In one of the most compelling conversations on the Open Minds Podcast to date, I spoke with Peter Copeland, the Deputy Director of Domestic Policy at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute, to unpack what Canadians might be missing when it comes to border security. While many of us assume our border is airtight—helped by images of agents at airports and the occasional episode of Border Security: Canada—Peter reveals a much more complicated picture.
At the heart of our discussion was the recognition that Canada’s border is not as secure as we might think. Fentanyl, human trafficking, and even foreign-funded organized crime operations are slipping through the cracks. As Peter put it, Canada is seen by foreign actors as “a relatively weak and easier place to operate in compared to other Western countries.” That’s a tough pill to swallow.
One of the standout insights from Peter was the idea of “hybrid warfare,” where foreign governments exploit organized crime networks to undermine Western societies. This is not just espionage; it’s a sophisticated strategy to destabilize economies and public trust by flooding communities with illegal substances or trafficking networks. The recent Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) fentanyl bust—the largest in its history—underscores just how real this threat is.
And yet, the average Canadian might not notice. We feel protected by random secondary inspections at airports and land crossings. But with over 145 million courier shipments and five million trucks processed annually by the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA), only a small fraction undergo rigorous screening. That’s not negligence—it’s capacity. Canada simply does not have the infrastructure or legislative agility to meet the scale and speed of evolving threats.
Peter highlighted that while the U.S. and countries like Australia have legal carve-outs that allow intelligence services to operate outside of strict prosecutorial boundaries in cases of national security, Canada does not. “Our Charter has been interpreted in ways that sometimes prioritizes rights at the expense of actionable intelligence,” Peter explained. This imbalance, while rooted in our national values, can hamstring law enforcement dealing with fast-moving criminal enterprises.
The financial sector is another blind spot. According to Peter, Canada’s banking system has been slow to respond to the scale of financial crime linked to organized networks. The recent multi-billion-dollar fine against TD Bank by U.S. regulators points to systemic vulnerabilities. While Canada has moved to introduce a beneficial ownership registry, enforcement remains inconsistent across provinces—a patchwork approach in a country that requires unity on issues like these.
The conversation also touched on something broader: how Canada’s fragmented vertical (federal, provincial, municipal) and horizontal (across agencies) governance structure leads to confusion and, at times, inaction. Unlike the U.S., which has more centralized direction on matters of public safety, Canada often lacks a national strategy or unified response. As Peter noted, “We don’t really have a clear national security or public safety strategy. It’s kind of like—‘we’re here, don’t worry.’”
So here’s the question we’re left with: Can Canada strike a balance between civil liberties and public safety in a way that reflects both our values and the real-world threats we face?
