Ottawa Extends Federal Fuel Tax Relief Into 2027

Canadian Taxpayers Federation welcomes extension but calls on the government to make the fuel-tax cut permanent

The federal government is extending its temporary suspension of the federal fuel excise tax on gasoline and diesel, keeping the full tax reduction in place through January 31, 2027.

The announcement comes as the government had been scheduled to restore the federal fuel excise tax on September 8. Under the extension, gasoline and diesel will continue to benefit from the temporary tax relief through January, followed by a phased return to the regular rates beginning in February.

The Canadian Taxpayers Federation (CTF) welcomed the extension but said Ottawa should go further and make the reduction permanent.

Gasoline tax remains at zero

The federal excise tax on gasoline is normally 10 cents per litre, while the federal excise tax on diesel is normally 4 cents per litre.

Those rates were reduced to zero beginning April 20, 2026, as part of the government’s response to elevated fuel prices and international energy-market disruptions.

The temporary suspension was originally scheduled to end September 7, with the full tax returning the following day.

The new proposal extends the zero-rate period through January 31, 2027. Beginning February 1, the government plans to restore half of the regular federal excise tax until March 31.

That means the federal rates would temporarily become:

  • 5 cents per litre on gasoline
  • 5.5 cents per litre on leaded aviation gasoline
  • 2 cents per litre on diesel
  • 2 cents per litre on other aviation fuel

The full rates are scheduled to return April 1, 2027.

Taxpayers federation calls for permanent cut

The Canadian Taxpayers Federation praised the extension, arguing that lower fuel taxes can benefit both drivers and businesses.

Franco Terrazzano, the organization’s federal director, said the CTF had been advocating for fuel-tax relief and that extending the measure would provide additional assistance to Canadians facing higher costs.

The organization is now calling on Prime Minister Mark Carney’s government to make the reduction permanent rather than allowing the tax to return to its previous level.

Kris Sims, the CTF’s Alberta director, similarly argued that Ottawa should reduce government spending to make permanent tax relief possible without increasing government debt.

Poll finds opposition to restoring the tax

The CTF said a Léger poll it commissioned found significant opposition to restoring the federal fuel tax at its previous level.

According to the organization, 63 per cent of Canadians surveyed opposed increasing the gas tax in September. Among respondents who had made a decision on the question, the opposition rate was 71 per cent.

The CTF said opposition was recorded across demographic groups, including different age groups, genders and provinces.

The poll was commissioned by the CTF, meaning its results should be considered in that context rather than as a government survey.

Ottawa says the measure is temporary

The federal government has presented the fuel-tax suspension as a temporary affordability measure.

When the original reduction was announced in April, Finance Canada said eliminating the federal excise tax would save motorists up to 10 cents per litre on gasoline and 4 cents per litre on diesel. The government estimated the initial suspension would provide more than $2.4 billion in tax relief during 2026.

The measure applies to the federal excise tax. It does not eliminate provincial fuel taxes or other charges that can affect the price motorists see at the pump.

The government also continues to apply sales taxes to fuel.

Different from the former carbon price

The fuel-tax suspension should also be distinguished from the federal consumer carbon price.

Ottawa permanently removed the federal consumer fuel charge from legislation earlier this year. That measure eliminated the federal consumer-facing carbon price, while the current gasoline and diesel excise-tax suspension is a separate measure.

The distinction matters because the two taxes have different purposes and operate through different parts of Canada’s tax system.

What happens next?

The government’s September 2026 legislative proposal would keep federal fuel excise taxes at zero through January and then restore them gradually.

The proposed timeline is:

April 20, 2026 – January 31, 2027:
Federal gasoline and diesel excise taxes remain at zero.

February 1 – March 31, 2027:
Half the normal excise-tax rates apply.

April 1, 2027:
Regular federal excise-tax rates are scheduled to return.

The Department of Finance’s legislation confirms that the extension is designed around this staged return.

For motorists, the immediate result is that the federal portion of fuel taxation will remain suspended beyond the original September deadline.

For the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, however, the extension doesn’t go far enough.

The organization argues that if Ottawa can temporarily eliminate the tax while maintaining government operations, it should look for permanent spending reductions that would allow Canadians to keep the tax savings.

The federal government, meanwhile, continues to characterize the measure as temporary relief.

The debate has therefore shifted from whether Canadians should receive a fuel-tax break to whether the reduction should become a permanent part of Canada’s tax system.

Sources: Canadian Taxpayers Federation and Department of Finance Canada. The CTF’s statements and polling claims are attributed to the organization, while the tax rates and implementation timeline have been cross-checked against the federal government’s legislative proposal.

Canada Imposes Temporary Duties on Chinese Plywood After Dumping Investigation

CBSA finds preliminary evidence of dumping and subsidization as Canadian producers report lost sales and declining market share

Canada has imposed provisional duties of up to 227.5 per cent on certain plywood imported from China after the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) made preliminary determinations that the products were being dumped and subsidized.

The measures took effect August 24 and apply to decorative and other non-structural plywood originating in or exported from China. The investigation remains ongoing, meaning the preliminary findings are not yet final.

The case began after Columbia Forest Products, along with the Canadian Hardwood Plywood and Veneer Association, filed a complaint with the CBSA in February alleging that increasing Chinese imports were being sold at unfair prices and were harming Canadian producers.

Two other Canadian manufacturers, Husky Plywood and Rockshield Engineered Woods Products, also supported the complaint.

Chinese imports gained ground in Canada

CBSA data indicates that China accounted for an increasing share of Canada’s decorative plywood imports between 2023 and 2025.

Chinese products represented approximately:

  • 63.4 per cent of Canadian decorative plywood import value in 2023
  • 61.4 per cent in 2024
  • 67.5 per cent in 2025

Over the same period, the domestic industry’s share of the apparent Canadian market fell from 42.7 per cent to 37.3 per cent.

China’s share of the overall Canadian market increased from 36.3 per cent in 2023 to 42.4 per cent in 2025, according to CBSA estimates.

The figures are based on import value rather than physical volume, because the agency encountered inconsistencies in how imported plywood quantities were reported.

What is “dumping”?

Under Canada’s trade-remedy system, dumping generally occurs when a product is exported to Canada at a price below its applicable normal value.

Canadian producers alleged that Chinese plywood was being sold below fair market value while manufacturers also benefited from government subsidies.

The CBSA’s investigation found sufficient evidence to proceed with both dumping and subsidy investigations. The agency also said there was reasonable evidence that government influence could be affecting prices in China’s engineered-wood sector.

The CBSA estimated an overall dumping margin of 33.8 per cent during its investigation period.

Duties vary dramatically by exporter

The provisional duties are not the same for every Chinese exporter.

For example, CBSA’s preliminary determinations established provisional rates including:

ExporterProvisional duty
Dehua TB New Decoration Material43.3%
Feixian Jianhao Wood Factory172.1%
LinYi QianFeng Wood Factory82.8%
Shandong Baozhu International Trading173.6%
Suzhou Dongsheng Wood24.7%
Xuzhou Meibang Wood12.6%
All other exporters227.5%

The rates combine applicable anti-dumping and countervailing duties. Some exporters had subsidy amounts below Canada’s threshold for imposing a provisional countervailing duty.

The 227.5 per cent figure therefore does not apply automatically to every Chinese plywood shipment. It applies to subject goods from exporters that have not received a specific provisional rate.

Canadian producers cite lost sales and jobs

The domestic producers told the CBSA that increasing Chinese imports were contributing to lost sales and market share.

The complaint included examples of sales lost to Chinese products, along with allegations of price undercutting, price depression and price suppression.

The producers also reported negative effects on financial performance, production levels, capacity utilization and employment.

After reviewing information supplied by the producers and its own customs data, the CBSA concluded there was a reasonable indication that the allegedly dumped and subsidized imports had caused injury to Canada’s domestic decorative plywood industry.

The Canadian International Trade Tribunal reached a similar preliminary conclusion in June, determining that there was a reasonable indication that dumping and subsidization had caused or threatened to cause injury to the domestic industry.

What products are affected?

The investigation covers decorative and other non-structural plywood, including certain multilayered plywood and veneered panels.

These products can be used in applications such as cabinetry, furniture and interior finishing.

The measures do not cover every type of plywood. CBSA specifically excludes certain structural plywood, finished plywood flooring products, specially shaped panels and several other products from the scope of the investigation.

Final decision still months away

The current duties are provisional rather than permanent.

The CBSA is scheduled to issue its final determinations on dumping and subsidization on November 23, 2026.

The Canadian International Trade Tribunal is conducting the separate final injury inquiry. Its current schedule calls for a finding on December 22, 2026, followed by reasons in January 2027.

If the Tribunal ultimately finds that the dumped or subsidized imports caused injury to Canadian producers, permanent anti-dumping and countervailing measures could follow.

If the required injury finding is not made, the proceedings would end and provisional duties could be refunded in accordance with Canada’s trade-remedy rules.

A broader trade issue

The plywood investigation comes as Canada is increasingly using its trade-remedy system to respond to concerns over heavily subsidized or low-priced imports from China.

For Canadian plywood manufacturers, the issue is particularly significant because the domestic industry’s share of the apparent market has declined while Chinese imports have expanded.

For importers and buyers, however, the immediate impact is the possibility of substantially higher costs on affected products as the federal investigation proceeds.

For now, the key distinction is that Canada has made preliminary findings of dumping and subsidization—not a final determination. The ultimate outcome will depend on the CBSA’s final investigation and the Tribunal’s determination of whether the imports caused injury to Canadian producers.

Sources: Canada Border Services Agency and Canadian International Trade Tribunal. 

Federal Report Questions Financial Case for Rooftop Solar in Canada

Natural Resources Canada memo estimates residential solar systems can take 10 to 30 years to recover their costs, depending on location and circumstances

A federal Natural Resources Canada memo is raising questions about the financial case for residential rooftop solar in much of the country, estimating that homeowners may need between 10 and 30 years to recover the cost of a solar installation.

The May 20 memorandum, prepared for Natural Resources Minister Tim Hodgson and obtained by Blacklock’s Reporter, concludes that the economic case for widespread residential rooftop photovoltaic systems remains limited in most Canadian jurisdictions compared with some international markets.

According to the document, residential systems can cost between approximately $10,000 and $45,000, including associated debt-servicing costs. The length of time required to recover that investment varies depending on electricity prices, installation costs, solar production and other local factors.

Economics vary across Canada

Natural Resources Canada attributes part of the challenge to the economics of the Canadian electricity market.

The department notes that residential solar can be less financially competitive in Canada than in countries such as Australia, where electricity prices are generally higher. Canadian homeowners also face comparatively high installation labour costs, according to the memorandum.

That combination can make the electricity generated by a rooftop system worth less relative to the cost of installing it.

The memo therefore characterizes rooftop solar as an option that is more accessible to homeowners who have the financial capacity to absorb significant upfront costs or take on financing.

Federal incentives helped, but adoption remained limited

Government subsidies can improve the economics of rooftop solar by reducing the homeowner’s initial investment.

The former Canada Greener Homes Grant provided up to $5,000 for eligible home improvements. The program is now closed to new applicants, with applications having ended in February 2024 and final documentation due by the end of 2025.

Natural Resources Canada’s latest program figures show that 38,500 households received grants for solar panels through the initiative. That put solar behind heat pumps, windows and doors, insulation and air sealing among the program’s most common retrofit categories.

The federal memo cited the relatively limited participation as part of the broader challenge facing residential solar.

Solar can provide benefits beyond the homeowner

The department’s assessment does not argue that rooftop solar has no value.

Officials noted that distributed generation could potentially reduce pressure on large-scale electricity infrastructure by producing power closer to where it is consumed.

However, the memorandum also cautioned that determining the value of those broader system benefits is highly dependent on local circumstances and is difficult to apply consistently across the country.

That distinction is important because the financial return experienced by an individual homeowner is not necessarily the same as the broader economic value of distributed electricity generation.

A history of subsidizing renewable energy

The rooftop-solar assessment also echoes conclusions from an earlier federal evaluation of the Renewable Energy Deployment Program.

A 2021 Natural Resources Canada evaluation examined the $1.5-billion program, which provided financial support for renewable-energy projects including wind, solar and geothermal generation.

The evaluation found that the supported projects generally would not have been profitable without the program’s funding. The program provided producers with a direct subsidy of one cent per kilowatt-hour of electricity generated.

The comparison illustrates a recurring issue in renewable-energy policy: projects can deliver environmental or energy-system benefits while still requiring financial support to make their economics attractive to investors or consumers.

The 30-year question

A 30-year payback period is particularly significant for homeowners considering solar as a financial investment.

A system that takes decades to recover its initial cost leaves homeowners exposed to changes in electricity prices, financing costs, equipment performance and maintenance requirements over the life of the installation.

That does not necessarily mean rooftop solar is uneconomic everywhere. The federal assessment itself points to substantial differences between jurisdictions, and the economics can change considerably depending on local electricity rates, solar conditions, installation costs and available incentives.

For some households, those factors can produce a substantially shorter payback period.

The central finding of the federal memorandum is narrower: Canada’s current economic conditions do not make widespread residential rooftop solar financially compelling in most jurisdictions without considering additional benefits or government support.

Solar remains part of Canada’s energy transition

Despite the financial concerns outlined in the memorandum, rooftop solar continues to be part of Canada’s broader effort to expand renewable electricity.

Natural Resources Canada’s final Greener Homes figures show that tens of thousands of Canadian households chose solar through the federal program, while provincial utilities continue to develop their own incentives.

For example, Hydro-Québec introduced a 2026 solar grant providing up to $1,000 per kilowatt installed and covering as much as 40 per cent of eligible costs. The utility said the incentive was intended to reduce current solar payback periods of roughly 25 to 30 years to approximately 10 to 12 years for eligible customers.

The result is a complicated picture for Canadian homeowners: solar technology is becoming increasingly common, but whether installing it makes financial sense remains highly dependent on where a homeowner lives, how much electricity they use, what the installation costs and what incentives are available.

For many Canadians, the question may therefore be less about whether rooftop solar works—and more about whether the numbers work for their particular home.

Source: Natural Resources Canada memorandum. The payback estimates are federal departmental assessments, not guarantees applicable to every household. The Canada Greener Homes figures are independently confirmed by Natural Resources Canada.

Canada’s Economic Gap With the United States Has More Than Doubled

New Fraser Institute study finds Canada has fallen behind the United States on living standards, incomes, investment, employment and productivity since the beginning of the century

VANCOUVER — Canadians are increasingly falling behind their American counterparts on some of the economic measures that most directly affect household prosperity, according to a new study examining the economic performance of Canada and the United States over the first quarter of the 21st century.

The report, “Squandering the Canadian Century: Part 1 — Comparing Economic Performance in Canada and the United States,” was published by the Fraser Institute on September 1.

Its central finding is stark: the gap in inflation-adjusted GDP per person between the two countries has more than doubled since 1999.

In 1999, GDP per person in the United States was approximately C$10,766 higher than in Canada.

By 2024, the difference had grown to C$23,757.

The authors — Fraser Institute senior economist Joel Emes, senior policy analyst Grady Munro and director of fiscal studies Jake Fuss — argue that the deterioration cannot be explained by a single economic indicator.

Instead, Canada has fallen further behind across five broad areas examined by the study: living standards, employment income, employment, business investment and labour productivity.

The numbers behind the growing gap

The difference becomes particularly apparent when looking at inflation-adjusted GDP per person.

In 1999, Canada’s figure was approximately C$48,076, compared with C$58,842 in the United States.

By 2024, Canada’s figure had risen to C$59,529.

The American figure, meanwhile, had climbed to C$83,286.

That left the United States with an advantage of nearly C$24,000 per person.

The significance of the comparison is not that Americans necessarily have an additional $24,000 sitting in their bank accounts.

GDP per person is an economic measure rather than a direct measure of household income.

But the widening difference does provide an indication of how much more economic output is being generated per person in the United States — and, over time, that divergence can translate into differences in wages, investment, employment opportunities and government revenues.

For Canadians already dealing with high housing costs, taxes and other household expenses, the direction of the trend is particularly important.

The income gap is widening too

The difference isn’t confined to national economic output.

The study also examines inflation-adjusted median employment income.

In 2010, the earliest year for which the researchers say comparable data were available, median employment income in the United States was approximately C$6,126 higher than in Canada.

By 2024, that difference had increased to C$8,663.

That represents a growing gap in the amount of income earned by the typical worker.

For individual Canadians, that distinction can be much more tangible than GDP statistics.

Higher employment income can mean greater ability to save, invest, purchase housing, support a family or absorb rising living costs.

Canada’s private sector is shrinking as a share of employment

Another difference identified by the study involves the composition of employment.

Between 1999 and 2024, the share of Canadian employment accounted for by the private sector declined from 81.2 per cent to 78.5 per cent.

The authors say this reflects government-sector employment growing faster than private-sector employment.

The United States moved in the opposite direction.

Its private-sector share of employment increased from 85.8 per cent to 86.5 per cent over the same period.

The figures don’t mean that government employment itself is inherently bad or that every public-sector job comes at the expense of a private-sector job.

Rather, the researchers use the trend as one indicator of the different directions taken by the two economies.

A growing private sector can provide a broader base of businesses investing, producing goods and services and competing for workers.

Investment may be the bigger warning sign

Perhaps the most consequential finding concerns business investment.

Investment is important because businesses need machinery, technology, buildings, equipment and other capital to increase production and improve efficiency.

According to the Fraser Institute study, Canada’s business investment per worker has deteriorated significantly relative to the United States.

In 2007, Canadian investment per worker was equivalent to nearly 90 cents for every dollar invested per worker in the United States.

By 2024, that had fallen to just 54 cents.

In other words, for every dollar being invested per American worker, Canadian businesses were investing only about 54 cents.

That matters because today’s investment becomes tomorrow’s productive capacity.

A company that buys better equipment, adopts new technology or expands its facilities can potentially produce more with the same number of workers.

When investment remains weak for years, productivity growth can suffer.

And that’s precisely what the study says has happened.

Canada’s productivity problem

Labour productivity is one of the most important measures in the report.

The study finds that between 1999 and 2025, labour productivity increased by:

Canada: 26.7 per cent

United States: 67.9 per cent

The American increase was therefore more than twice Canada’s.

Productivity essentially measures how much economic output is produced from a given amount of labour.

It doesn’t mean Canadian workers are working less hard than American workers.

Rather, productivity is heavily influenced by the tools, technology, infrastructure, capital and processes available to workers.

A worker equipped with modern machinery and technology can potentially produce considerably more than a worker performing the same task with outdated equipment.

The Fraser Institute argues that Canada’s weak productivity growth is therefore closely connected to its weak investment performance.

Jake Fuss, one of the study’s authors, said the ability to transform inputs into goods and services increased by more than twice as much in the United States as in Canada over the period examined.

The turning point came after 2014

One of the more interesting aspects of the report is that the authors don’t argue Canada was always falling behind.

Instead, they identify 2014 as an important turning point.

According to the study, Canada generally kept pace with the United States — and in some cases exceeded it — across several economic measures before 2014.

The divergence became considerably more pronounced afterward.

The timing is significant.

In 2014, global oil prices began a dramatic decline, creating a major shock for Canada’s energy-producing provinces and reducing investment in Canada’s resource sector.

But the Fraser Institute’s argument is that the oil-price collapse alone does not explain Canada’s subsequent performance.

The broader problem, according to the researchers, is that Canada has struggled to create an economic environment capable of attracting sufficient investment and generating stronger productivity growth.

That interpretation is likely to generate debate.

What does this mean for British Columbia?

While the study compares Canada as a whole with the United States, its implications extend to British Columbia and Vancouver Island.

B.C.’s economy is heavily connected to the United States through trade, investment and tourism.

The province also faces many of the same issues identified in the report, including housing affordability, infrastructure requirements, labour shortages and questions about business investment.

For communities such as those on northern Vancouver Island, productivity and investment aren’t abstract concepts.

They can affect whether companies expand, whether new businesses open, whether major projects proceed and whether younger workers can find well-paying employment without leaving the region.

A national productivity problem can therefore eventually become a local economic-development problem.

Why the comparison matters

Canada and the United States are unusually useful countries to compare.

They share a continent, extensive trade relationships, similar legal and financial institutions and highly integrated economies.

Yet their economic performance has increasingly diverged.

The Fraser Institute study argues that the comparison should force Canadians to look beyond headline employment numbers and ask a more fundamental question:

Is the Canadian economy creating enough wealth and productive capacity to support rising living standards?

The report’s answer is no.

At least, not at the rate necessary to keep pace with the United States.

The policy debate

The Fraser Institute’s conclusions are likely to be controversial.

The organization is a free-market public-policy think tank and has long advocated policies emphasizing lower taxes, reduced regulatory barriers, greater competition and increased private investment.

Its researchers argue that Canada needs significant economic reforms to reverse the trend.

But the underlying economic measurements themselves extend beyond the Fraser Institute’s policy preferences.

The GDP, income, employment, investment and productivity figures are the basis for the report’s comparison, while the interpretation of why Canada has underperformed — and what governments should do about it — is where political and economic debate begins.

That distinction is worth keeping in mind.

The numbers tell one story.

The causes and solutions are more complicated.

A quarter-century of missed opportunity?

When the 21st century began, there was optimism that Canada could emerge as an increasingly prosperous economic power.

A quarter-century later, the Fraser Institute argues that the country has instead watched its economic position deteriorate relative to its largest neighbour.

The report’s title — “Squandering the Canadian Century” — deliberately frames the issue as a missed opportunity.

The authors argue that the first quarter of the century has already been lost and that policymakers now need to focus on reversing the trend rather than accepting slower growth as inevitable.

“After squandering the first quarter of the 21st century,” Munro said, policymakers need to enact reforms that can make the most of the remainder of the century.

Whether Canadians agree with the Fraser Institute’s diagnosis or its proposed solutions, the underlying comparison presents a difficult question for the country.

In 1999, Canada and the United States were already different economies, but the gap in GDP per person was relatively modest.

Twenty-five years later, the difference has more than doubled.

Canadian employment incomes have fallen further behind.

Business investment has weakened relative to the United States.

And American productivity has grown more than twice as quickly.

For Canadians, the most important question may therefore be less about how the country performed over the past 25 years and more about what happens next.

If the first quarter of the Canadian century was a missed opportunity, can Canada change course before the next quarter passes?

Source: Fraser Institute, Squandering the Canadian Century Part 1: Comparing Economic Performance in Canada and the United States, by Grady Munro, Jake Fuss and Joel Emes. The Fraser Institute’s original page was not directly accessible during research, so the article’s figures and findings were cross-checked against the Institute’s September 1 news release and multiple reproductions of the study summary.

Fraser Institute — Squandering the Canadian Century, Part 1

Squandering cdn century pt1 comparing econ performance canada and us infographic

Ottawa Defends Federal Prison Gender Policy as Constitutional Challenge Moves Forward

Government acknowledges sexual-assault charges and other complaints involving transgender inmates in women’s institutions while maintaining that its placement policy does not violate the rights of female prisoners

OTTAWA, ON — The federal government is defending its policy governing the placement of transgender inmates in federal correctional institutions, even as court documents acknowledge sexual-assault charges and other complaints involving transgender inmates housed in women’s facilities.

The issue is now before the Federal Court as part of a constitutional challenge brought by Canadian Women’s Sex-Based Rights (CAWSBAR).

The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms, which is funding lawyers representing CAWSBAR, announced this week that the federal government has filed its Statement of Defence in the case. The government is asking the court to dismiss the challenge.

At the centre of the dispute is Correctional Service Canada’s Commissioner’s Directive 100, which establishes the federal government’s approach to gender-diverse offenders.

Under the policy, an inmate can request placement in a men’s or women’s institution according to their gender identity or expression. Requests involving a move between institution types are assessed individually and include consideration of security classification, risks and potential health and safety concerns.

The government maintains that the system provides appropriate safeguards.

CAWSBAR argues that it does not.

What the government acknowledges

The federal Statement of Defence contains details about several incidents that have become central to the case.

According to the JCCF’s summary of the government’s court filing, an inmate identified in the documents as S/M was charged with one count of sexual assault and one count of criminal harassment in May 2020 following a complaint by a female inmate.

A second inmate, identified as KF/R, was charged with two counts of sexual assault after a complaint by a female inmate in October 2024.

The government’s Defence also acknowledges other complaints involving transgender inmates in women’s institutions.

Those include a 2018 complaint that resulted in a police investigation but no charges, a 2021 complaint alleging sexual and physical assault at Fraser Valley Institution, and a 2019 report of sexual assault at Okimaw Ohci Healing Lodge.

It is important to distinguish between complaints, charges and convictions. The existence of a criminal charge does not establish guilt, and allegations that did not result in charges have not been proven in court.

The federal government’s position is also clear: it denies that the alleged harms were caused by the implementation of Directive 100.

Ottawa says safety remains a consideration

Correctional Service Canada says its policy is intended to balance the rights, dignity and safety of gender-diverse offenders with the safety of other inmates and staff.

The government’s published policy says offenders requesting placement in an institution that does not correspond with their sex can be placed according to their gender identity or expression unless there are overriding health or safety concerns that cannot be resolved.

Transfer decisions are not supposed to be automatic.

According to Directive 100, each request requires an assessment that considers security classification, risks, health and safety concerns and possible mitigation measures.

CSC has also told Parliament that safety is a priority and that a placement or transfer request can be denied where overriding health or safety concerns cannot be effectively mitigated.

How many inmates are involved?

The number of transgender inmates involved in the federal correctional system is relatively small compared with the overall inmate population.

CSC reported that gender-diverse individuals represented 0.83 per cent of its offender population at the end of fiscal year 2024–25.

Between 2017–18 and 2024–25, CSC received 129 requests from 57 people assigned male at birth seeking placement or transfer to a women’s institution.

Of those requests:

  • 35 were approved
  • 72 were denied
  • 22 were withdrawn

As of October 2025, CSC reported that there were 90 self-identified transgender women in federal correctional institutions. Seventy-three were housed in men’s institutions and 17 were housed in women’s institutions.

Those figures provide important context to the debate.

The policy does not mean that every transgender inmate who requests placement in a women’s institution is transferred there.

The policy dates back to changes following Bill C-16

The current policy framework developed following Parliament’s 2017 passage of Bill C-16, which added gender identity and gender expression to the prohibited grounds of discrimination under the Canadian Human Rights Act and made corresponding changes to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.

Correctional Service Canada subsequently developed policies governing gender-diverse offenders.

The current Commissioner’s Directive 100 took effect on May 9, 2022.

Under the directive, placement decisions are based on a combination of the offender’s expressed gender identity or expression and an individualized assessment of security and safety considerations.

A constitutional challenge

CAWSBAR launched its Federal Court challenge in April 2025.

The organization argues that housing transgender inmates who are biologically male in women’s federal prisons can expose female inmates to physical and psychological harm and violates their rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Among the provisions cited in the lawsuit are sections 7, 12 and 15, dealing with life, liberty and security of the person, protection from cruel and unusual treatment, and equality rights.

The federal government attempted to have the case struck before it proceeded to a full hearing.

That effort failed.

In May 2026, the Federal Court rejected the government’s motion to strike the lawsuit and granted CAWSBAR public-interest standing, allowing the organization to pursue the constitutional challenge on behalf of federally incarcerated women.

The court did not rule that CAWSBAR’s allegations were proven.

Rather, the ruling allowed the constitutional arguments to proceed for consideration on their merits.

Why public-interest standing matters

The court’s decision on standing is significant because individual federal inmates can face practical barriers to bringing constitutional litigation themselves.

CAWSBAR argued that incarcerated women could be reluctant to challenge the policy because of concerns about their treatment within the correctional system or possible consequences for their incarceration and parole.

The Federal Court concluded that CAWSBAR could pursue the case as a public-interest litigant.

That means the court will now have an opportunity to examine the underlying constitutional questions rather than ending the case at an early procedural stage.

Ottawa’s position

The federal government disputes the central premise of CAWSBAR’s lawsuit.

According to the JCCF’s account of the Statement of Defence, Ottawa denies that the alleged harm to female inmates resulted from Directive 100.

The government maintains that its individualized assessment process and safeguards provide an appropriate framework for managing the risks associated with gender-diverse offenders.

That distinction will likely be important as the case develops.

The court is not simply being asked whether incidents have occurred.

It will ultimately have to consider whether the government’s policy itself violates constitutional rights and, if so, whether the government’s approach can be legally justified.

A debate that reaches beyond prisons

The case touches on a much broader Canadian debate over how governments should balance sex-based protections, gender identity, individual rights and institutional safety.

Federal prisons present an especially complicated environment because inmates cannot simply choose to leave if they feel uncomfortable or unsafe.

The government therefore has competing responsibilities: it must protect inmates, maintain institutional security, comply with the Charter and accommodate gender-related needs.

The challenge brought by CAWSBAR asks the court to determine whether the balance struck by the federal government is constitutionally acceptable.

The government says it is.

CAWSBAR says it is not.

The case continues

The latest Statement of Defence does not resolve the dispute.

Instead, it adds the government’s formal position to a case that has already survived an attempt to have it dismissed at the preliminary stage.

The court will now have to consider evidence and legal arguments surrounding Directive 100, institutional placement, inmate safety and the Charter rights asserted by CAWSBAR.

For now, the federal government’s position remains that its individualized placement process provides adequate safeguards and that the incidents identified in its Defence do not demonstrate that Directive 100 itself caused the alleged harm.

CAWSBAR, meanwhile, maintains that women in federal custody should not be required to share correctional institutions with transgender inmates who are biologically male where doing so creates unacceptable risks to their safety and constitutional rights.

The Federal Court has not yet decided the underlying constitutional questions.

The case is therefore far from over.

What began as a challenge to a federal correctional policy is now positioned to become a significant test of how Canadian law balances gender identity, sex-based rights and safety inside the country’s federal prison system.

GoSayward.com has independently summarized the publicly available court and government material. Allegations and complaints described in the proceedings should not be interpreted as findings of guilt or judicial findings that the government’s policy caused the alleged incidents.

Sources: Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms — case information and Statement of Defence summary; Correctional Service Canada — Commissioner’s Directive 100; Correctional Service Canada — 2026 parliamentary briefing material; Department of Justice Canada — transition material on the constitutional challenge

Ottawa’s ‘Axe the Fax’ Program Shut Down After Nearly $300 Million in Federal Spending

PrescribeIT was intended to modernize prescription delivery across Canada. After years of development and limited adoption, the national e-prescribing service has been discontinued, prompting new questions about how the money was spent.

A federal effort to replace fax machines in Canada’s health-care system has come to an end after nearly a decade, with the program having received close to $300 million in federal funding and accounting for less than five per cent of prescriptions nationwide.

The program, known as PrescribeIT, was created to provide doctors and other prescribers with a secure electronic method of sending prescriptions directly to pharmacies. Instead of printing, faxing or manually entering prescriptions, the system was intended to allow information to move electronically from a health-care provider’s electronic medical record into pharmacy software.

The goal was straightforward: modernize a system that had become increasingly out of step with the rest of the digital economy.

Instead, PrescribeIT was shut down on May 29, 2026, after failing to achieve widespread adoption.

From a $40-million plan to nearly $300 million

PrescribeIT was announced in 2016 with an initial federal commitment of approximately $40 million. Canada Health Infoway, a federally funded not-for-profit organization, subsequently developed and operated the service.

Over the following decade, federal spending grew dramatically.

Health Canada has acknowledged federal spending of more than $290 million on the program, while some parliamentary discussions have referred to the figure as approximately $300 million.

The investment was intended to create a national digital infrastructure for prescriptions, with the long-term expectation that the system would eventually become financially self-sustaining.

That did not happen.

By the time PrescribeIT was discontinued, fewer than five per cent of prescriptions were being processed through the platform.

According to testimony before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Health, approximately 11 million prescriptions were fulfilled using PrescribeIT in the previous year — but that represented only about five per cent of prescriptions across Canada.

The vast majority continued to move through traditional systems, including fax and paper.

Why did adoption remain so low?

The problems surrounding PrescribeIT appear to have been more complicated than simply convincing doctors to stop using fax machines.

Canada Health Infoway’s leadership told parliamentary committees that adoption among physicians and other prescribers was lower than expected. The Canadian Pharmacists Association also raised concerns about the financial model surrounding the service.

In 2025, pharmacies began being charged 20 cents per prescription processed through PrescribeIT after federal funding was reduced.

Rather than encouraging greater participation, the fee became another source of concern for pharmacies already operating under financial pressure.

The program also faced the challenge of convincing provinces and health-care organizations to take responsibility for its continuing operating costs.

Ultimately, provinces did not take on those costs, and Canada Health Infoway announced that PrescribeIT would be discontinued.

The organization said it would instead move toward an open-standards approach, rather than continuing to operate a centralized national network.

Telus Health and the question of intellectual property

Another issue attracting parliamentary attention is the relationship between Canada Health Infoway and TELUS Health, which served as the program’s primary technology vendor.

Approximately $98 million reportedly went to Telus Health in connection with the program. Parliamentary and other reporting has also raised questions about ownership of the intellectual property developed through the project.

One report cited by parliamentary watchdogs says Telus retained approximately 85 per cent of the underlying intellectual property, while the federal government did not retain ownership of the platform itself.

That arrangement has prompted MPs to ask a basic question: after hundreds of millions of dollars in public funding, what assets ultimately remained under public control?

Those questions remain part of the broader examination of PrescribeIT.

Parliamentary scrutiny increases

The program’s failure has attracted increasing attention on Parliament Hill.

Members of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Health have sought access to documents relating to the program, including contribution agreements, information about intellectual property, annual adoption figures and revenue generated by the prescription fees.

During committee proceedings, MPs questioned Canada Health Infoway executives about the program’s cost, performance and governance.

Conservative MPs have also called for an investigation by the Auditor General, arguing that Canadians deserve a clearer accounting of how the money was spent and why the program failed to achieve its central objective.

The political debate has become particularly contentious because the program was ultimately unable to deliver the nationwide transition away from fax-based prescriptions that it was created to achieve.

An audit is now being pursued

The federal government announced in June that it would conduct an audit and broader review of Canada Health Infoway.

The review is expected to examine not only the PrescribeIT program but also issues involving governance, operations and executive compensation.

On August 26, the federal government posted a request for proposals seeking an outside contractor to audit contribution funding provided to Canada Health Infoway.

The proposed audit is expected to continue through the end of 2026.

That means Canadians may have to wait considerably longer for a complete accounting of the program’s finances and the reasons behind its failure.

The bigger issue: modernizing health care

The failure of PrescribeIT raises questions that extend beyond fax machines.

Electronic prescriptions are hardly a new concept. Digital prescribing systems are used in health-care systems around the world, making Canada’s continued reliance on paper and fax particularly notable.

For patients, the technology behind a prescription may seem like a minor detail. But outdated communication systems can contribute to delays, transcription problems and additional administrative work for health-care professionals.

That makes the objective behind PrescribeIT difficult to dispute.

The question is whether the federal government chose the right approach — and whether the project was adequately managed once problems with adoption became apparent.

After nearly a decade and hundreds of millions of dollars in public spending, the country has effectively returned to the starting point in many parts of the health-care system.

The federal program intended to “axe the fax” is gone, while faxing remains.

For Canadians watching the cost of government programs, the next important question is no longer whether the technology can replace the fax.

It is why nearly $300 million was spent attempting to do so without achieving widespread adoption — and what can be learned before another national health-care technology project is launched.

The forthcoming audit should provide at least some of those answers.

GoSayward.com has summarized and independently contextualized reporting and publicly available parliamentary records concerning the PrescribeIT program. Claims regarding political responsibility and alleged misconduct remain matters of debate and should not be treated as established findings unless supported by evidence.

Sources: Parliamentary records and reporting on Canada Health Infoway and PrescribeIT, including House of Commons committee proceedings and recent reporting on the federal audit.