Connect with us

National

CBSA Union president – ArriveCan wasn’t needed

Published

11 minute read

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 .

 

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

National

Canada’s Digital ID Drama Heats Up as Regulators Sidestep Parliament

Published on

From Reclaim The Net

By

These dangers range from data security, and cost of implementation, to various ways centralized databases containing people’s most sensitive personal information can be abused.

And those, again, range from security – to the risk of digital IDs getting turned into effective tools for government mass surveillance and control of the entire population’s behavior.

Canadian regulators plan to move ahead with introducing national digital ID without the parliament’s involvement.

Leaving the process out of the parliament in terms of approval and oversight is sure to add to the existing controversy around the issue of digital ID, which was in the past criticized and even rejected precisely by a number of Canadian MPs and parliamentary committees.

On the other hand, this might explain why the regulators might rather take a route bypassing the lawmakers, despite the risky – in terms of proper democratic process – nature of such maneuvering.

Critics are now calling this (another) example of Canada’s Liberal government’s overreach.

Reports about these goings-on are based on Shared Services Canada (SSC), a government IT agency, recently announcing how the work on setting up a digital ID system for the whole country was progressing, while presenting this as essentially no different than current forms of obligatory ID (for instance, Canada’s equivalent to the social security number in the US).

But opponents in the parliament, and beyond, have been consistently for years reiterating that the scheme is fraught with dangers that are not comparable to those affecting traditional ID systems, neither in depth nor breadth.

These dangers range from data security, and cost of implementation, to various ways centralized databases containing people’s most sensitive personal information can be abused.

And those, again, range from security – to the risk of digital IDs getting turned into effective tools for government mass surveillance and control of the entire population’s behavior.

But SSC and other digital ID backers address these issues almost in passing while selling the benefits to the public as more convenience via unified access to government services, and even as something “empowering” citizens.

However, what the most prominent individuals and organizations that push for global digital ID adoption (like Bill Gates, Tony Blair, the EU, and the WEF…) present as a way to usher in more equity and equality is seen as creating exactly the opposite effect.

“Segregation and discrimination” is how one report out of Canada put it, the context being recent: Covid vaccine “passports” and the treatment received by citizens who decided against taking the jab.

Continue Reading

Alberta

Media melts down as Danielle Smith moves to end ‘transitioning’ of children in Alberta

Published on

From LifeSiteNews

By Jonathon Van Maren

After Alberta’s Danielle Smith put forth legislation to protect kids from being gender ‘transitioned,’ the Canadian media went on a predictable melt down, citing ‘experts’ who blatantly lie to advance the LGBT agenda.

A year after announcing her intention to combat transgender ideology and protect children, Alberta Premier Danielle Smith has tabled three pieces of UCP (United Conservative Party) government legislation: 

  • The Education Amendment Act 2024 will require parental consent for “socially transitioning” children under the age of 16 (changing a child’s name or “preferred pronouns”). The bill also gives parents an “opt-in” option for any sexual or content at school. Smith has emphasized that the Alberta Teaching Profession Commission has the power to discipline teachers if they decide to break the law. 
  • The Health Statues Amendment Act 2024 will ban the use of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones for minors, as well as prohibit sex change surgeries on minors. 
  • The Fairness and Safety in Sport Act will ban trans-identifying men from female sports teams.  

Together, these three bills represent the most definitive pushback against gender ideology in Canada by any premier. Smith’s decision to announce her intent to pursue such legislation and then wait has turned out to be politically savvy—it has given the UCP government a good look at the LGBT response, and during that time the U.K.’s Labour government has successfully fought to maintain a similar ban in the courts and publicly rebutted many of the scare tactics used by LGBT activists.

Smith and the UCP are thus walking into this debate with eyes wide open, and are clearly certain that the public is on their side (it is) and that the legislation can survive the court challenges surely coming from LGBT activists. The policies are clearly popular with the UCP party’s base, who handed Smith a staggering 91.5% approval rating in her leadership review at UCP gathering in Red Deer last Saturday.  

The party also passed 35 policy resolutions, including several that indicate the UCP’s willingness to go further in fighting transgender ideology, with resolutions that would restrict “exclusively female spaces” like bathrooms and changerooms to females and designating transgender surgeries as “elective cosmetic procedures” not funded by the taxpayer. The motions received near-unanimous support.  

The Canadian press, unsurprisingly, is working hard to present policies that the vast majority of Canadians support as an attack on fundamental norms (albeit norms that only surfaced in the last few years and were never presented to voters). Global News ran the headline: “Alberta unveils 3 sweeping bills affecting trans and gender-diverse youth.” It is important to note that the press accepts the premises of transgender ideology as the starting point for their reporting, with heavy usage of nonsensical phrases like “gender-diverse youth,” which implies that there are many genders. 

In fact, Global News and other Canadian outlets trotted out talking points that have been definitively rebutted by the U.K.’s Cass Review and multiple medical studies—in fact, even the New York Times has been reporting on the permanent harms of puberty blockers over the past several years. An example from Global News: 

Alberta parents of gender-diverse youth like Haley Wray believe the new laws will give kids less choice — especially when it comes to health-care that is not permanent but instead, gives kids time to work through their identity struggles. 

‘Hormone blockers are a very valuable tool,’ Wray said, explaining they have a very small window of effectiveness to pause, but not prevent, puberty. ‘It is reversible because nothing changes. And what that does is it allows youth and families to have that that pause, that break to explore further, validate, understand what this means and know that permanent changes aren’t happening.’

Wray believes the proposed legislation will make the province a less safe place for tens of thousands of Alberta kids who aren’t straight. It’s why, Wray says, a growing number of families with transgender children are now grappling with whether Alberta is a place they can stay. ‘I know people who have, and I know people who genuinely feel like there is likely nowhere to go,’ she said. 

This is incorrect. Puberty blockers cause permanent damage, and children may be rendered permanently sterile after taking them for a relatively short period of time. Puberty is not something that can be “paused,” and it frequently causes irreversible rather than reversible damage. Smith and her government understand this, which is why they have decided to pass this legislation—not, as nearly every press outlet claimed, to “target trans youth,” but to protect them. 

The CBC chimed in with sentences like this one: 

Terms like ‘biological female’ and ‘biological male’ can be used to imply that transgender people are still their assigned sex at birth, despite their identity. 

To translate: a scientifically accurate and precise statement is now an ideological one, but inherently ideological language invented by the transgender movement over the past decade is, in fact, technically accurate. People can identify as anything they want; it is irrelevant to their biology. The CBC presents pointing this out as some sort of propagandistic attack on vulnerable people. 

Featured Image

Jonathon’s writings have been translated into more than six languages and in addition to LifeSiteNews, has been published in the National PostNational ReviewFirst Things, The Federalist, The American Conservative, The Stream, the Jewish Independent, the Hamilton SpectatorReformed Perspective Magazine, and LifeNews, among others. He is a contributing editor to The European Conservative.

His insights have been featured on CTV, Global News, and the CBC, as well as over twenty radio stations. He regularly speaks on a variety of social issues at universities, high schools, churches, and other functions in Canada, the United States, and Europe.

He is the author of The Culture WarSeeing is Believing: Why Our Culture Must Face the Victims of AbortionPatriots: The Untold Story of Ireland’s Pro-Life MovementPrairie Lion: The Life and Times of Ted Byfield, and co-author of A Guide to Discussing Assisted Suicide with Blaise Alleyne.

Jonathon serves as the communications director for the Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform.

Continue Reading

Trending

X