Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

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 .

 

National

Women and girls beauty pageant urges dismissal of transgender human rights complaint

Published on

Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms

There has not been a human rights case in Canada that has dealt with whether children’s emotional, mental, and physical safety should take precedence over a transwoman’s desire to access a female changeroom.

The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms announces that Canada Galaxy Pageants (CGP), a beauty competition based in Mississauga, Ontario, continues to face a drawn-out human rights complaint filed in 2019 by Ms. Jessica Yaniv (also known as Ms. Jessica Simpson). Despite repeated delays, missed deadlines, and inadequate filings by Ms. Simpson, the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (Tribunal) has allowed the case to continue—imposing years of uncertainty, stress, and reputational harm on pageant activities and its organizers.

On July 8, 2025, lawyers provided by the Justice Centre wrote to the Tribunal requesting that the complaint against the pageant be dismissed.

The conflict began in 2019, when Ms. Jessica Simpson (identifying at the time as Ms. Jessica Yaniv) was asked whether she had fully transitioned to female prior to competing in a CGP beauty pageant. Ms. Simpson refused to answer and filed a complaint with the Tribunal, seeking $10,000 in damages for “injury to dignity and feelings” and a ruling against the pageant that it must allow biological males to participate alongside biological females and young girls.

CPG pageants are private events that include female competitors as young as six years old, and require participants to change together backstage.

The pageant has a policy of accommodating fully transitioned transgender women, but has expressed safety and privacy concerns about allowing individuals with intact male genitals to access these female-only spaces.

There has not been a human rights case in Canada that has dealt with whether children’s emotional, mental, and physical safety should take precedence over a transwoman’s desire to access a female changeroom.

In January 2025, the Tribunal directed both parties to file hearing materials. While the pageant complied, submitting nine witness statements, including from concerned parents, Ms. Simpson repeatedly failed to meet deadlines and produced inadequate submissions. Ms. Simpson was nevertheless granted multiple extensions, but still failed to submit a proper case summary or witness list beyond naming her own mother.

The Tribunal has not yet indicated whether it will proceed to a hearing or will finally dismiss the claim.

Constitutional lawyer Allison Pejovic stated, “This beauty pageant has already made reasonable accommodations for fully transitioned transgender females without male genitals.”

“It is imperative that biological women and girls have safe, secure, female-only places where they won’t have to worry about seeing male genitals, or about having individuals with male genitals looking at them,” Ms. Pejovic continued. “Little girls should not be exposed to male genitals. Period.”

Canada Galaxy Pageants continues to express gratitude for the legal support it has received from the Justice Centre.

The Tribunal is expected to decide in the coming weeks whether it will finally dismiss the complaint or extend further leniency to Ms. Simpson.

Continue Reading

National

How Long Will Mark Carney’s Post-Election Honeymoon Last? – Michelle Rempel Garner

Published on

From Energy Now

By Michelle Rempel Garner

Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney seems to be enjoying a bit of a post-election honeymoon period with voters. This is a normal phenomenon in Canadian politics – our electorate tends to give new leaders the benefit of the doubt for a time after their election.


Get the Latest Canadian Focused Energy News Delivered to You! It’s FREE: Quick Sign-Up Here


So the obvious question that arises in this circumstance is, how long will it last?

I’ve had a few people ask me to speculate about that over the last few weeks. It’s not an entirely straightforward question to answer, because external factors often need to be considered. However, leaders have a lot of control too, and on that front, questions linger about Mark Carney’s long-term political acumen. So let’s start there.

Having now watched the man in action for a hot minute, there seems to be some legs to the lingering perception that, as a political neophyte, Mr. Carney struggles to identify and address political challenges. In the over 100 days that he’s now been in office, he’s laid down some proof points on this front.

For starters, Mr. Carney seems to not fully grasp that his post-election honeymoon is unfolding in a starkly different political landscape than that of his predecessor in 2015. When former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau secured a majority government, he inherited a balanced federal budget, a thriving economy, and a stable social fabric from the prior Conservative government. These favorable conditions gave Trudeau the time and flexibility to advance his political agenda. By contrast, Canadians today are grappling with crises in affordability, employment, and crime – issues that were virtually non-existent in 2015. As a result, public patience with a new political leader may wear thin much more quickly now than it did a decade ago.

So in that, Carney doesn’t have much time to make material progress on longstanding irritants like crime and affordability, but to date, he really hasn’t. In fact, he hasn’t even dedicated much space in any of his daily communications to empathizing with the plight of the everyday Canadian, eschewing concern for bread and butter issues for colder corporate speak. So if predictions about a further economic downturn in the fall ring true, he may not have the longer term political runway Justin Trudeau once had with the voting public, which doesn’t bode well for his long term favourables.

Carney’s apparent unease with retail politics won’t help him on that front, either. For example, at the Calgary Stampede, while on the same circuit, I noticed him spending the bulk of his limited time at events – even swish cocktail receptions – visibly eyeing the exit, surrounded by an entourage of fartcatchers whose numbers would have made even Trudeau blush. Unlike Trudeau, whose personal charisma secured three election victories despite scandals, Carney struggles to connect with a crowd. This political weakness may prove fatal to his prospects for an extended honeymoon, even with the Liberal brand providing cover.

It’s also too early to tell if Carney has anyone in his inner circle capable of grasping these concepts. That said, leaders typically don’t cocoon themselves away from people who will give blunt political assessments until the very end of their tenures when their political ends are clear to everyone but them. Nonetheless, Carney seems to have done exactly that, and compounded the problem of his lack of political acumen, by choosing close advisors who have little retail political experience themselves. While some have lauded this lack of political experience as a good thing, not having people around the daily table or group chat who can interject salient points about how policy decisions will impact the lives of day to day Canadians probably won’t help Carney slow the loss of his post-election shine.

Further proof to this point are the post-election grumblings that have emerged from the Liberal caucus. Unlike Trudeau, who started his premiership with an overwhelming majority of his caucus having been freshly elected, Carney has a significant number of old hands in his caucus who carry a decade of internal drama, inflated sense of worth, and personal grievances amongst them. As a political neophyte, Carney not only has to prove to the Canadian public that he has the capacity to understand their plight, he also has to do the same for his caucus, whose support he will uniformly need to pass legislation in a minority Parliament.

To date, Carney has not been entirely successful on that front. In crafting his cabinet, he promoted weak caucus members into key portfolios like immigration, kept loose cannons in places where they can cause a lot of political damage (i.e. Steven Guilbeaut in Heritage), unceremoniously dumped mavericks who possess big social media reach without giving them a task to keep them occupied, and passed over senior members of the caucus who felt they should either keep their jobs or have earned a promotion after carrying water for a decade. Underestimating the ability of a discontented caucus to derail a leader’s political agenda – either by throwing a wrench into the gears of Parliamentleaking internal drama to media, or underperformance – is something that Carney doesn’t seem to fully grasp. Said differently, Carney’s (in)ability to manage his caucus will have an impact on how long the shine stays on him.

Mark Carney’s honeymoon as a public figure also hinges upon his (arguably hilarious) assumption that the federal public service operates in the same way that private sector businesses do. Take for example, a recent (and hamfistedly) leaked headline, proactively warning senior public servants that he might fire them. In the corporate world, where bonuses and promotions are tied to results, such conditions are standard (and in most cases, entirely reasonable). Yet, after a decade of Liberal government expansion and lax enforcement of performance standards, some bureaucrats have grown accustomed to and protective of Liberal slipshod operating standards. Carney may not yet understand that many of these folks will happily leak sensitive information or sabotage policy reforms to preserve their status quo, and that both elegance and political will is required to enact change within the Liberal’s bloated government.

On that front, Mr. Carney has already gained a reputation for being dismissive and irritable with various players in the political arena. While this quick-tempered demeanor may have remained understated during his relatively brief ascent to the Prime Minister’s office, continued impatience could soon become a prominent issue for both him and his party. Whether dismissing reporters or publicly slighting senior cabinet members, if Carney sustains this type of arrogance and irritability he won’t be long for the political world. Without humility, good humor, patience, and resilience he won’t be able to convince voters, the media, the bureaucracy, and industry to support his governing agenda.

But perhaps the most important factor in judging how long Mr. Carney’s honeymoon will last is that to date he has shown a striking indifference to nuclear-grade social policy files like justice, immigration, and public safety. His appointment of underperforming ministers to these critical portfolios and the absence of a single government justice bill in Parliament’s spring session – despite crime being a major voter concern – is a big problem. Carney himself rarely addresses these issues – likely due to a lack of knowledge and care – leaving them to the weakest members of his team. None of this points to long term political success for Carney.

So Mr. Carney needs to understand that Canadians are not sterile, esoteric units to be traded in a Bay Street transaction. They are real people living real lives, with real concerns that he signed up to address. He also needs to understand that politics (read, the ability to connect with one’s constituents and deliver for them) isn’t an avocation – it’s a learned skill of which he is very much still a novice practitioner.

Honeymoon or not, these laws of political gravity that Mr. Carney can’t avoid for long, particularly with an effective opposition litigating his government’s failures.

In that, I think the better question is not if Mark Carney can escape that political gravity well, but whether he’ll stick around once his ship inevitably gets sucked into it.

Only time – and the country’s fortunes under his premiership – will tell.

Continue Reading

Trending

X