Canadians safe.
Senator Dasko: Of the factors you just mentioned, I assume that this bill focuses on decreasing the supply. You mentioned that as one of the factors that might be behind the drop in deaths. So this focuses on that as opposed to other potential factors that have caused this.
Mr. Brosseau: That’s right, senator. Many of the actions that are being taken and need to be taken in an integrated way across supply and demand — we heard from Senator Deacon about harm reduction exercises, et cetera — can be done with existing legislation. This could include policy, perhaps some additional funding for particular agencies, FPT collaboration, collaboration with Indigenous communities, et cetera, to be able to determine what is going to work best. But the particular measures vis-à-vis enhanced regulatory authorities from the health minister around precursors will indeed help on the supply side.
Senator Anderson: Thank you for your information. You spoke a lot about custom border management. I want to address the local and national controls that are put in place, specifically for the Northwest Territories. When we have security, it goes no further than Yellowknife. Anyone flying out of Yellowknife farther north does not undergo any security checks. Our drugs are coming in via airlines when there are no flights being checked by security, and through Canada Post, which is not being monitored.
We have had this discussion before with the RCMP, and we spoke about how you can board a plane in Inuvik, Northwest Territories, with something illegal — be it drugs or a gun — stow it on the plane, get off to do your security check in Yellowknife and then get back on the plane and retrieve it. Those gaps are still there. There are huge gaps in terms of management of what comes into the smaller communities in the Northwest Territories.
To me, an obvious step in addressing some of the drugs that are coming into the Northwest Territories would be to have security in the larger airport that provides direct contact to our smaller communities, as well as monitoring Canada Post.
I also want to speak about our highway. We have one highway. Hay River is considered to be a gateway for drugs.
In Hay River, in October, there were 10 drug overdoses in eight days. There were 87 emergency calls in October, and there were multiple doses of naloxone, with one person receiving up to 10 doses, to counter the effects of fentanyl. That population is 3,300, which is a small population for such frequent contact with fentanyl.
Will this bill address the gaps I’m talking about at the local and national levels?
Mr. Brosseau: Thank you for the question.
You’ve described a scenario that manifests itself in communities around the country, but which is particularly acute in remote and isolated communities, where a small introduction of a limited amount of a drug like this can have devastating impacts. I understand that and remember it well from my time in small communities.
In addition to that, Bill C-2, another piece of legislation that’s currently before the House, has an important provision with respect to the authorities related to Canada Post. Of course, as we know, Canada Post is often the only provider for certain remote communities, and having additional inspection authorities with respect to Canada Post is an important piece. However, that’s not the bill you’re studying today.
If we think of this as an ecosystem, again, senator, where what’s global is local and what is brought into the country in terms of chemicals and precursor chemicals that are manufactured and distributed into a place like Hay River and then into more communities, efforts that are directed at reducing that supply, even hundreds of thousands of kilometres away, can have knock-on impacts regarding what goes on in small communities across the country. I’m convinced that enforcement efforts and all legislative tools directed at eliminating or reducing that supply at points of entry into the country will have knock-on impacts throughout the country. That will manifest itself across communities.
So, while there is nothing specific in this bill with respect to some of the elements that you’ve just described, my view is that the other pieces — in particular, the Health Canada precursor regulations — will have an impact.
Senator Anderson: Thank you.
Earlier, you mentioned weak links in the chain, and I think this is a weak link in the chain. To leave it to another bill without addressing it — you spoke about how organized organized crime is and how it communicates. Living in the North, I can see how it changes and how those gaps are used to get drugs to where organized crime wants them to go. Saying it’s going to be addressed in another bill is great, but if our bills don’t work together as these drug organizations work together, then we will continue to have a problem.
Thank you very much.
[Translation]
Senator Youance: Thank you for joining us, Mr. Brosseau.
Will you be giving the CBSA new instructions to ensure that the new powers set out in Bill C-12 are used exclusively to target the networks involved in fentanyl, rather than to extend the control to the entire population?
Mr. Brosseau: Senator Youance, I’m not necessarily giving instructions. The Minister of Public Safety and the president of the agency must give these instructions. The method for implementing and interpreting the legislation must be the same in every part of the country.
I would say that this will be the ministers’ responsibility, but not mine.
Senator Youance: What concrete results are you expecting in the fight against fentanyl during the first year of Bill C-12’s implementation?
Mr. Brosseau: As you have already heard from the RCMP or CBSA, arrests have been made and fatalities are down.
In my opinion, we’re more apprehensive now that the dangers of fentanyl are better known. I would like to see these results pick up speed in 2026. With new legislation such as Bill C-12 and new powers, we’ll see fewer precursors entering the country, more arrests, more people receiving support and fewer deaths. Thank you.
Senator Youance: Thank you.
[English]
Senator McNair: Thank you, Commissioner Brosseau, for being here today.
I have two simple questions, though maybe there’s no such thing as a simple question. First, do you have any concerns about any aspects or clauses of this bill? Second, and maybe more importantly, in your opinion, will this bill have a meaningful impact on stopping fentanyl from flowing across our borders?
Mr. Brosseau: Thank you for those simple questions. I should probably learn how to answer simply and straightforwardly.
I have no direct concerns with any of the provisions of the bill. Of course, I’m not focused on the large tranche of immigration-related matters, but it’s important to strengthen our border. Doing so will have an impact, again, because of the nature of this enterprise. This is about the importation of chemicals that are then produced and distributed across the country. The additional authorities for the Minister of Health and the CBSA, and the new provisions to enhance what I’ll call “fines” for money laundering, are all building blocks to be able to demonstrate a full suite of measures to hit on this problem across the various pieces of what we could call the supply chain.
It will undoubtedly have a meaningful impact, not just on its own but, again, in concert with the other authorities that currently exist and the additional funding that’s gone to the agencies responsible for this work, as well as increased awareness. Indeed, this will all have an impact.
The Chair: We have four colleagues yet to ask questions. We will attempt to finish by 1:25 p.m. Just so colleagues are aware, we’ve been asked to consider being in the chamber at 2:00 p.m. when the Senate convenes. There will be an acknowledgement of the tragedy in B.C., so we will do our best, given that we have witnesses pending.
I will ask each of my colleagues with questions to keep them as short as possible. If we finish early, we’ll bring the other panel on as quickly as we can.
Senator Al Zaibak: Thank you. I have a few questions, and some relate to earlier questions raised by my colleagues.
First, how does Canada’s approach under Bill C-12 align with those of the U.S. and international partners, particularly given the cross-border nature of fentanyl trafficking? Second, if you have time to answer, are there gaps that will remain in Canada’s fentanyl response that Bill C-12 does not address and may require future legislative or policy actions?
Mr. Brosseau: Thank you for the question.
In terms of alignment with the U.S., the additional authorities with respect to the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada, or FINTRAC — whether it’s as part of the Financial Institutions Supervisory Committee, or FISC, or the heightened maximum fines — will closer align with the U.S. The additional authorities for the health minister to implement a rapid prohibition of precursors will put us ahead of the U.S., in fact, and we will have a stronger system than theirs.
The Americans have raised issues over time, for sure, with our legislative framework, and in some cases in terms of our system of laws. I’m not an apologist, though. We are a rule-of-law country and we have a charter. We should be proud of these things.
So we have greater alignment with the rule of law, and in some cases, it’s better than the U.S., but this is Bill C-12, and others are being closely watched and are important elements for Canada’s national interests.
There are additional pieces that are required. We live in a digital space. For the most part, this trade is carried out digitally, whether on the dark web or on the open web. Having authorities for police to be able to carry out their work in a digital space is important.
I know I shouldn’t, but I’m going to refer to Bill C-2, which has lawful access authorities. That’s a really important element that’s been raised to me by police since I was appointed to my position. That is a key element.
Most of the other work, senator, is around the implementation and execution of the additional authorities that have been given, the additional funding that’s been given and sustained effort. It’s been a decade that we’ve been in the fentanyl crisis. It’s going to take us a while to get out, but I think we’re on a path toward bringing an end to this.
Senator Al Zaibak: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: Should we pass any legislative items that aren’t in Bill C-12 and that you consider urgent? I can think of a few things, such as the control over borders or people leaving. The control isn’t very good. Yes, there are agreements with the Americans for the land side, but it’s still limited. Couldn’t we improve things, from a legal standpoint, to help you with your work?
Mr. Brosseau: Thank you, Senator Carignan. We can always improve our legislation. That much is clear. As I already said, in my opinion, we should give Canada Post other significant powers or give the police forces better access to digital information.
As for people leaving the country, I’m not an expert in this field, so I shouldn’t comment on this topic. However, I think that the two factors that I described would be important.
As I said, we work in an ecosystem that includes a number of powers to fight organized crime or tackle supply and demand.
[English]
Senator Kutcher: I have a slight nuance to add to Senator Carignan’s question. Is there anything in the bill that could be tweaked that would make your job easier in terms of securing our borders to drugs?
Mr. Brosseau: I don’t propose any slight tweaks, Senator Kutcher. In my view, Bill C-12 represents an enhancement of the authorities. The amendments I’m considering are more than tweaks. The bill, as presented, represents a nice balance between what’s possible, what has public support and what can be implemented and actioned quickly.
Senator Dasko: I’ll pass in light of your comments, chair.
The Chair: Colleagues, this brings us to the end of this panel.
I want to thank Mr. Brosseau for taking the time to meet with us here today. We greatly appreciate your contribution and the time you took to share your knowledge with regard to the responsibility that’s been thrust upon you.
I want to say publicly that you’ve been asked to take on an enormous task, along with many others across the country. Losing a loved one to these awful drugs is devastating for families. It’s a very political matter that we all must put our minds to. What has been going on for so long is unacceptable. There’s no magic solution or magic bullet to solve this, but to a large extent, the country needs to be seized with this matter until we get it right.
Thank you for your effort. I’d like you to know that we appreciate your public service on behalf of the nation, and we look forward to working with you on your efforts to make this country stronger and more protected for those most vulnerable in our communities. Thank you again.
For our next panel, we are pleased to welcome Nick Boyce, Policy Director, Canadian Drug Policy Coalition; and, by videoconference, Rob Huebert, Professor, Director, Centre for Military, Security and Strategic Studies, University of Calgary.
Thank you for joining us today. We will begin by inviting you to provide opening remarks, to be followed by questions from our members. Each of you will have five minutes for your opening remarks.
Before we continue, I want to inform both witnesses that due to this incredible weight that we’re all experiencing as a result of the tragic deaths yesterday in British Columbia, we will adjourn our hearings a little early, as we have to be back in the chamber at 1:55 p.m. We have from now until then. We’ll do our best to get to as many questions as possible. In the event that we don’t get an opportunity to ask certain questions and you wish to provide additional answers to the committee, we’ll ask you to do so in writing. Hopefully, you can get those to us as soon as possible.
We will start with Mr. Boyce’s opening statement.
Nick Boyce, Policy Director, Canadian Drug Policy Coalition: Thank you, chair, for inviting the Canadian Drug Policy Coalition, or CDPC, to appear before this committee. Apologies, but I don’t speak French. I can make myself available after my remarks for more questions.
We have significant concerns with Bill C-12, which have yet to be surfaced due to a lack of a transparent parliamentary process. The Senate’s willingness for deeper consideration of and attention to the harms Bill C-12 will perpetuate is essential and welcomed.
This bill inexplicably fuses immigration policy with drug policy, complicating the bill’s intent and analysis. CDPC echoes concerns raised by numerous migrant rights, human rights and civil liberties organizations.
CDPC’s focus is on the drug policy parts of the bill. Drug use is a complex and often emotionally charged issue. Each of us has different personal experiences, knowledge and values that shape our understanding. CDPC hopes to provide new perspectives into Canada’s persistent, unregulated drug crisis — one that has killed more people than the COVID pandemic — and explore why Bill C-12 will further entrench policy that has driven so much harm.
At Monday’s committee meeting, the Minister of Public Safety commented that by the end of the day, 20 families would be dealing with the loss of a loved one from a drug-related death. Last year, 83% of opioid-related deaths involved unregulated drugs, ones produced without government regulations controlling for ingredients, potency or access.
Drug law enforcement has never, and will never, eradicate the supply of drugs. On the contrary, Canada’s approach ensures drug markets are controlled through criminal channels and leaves the supply completely unregulated. Drug scheduling, police drug busts and border interdiction do not address the demand for drugs. Where there is a market to capitalize on, someone will.
Since time immemorial, people have used a variety of drugs. Our laws and policies need to reflect this fundamental truth. Bill C-12 is another demonstration of Canada’s failure to grapple with this reality. Decades of prohibition and ever-increasing billions of dollars spent on enforcement have led to plant-based drugs like heroin being displaced by synthetic drugs like fentanyl.
When drugs or precursor chemicals used in production are scheduled under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, drug producers adapt with novel substitutes or new production methods. An increasingly diversified and unpredictable concoction of benzodiazepines, nitazines and veterinary tranquilizers now constitutes the unregulated supply. We have to ask where this ends.
The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights has suggested states take control of illegal drug markets by considering responsible regulation to eliminate profits from illegal trafficking, criminality and violence. Five years ago, Health Canada’s Expert Task Force on Substance Use recommended regulating the supply. We have not. Bill C-12 gives the Minister of Health and the Minister of Public Safety near unfettered discretion to rapidly schedule new substances, but rapid scheduling does not mean we stay ahead of organized crime. It will just accelerate further evolution to the supply.
Moving this regulatory function under the discretion of one or two ministers risks decisions being made without a transparent process for ensuring reliable evidence and leaves it subject to partisan influence.
Bill C-12 also raises concerns regarding intelligence sharing and complicity with violations of international law. Over the past several months, under the guise of drug enforcement, the United States has bombed Venezuelan boats, murdering dozens of civilians. Many experts characterized this as a gross violation of international humanitarian law.
While Bill C-12 is not explicit in expanding intelligence sharing with the United States, Canada is already deeply intertwined with U.S.-led militarized drug enforcement efforts. Expanding the mandate of the Canadian Coast Guard to include intelligence gathering risks furthering Canada’s complicity.
Bill C-12 is, frankly, a continuation of poorly designed drug policy. After a decade of escalating death and harm, the threat posed by the unregulated drug supply is unquestionably foreseeable and primarily driven by Canada’s prohibition-based drug laws and enforcement practices.
Rejecting Bill C-12 will not solve our crisis or end the immense harms that decades of prohibition have caused, but we must start somewhere. For the over 53,000 Canadians killed by bad drug policies in the past 10 years, we hope the Senate proves to be an inflection point that will start us on a new course.
Rob Huebert, Professor, Director, Centre for Military, Security and Strategic Studies, University of Calgary, as an individual: Thank you. I am very happy to come before the Senate to talk about this very important issue. I testified before the House of Commons when they were approaching this issue, and I think the events between that testimony and today illustrate the significance of what you are doing. The changing elements of geopolitics have never been clearer regarding the recent American efforts regarding both Greenland and Canada. Their severity underlines the necessity of ensuring that our borders are as well protected as possible.
I will be limiting my comments to clause 4, which deals with, of course, the changes that refer to the Coast Guard. There are three observations that I want to share with the committee.
First, the ministers within the bill are encouraged to do whatever is possible to increase the ability of the Coast Guard to know the region within the borders that is being discussed. I would like to point out that at this point, between 2013 and 2023, we’ve only been able to successfully provide hydrographic mapping of this region to a tune of 15.8%, and these are the government numbers, of the entire region. That means, basically, getting 15% of the Arctic mapped takes us 10 years.
If we do the math, that means it will take us until 2090 to map the entire Arctic. I think that the severity of American actions and the attention that the Arctic has received in the past few months illustrate that, in fact, waiting until 2090 to get the entire Arctic mapped is unacceptable. I would, therefore, suggest that, rather than encouraging the minister to engage with what can be interpreted as the mapping of the Arctic, this should be made mandatory; we should be proceeding as fast as possible to map the entire region.
I would also add that last season, the grounding of a vessel in the Canadian Arctic illustrated how dangerous some of these waters can be.
The second point goes to the reality that the Coast Guard is being placed under the auspices of the Department of National Defence. This, of course, is a positive move because of the insecurities that are occurring within the Arctic region and something to be applauded. However, in my view, the bill fell short of being clear in terms of how the military personnel of the Navy and the civilian crew of the Coast Guard are to interact, and specifically on what the guidelines for security, including security patrols, and the collection and analysis of data are going to be. This is necessary, and I think that it has to be made very clear in this context so that any bureaucratic differences that may exist will be eliminated as soon as possible.
So we have to know how far it goes and whether it goes far enough.
Third, I would underline the severity of what we have seen in terms of being able to identify and defend our borders. We’ve understood the threat, as illustrated by both the Canadian Arctic Foreign Policy and the Canadian defence update, and there is a complete necessity to prepare for possible actions by the Russians and the Chinese. However, I now see clearly that we also have to include the Americans, given what has happened. Therefore, regarding cost efficiencies, when we see that one of the important additions made to the bill is a reminder that we are to engage with this in a cost-efficient way, this sends the wrong message. The law should be saying that the minister has to proceed with all due speed, which, of course, encapsulates costs and being willing to spend more rather than being worried about how many nickels and dimes you are saving.
I think the geopolitics of the current environment clearly illustrates that Canada is facing real dangers, and to secure our borders against this, we need a properly functioning Coast Guard as it operates with our Navy. Thank you very much.
The Chair: Thank you very much, professor.
Senator Kutcher: My questions are to Professor Huebert. Thank you both for being with us.
I want to focus on the Coast Guard, which was an area I had questions about earlier. Your message around “all due speed” is a very interesting and important one in terms of securing our Arctic borders. Do you think the bill goes far enough in identifying the needs for interoperability with the Coast Guard and the Navy? We heard about the Coast Guard using icebreakers to help our brand new frigates, which are not icebreakers and also have no sea-to-air capabilities, but we have, as far as I know, 18 icebreakers. Russia has 57, some of them nuclear powered. What is the approach that would help here? Is there something in the bill that could be tweaked that would push this forward? As you say, Arctic border security is fundamental.
Mr. Huebert: Thank you for the question. And by the way, sir, I used to pass by your house when I was doing my PhD at Dalhousie. I lived out at Sambro for a short while, so I used to always pass through Ketch Harbour. When I saw you were on the committee, it brought back nice memories. It is a beautiful location.
But to your question — it is a critical one. That’s why I have such huge problems when I read in the bill that we have to be cost efficient. We are facing threats on so many different fronts, of course. You cited the number of icebreakers, and that includes the smaller ice-capable vessels that are coming on. The reality is that we have one large icebreaker and six medium icebreakers. We are now proceeding with the construction of two more icebreakers — in two different yards, so we make it as expensive as possible — and, of course, we’re adding two Arctic Offshore Patrol Ships, or AOPS. That is in opposition to the Russian icebreakers, as you point out, but it also goes to the overall much more capable Russian naval presence in the Arctic region as well.
What I would recommend for the bill is that it speak to that urgency. I think that the intent of the bill, of course, is to provide legislative oversight, but I think the aspect of mandating an effort to assert that interoperability should be handled at the highest level and made a priority. The Coast Guard has traditionally always been able to do whatever the government tells it to, and it has done very well in that context, but it always gets forgotten. It always has to scramble for dollars. A mandate from a legislative provision to ensure that it is not forgotten would be a very important contribution in addition to this bill.
Senator M. Deacon: Thank you. I appreciate that, and I appreciate you both being here today. Mr. Boyce, I have a question for you. I know that you were able to take in Monday’s testimony that we had in this committee. Is there anything that you heard that you would like to elaborate on or amplify that might be complementary?
Mr. Boyce: There was actually a question from the chair to Health Canada around some of these regulations and the ability to further target precursors and drugs and eliminate the supply of fentanyl. I understand the intent of the question, but I think the framing is wrong because we’re so focused on supply-side interventions that we’re not addressing demand.
It’s deeply concerning. How many resources are we putting into this futile attempt to stop drugs that we could be putting into things like housing, treatment programs and regulating the supply for people who are going to use regardless?
The Fentanyl Czar earlier talked about the reduction in deaths. It is a very complicated equation with respect to why that’s happening. Something that was not mentioned is the sad reality that there are just so many dead people.
I would really encourage us to take the advice and recommendations of Canada’s expert task force and numerous UN bodies to start looking at regulating supply and stopping criminalization and prohibition.
Senator M. Deacon: Speaking of criminalization and supply, I do to get a sense of the temperature on harm reduction strategies in this country. Are you able to speak to that? I know every time that we read about it in the news, it’s often about a safe injection site closing. We’ve heard it works in different areas for different reasons, but this is one of the areas where provincial governments carry the most power. Are we moving away from harm reduction as a strategy? Were we ever really implementing it in a meaningful way to begin with?
Mr. Boyce: Thank you for that question. It has never been implemented at the scale and pace that were needed to keep up with the changes to the supply driven by prohibition. What has been implemented we are now seeing a reduction to. For example, we talk about safe injection sites, but over half the deaths from drug overdoses are from people who smoke, and we don’t have safe inhalation sites. The Province of Ontario has closed half the injection sites and is attempting to shut down more.
Those interventions are absolutely critical, but there would also be less need for those if we had a stable drug supply that was not constantly changing and evolving and introducing new and varied risks.
Senator Al Zaibak: My question is to Mr. Boyce. Thank you for your testimony and for your alarming opening remarks. I am quite alarmed. I’m wondering whether you are suggesting that the Senate reject Bill C-12. I wasn’t clear about that. Are there any specific amendments or policy commitments you would recommend to ensure that Bill C-12 advances both public safety and public health objectives?
Mr. Boyce: Thank you for the question. I’ll defer to colleagues who have expertise in migrant rights, other human rights and civil liberties. There is not room to amend this bill in significant ways, and I would encourage rejecting it. That will not solve all the problems, but it’s an indication and a signal that we need to do things differently. If rejecting this bill sets us on a new course, then I highly encourage doing so.
Senator Al Zaibak: From your experience and background, what lessons from previous drug enforcement strategies should Parliament keep in mind when assessing the long-term effectiveness of this or any related legislation?
Mr. Boyce: Canada has done things differently. We can just look at the recent example of cannabis legalization. We took an illegal drug and put a regulatory framework in place to allow for a legal market. The data now shows that 70% to 80% of the cannabis market is now from legal sources. That has allowed for quality control of the drug. That has allowed for restricting access to youth. It’s harder for youth to access now because they have to show identification. They don’t go to some drug dealer in an apartment. It has allowed us to stop focusing police resources on constantly targeting people, arresting them and taking down labs.
I’m not suggesting that the cannabis model is perfect. We have actually commercialized cannabis, not just legalized it. There are things to think about and learn. There are also equity issues in terms of who has access to those markets. But there are different models out there. We can also look to the models of compassion clubs as a way of controlling access to drugs that are killing people and that anyone can access.
Senator Dasko: Thank you, witnesses. I realize we’re quickly running out of time. I have two questions for Professor Huebert. First, you said that 15% of the Arctic has been mapped. Has anyone else mapped any more of it, as far as you know?
Second, you said that it’s a good move to put the Coast Guard under the purview of National Defence, but you questioned the interaction between the two. Can you just drill down a little and say what you think the interaction should be between the two? Thank you.
Mr. Huebert: Well, starting with the 15% figure, once again, thanks to the Oceans Act, the only countries that can legally come in and chart the Arctic waters are Canadian. So, basically, any exclusive economic zone, or EEZ, any waterway we have will be charted by the coastal state. In this context, the 15% that Canada has was done strictly by Canadian hydrographic services.
Here’s the problem: During the Cold War, there were suggestions that the Soviet Union had entered the Arctic waters. In fact, if they were willing to send a submarine into such dangerous waters, they obviously would have had to have had some means of mapping when they were in the underwater way. There were also suggestions in some literature that the Americans, with Canadian agreement, have also mapped submarine passages through the waterways.
The work of Adam Lajeunesse has demonstrated that the U.S. Navy and the Royal Canadian Navy did cooperate on submarine transits of American naval submarines. I want to make this very clear: It was not a violation of sovereignty because the two countries were working together in sort of an unofficial NORAD fashion. However, the only way that you’re going to send a nuclear-powered sub into the waters is to have some understanding of the waterway. From those two examples, we can assume that there has been mapping by foreign countries, but it would be very secretive and would be for submarine traffic.
In terms of the second part of your question, one of the difficulties when you try to mix a military force with a civilian force is there will always be different ways of proceeding. That’s partly human nature. That’s partly the legislative and legal requirements for what Navy personnel can do and what Coast Guard personnel can do. Where the act could probably strengthen that is to make a priority of ensuring that the Navy and Coast Guard are given the full resources required to ensure that is done as well as possible.
Admiral Topshee, the head of the Canadian Navy, and Mario Pelletier, the Commissioner of the Coast Guard, are outstanding leaders and will do whatever is necessary behind the scenes to get the cooperation. We are very fortunate in their leadership. But we need to ensure that if we have less capable or less open leadership, that it is clearly indicated as the priority of interoperability.
Senator Dasko: Thank you very much.
[Translation]
Senator Youance: I’m aware of how much time we have. However, I would like to ask Professor Huebert, if possible, to send us some documents. You referred to Dr. Lajeunesse. Could you send us some background material on the topic?
[English]
Mr. Huebert: I will send you the identification of his book. I’m very proud of the fact that it is based on thesis work he did under me and colleagues at the University of Calgary. I can also send you several other articles that have recently come out illustrating how far behind we are on the mapping issue.
Again, your question is excellent, and it also illustrates the absolute need for the bill to not just be saying that the minister should “encourage,” but that the minister should absolutely be demanding that the Arctic be properly mapped out.
I have been studying this issue since the 1980s, and I can tell you that from 1985 until 2003, we mapped 1% to 2% of it. Quite frankly, given the threats we face from Russia and China, and possibly the United States, in my view, this is a completely unacceptable position to find ourselves in. We have the technology. They need the resources and the mandate.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: I have a follow-up question, Professor Huebert. In your opinion, why is the word “may” used instead of “must”? Your arguments seem quite convincing. What accounts for this hesitation?
[English]
Mr. Huebert: There are two factors. The Arctic is out of sight. Historically, we always talk about being a northern nation and being an Arctic nation, but they only have three MPs. From a political perspective, they are weakened in that context. The second thing is what is required of the Coast Guard and the hydrographic services is not sexy. It’s not something that people can put on the daily news to see, and it’s very easy to leave it.
We’ve also fallen into the very bad habit — and I think the folly of this bad habit has been illustrated by Trump’s actions recently — of always assuming that, whatever happens in the Arctic, we always have the Americans looking after us and that they’ll be able to provide us with protection.
I’ll give you one illustration. In the Joe Clark-Brian Mulroney government, when we had the last sovereignty crisis with the Americans in 1985, one announcement that Joe Clark brought forward in Parliament — back in the days when we’d see foreign policy being brought forward in Parliament rather than as news items — that we were going to be building an icebreaker to replace the Louis S. St-Laurent. That was September 10, 1985.
Of course, if we look in terms of the priority that was given, I will point out that it took us until 2024 before we actually started to build the replacement for the Louis S. St-Laurent. It illustrates the fact that we talk big when it comes to defending the Arctic and doing hydrographics, but our history tells us that, as soon as we can move on to another subject, we’re more than willing to not follow through.
I’ll be honest: This is a bipartisan problem where we seldom see real actions being taken. The Arctic and Offshore Patrol Ships, or AOPS, represent one possible exception to this problem, but, again, we are crisis-driven. We wait until the crisis and then react instead of realizing that we understand the problem but are not willing to act on it politically.
The Chair: Colleagues, this brings us to the end of this panel, recognizing that we had some limitations in the time that we had. I want to thank both Mr. Boyce and Professor Huebert for taking the time to meet with us today. We greatly appreciate your contributions and the time you took to share your knowledge with us today. If you should have any written comments that you wish the committee to receive, if you could send them as soon as possible, we would appreciate it because we will be meeting tomorrow again, and they will be of great value to us.
Colleagues, as you know, we are asked to be back in the chamber at two o’clock today. I thank you for your cooperation in making it possible for us to conclude. Thank you so much.
(The committee adjourned.)