Ottawa Spent $275 Million On Health Care For Rejected Asylum Claimants Since 2016

Canadian taxpayers have spent more than $275 million over the past decade providing health coverage to asylum seekers whose refugee claims were ultimately rejected, according to newly released federal figures.

The spending, disclosed by Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada in response to a parliamentary order paper question, covers the period from 2016-17 through 2024-25. It applies to claimants whose cases were denied by the Immigration and Refugee Board, but who continued receiving federally funded health benefits under the Interim Federal Health Program (IFHP).

The IFHP was created to provide temporary, limited health coverage to refugee claimants and other eligible non-citizens who are not yet covered by provincial or territorial health plans. It pays for essential medical care, including doctor visits, hospital services, and certain prescription medications.

What has drawn scrutiny is that eligibility for IFHP coverage can continue even after a refugee claim has been rejected. Under current rules, rejected claimants may remain covered while awaiting removal or while pursuing further legal avenues, such as a pre-removal risk assessment. In many cases, coverage only ends once the individual leaves Canada or becomes eligible for another public health plan.

The issue has become increasingly contentious as the overall cost of the program continues to rise alongside record levels of asylum claims and growing backlogs in the immigration system. Delays in processing mean many claimants remain in Canada—and on federally funded benefits—for extended periods, even after an initial rejection.

Critics argue that the arrangement places an added burden on taxpayers at a time when millions of Canadians struggle to access primary care. Supporters, however, contend that basic health coverage is necessary to protect public health and ensure humane treatment while legal processes are completed.

The federal government has already moved to curb rising costs. Beginning May 1, 2026, most IFHP beneficiaries will be required to contribute toward supplemental benefits, including prescription drugs, dental care, vision services, and counselling. Basic medical care, however, will remain fully covered.

The $275 million figure is likely to intensify debate over the balance between humanitarian obligations, fiscal responsibility, and the integrity of Canada’s immigration system. As asylum claims continue to climb, questions about the long-term sustainability of the program are unlikely to fade.

Canada Expands Military Recruitment To Non-Citizens

Canada’s armed forces are stepping up recruitment efforts, with permanent residents making up an increasingly significant share of new enrollees as the military works to address longstanding personnel shortages.

The Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) recently surpassed its annual recruitment target for the second consecutive year, enrolling more than 7,300 Regular Force members in 2025–26 — the strongest intake in more than 30 years. Of those, roughly 1,400 were permanent residents, a dramatic increase from previous years.

The surge reflects Ottawa’s push to rebuild military capacity amid rising global instability and growing defence commitments. For 2026–27, the CAF has raised its recruitment goal even further, aiming to bring in 8,200 new members.

To accelerate enrolment, the military has streamlined parts of its recruitment and screening process. While officials say these changes are intended to reduce delays and modernize onboarding, critics warn that speed must not come at the expense of rigorous standards, particularly when national security and operational readiness are at stake.

Concerns have also been raised about whether recruitment standards are being applied consistently. Some observers worry that pressure to meet ambitious targets could lead to a more flexible interpretation of entry requirements, especially for non-citizen applicants. Military leaders insist all recruits must still meet the CAF’s core standards for fitness, aptitude, security screening, and training.

Language proficiency is another important consideration. The CAF operates in both of Canada’s official languages, English and French, and effective communication is essential in training, operations, and emergency situations. While applicants are generally expected to be proficient in at least one official language, there have been questions about whether some recruits may begin the process with limited language skills, creating potential challenges during training and integration. In a military environment, clear communication is not simply an administrative requirement — it is a matter of safety, cohesion, and operational effectiveness.

Permanent residents are eligible to apply for more than 90 military occupations, although many specialized roles still require Canadian citizenship or a minimum period of residency before a recruit can become fully employable. In February, the CAF updated its eligibility rules, requiring permanent residents to have at least three years of physical presence in Canada before they can enrol.

Military officials maintain that once enrolled, permanent residents are held to the same professional, training, and performance standards as Canadian citizens. Still, the rapid expansion of non-citizen recruitment is likely to remain a subject of public debate as Canada works to rebuild and modernize its armed forces.

The challenge for the CAF will be balancing urgent recruitment needs with the high standards required of a modern military — ensuring that every new recruit, regardless of origin, is fully prepared to serve Canada effectively and safely.

Privy Council Office Faces Scrutiny Over Spending On Consultants, Luxury Services, And Staff Perks

The Privy Council Office is facing scrutiny after records revealed significant spending on consultants, luxury services, and discretionary perks—despite maintaining a large in-house workforce.

According to documents obtained through access-to-information requests, the department spent millions on outside contractors for work that overlaps with roles already performed by federal employees. In 2025 alone, the PCO spent $17.4 million on professional services, including $5.8 million on communications, marketing, financial, and strategic consulting, even though it employs roughly 320 staff in similar positions.

Additional expenditures raised eyebrows, including $12,900 for yoga instruction, $20,400 for limousine services, $136,290 on hotel accommodations, and $386,700 on office furniture. Records also show spending on specialty items such as ceremonial plaques, coins, crests, and artwork.

Critics argue the spending reflects an overreliance on external consultants and unnecessary luxuries at a time when Canadians are grappling with affordability challenges. The Canadian Taxpayers Federation has called on the federal government to rein in administrative spending and make better use of existing public service resources.

The controversy comes as Prime Minister Mark Carney has pledged to reduce government waste and curb the use of outside consultants. The latest figures are likely to intensify calls for greater oversight and accountability in federal spending.

Carney Government Urged To Tackle Federal Deficit And Repair Public Finances

Following a series of floor crossings and three recent byelection wins, the Carney government now holds a majority of seats in the House of Commons. This gives the prime minister and cabinet greater freedom to pass legislation and advance their agenda without needing support from opposition parties. Prime Minister Carney has said it is “time to get serious” about governing the country—raising expectations that the government will adopt a more disciplined approach to federal finances.

However, critics argue that despite pledges to take a “very different approach” from the previous Trudeau government, early fiscal decisions suggest a continuation of similar patterns.

During Justin Trudeau’s time in office, Canada saw seven of the highest per-person spending levels (adjusted for inflation) in recorded history between 2018/19 and 2024/25, spanning pre-pandemic, pandemic, and post-pandemic periods. That period was also marked by nine consecutive deficits and a significant rise in federal debt, which reached historic highs even after accounting for population growth and inflation.

By comparison, earlier federal governments such as those led by Stephen Harper and Jean Chrétien were generally characterized by tighter spending controls, periods of balanced budgets, and more restrained debt growth or reductions. Critics also point to weaker economic outcomes under the Trudeau government, including stagnant per-person GDP growth and declining per-worker business investment—both seen as key drivers of long-term living standards.

Against that backdrop, Carney’s promise of a different fiscal direction raised expectations for change. Yet analysis of the government’s first budget suggests continued reliance on increased spending and borrowing.

From 2025/26 to 2029/30, the Carney government is projected to spend $67.6 billion more than what was previously forecast under the Trudeau plan for the same period. Lower-than-expected revenues also contribute to projected annual deficits ranging from $56.6 billion to $78.3 billion. Over five years, total deficits are projected to reach $321.7 billion—more than double the $154.4 billion previously forecast. Federal debt is also projected to climb to $2.9 trillion by the end of the decade, compared to $2.6 trillion under earlier projections.

Critics warn that continuing on a similar fiscal path could lead to similarly weak economic outcomes for Canadians. They argue that, with a parliamentary majority now in place, the government has both the opportunity and responsibility to change course and implement a more sustainable fiscal strategy.

The upcoming federal fiscal update on April 28 is expected to provide a clearer indication of whether the Carney government intends to pursue meaningful fiscal restraint or maintain its current trajectory.

Experts Say Gas Tax Break May Be Offset By Higher Summer Fuel Costs

Economists say that much of Mark Carney’s proposed gas tax break may be effectively offset by the higher cost of summer-blend fuel, leaving motorists with less relief at the pump than expected.

According to analysis cited by industry experts, seasonal fuel regulations require a switch to a more expensive gasoline blend during the warmer months. This summer blend is designed to reduce emissions and improve air quality, but it also increases production costs for refiners, which are typically passed on to consumers.

While the proposed tax reduction would lower the per-litre price of gasoline, experts suggest that the seasonal jump in fuel costs could absorb a significant portion of those savings. As a result, drivers may not see a meaningful drop in overall fuel expenses despite the policy change.

The issue highlights the complexity of fuel pricing in Canada, where taxes, global oil prices, refining costs, and seasonal requirements all interact to determine what consumers ultimately pay at the pump.

Analysts note that the net impact on households will likely vary depending on region, driving habits, and timing, but caution that expectations of substantial savings should be tempered by these offsetting market factors.

CRA Whistleblower Highlights Bogus $5M Income Tax Refund

A newly revealed case of fraud has exposed serious gaps within the Canada Revenue Agency, after millions of dollars were paid out in a bogus tax refund.

According to internal documents obtained by CBC, the agency issued a refund of roughly $5 million based on a tax return that should have raised immediate red flags. The claim included extremely high reported income and deductions, yet it was processed and paid without being stopped for review.

The incident is not isolated. It reflects a broader pattern of questionable refunds slipping through the system, prompting concern from insiders who say safeguards meant to detect fraud are either failing or not being properly applied.

In this case, the suspicious refund only came to light after the money had already been issued. Critics say that basic controls—such as flagging unusually large claims—should have prevented the payout long before it was approved.

The CRA has acknowledged the issue and says it is working to strengthen its verification processes. However, the situation has raised fresh concerns about the agency’s ability to prevent fraud and protect public funds.

The controversy adds to ongoing scrutiny of the CRA, which has faced previous criticism over mismanagement and oversight failures, including cases where large sums were mistakenly paid out to scammers.

Experts warn that without stronger controls and oversight, similar incidents could continue—potentially costing taxpayers millions more.