Public Safety Minister David McGuinty, left, and Canada's fentanyl czar Kevin Brosseau speak to reporters outside the White House in Washington, on Feb. 27.Kelly Geraldine Malone/The Canadian Press
Mohammad Karamouzian is an implementation scientist at the Centre on Drug Policy Evaluation.
Last month, when Prime Minister Justin Trudeau appointed Kevin Brosseau as Canada’s “fentanyl czar,” there was still some belief that U.S. President Donald Trump’s tariff threats might actually be tied to Canada’s fentanyl supply. That has proven to not be the case, as Canada accounts for less than 1 per cent of seized fentanyl entering the U.S.; what’s more, The Globe and Mail has reported that nearly 15 of the 43 pounds of fentanyl seized at the northern border in the last fiscal year had actually originated in Mexico. Still, U.S. officials have continued to make baseless claims, exposing Mr. Trump’s so-called drug policy for what it really is: the launch of a trade war serving Mr. Trump’s imperialist economic agenda, rather than genuinely addressing an American health crisis.
Nevertheless, the efforts of Canadian agencies appear to have shown success. U.S. Customs and Border Protection data shows a 97-per-cent drop in fentanyl seizures at the northern border in January, 2025, compared to December, 2024, and some U.S. officials have even praised Canada’s efforts. Mr. Brosseau’s role as a central point of contact, meanwhile, has reportedly improved information-sharing and collaboration between the two countries, effectively defusing a manufactured diplomatic crisis.
So putting Mr. Trump’s false-flag tariffs aside, then, a far more important question remains: Will Mr. Brosseau’s appointment make a dent in the overdose crisis?
There were early concerns around the fentanyl czar’s mandate, which appeared to embrace dangerous “War on Drugs” rhetoric. “The scourge of fentanyl must be wiped from the face of the Earth,” declared the Prime Minister’s Office, adding that “its production must be shut down and its profiteers must be punished.” Such statements might have been aimed at satisfying Mr. Trump, but a supply-side fix to this complex overdose crisis is almost certain to fail.
Decades of research demonstrate that restricting one illegal supply channel simply incentivizes drug traffickers to develop other, often more potent substances – a phenomenon known as the “Iron Law of Prohibition.” This explains the predictable progression in North America from heroin to fentanyl to even more dangerous synthetic opioids, such as carfentanil and nitazene-class opioids. Recent efforts to regulate precursor chemicals used to make fentanyl have similarly failed, as manufacturers easily switch to less regulated precursors.
Even though the War on Drugs has led to mass incarceration, racially targeted policing, and increasingly toxic drug supplies, Canada continues to double down on border security, including through the Canada Border Services Agency’s recently launched Operation Blizzard, part of the country’s $1.3-billion border plan. While these investments may disrupt some supply chains, they are unlikely to meaningfully address the overdose crisis in Canada or the United States. For example, despite the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency’s budget expanding from US$2.92-billion in 2016 to US$3.28-billion in 2021, U.S. overdose deaths rose from 65,571 to 107,800.
This $1.3-billion investment also raises important questions about how Canada is allocating its resources, as the real cost lies in what we are not investing in: Evidence-based public health interventions that we know save lives. Research shows that expanding access to opioid-agonist therapy reduces opioid-related deaths by roughly 50 per cent, while harm-reduction programs have proven to be cost-effective across the globe. Yet Canada’s border enforcement plan has received more funding than the roughly $1-billion committed to the overdose crisis since 2017, contradicting Ottawa’s own call for a “comprehensive public health and safety approach.”
The opportunity cost extends to addressing social determinants that drive substance-use harms. A 2023 Ontario study found that overdose deaths among people experiencing homelessness increased dramatically from 7.2 per cent in 2017 to 16.8 per cent in 2021. Compared to housed individuals, those experiencing homelessness were younger, had higher rates of mental health and substance use disorders, and were more likely to have fentanyl directly contribute to their deaths.
Encouragingly, however, Mr. Brosseau’s recent statements suggest a more nuanced approach than the initial rhetoric, emphasizing both supply and demand factors. While acknowledging the role of enforcement, he has highlighted the need for prevention, treatment and harm-reduction initiatives. He has spoken with families affected by the drug-toxicity crisis and stressed the importance of integrating efforts between government levels and advocacy groups. This shift in focus is welcome, but must translate into meaningful action.
Border security has its place, but it cannot be a substitute for effective public health interventions. If Mr. Brosseau’s mandate evolves to meaningfully include harm reduction, treatment and social supports, Canada may finally develop an effective response to the overdose crisis. If not, we risk using this unusual Trump-prompted opportunity to repeat past mistakes – spending billions on enforcement while preventable deaths continue to rise.