Calls for government accountability are echoing across Canada this week after newly released documents revealed that at least $170,000 in taxpayer money was spent on the repatriation of eight Canadian women and their children from Syria—women who had previously traveled to join the Islamic State. The revelations, first reported by Global News, have prompted Conservative MPs to demand an immediate parliamentary inquiry into what they have labeled the government’s “appalling” expenditures.
On Friday, August 15, 2025, a letter signed by Tory MPs was sent to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. The letter, addressed to committee chair Jean-Yves Duclos, urged the committee to convene without delay to scrutinize the costs associated with bringing these women and their children back to Canada in 2022 and 2023. The Conservatives’ move follows the release of expense reports, obtained under the Access to Information Act, that detail a range of costs—from business class flights and luxury hotel stays to catering fees and even junk food purchases.
According to the declassified documents, the federal government’s spending included business class airfare for the returnees and government staff, stays at a Marriott hotel, room service, a $95 wine tab, $24 sandwiches, chips, chocolate bars, Timbits, and a $2,800 catering fee for a banquet. These expenses, which covered both the families and the officials involved in the repatriation process, have sparked outrage among opposition members and many Canadians alike.
“The Liberal government needs to be held accountable for the way it throws away our money and wastes hard earned tax dollars, giving rewards and luxuries to people who betrayed our country,” Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre told Global News in an interview. He did not mince words, adding, “They made the decision to go and join and marry into the worst terrorist network in the world, and they should pay the full costs of getting back to Canada.”
Poilievre has called for the women to be asked to repay the costs of their repatriation, emphasizing that “we want to make sure that we’re getting to the bottom of it so this money can’t be wasted in the future.” The sentiment was echoed in the letter from Conservative members of the public safety committee, which stated, “The fact that these items were purchased for those detained as alleged terrorists is appalling in itself.” The letter continued, “With Canadians lining up in food banks in record numbers and struggling with housing costs, the Liberal government must answer for why they spent $170,000 on lavish costs to repatriate reported ISIS criminals.”
Under parliamentary rules, if four members of a committee, representing at least two political parties, request a meeting, the clerk must organize it within five days. However, the Bloc Québécois representatives on the committee would also need to sign on for the meeting to proceed, potentially complicating the opposition’s efforts to fast-track an inquiry.
The eight women at the center of the controversy were originally residents of British Columbia, Alberta, Ontario, and Quebec before leaving Canada to live under ISIS rule in Syria and Iraq. Their journeys ended when ISIS was defeated by U.S.-backed Kurdish fighters and an international coalition that included Canadian Forces. After their capture, the women and their children remained in detention until their families launched a case in Federal Court demanding their return to Canada—a case that ultimately led the federal government to agree to repatriate them.
Despite repeated requests from Global News for a full accounting of the repatriation costs, the Department of Global Affairs Canada only released partial materials on August 7, 2025—two years after the initial request. Even then, the documents did not cover all costs associated with the operation. In a statement to Global News, Global Affairs Canada explained, “While we cannot comment on specific expenditures related to the operation, Global Affairs Canada assumed certain immediate costs to support the safe return and well-being of the women and children repatriated to Canada.” The department also noted that it was still consulting with a foreign government about releasing additional information.
The expense reports themselves paint a picture of a costly and, to some, unnecessarily luxurious process. The inclusion of items like a $95 wine tab and a $2,800 catering bill for a banquet has particularly rankled critics. For many, these numbers are hard to swallow at a time when food banks are seeing record demand and Canadians across the country are struggling with rising housing costs.
The controversy has also reignited broader debates about Canada’s approach to citizens who joined or supported terrorist organizations abroad. Some argue that the government has a legal and humanitarian obligation to repatriate its citizens, especially children, and to provide for their basic needs during and after their return. Others, however, feel that the government’s generosity has gone too far—especially when it comes to individuals who, in their view, turned their backs on Canada and its values.
While the government has largely remained tight-lipped about the specifics of the expenditures, the opposition’s calls for transparency are growing louder. “We want to make sure that we’re getting to the bottom of it so this money can’t be wasted in the future,” Poilievre insisted. The Conservative leader’s demand for accountability is resonating with many Canadians, particularly those who feel left behind by rising living costs and government spending priorities.
The political fallout from the revelations is still unfolding. The Liberals, for their part, have yet to offer a detailed public defense of the spending, instead deferring to ongoing consultations with foreign governments and citing the need to support the “safe return and well-being” of repatriated women and children. The Bloc Québécois, whose cooperation is needed to launch the committee meeting, has so far remained noncommittal, leaving the next steps uncertain.
Meanwhile, the families of the women and children involved continue to argue that their loved ones deserve a second chance. The Federal Court case that led to the repatriations was based on the argument that Canada has a duty to protect its citizens, regardless of their actions abroad. Legal experts note that international law and various human rights conventions may indeed obligate Canada to bring its citizens home, especially minors, and to provide for their immediate needs upon return.
Still, the optics of luxury hotel stays, gourmet catering, and alcohol purchases—funded by taxpayers—are proving difficult for the government to justify in the court of public opinion. As the story continues to develop, many are watching closely to see whether the committee will convene, whether further details of the spending will be released, and how the government will respond to mounting pressure for transparency and accountability.
For now, one thing is clear: the debate over how Canada handles the return of its citizens from conflict zones—and how much it should spend in the process—is far from over. The coming weeks may provide more answers, or perhaps only more questions, as Canadians grapple with the complex intersection of national security, human rights, and fiscal responsibility.
