From Merit to Mayhem: How Liberal Rule Turned Canada’s Immigration System into a Staggering Free-for-All

Six months into the Carney government, Canadians aren’t seeing reform—they’re seeing reruns. Despite lofty campaign promises to restore integrity to immigration and relieve pressure on public services, the new administration has done virtually nothing to reverse the damage.

In fact, it has quietly upheld the same intake levels as the Trudeau era, with 395,000 permanent residents slated for admission in 2025—just 5,000 shy of the previous Liberal target—and over 3 million temporary residents still in the country, making up more than 7 percent of the population.

These numbers aren’t a course correction; they’re a continuation. Worse still, the minister responsible for immigration has shown a troubling lack of urgency or grasp of the crisis at hand, failing to introduce a single meaningful reform to the asylum system or the ballooning Interim Federal Health Program (IFHP). For a government that campaigned on competence, the first six months have looked alarmingly like cluelessness.

Canada hasn’t just lost control of its immigration system—it’s lost its edge. Once admired for a fair and principled approach rooted in compassion and merit, the country has become a soft target for exploitation. Under successive Liberal governments, Canada’s social programs have been opened wide to hundreds of thousands of asylum claimants—many of whom haven’t contributed a cent to the system—while Canadian citizens wait longer for care, housing, and basic services.

There’s a difference between offering a hand up and handing out benefits with no accountability. And Canada, under Liberal leadership, has leaned hard into the latter.

According to figures obtained through an Order Paper Question by Conservative MP Rachael Thomas, the IFHP’s budget has ballooned from $66 million in 2016–17 to more than $800 million in fiscal year 2024–25. This includes $456 million in “extra coverage” such as pharmaceuticals, vision care, counselling, prosthetics, homecare, and even nursing homes—services that many Canadians either pay for out-of-pocket or wait months to access. “Canadians are a compassionate people,” said Conservative immigration critic Michelle Rempel Garner, “but unvalidated asylum seekers should not get better benefits than Canadians do.”

The number of individuals accessing IFHP services has grown from 84,313 in 2016 to over 402,000 in 2024—a 377 percent increase. The backlog of asylum claims has exploded from fewer than 10,000 in 2015 to over 287,000 in 2025. Much of this spike followed the Liberal government’s now-infamous 2017 tweet, #WelcomeToCanada, which critics say encouraged illegal border crossings and overwhelmed the system.

Meanwhile, other countries facing similar pressures have taken decisive action. In 2025, Sweden abolished its “track change” policy, which previously allowed rejected asylum seekers to convert their claims into work permits. Now, those who fail to qualify must leave the country, and deportation orders remain valid for five years.

Sweden also slashed asylum-related residence permits by 42 percent and invested over 2.5 billion SEK into repatriation programs. Denmark has similarly tightened its asylum rules, requiring integration benchmarks and limiting benefits to encourage rapid employment and self-sufficiency.

Canada, by contrast, continues to offer long-term benefits with little oversight. Since 2017, the federal government has spent over $2.6 billion on housing asylum seekers, including $1.1 billion on hotel accommodations. In 2024, the City of Ottawa reported $54.7 million in asylum-related shelter costs, with the federal government covering $51.9 million. Toronto has received $670 million in federal support since 2017, yet still struggles to meet demand.

The consequences are stark. In 2023–24 alone, at least 15,474 Canadians died waiting for healthcare. Wait times have increased from 20 weeks in 2016 to 30 weeks in 2024. Seniors, who have contributed to the system their entire lives, are being pushed aside while asylum seekers—many of whom would not qualify under Canada’s traditional points-based immigration system—receive comprehensive care.

Canada’s points-based immigration system was once a global model, prioritizing skilled applicants who could contribute to the economy and integrate successfully. But the current asylum surge has undermined that framework. Many claimants now bypass the rigorous vetting process, entering through what Rempel calls “an unregulated backdoor system for economic migration.” The result is a strain not only on healthcare, but also on housing and social services.

The IFHP was never intended to be a permanent substitute for provincial healthcare. It was designed to offer temporary support to those fleeing war and persecution. But under the current administration, its scope has expanded dramatically, and its costs have spiralled. “These are the types of expenditures that undermine Canadian acceptance for immigration during a housing crisis,” said Rempel Garner.

Canada must reconcile its humanitarian values with fiscal responsibility and fairness. That means restoring the integrity of the points system, tightening asylum eligibility, and shifting focus from passive handouts to active integration.

Compassion should never come at the cost of collapsing public services or eroding trust in the system. Reforming the IFHP and asylum processing isn’t just policy—it’s survival.

Photo: iStock