TORONTO —
A group of about 5,000 strangers, divided by borders but united in their shared grief and frustration over rigid travel restrictions, are calling for changes that would allow loved ones to enter Canada while still adhering to safety measures put in place at the height of the pandemic.
But for Mary House Goldman, a 60-year-old Toronto resident, the regulatory changes may not come in time.
Goldman has been trying to help her 62-year-old brother cross the U.S.-Canada border so that he can say goodbye to their mother, who is currently in palliative care.
She told CTV News Toronto that last weekend, her 85-year-old mother had difficulty swallowing and was brought to the hospital. After a number of tests were conducted, it was determined that she has a “large mass” on the left side of her brain.
The family was told she had months, maybe weeks to live.
“Now it’s even more urgent that my brother comes here now,” Goldman said. “He would very much like to see my mom before she passes.”
Goldman said that her brother is an American citizen and has been living in relative self-isolation for months after undergoing a spinal cord surgery in February. She has been trying to contact officials at the Canadian Border Service Agency (CBSA) as well as her local MP in order to get a travel exemption.
“It’s been tough for him, emotionally and psychologically, because he’s had to heal from a traumatic surgery without his family around him,” Goldman said. “Then he’s had to deal with the idea that my mom might pass and he may not get to see her before she passes. And he may not be able to grieve with us either.”
Under the current exemptions, which were put in place by the federal government in June, immediate family members of citizens or permanent residents can enter Canada. Those eligible under the exemption include spouses, common-law partners, dependent children and their children, parents, as well as legal guardians or “tutors.”
Committed partners who may not apply for common-law status, as well as adult children and siblings, are not included under the exemption.
Goldman is one of thousands who are asking the federal government to change those rules. She is part of “Advocacy for Family Reunification at the Canadian Border,” a group that has released a policy proposal and family reunification quarantine plan they hope will convince officials to make slight tweaks to the rules so that family members are able to see each other.
‘We are not asking for open borders’
“Advocacy for Family Reunification at the Canadian Border” was co-founded by 34-year-old Dr. David Edward-Ooi Poon after his partner arrived at Toronto Pearson International Airport only to be sent back home to Dublin, Ireland.
Poon was living in Dublin when the pandemic was declared. The couple had contacted numerous embassies in order to ensure they would be considered as common-law partners and had the right documentation to travel. Poon said they were told there shouldn’t be any problems and that they would be exempt from the travel restrictions put in place.
In March, Poon travelled back to Canada with the expectation that his partner, Alexandria Aquino, who is a nurse, would follow in April.
That was the last time Poon saw her.
Aquino managed to get to Toronto Pearson Airport with her documentation–including a negative COVID-19 test, proof the couple had lived together and a specialized document saying she was exempt from the travel restrictions–but when she arrived, a border agent said that she didn’t meet their criteria for a common-law relationship.
She was told to get back on a plane that same day.
“That broke my heart,” Poon said on the phone, his voice shaking as he added that there are people so much worse off.
“She and I are lucky. I don’t, knock on wood, I don’t have cancer. She’s not a breastfeeding mother. But so many people are. And that’s why she and I co-founded ‘Advocacy for Family Reunification at the Canadian Border,’ because this is wrong.”
He mentioned the case of Sarah Campbell, who lives in Stratford, Ont. and was diagnosed with thyroid cancer. Her fiancé is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Poon said he has been denied an exemption to go see her.
Campbell, who as a Canadian citizen, could travel to the U.K. under federal rules but is stuck in Canada while she undergoes treatment. She had surgery last week.
Poon made it clear that the advocacy group does not want to open up borders to non-essential or “discretionary” travel. They just want to change the exemptions, with added public health measures in place, to ensure safe reunification of families.
“Our motto is: ‘We are not asking for open borders, we are just asking to come together,’” Poon said.
The group’s policy proposal, entitled “Love is not Tourism,” hinges on four specific changes that would allow foreign nationals to reunite with their families in a way that is both safe and accessible. Following the expansion of the definition of immediate family member, they propose the following:
The Canadian family member must sign a legally-binding affidavit attesting to the familial relationship and taking legal and financial responsibility for the actions of the foreign national coming into the country. The group argues that this can be enforced by fines and/or incarceration if necessary,
Foreign nationals must provide proof of health coverage or travel insurance to cross the border or the Canadian party will have to agree to be financially responsible for any health-related costs, such as taking a COVID-19 tests, they may incur.
If feasible, the foreign national would take a COVID-19 test and if it comes up positive, they shall voluntarily and without question withdraw their application to enter Canada.
The Order in Council mandating that foreign nationals need to come to Canada for a minimum of 15 days to allow for 14 days of self-isolation should be changed to allow for shorter visits, as long as the visitor remains in self-isolation for the entirety of their trip. However, the Canadian family member in contact with the foreign national would continue to quarantine for the full 14 days as a precaution.
The policy proposal argues that the current exemptions are discriminatory based on marital status and that the mandated 14-day quarantine period may not be feasible for many due to their economic situations or familial responsibilities.
Poon said he has heard very little from the federal government about his proposal, despite the fact that they have an official petition signed by 5,338 Canadian citizens or permanent residents expected to be presented to the House of Commons this week.
Is the plan safe?
The policy proposal was created in consultation with Toronto epidemiologist and assistant professor at University of Toronto’s Faculty of Information Colin Furness.
Furness said the proposal put forward by Poon “is very sound,” adding that there is always going to be an element of risk when crossing a border amid the pandemic.
“I think it’s a big blind spot,” he said of the government’s limited family exemptions. “I don’t think anyone made a conscious decision that non-common law spouses … can’t reunite, I really think they fell through the cracks.”
“I’m not going to say travel is safe,” he added. “But it’s not for me to say that family shouldn’t be reunited.”
The idea of having the Canadian family member sign a legally-binding document attesting to their relationship and taking responsibility that the visitor will follow quarantine rules is a game changer, Furness argued, and should encourage legitimate travel. He also added that the changes to the quarantine rules—allowing a foreign national to leave the country earlier than 15 days while the Canadian family remains in self-isolation—doesn’t seem like “a dilution” of the current policy and “maintains the spirit of what the 14 days is supposed to do.”
THREAD: Reminder that Advocacy for Family Reunification at the Canadian Border advocates for committed couples + adult children of Canadians to be added into the border exemptions. We are NOT asking for open borders. We are just asking to be together. @BillBlair@PattyHajdu
— Dr. David Edward-Ooi Poon (@FacesofAdvocacy) August 9, 2020
The ban on non-essential travel between Canada and the United States was first introduced in March and has been continuously extended every month. The previous extension expires on Aug. 21.
Furness said that because the Canadian government is deciding to keep borders closed on a month-to-month basis, they may not be looking at the long-term ramifications of keeping the border closed.
“If you’re thinking that way, you don’t need to make provisions for separated families because it’s only going to be a month or more,” he said. “ But the reality, the unspoken reality, is that this is going to be a year or more. And when you have that kind of timeline, you need to start thinking about hardship, hardship from separation.”
Decisions made ‘at the discretion of the border services officer’
According to a CBSA spokesperson, the final decision of whether or not someone’s reason for crossing the border is “non-discretionary” or whether a relationship is considered common-law, is “made by a border services officer at the port of entry with the information presented upon time of entry to Canada.
“We recognize that these are difficult situations for some, however these are unprecedented times, and the measures imposed were done so in light of potential public health risks and to help reduce and manage the number of foreign travel-related cases of COVID-19,” Rebecca Purdy said.
Examples of non-discretionary travel provided by Purdy include economic services and supply chains, critical infrastructure and health supports, safety and security, the safety of an individual or family, and “other activities at the discretion of the border services officer.”
For those claiming they are in a common-law relationship, the onus is on the traveller to provide proof such as a joint lease, shared utility bills or other official documents with the same place of residence listed.
“There’s no consistent method of screening,” Poon said.
The inconsistency and lack of clarity in terms of the family exemptions is why Goldman’s brother hasn’t simply shown up at the border in an attempt to come into Canada—although it’s not something they are ruling out.
“Basically, they say, ‘well it’s up to the border agent,’” Goldman said. “If you get a compassionate one, you get through. If you get a, you know, a hard-ass one, you’re not.”
“We’re about to put together the whole package for him because he has to come to the border with all the documentation proving his family.”
Poon said that not everyone can afford to try their hand at crossing the border, especially those who have to take a plane to get into the country.
“If flying in from anywhere else in the world you’re spending $1,000 to gamble at the border and that is completely inappropriate and is completely inequitable to those who do not have the financial resources.”
LANGLEY, B.C. – Police in Langley, B.C., say one person is dead in a crash between a car and a motorcycle on Highway 1 that shut down the route for hours.
Mounties say their initial investigation indicates both vehicles were travelling east when they collided shortly before 4:20 a.m. near 240 Street on the highway.
The motorcycle rider died from their injuries.
Highway 1 was closed for a long stretch through Langley for about 11 hours while police investigated.
RCMP say their integrated collision analysis reconstruction team went to the scene.
The Mounties are asking anyone who witnessed the crash or who may have dash-camera footage from the area to call them.
This report by The Canadian Press was first published Sept. 19, 2024.
WINNIPEG – A court has been asked to declare Lake Winnipeg a person with constitutional rights to life, liberty and security of person in a case that may go further than any other in trying to establish the rights of nature in Canada.
“It really is that simple,” said Grand Chief Jerry Daniels of the Manitoba Southern Chiefs’ Organization, which filed the suit Thursday in Court of King’s Bench in Winnipeg.
“The lake has its own rights. The lake is a living being.”
The argument is being used to help force the provincial government to conduct an environmental assessment of how Manitoba Hydro regulates lake levels for power generation. Those licences come up for renewal in August 2026, and the chiefs argue that the process under which those licences were granted was outdated and inadequate.
They quote Manitoba’s Clean Environment Commission, which said in 2015 that the licences were granted on the basis of poor science, poor consultation and poor public accountability.
Meanwhile, the statement of claim says “the (plaintiffs) describe the lake’s current state as being so sick that she is dying.”
It describes a long list of symptoms.
Fish species have disappeared, declined, migrated or become sick and inedible, the lawsuit says. Birds and wildlife including muskrat, beavers, duck, geese, eagles and gulls are vanishing from the lake’s wetlands.
Foods and traditional medicines — weekay, bulrush, cattail, sturgeon and wild rice — are getting harder to find, the document says, and algae blooms and E. coli bacteria levels have increased.
Invasive species including zebra mussels and spiny water fleas are now common, the document says.
“In Anishinaabemowin, the (plaintiffs) refer to the water in Lake Winnipeg as moowaakamiim (the water is full of feces) or wiinaagamin (the water is polluted, dirty and full of garbage),” the lawsuit says.
It blames many of the problems on Manitoba Hydro’s management of the lake waters to prevent it flushing itself clean every year.
“She is unable to go through her natural cleansing cycle and becomes stagnant and struggles to sustain other beings like animals, birds, fish, plants and people,” the document says.
The defendants, Manitoba Hydro and the provincial government, have not filed statements of defence. Both declined to comment on the lawsuit.
Daniels said it makes sense to consider the vast lake — one of the world’s largest — as alive.
“We’re living in an era of reconciliation, there’s huge changes in the mindsets of regular Canadians and science has caught up a lot in understanding. It’s not a huge stretch to understand the lake as a living entity.”
The idea has been around in western science since the 1970s. The Gaia hypothesis, which remains highly disputed, proposed the Earth is a single organism with its own feedback loops that regulate conditions and keep them favourable to life.
The courts already recognize non-human entities such as corporations as persons.
Personhood has also been claimed for two Canadian rivers.
Quebec’s Innu First Nation have claimed that status for the Magpie River, and the Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation in Alberta is seeking standing for the Athabasca River in regulatory hearings. The Magpie’s status hasn’t been tested in court and Alberta’s energy regulator has yet to rule on the Athabasca.
Matt Hulse, a lawyer who argued the Athabasca River should be treated as a person, noted the Manitoba lawsuit quotes the use of “everyone” in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
“The term ‘everyone’ isn’t defined, which could help (the chiefs),” he said.
But the Charter typically focuses on individual rights, Hulse added.
“What they’re asking for is substantive rights to be given to a lake. What does ‘liberty’ mean to a lake?
“Those kinds of cases require a bit of a paradigm shift. I think the Southern Chiefs Organization will face an uphill battle.”
Hulse said the Manitoba case goes further than any he’s aware of in seeking legal rights for a specific environment.
Daniels said he believes the courts and Canadians are ready to recognize humans are not separate from the world in which they live and that the law should recognize that.
“We need to understand our lakes and our environment as something we have to live in cohesion with.”
This report by The Canadian Press was first published Sept. 19, 2024.
OTTAWA – MPs on the public safety and national security committee voted unanimously to launch an investigation into an alleged Russian ploy to dupe right-wing influencers into sowing division among Americans.
A U.S. indictment filed earlier this month charged two employees of RT, a Russian state-controlled media outlet, in a US$10-million scheme that purportedly used social media personalities to distribute content with Russian government messaging.
While not explicitly mentioned in court documents, the details match up with Tenet Media, founded by Canadian Lauren Chen and Liam Donovan, who is identified as her husband on social media.
The committee will invite Chen and Donovan to testify on the matter, as well as Lauren Southern, who is among the Tenet cast of personalities.
The motion, which was brought forward by Liberal MP Pam Damoff and passed on Thursday, also seeks to invite civil society representatives and disinformation experts on the matter.
Court documents allege the Russians created a fake investor who provided money to the social media company to hire the influencers, paying the founders significant fees, including through a company account in Canada.
The U.S. Justice Department doesn’t allege any wrongdoing by the influencers.
Following the indictment, YouTube removed several channels associated with Chen, including the Tenet Media channel.
This report by The Canadian Press was first published Sept. 19, 2024.
