Feds Triple Streaming Tax, Making Life More Expensive

by | May 26, 2026 03:22 | National

The Canadian Taxpayers Federation is urging Prime Minister Mark Carney to reverse a newly announced increase to Canada’s streaming levy following a decision by the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) to raise the rate from 5 per cent to 15 per cent of Canadian revenues.

According to the CRTC, the updated levy will apply to major online streaming platforms with annual Canadian broadcasting revenues exceeding $25 million, including services such as Netflix, Prime Video, and Disney+, as reported by CBC News.

Franco Terrazzano, Federal Director of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, said the increase runs counter to efforts to improve affordability for Canadians. He argued that higher business costs could ultimately be passed on to consumers in the form of higher subscription prices.

Industry representatives and policy analysts have also raised concerns about the potential impact of the decision. The Motion Picture Association of Canada warned that the increased levy could significantly raise operating costs for streaming services in Canada, potentially discouraging investment and innovation in the sector.

Michael Geist, Canada Research Chair in internet and e-commerce law at the University of Ottawa, similarly cautioned that the policy could lead to higher prices for consumers and make Canada a more expensive market for streaming companies to operate in.

Critics of the decision argue that increasing regulatory costs on digital services may add pressure to an already inflation-sensitive economy, with potential consequences for both consumers and industry competitiveness.

Terrazzano said the federal government should reconsider the policy direction, emphasizing that increased taxation on digital services risks making everyday entertainment more expensive for Canadians.

In response, the federal government has stated that it is currently reviewing the CRTC’s decision.

The CRTC has framed the measure as part of its broader regulatory approach to the broadcasting sector, while debate continues over its economic impact and implications for consumers and industry investment.

Federal Gun Confiscation Program Faces Scrutiny Over Lack of Evidence

by | May 26, 2026 03:09 | National

If someone were about to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on a major public program, most people would expect at least some evidence that it works.

Critics say that expectation does not appear to have been met in Ottawa’s firearms confiscation initiative.

The Canadian Taxpayers Federation submitted an access-to-information request to Public Safety Canada, the department overseeing the federal firearms buyback and confiscation program. The request asked for any internal analysis on whether the “assault-style firearms compensation program” would improve public safety or reduce crime.

According to the department’s response, no such analysis exists within Public Safety Canada.

That disclosure has raised concerns among critics, who argue that the federal government is advancing a costly program without producing evidence of its effectiveness.

The program has been budgeted at a minimum of $742 million, though some estimates place its total cost in the billions. Despite this, critics point out that there appears to be no publicly available departmental analysis demonstrating measurable safety benefits.

Federal officials have previously defended the policy on public safety grounds, arguing that reducing the number of firearms in circulation would reduce violence.

However, opponents say that claim is not supported by available research or expert opinion.

Some law enforcement representatives and researchers have questioned the program’s likely impact. Clayton Campbell, president of the Toronto Police Association, has said the initiative would likely have “essentially zero impact” on gun crime in Toronto. University of Toronto professor Jooyoung Lee has similarly noted that firearms buyback programs tend to attract lawful owners rather than individuals engaged in criminal activity, limiting their effect on violent crime.

Participation from police services across Canada has also been limited, with several agencies opting not to take part in implementation.

International comparisons are also frequently cited in the debate. New Zealand’s 2019 firearms buyback program, which removed more than 50,000 weapons from circulation, has been referenced by critics who note that violent firearm crime reportedly increased following the initiative, though analysts caution that multiple factors can influence crime trends.

At the provincial level, the program has also faced resistance. Manitoba Premier Wab Kinew has expressed concerns about its effectiveness and administrative burden, while Ontario Premier Doug Ford has emphasized support for law-abiding firearms owners and questioned the policy’s focus.

Alberta and Saskatchewan have gone further, passing legislation intended to block enforcement of federal confiscation efforts within their jurisdictions. Most provinces and territories, with the exception of British Columbia and Quebec, have declined to participate in implementation, citing concerns about effectiveness and cost.

Public opinion polling, including surveys conducted by Leger, suggests Canadians may prefer increased enforcement against firearms smuggling and illegal trafficking over confiscation efforts targeting licensed owners.

Taken together, critics argue that the program faces skepticism from multiple directions—law enforcement, provincial governments, and segments of the public—while lacking publicly available federal analysis demonstrating its expected outcomes.

They say that without clear evidence of effectiveness, the cost and scope of the program remain difficult to justify.

The federal government, meanwhile, maintains that its firearms policies are designed to improve public safety and reduce gun violence across Canada.

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

by | Apr 25, 2026 01:43 | National

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

by | Apr 25, 2026 01:27 | National

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.

G7 Parliamentarians Take Pay Freeze Or Cut While Canadian MP’s Enjoy 14 Consecutive Years Of Automatic Pay Raises

by | Apr 11, 2026 02:22 | National

Members of Parliament received another round of salary increases this year, with raises ranging from approximately $7,900 for backbench MPs to as much as $15,800 for those in senior positions.

These increases took effect on April 1 and are part of an automatic annual adjustment tied to average wage growth in the private sector. As a result, a standard MP salary has risen to about $217,700. MPs serving in additional roles earn significantly more, with cabinet ministers making roughly $321,300 and the prime minister earning about $435,400.

The Canadian Taxpayers Federation is criticizing the continued pay hikes, pointing out that MPs have received increases every year since 2015 without a vote in Parliament. The group argues that this automatic system removes accountability and allows politicians to benefit from raises without directly approving them.

The federation also highlights the broader economic context, noting that many Canadians are dealing with high living costs, including rising prices for housing, food, and fuel. In that environment, they argue, ongoing pay increases for elected officials risk appearing out of touch with the financial pressures facing the public.

In addition, the group raises concerns about the compounding effect of these annual increases over time, which steadily push salaries higher each year. They say this trend contrasts with the experience of many workers whose wages have not kept pace with inflation.

The organization is calling on MPs to reject the automatic pay raise system and instead freeze their salaries. It argues that any future changes to MP compensation should require a transparent vote in Parliament, ensuring elected officials are directly accountable to taxpayers for decisions affecting their own pay.

Overall, the debate reflects a broader tension between maintaining competitive compensation for public officials and demonstrating fiscal restraint during periods of economic strain.