First distributed in the 1960s as an intravenous anesthetic, fentanyl is a synthetic opioid 50 to 100 times stronger than heroin. As one of the world’s most frequently used opioid analgesics, fentanyl’s high potency poses a severe risk of overdose, particularly when consumed unknowingly through dealer lacing.

With a mere kilogram of smuggled fentanyl capable of killing over 500,000 people, the drug has emerged as a popular subject of the border control discussion, particularly as it provides a pretext for U.S. President Donald Trump’s tariff threats. On March 4, the U.S. imposed a 25 per cent tariff on Canada and Mexico, as well as a 20 per cent tariff on China, a known source of fentanyl’s component parts. 

With demands for heightened international action to address fentanyl trafficking, Canada is facing a crucial turning point: Will the government follow the U.S. approach, built around law enforcement and criminalization, or adopt a harm reduction strategy rooted in Canada’s own history of progressive drug policies?

Although Trump’s claims of a severe fentanyl trafficking problem are false, with only 0.2 per cent of all fentanyl intercepted at US borders actually coming from Canada and more drugs flowing from the U.S. into Canada than vice versa, the Government of Canada has strategically prioritized addressing the fentanyl trade to stop tariffs. Hoping to appease the Trump administration, Canada appointed Kevin Brosseau as Commissioner of Canada’s Fight Against Fentanyl, or “Fentanyl Czar,” on Feb. 11.

Additionally, the Government of Canada has followed the U.S. in classifying Mexican cartel groups as terrorist organizations, despite cartel groups lacking the characteristics of genuine terrorist activity, which is defined as politically, religiously, or ideologically motivated. By contrast, cartels lack symbolic governance targets, and are instead profit-driven. Attention towards cartel groups as key participants in the fentanyl trade is crucial, but inaccurately terming cartel activity terrorism will lead to unreasonably punitive justice outcomes. 

We know from experience. In the 1970s, former U.S. President Richard Nixon attempted his own War on Drugs—a series of policy initiatives intended to destroy the illegal drug market by increasing prison sentences for dealers and users. His overly punitive laws left vulnerable and impoverished groups subject to mass criminalization, death penalty sentences, and increased long-term health risks. The War on Drugs was also intimately tied to race. Policies like the Smoking Opium Exclusion Act disproportionately persecuted Chinese immigrants, while the hyper-criminalization of crack relative to cocaine punished traditionally Black crack-users more harshly than traditionally white cocaine-users, serving to both reflect and reinforce systemic racism. Now, as the War on Drugs experiences a revival under President Trump, Nixon’s racist and despotic drug philosophy is at risk of spreading to Canada.

To avoid mimicking the punitive U.S. model, Canada must lead by example through the implementation of harm reduction strategies for the fentanyl crisis. Such an approach would not be foreign, either: Canada’s public health strategy has deep historical roots in harm reduction, with Montreal, in particular, being a pioneer. With CACTUS Montreal—established in 1989—hosting one of the first needle exchange programs in North America, the city has served as a hub of enlightened drug policy. Now, CACTUS has expanded its services and received government approval, serving as one of four safe injection sites in the Montreal area. The sites offer a crucial space for people to use substances under medical supervision and with clean supplies. Plus, evidence shows safe injection programs reduce the risk of overdose, limit the spread of infectious disease, and create networks of trust between healthcare officials and those with addictions. 

Additionally, in 2016, Canada abolished the prescription requirement for naloxone—an overdose-reversal medication also known as Narcan. The government has also remained committed to providing naloxone for free to drug users and their families and friends. Together, these initiatives reflect Canada’s historical recognition of substance use as a public health issue rather than a criminal one. The country’s powerful reputation as a leader in harm reduction strategies should not be sidelined in the face of tariff threats; it should instead be amplified, serving as a foundation upon which Canada can continue building a productive and holistic response to the fentanyl crisis.