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

2025 Federal Election

Post election…the chips fell where they fell

Published on

William Lacey's avatar William Lacey

I put a lot of personal energy into this election, trying to understand why it was that Canadians so wholeheartedly endorsed Mark Carney as their new leader, despite the fact that it was the same party who caused irreparable economic harm to the economy, and he has a similar philosophical outlook to the core outlook of the party. I truly believe that we have moved to a phase in our electoral process where, until something breaks, left leaning ideology will trump the day (pun intended).

Coming out of this election I have three questions.

1. What of Pierre Poilievre? The question for Conservatives is whether the wolves feed on the carcass of Poilievre (in my opinion the worst enemy of a Conservative is a Conservative) and initiate the hunt for a new leader (if they do, I believe the future should be led by a woman – Melissa Lantsman or possibly Caroline Mulroney), or does Poilievre move to Alberta and run for a “safe” seat to get back into the House of Commons, change his tone, and show people he too can be Prime Ministerial? His concession speech gives clues to this.

2. What of Mark Carney? Maybe (hopefully) Carney will see the light and try to bring the nation together, as there is an obvious east-west split in the country in terms of politics. Time will tell, and minority governments need to be cautious. Will we have a Supply and Confidence 2.0 or will we see olive branches extended?

3. What of the House of Commons? As I have mentioned previously, there has been discussion that the House of Commons may not sit until after the summer break, meaning that the House of Commons really will not have conducted any business in almost a year by the time it reconveens. If indeed “we are in the worst crisis of our lives” as Prime Minister Carney campaigned on, then should we not have the House of Commons sit through the summer? After all, the summer break usually is for politicians to go back to their ridings and connect with their constituents, but if an election campaign doesn’t constitute connecting, what does?

Regardless, as the election is behind us, we now need to see what comes. I will try to be hopeful, but remain cautious. May Canada have better days ahead.

Thanks for reading William’s Substack!

Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.

Continue Reading

2025 Federal Election

In Defeat, Joe Tay’s Campaign Becomes a Flashpoint for Suspected Voter Intimidation in Canada

Published on

Sam Cooper's avatar Sam Cooper

Canadian police initiated review of campaign complaint.

In one of the most closely scrutinized races of Canada’s 2025 federal election, Joseph Tay—the Conservative candidate identified by federal authorities as the target of aggressive Chinese election interference operations—was defeated Monday night in Don Valley North by Liberal Maggie Chi, following a campaign marred by threats, suspected intimidation, and digital suppression efforts.

The Bureau has learned that Canadian police last week reviewed complaints alleging that members of Tay’s campaign team were shadowed in an intimidating manner while canvassing in the final days of the race. The status of the incident review remains unclear.

With over 20,000 votes—a 43 percent share compared to 53 percent for Liberal Maggie Chi—Tay nearly doubled the Conservative Party’s 2021 vote total of 12,098 in this riding.

Last Monday, federal intelligence officials disclosed that Tay was the subject of a highly coordinated transnational repression operation tied to the People’s Republic of China. The campaign aimed to discredit his candidacy and suppress Chinese Canadian voters’ access to his messaging through cyber and information operations.

That same day, federal police advised Tay to suspend door-to-door canvassing, according to two sources with direct knowledge, citing safety concerns. Several days later, Tay’s campaign reported to police that a man had been trailing a door-knocking team in a threatening manner in a Don Valley North neighbourhood.

Following The Bureau’s reporting, the New York Times wrote on Sunday: “Fearing for his safety, Mr. Tay… has waged perhaps the quietest campaign of any candidate competing in the election. The attacks on Mr. Tay have sought to influence the outcome of the race in Don Valley North, a district with a large Chinese diaspora in Toronto, in what is the most vote-rich region in Canada.”

In a twist, in neighbouring Markham–Unionville, Peter Yuen—the Liberal candidate who replaced former MP Paul Chiang, who had made controversial remarks about Tay being turned over to Chinese officials—was defeated by Conservative candidate Michael Ma. According to Elections Canada’s results, Ma secured the riding by about 2,000 votes.

Tay and his campaign team had conducted extensive groundwork in Markham–Unionville earlier this year, where he publicly announced his intention to seek the Conservative nomination in January. However, the party ultimately assigned him on March 24 to Don Valley North—a riding that, according to the 2024 report of the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians (NSICOP), was the site of serious foreign interference by the People’s Republic of China during the 2019 election.

At 2 a.m., Tay posted a message to X thanking supporters: “By God’s grace, though we did not win tonight, we have already won something far greater—the courage to stand, to speak, and to dream together.”

Signaling he may run again, Tay added: “Our journey does not end here. I remain committed to upholding Canadian values—freedom, respect, and community—and will continue to serve and help build a wholesome, principled community in every way I can.”

Last Monday, SITE—Canada’s election-threat monitoring task force—confirmed that Tay was the target of a coordinated online disinformation campaign, warning in briefing materials that “this was not about a single post” but a “deliberate, persistent campaign” designed to distort visibility and suppress legitimate discourse among Chinese-speaking voters.

The tactics bore striking resemblance to interference allegations uncovered by The Bureau during the 2021 federal election, when Conservative MP Bob Saroya was unseated in Markham–Unionville amid allegations that operatives linked to the Chinese government had shadowed Saroya, surveilled his campaign, and sought to intimidate voters. Senior Conservative officials said CSIS provided briefings at the time warning of what they described as “coordinated and alarming” surveillance efforts.

In Tay’s case, official sources confirmed that Chinese-language platforms circulated disinformation framing him as a fugitive, invoking his Hong Kong National Security Law bounty—set at $180,000 CAD—to portray his candidacy as a threat to Canada.

Earlier this month, The Bureau reported that former Liberal MP Paul Chiang—who defeated Conservative incumbent Bob Saroya in 2021—withdrew as a candidate after the RCMP opened a review into remarks he made suggesting that Joe Tay’s election could spark “great controversy” for Canada because of Hong Kong’s national security charges, and that Tay could be handed over to the Chinese consulate to collect a bounty. Chiang later apologized, describing the comments as a poorly judged joke. However, prominent diaspora organizations and human rights groups condemned the remarks as a disturbing example of rhetoric echoing transnational repression.

According to SITE assessments reviewed by The Bureau, coordinated suppression efforts were particularly acute in Don Valley North, where Tay’s online visibility was sharply curtailed across Chinese-language social media ecosystems.

The status of the RCMP’s review into Chiang’s remarks—and a separate complaint to Toronto police alleging that Tay’s campaign staff may have been intimidated while canvassing—remains unclear.

With Mark Carney’s Liberals securing a narrow minority and Canada’s political landscape growing increasingly polarized—against the backdrop of an intensifying cold war between Washington and Beijing—some pundits predict voters could be heading back to the polls sooner than expected. Whether election threat reviewers will now dig deeper into China’s suspected interference in this and other ridings remains an open question.

Continue Reading

Trending

X