National
CBSA Union president – ArriveCan wasn’t needed
PACP’s Meeting No. 105 sheds light on the profound inefficiencies plaguing the Trudeau administration, as Mark Weber testifies on the ArriveCan’s failures and the cultural rot within the CBSA
In the latest episode of the ongoing saga that encapsulates the depth of dysfunction under the Trudeau administration, Meeting No. 105 of the PACP – Standing Committee on Public Accounts unfolded in what can only be described as a monumental barn burner. The spotlight shone intensely on Mark Weber, the resolute President of the Customs and Immigration Union, who took the stand to expose the underbelly of inefficiency and mismanagement festering with the ArriveCan from the perspective from his members on the ground.
In a testament to the burgeoning controversy, Weber’s testimony sliced through the facade of bureaucratic efficiency, laying bare the consequences of a government more concerned with image than substance. The ArriveCan debacle, with its spiraling $60 million expenditure, stands as a glaring symbol of the Trudeaus approach: reckless spending which is severely lacking accountability.
The session was a spectacle of irony and disarray that bordered on the comedic, as the theater of government dysfunction unfolded before our very eyes. Amidst the turmoil, Liberal MP Brenda Shanahan stood up, emblematic of the coalition’s unwavering detachment from reality, posing the question to Mark Weber:
“Can you please tell us what you have heard from your union members in terms of how ARRIVE can provide efficiencies to the previous paper-based system?”
Before diving into Weber’s response, it’s crucial to note the backdrop against which this farce was set. Here we had the Liberal party, clinging with desperate fingers to the thin reed of “efficiency,” as if this single word could magically overshadow the colossal sum of $60 million funneled into the abyss for an app that, as it turns out, was about as necessary as a screen door on a submarine.
Mark Weber’s response was as pointed as it was illuminating, a stark contrast to the fluff and bluster we’ve come to expect from the powers that be.
“In terms of the information that we needed for our purposes for customs officers, really all we needed was to be able to verify that the person was vaccinated, which everyone was able to do simply by showing us their vaccination on their phone or a printed-out copy.”
There it was, the moment of truth – the revelation that the taxpayer, the everyday Canadian, had been bilked out of $60 million for a redundant app, an app that wasn’t even a requirement in the practical conduct of our border security.
Weber then laid bare the operational fiasco that was the app’s implementation. The hours squandered on the ground, the bureaucratic hoops jumped through for information that seemed to serve no one, certainly not the Canadian public.
“It seemed like we were spending our time collecting information for others that in large part we don’t know or don’t think was used,”
he dissected mercilessly. And then came the kicker, the detail that should make every Canadian’s blood boil:
“As far as I know, no one verified where anyone was staying. You know, the hundreds of hours that our officers spent helping people collect this information at the border we don’t believe was really used at all.”
Mark was probed about another critical aspect: the training—or lack thereof—that his union members received on the proper use of the ArriveCan app. With a shake of his head, Mark’s response was disheartening but unsurprising. The training was minimal, leaving border guards underprepared and travelers equally bewildered. This lack of instruction exacerbated an already tense situation, pitting frustrated travelers against equally frustrated border personnel, a recipe for chaos and inefficiency at our nation’s gateways.
Mark didn’t stop there. He acknowledged that while technology can be a powerful ally, it is not a panacea for all woes. He underscored a fundamental truth: an app is merely a tool, and like all tools, its effectiveness is contingent upon the skill and expertise of those wielding it. In the realm of national security and border control, this means boots on the ground—trained, knowledgeable personnel ready to act. Mark stressed that despite the high hopes pegged on technological advancements like automated passport checkouts, these innovations have not significantly reduced wait times at airports. The anticipated streamline and efficiency, much vaunted by proponents of the app, have yet to materialize in any tangible form.
This situation leaves us with a glaring juxtaposition: on one side, a government heralding the dawn of a new, tech-savvy era in border management; on the other, the stark reality of frontline workers grappling with underpreparedness and ineffective tools. The mismatch between the glittering ideal and the gritty reality underscores a profound disconnect.
Mark painted a picture of an organization beset by inefficiency and bureaucratic bloat. He described a surreal scenario where the hierarchy was so top-heavy that there were instances of four superintendents tasked with supervising merely two employees. This, he argued, was indicative of a toxic culture that not only hampered operational effectiveness but also left little room for accountability.
More alarmingly, Mark highlighted a significant gap in the organization’s framework: the lack of whistleblower protection. This absence of safeguards for those willing to speak out against malpractices further entrenched the culture of silence and complicity, stifling any potential for reform or improvement from within.
In response to these criticisms, the Liberals and NDP, now bound in a coalition, deflected by invoking the specter of the Harper era, suggesting that the policies instituted during his tenure continued to cast a long shadow over the CBSA. However, this attempt to pivot away from current issues falls flat. The reality is, with the power and mandate to govern, the coalition could have engaged with the union or the CBSA long ago to address and reverse any contentious Harper-era policies. Yet, they chose inaction.
My fellow Canadians, as we close this chapter, let’s reflect on a critical issue that has metastasized within our public institutions—a malignancy that threatens the very integrity of our governance: the lack of whistleblower protection.
This deficiency, a silent but deadly cancer, undermines the moral and operational foundation of our services. When our dedicated public servants, those tasked with safeguarding the public good, stand muted, crippled by the fear of reprisal, we face a grave crisis. How can we expect improvement or rectitude within our systems if those witnessing wrongdoings remain shackled by fear? A system that stifles the courageous voices calling out corruption or malpractice is a system that has failed its people.
Consider the case of Luc Sabourin, a former employee of the CBSA. His experience is a stark illustration of this systemic failure. Sabourin spoke out, did his civic duty by reporting wrongdoing within his organization. But what reward did his honesty fetch? Bullying, ostracization, and a clear message: silence is safer than integrity. This is the dire consequence of a system that fails to shield its truth-tellers.
This, my fellow Canadians, is unacceptable. It’s high time we demand more than just superficial changes and empty promises from the Liberals and the NDP. Mere band-aid solutions and deflections to past administrations will not heal the deep-seated issues within our governance. The controversies swirling around instruments like ArriveCan and the toxic culture within the CBSA demand rigorous scrutiny, not mere sidestepping or finger-pointing. The swamp of corruption and malaise within our government requires draining, not mere change of guards or partisan rhetoric. Pierre Poilievre and his team, along with every conscientious lawmaker and citizen, must grab their metaphorical shovels. It’s time to excavate the entrenched bog of mismanagement and cleanse the festering wound of corruption that plagues our country.
Let this be a call to action: a plea for transparency, accountability, and genuine reform. For the health of our democracy, for the integrity of our institutions, and for the well-being of every Canadian, the time to act is now. Let’s unite in this critical endeavor to rejuvenate our system, to transform it into one that truly serves, protects, and represents us all.
For the full experience subscribe to The Opposition with Dan Knight .
From the Daily Caller News Foundation
By J.D. Foster
Trump should insist on these measures and order that unless they are carried out the United States will not participate in NATO. If Canada is allowed entry to the Brussels headquarters, then United States representatives would stay out.
Steps Trump Could Take To Get NATO Free Riders Off America’s Back
In thinking about NATO, one has to ask: “How stupid do they think we are?”
The “they,” of course, are many of the other NATO members, and the answer is they think we are as stupid as we have been for the last quarter century. As President-elect Donald Trump observed in his NBC interview, NATO “takes advantage of the U.S.”
Canada is among the “they.” In November, The Economist reported that Canada spends about 1.3% of GDP on defense. The ridiculously low NATO minimum is 2%. Not to worry, though, Premier Justin Trudeau promises Canada will hit 2% — by 2032.
A quarter of NATO’s 32 members fall short of the 2% minimum. The con goes like this: We are short now, but we will get there eventually. Trust us, wink, wink.
The United States has put up with this nonsense from some members since the collapse of the Soviet Union. That is how stupid we have been.
Trump once threatened to pull the United States out of NATO, then he suggested the United States might not come to the defense of a NATO member like Canada. Naturally, free-riding NATO members grumbled.
In another context, former Army Lt. Gen. Russell Honore famously outlined the first step in how the United States should approach NATO: Don’t get stuck on stupid.
NATO is a coalition of mutual defense. Members who contribute little to the mutual defense are useless. Any country not spending its 2% of GDP on defense by mid-year 2025 should see its membership suspended immediately.
What does suspended mean? Consequences. Its military should not be permitted to participate in any NATO planning or exercises. And its offices at NATO headquarters and all other NATO facilities should be shuttered and its citizens banned until such time as their membership returns to good standing. And, of course, the famous Article V assuring mutual defense would be suspended.
Further, Trump should insist on these measures and order that unless they are carried out the United States will not participate in NATO. If Canada is allowed entry to the Brussels headquarters, then United States representatives would stay out.
Nor should he stop there. The 2% threshold would be fine in a world at peace with no enemies lurking. That does not describe the world today. Trump should declare the threshold for avoiding membership suspension will be 2.5% in 2026 and 3% by 2028 – not 2030 as some suggest.
The purpose is not to destroy NATO, but to force NATO to be relevant. America needs strong defense partners who pull their weight, not defense welfare queens. If NATO’s members cannot abide by these terms, then it is time to move on and let NATO go the way of the League of Nations.
Trump may need to take the lead in creating a new coalition of those willing to defend Western values. As he did in rewriting the former U.S.-Mexico-Canada trade agreement, it may be time to replace a defective arrangement with a much better one.
This still leaves the problem of free riders. Take Belgium, for example, another security free rider. Suppose a new defense coalition arises including the United States and Poland and others bordering Russia. Hiding behind the coalition’s protection, Belgium could just quit all defense spending to focus on making chocolates.
This won’t do. The members of the new defense coalition must also agree to impose a tariff regime on the security free riders to help pay for the defense provided.
The best solution is for NATO to rise to our mutual security challenges. If NATO can’t do this, then other arrangements will be needed. But it is time to move on from stupid.
J.D. Foster is the former chief economist at the Office of Management and Budget and former chief economist and senior vice president at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. He now resides in relative freedom in the hills of Idaho.
From LifeSiteNews
A Pre-Budget Consultations in Advance of the 2025 Budget report recommends no longer providing charitable status to anti-abortion organizations and amending the Income Tax Act to remove the privileged status of ‘advancement of religion’ as a charitable purpose.
In 2022, I wrote an essay titled “What is coming next for Canadian churches?” In that essay, as well as in my recent book How We Got Here, I noted that as Canada shifted from being a post-Christian society to an increasingly anti-Christian one, Christian churches and organizations will inevitably lose tax-exempt or charitable status:
Churches and other religious institutions that refuse to bend the knee will likely lose their tax-exempt status at some point. Canadian LGBT activists have been making this case for years, and it is only a matter of time before the idea catches on or — more likely — a progressive politician decides that the time is right. I suspect that a key reason this has not yet been discussed is the awkward fact that many non-Christian institutions hold similar positions on marriage, sexuality, and abortion. That said, I have no doubt that a way to target churches specifically will be worked out. LGBT activists are already asking why the government is “rewarding bigotry” by awarding tax-exempt status to churches with a traditional view of sexuality, and LGBT activists have publicized sermons they disagree with as evidence of hatred. The churches and the state are on a collision course, and it isn’t hard to guess how this will end.
We may be seeing the first move in that direction. With the Christmas season upon us and Ottawa in chaos, few Canadians noticed the government’s publication of “Pre-Budget Consultations In Advance of the 2025 Budget,” the report of the Standing Committee on Finance. The report of annual pre-budget consultations included 462 recommendations that have been tabled and, according to the Standing Committee, will be taken into account by “the Minister of Finance in the development of the 2025 federal budget” (which, if Trudeau is still in power, will be Dominic LeBlanc).
Two recommendations included in that report are deeply concerning, and the Christian Legal Fellowship has written to both the Minister of Finance and the Finance Committee Chair Peter Fonseca to express that concern:
Recommendation 429: No longer provide charitable status to anti-abortion organizations.
Recommendation 430: Amend the Income Tax Act to provide a definition of a charity which would remove the privileged status of ‘advancement of religion’ as a charitable purpose.
Those two recommendations, of course, were buried at the very end of the report. The first is unsurprising — Trudeau’s government is currently targeting crisis pregnancy centers that assist moms and babies in need, so it was inevitable that the government was eventually going to target local Right to Life organizations and other pro-life groups that still have charitable status. More brazen is the recommendation that the Income Tax Act be amended to eliminate “advancement of religion” as a charitable purpose — this could, according to the Christian Legal Fellowship, “have a devastating impact, not only on the 32,000+ religious charities in this country, but the millions of Canadians they serve.” CLF urged the government “to reject any such approach and clarify exactly what is being contemplated.” As CLF noted in their letter:
Religious charities account for nearly 40% of all charities in Canada, including churches, mosques, temples, synagogues, and other faith communities, operating programs such as soup kitchens, shelters, refugee homes, and food banks. They provide indispensable social, economic, and spiritual support, filling a significant gap in our communities and meeting the needs of millions of Canadians.
Suggesting that such organizations must do something other than “advance religion” to be considered charitable ignores the reality that these services are themselves the very manifestation of religious beliefs, inherent to and inextricable from the charity’s religion itself. It also betrays a long-standing recognition of the intrinsic goods provided by religious communities, who offer people hope, encouragement, and belonging in ways that simply cannot be quantified or replaced. Ultimately, any efforts to substitute their much-needed services would place an extraordinary strain on all levels of government.
I have no doubt that the Trudeau government is willing to purse these recommendations regardless; these plans, however, may be thwarted by the next election. Trudeau no doubt remembers the Canada Summer Jobs Program fight, when his government insisted that recipients sign an attestation of support for abortion and LGBT ideology and suddenly found themselves facing angry imams, rabbis, and other religious leaders instead of just the priests and pastors they’d assumed would be impacted. It seems unlikely that going after religious charities is a fight Trudeau wants now.
Trudeau will, however, be campaigning on abortion — it’s the wedge issue he returns to again and again as the PMO increasingly resembles Custer’s Last Stand. Thus, Recommendation 429 may be taken up sooner rather than later. Either way, these two recommendations are essentially a statement of purpose. The Liberals may not get to them just now, but be assured that this is what progressives intend to do just as soon as they get the chance.
Conservatives say Singh won’t help topple Trudeau government until after he qualifies for pension in late February
The CBC gets $1.4 billion per year, but the Trudeau government wants to give it more
Nearly half of non-terminally ill Canadians who choose euthanasia say they are lonely
‘Brought This On Ourselves’: Dem Predicts Massive Backlash After Party Leaders Exposed For ‘Lying’ About Biden Health
-
National1 day ago
Conservatives say Singh won’t help topple Trudeau government until after he qualifies for pension in late February
-
Daily Caller2 days ago
‘Brought This On Ourselves’: Dem Predicts Massive Backlash After Party Leaders Exposed For ‘Lying’ About Biden Health
-
National2 days agoWhen is the election!? Singh finally commits and Poilievre asks Governor General to step in
-
Daily Caller21 hours agoLNG Farce Sums Up Four Years Of Ridiculous Biden Energy Policy
-
National2 days agoCanadian town appeals ruling that forces them to pay LGBT group over ‘pride’ flag dispute
-
National22 hours ago
Canadian gov’t budget report targets charitable status of pro-life groups, churches
-
Alberta2 days agoFree Alberta Strategy trying to force Trudeau to release the pension calculation
-
Frontier Centre for Public Policy23 hours agoChristmas: As Canadian as Hockey and Maple Syrup