There is some minor drug trafficking across the US-Canada border. But Canada doesn’t have the same supply of desperate poverty-stricken people willing to work for violent criminal gangs. It doesn’t even have one-third of Mexico’s population, the populace is much wealthier overall, corruption in government is very low including within their very effective military and law enforcement.

Most “smuggling” across the border is disputed non-taxed, cross-border trade between indigenous tribes that have been divided by an arbitrary colonial era border.

Then there is smuggling on behalf of terror organizations that is done by typically non-Canadians or first generation immigrants where weapons and illicit drugs are sent to the US and finances are sent back overseas through Canada. From what I can tell they use Canada because its borders are more porous than Mexico for obvious reasons and they already have to come from overseas anyways versus having a direct land route

There's always more to be said, but in the meantime you may find some answers about the modern recent history of outlaw motorcycle gangs in the Canadian drug trade in this thread about the Quebec Biker War by u/enygma9753.

The St. Lawrence River has always been the gateway to the interior of North America since the time of New France and Montreal has always been its major port.

During the Prohibition era in the U.S., Al Capone fueled his illicit empire with booze coming in from distilleries in Canada, where liquor was legal. Many Canadian brewers made their fortunes supplying America's thirst for alcohol then.

Montreal has been, and is, a prime distribution point in the North American drug trade due to its proximity to major urban centres on both sides of the border.

Hey there,

Just to let you know, your question is fine, and we're letting it stand. However, you should be aware that questions framed as 'Why didn't X do Y' relatively often don't get an answer that meets our standards (in our experience as moderators). There are a few reasons for this. Firstly, it often can be difficult to prove the counterfactual: historians know much more about what happened than what might have happened. Secondly, 'why didn't X do Y' questions are sometimes phrased in an ahistorical way. It's worth remembering that people in the past couldn't see into the future, and they generally didn't have all the information we now have about their situations; things that look obvious now didn't necessarily look that way at the time.

If you end up not getting a response after a day or two, consider asking a new question focusing instead on why what happened did happen (rather than why what didn't happen didn't happen) - this kind of question is more likely to get a response in our experience. Hope this helps!