Canadian’s Face Another Tax Hike With Alcohol Tax Set To Increase On April 1st

The federal government has confirmed that alcohol excise taxes will rise again on April 1, 2026, as part of the automatic annual increase applied to beer, wine, and spirits.

This built‑in adjustment — commonly known as the alcohol escalator tax — raises excise duties each year based on inflation, without requiring a separate vote in Parliament. The upcoming increase amounts to two per cent, a change industry estimates suggest will generate roughly $41 million in additional federal revenue for 2026–27.

First introduced in the 2017 federal budget, the escalator mechanism ties alcohol taxes to the Consumer Price Index. Since then, industry data indicates these automatic hikes have added about $1.6 billion to federal excise revenues.

Reaction to the latest increase is mixed. Brewers, distillers, and hospitality groups have long warned that repeated tax hikes compound pressures on producers already dealing with rising input costs, tariffs, and economic uncertainty. Some say ongoing increases could influence pricing and production decisions.

Observers also note that excise duties are only one component of alcohol pricing in Canada, with provincial markups and retail rules playing a major role. Because the federal increase is automatic, it continues to fuel debate over whether annual tax changes should require parliamentary approval.

The scheduled hike comes at a time when Canadians are already facing significant cost‑of‑living pressures, with rising prices across many sectors of the economy.

Conservative Member Of Parliament Declines Upcoming Automatic Pay Raise

A federal Conservative member of Parliament says he will not accept his scheduled annual pay increase, citing concerns about affordability and the economic pressures facing many Canadians.

Mike Dawson, the MP for Miramichi—Grand Lake, has written to the clerk of the House of Commons requesting that his salary be frozen ahead of an automatic adjustment set to take effect in April. Under current legislation, MP salaries rise each year according to a formula tied to private‑sector wage settlements, which this year amounts to an estimated increase of about $8,000 on top of the roughly $210,000 base salary.

In a letter shared publicly, Dawson said he could not “in good conscience accept a wage increase” at a time when Canadians are struggling with rising costs for essentials such as food and housing. He described the upcoming raise as “distasteful” given the financial strain many households are experiencing.

His stance has drawn attention within the Conservative caucus. Reports indicate that at a recent caucus meeting, party whip Chris Warkentin addressed the issue, noting that the annual pay adjustments are mandated by law and cannot be declined outright. Some MPs reportedly expressed discomfort with the situation, and Dawson attempted to explain his position before leaving the meeting following comments from colleagues.

The Parliament of Canada Act sets out the pay‑increase formula, meaning MPs who wish to forgo the raise must do so through other means — such as donating the additional amount — since the adjustment is applied automatically.

Dawson’s decision has been noted by advocacy groups focused on government spending, some of which have praised the move as a symbolic gesture of restraint. At the same time, political observers are watching how the discussion around elected officials’ compensation intersects with broader public concerns about inflation, wage growth, and economic affordability.

We’ve reached out to North Island MP Aaron Gunn asking if he will join his colleague in refusing the automatic pay raise. We will update once we hear back from his office. If you want to contact Mr. Gunn to follow up on this question, his contact information is below.

Aaron Gunn

http://aarongunnmp.ca/

Campell River Office 250-434-0300

Powell River Office 604-764-9061

Ottawa Office 613-992-2503

Almost All Federal Executives Received Bonuses Despite Mixed Performance Results

Nearly all senior federal executives received taxpayer‑funded bonuses last year, even though government departments achieved just over half of their own performance targets, according to newly released federal data.

Access‑to‑information records obtained by the Canadian Taxpayers Federation show that about 98 per cent of federal executives were awarded bonuses or performance pay in the 2024–25 fiscal year, amounting to roughly $201 million.

Departments and agencies evaluate their performance using targets laid out in their annual plans. In the same year that bonuses were distributed almost universally, government figures indicate that departments collectively met only about 54 per cent of those targets.

The bonus system includes a range of incentive payments — such as performance awards, “at‑risk” pay, and other allowances — intended to reward executives for meeting or exceeding objectives. Critics argue that these payments are being handed out broadly even when organizational goals fall short.

The Canadian Taxpayers Federation’s federal director said the high rate of bonuses raises questions about how performance is being measured and rewarded, noting that such payments are supposed to recognize strong results.

Records also indicate that executive bonuses are part of a long‑standing pattern of substantial compensation for senior public servants. Over the past decade, federal bonus payments — including performance‑linked pay — have totaled billions of dollars, even as some public services face staffing shortages and operational pressures.

Separate federal data from a Treasury Board report shows that performance pay has become standard across the core public service, with nearly all executives receiving some form of variable compensation in recent years. This reflects a system in which portions of executive pay are tied to both individual and organizational outcomes.

Supporters of performance‑based pay argue that it helps attract and retain skilled leaders and aligns compensation with responsibility. They also note that performance targets for complex programs can be affected by factors outside an executive’s direct control.

Still, the widespread distribution of bonuses has drawn public scrutiny at a time when many Canadians are concerned about government spending and service delivery. Some analysts say the situation underscores the need to reassess how performance outcomes are defined and measured, and whether the current bonus framework effectively drives improvements in public service results.

Refugee Health Funding Under Spotlight While Canadians Struggle To Access Timely Care

Federal projections showing a steep rise in healthcare spending for refugees and asylum seekers are reigniting debate over priorities within Canada’s already strained healthcare system.

New estimates from the Parliamentary Budget Officer indicate that costs tied to the Interim Federal Health Program (IFHP) are expected to grow substantially in the coming years, potentially surpassing $1.5 billion annually by the end of the decade. The IFHP provides temporary healthcare coverage for refugees, asylum claimants, and other eligible groups who are not yet enrolled in provincial or territorial health plans.

The program covers essential medical services — including physician visits and hospital care — and often extends to prescription drugs, mental health supports, dental care, and vision benefits. Rising expenditures are largely attributed to an increase in asylum claims, longer eligibility periods, and greater use of healthcare services.

The projected cost growth comes at a time when many Canadians continue to face significant barriers to accessing care. Millions are without a family doctor, emergency departments are grappling with staffing shortages, and wait times for diagnostics and procedures remain lengthy in many regions. Health policy researchers have linked prolonged delays to preventable complications and, in some cases, premature deaths, underscoring the broader pressures on Canada’s publicly funded system.

Critics argue that although refugee healthcare is a federal responsibility, the rapid escalation in IFHP spending raises questions about sustainability and fairness when provincial systems are already under heavy strain. Some point to the contrast between comprehensive federal coverage for newcomers and the challenges many long-term residents face in obtaining timely care.

The Liberal Party of Canada has defended the program, emphasizing that providing healthcare to refugees and asylum seekers is both a humanitarian obligation and a public health necessity. Federal officials note that untreated conditions can lead to more serious outcomes and higher long-term costs, and that access to care helps reduce pressure on emergency services.

Supporters also highlight that refugees and asylum seekers often arrive with unmet health needs and limited financial resources, and that healthcare access is central to Canada’s international commitments.

Opposition parties and advocacy groups are calling for greater transparency and oversight. Some are urging a detailed review by the Auditor General or further analysis by the Parliamentary Budget Officer to clarify cost drivers, patterns of benefit use, and whether adjustments are needed to balance humanitarian goals with system capacity.

The debate unfolds as provinces continue pressing for increased federal health transfers and long-term reforms to address physician shortages, staff burnout, and aging infrastructure. With healthcare access already a top concern for Canadians, the anticipated rise in refugee health spending is likely to remain a sensitive political issue in the months ahead.

Health Canada Seals COVID-19 Vaccine Injury Files for 15 Years, Raising Transparency Questions

Health Canada Seals COVID‑19 Vaccine Injury Files for 15 Years, Raising Transparency Concerns

Health Canada has confirmed that records related to COVID‑19 vaccine injury claims will remain sealed from public access for up to 15 years — a decision drawing criticism from transparency advocates and prompting new questions about accountability in Canada’s pandemic response.

The sealed files relate to reports and claims submitted through federal vaccine‑safety monitoring and compensation programs. While Health Canada maintains that authorized vaccines are safe and effective, critics argue that restricting access to injury‑related records for more than a decade undermines public trust and limits independent oversight.

What’s in the Sealed Records

The documents reportedly include adverse‑event reports, medical assessments, internal reviews, and correspondence tied to compensation claims filed after COVID‑19 vaccination. Health Canada says the long‑term restriction is required to protect personal medical information and is consistent with federal privacy legislation.

Why Critics Are Concerned

Transparency advocates say that while personal identifiers must remain confidential, anonymized data and information about how claims were evaluated should be accessible much sooner. They argue that a 15‑year blackout prevents Canadians from understanding how many claims were approved or denied, what criteria were used, and how federal officials made decisions.

Critics also note that COVID‑19 vaccines were authorized under accelerated processes during an unprecedented public health emergency. Because of that, they say there is an even stronger need for openness after the fact — especially when it comes to monitoring safety outcomes and government responses.

Some are calling for the release of redacted summaries or regular public reporting rather than a blanket seal on all records.

Public Confidence and Accountability

The decision comes at a time when trust in public institutions remains fragile after years of pandemic restrictions, mandates, and emergency measures. For some Canadians, sealing the files reinforces the perception that government agencies are reluctant to allow independent review of pandemic‑era decisions.

Health Canada maintains that vaccine safety monitoring is ongoing and that serious adverse reactions remain rare. Officials emphasize that the benefits of vaccination outweighed the risks during the pandemic.

However, critics argue that transparency — not assurances — is what builds trust. They say researchers, journalists, and the public should be able to examine anonymized data to better understand how the system functioned.

Calls for Greater Openness

Advocates are urging the federal government to shorten the restriction period or release redacted versions of the documents that protect privacy while preserving meaningful information. Others want parliamentary oversight or an independent review of how vaccine injury claims were handled.

They argue that Canadians who followed public health guidance deserve clarity about how decisions were made and how those who experienced adverse effects were supported.

Looking Ahead

As Canada continues to assess the long‑term impacts of the COVID‑19 pandemic, debates over transparency and accountability are unlikely to fade. The decision to seal vaccine injury records for 15 years has become a focal point in broader discussions about government openness, public trust, and how emergency powers are used during crises.

For many Canadians, the issue is not about opposing vaccines — it’s about ensuring that public institutions remain accountable, especially when decisions affect millions of people.

Ottawa Poised To Severely Restrict Salmon Take For Recreational Fishery

Sport fishing on Vancouver Island — a long‑standing tradition and an economic anchor for communities like Sayward — is facing renewed uncertainty as the federal government moves ahead with major changes to salmon‑fisheries management.

Ottawa is rewriting salmon policy and regulations with a stronger focus on conservation and Indigenous‑led management. While many agree that protecting declining salmon stocks is essential, anglers, guides, and coastal communities worry the new approach could sharply restrict recreational fishing without addressing the deeper causes of salmon decline.

For Sayward, where sport fishing supports local businesses, tourism, and family traditions, the potential impacts reach far beyond the docks.

What’s Changing

The federal government has signalled that recreational salmon fishing could face tighter limits, shorter seasons, or expanded closures as part of a broader overhaul of fisheries management. These measures are intended to prioritize conservation and food fisheries, particularly for Indigenous communities. But critics say the approach risks sidelining the sport‑fishing sector.

Anglers note that recreational fishing already operates under strict rules — including size limits, seasonal openings, gear restrictions, and catch limits. Many feel additional restrictions unfairly target sport fishers while larger pressures on salmon — such as habitat loss, warming oceans, predation, and industrial impacts — remain insufficiently addressed.

Why It Matters to Sayward

In Sayward, sport fishing is more than a hobby. It supports charter operators, lodges, restaurants, fuel docks, marinas, and local retailers. Visiting anglers bring crucial seasonal income, especially during the summer months when tourism helps sustain small businesses.

Residents also rely on recreational fishing for food and as a way to stay connected to the water. For many families, fishing is part of their identity — a tradition passed down through generations.

Any reduction in fishing opportunities could ripple through the community, making it harder for businesses to stay afloat and for residents to maintain the coastal lifestyle that defines the region.

Conservation vs. Community Impacts

Most anglers in Sayward support conservation and recognize the serious pressures facing salmon stocks. But many question whether focusing on recreational fishing will meaningfully improve salmon returns if larger issues remain unresolved.

Habitat degradation, blocked fish passage, warming rivers, poor marine survival, and predation are often cited as more significant drivers of salmon decline. Critics argue that without stronger action in these areas, restricting sport fishing risks becoming symbolic rather than effective.

There is also concern about uneven impacts. While industrial activities and large‑scale pressures continue, small coastal communities fear they will bear the brunt of policy changes that reduce access to a resource they depend on.

Calls for Local Input and Balance

Fishing groups and coastal residents are urging Ottawa to slow down and consult more closely with communities like Sayward before finalizing new rules. They want decisions grounded in transparent science, local data, and a clear understanding of how policy changes affect rural economies.

Many are calling for a balanced approach — one that recognizes sport fishing as both a cultural tradition and an economic contributor, rather than treating it as expendable.

Looking Ahead

As Ottawa continues reshaping salmon management, Sayward residents will be watching closely. The outcome could determine not only the future of recreational fishing, but also the health of local businesses and the character of the community itself.

For many here, the message is clear: protecting salmon is essential — but conservation efforts must include the people and communities who have relied on these waters for generations. Decisions made far from the coast should not come at the expense of rural livelihoods unless there is clear evidence they will truly help salmon recover.