From the Fraser Institute

By Gary Mauser

More than 90 per cent of guns used in crimes are illegally imported into Ontario from the United States, which means the confiscation (or “buyback”) program would not affect these guns. And the program diverts financial and policing resources towards law-abiding Canadians who own firearms

Given the mountain of federal debt, the Carney government’s much-anticipated fall budget should tell us how Ottawa plans to deal with the prime minister’s new priorities. Carney has urged cabinet to find existing programs to cut so Ottawa can afford the new spending he’s promised, such as meeting the NATO 5 per cent commitment and opening up new energy corridors.

Clearly, if the government wants to cut waste, it should axe the Trudeau-era gun ban and confiscation program, which—according to reports—the government plans to fully rollout this fall.

First, some background. In 2020, with the stroke of a pen, the Trudeau government instantly made it a crime for federally-licenced firearms owners to buy, sell, transport, import, export or use hundreds of thousands of formerly legal rifles and shotguns. According to the government, the ban targets “assault-style weapons,” which are actually classic semi-automatic rifles and shotguns used by hunters and sport shooters for more than 100 years. When announcing the ban, the prime minister said the government would confiscate the banned firearms and provide “fair compensation” to owners. That hasn’t happened.

In fact, the government has revealed no plans about how it will collect the banned firearms nor has it included compensation costs in any federal budget. The amnesty period (to allow compliance with the ban), which the government has extended in the past, is set to expire on Oct. 30, 2025.

The program faces stiff opposition from several key players.

For example, the provincial governments in Ontario and Saskatchewan don’t want to participate. As noted by Ontario’s solicitor general, more than 90 per cent of guns used in crimes are illegally imported into Ontario from the United States, which means the confiscation (or “buyback”) program would not affect these guns. And the program diverts financial and policing resources towards law-abiding Canadians who own firearms and are already heavily regulated and screened.

The National Police Federation, which represents 20,000 RCMP members, has said the program is a “misdirected effort when it comes to public safety.”

Canada Post, which has been tasked by Ottawa to receive and warehouse firearms, wants nothing to do with the program due to fear of conflicts between staff and gun owners, and the ability of Canada Post to safely store potentially hundreds of firearms in postal substations.

And the Canadian Sporting Arms and Ammunition Association, which represents firearms retailers, said it will have “zero involvement” in helping confiscate these firearms.

Meanwhile, there’s no evidence the program will improve public safety.

In fact, Canadian firearms owners are exceptionally law-abiding and less likely to commit murder than other Canadians—and that shouldn’t be surprising. To own a firearm in Canada, you must obtain a Possession and Acquisition Licence (PAL) from the RCMP after initial vetting and daily monitoring for possible criminal activity. Between 2000 and 2020, an average of 12 PAL holders per year were accused of homicide, out of approximately 2 million PAL holders. The number of PAL holders increased from 1,979,054 to 2,206,755 over this same time period, so the PAL holder firearms homicide rate over 20 years was 0.63 per 100,000 PAL holders. But the firearms homicide rate for adult Canadians is 0.72 per 100,000—that’s 14 per cent higher than the rate for PAL holders.

Even the minister in charge of the program—Gary Anandasangaree, the Carney government’s public safety minister—seems to think it’s a bad idea. In an audio recording released online, he said: “I just don’t think municipal police services have the resources to do this” before adding that the program’s goals may be more about politics than sound policy.

So, with a federal budget looming, how much will the gun ban/confiscation program cost taxpayers?

The plain answer: we don’t know. But back in 2020, the Trudeau government said it would cost $200 million to compensate firearms owners for confiscating their now-banned firearms, although the Parliamentary Budget Officer said compensation costs could reach $756 million. The federal government recently said the program’s administrative costs (safe storage, destruction of hundreds of thousands of firearms, etc.) would reach an estimated $1.8 billion. My estimate, based on a similar program in New Zealand in 2019, for only compensation costs and the collection phase is closer to $6 billion.

Today, more than 150 employees of the Department of Public Safety in Ottawa are working full time on the program, yet few firearms (12,195) have been collected to-date. The program spent $67.2 million by 2024, before it collected a single gun, and is now projected to cost $459.8 million in 2025/26 alone, mainly on public opinion surveys and planning. Basically, they’re trying to figure out how to confiscate and destroy hundreds of thousands of guns from across Canada. Apparently, this planning costs hundreds of millions of dollars.

In sum, Ottawa’s gun ban/confiscation (“buyback”) program is very expensive and likely won’t achieve its stated goals of improving public safety. If the Carney government wants to find savings, the program is good place to start.

From the Canadian Constitution Foundation

“I worry that this law could be used to secretly cut off political dissidents from their phone or Internet service on the pretense that they may try to manipulate the telecom system”

The Canadian Constitution Foundation is concerned about the civil liberties implications of the Carney government’s proposed cyber security bill, C-8, which would allow the minister of industry to secretly order telecommunications service providers like Telus, Bell and Rogers to stop providing services to individual Canadians.

The minister would be allowed to make such an order if she has “reasonable grounds to believe that it is necessary to do so to secure the Canadian telecommunications system against any threat, including that of interference, manipulation, disruption or degradation.”

An individual who does not comply, including by failing to keep the order secret, could face fines of up to $25,000 for the first contravention and $50,000 for subsequent contraventions. Businesses could face fines of up to $10 million for the first contravention and up to $15 million for subsequent contraventions.

The orders would remain secret indefinitely, with the minister required only to present an annual report to Parliament on the number of orders made and her opinion on their necessity, reasonableness and utility.

CCF Counsel Josh Dehaas said that the power to cut off the Internet or cellphone service of Canadians is a “very serious power that requires very strong safeguards, which are presently lacking in the bill.” 

“While this power may be necessary in some cases to prevent cyber attacks, it also poses serious risks to civil liberties,” Dehaas said. “I worry that this law could be used to secretly cut off political dissidents from their phone or Internet service on the pretense that they may try to manipulate the telecom system,” Dehaas explained. “Such an action would violate our most cherished freedoms including free speech.”

CCF Litigation Director Christine Van Geyn said that the government cannot be trusted with such a power unless proper safeguards are in place.

“You may think that the idea of the government cutting off political dissidents from the necessities of life sounds far-fetched, but that’s exactly what happened during the 2022 Freedom Convoy protests in Ottawa,” she said. “The federal government ordered banks to freeze hundreds of bank accounts without any judicial authorization, cutting protesters off from their money in the middle of a very cold winter.”

“Although the Federal Court agreed with the CCF that freezing bank accounts this way violated the constitutional right to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures, that kind of damage isn’t easily repaired,” Van Geyn added.

Ottawa has appealed the Federal Court’s finding. The CCF is awaiting a decision from the Federal Court of Appeal.

Dehaas said that Parliament should consider requiring either judicial pre-authorization or an immediate, automatic judicial review of any decision to cut off an individual or business from their Internet or phone.

The CCF is also concerned that Bill C-8 would allow the minister to weaken telecommunications companies’ encryption standards, allowing for unconstitutional access to Canadians’ private information.

Finally, the CCF is concerned that the bill could allow the minister or any person designated by the minister to engage in unconstitutional searches.

Joanna Baron, the CCF’s Executive Director, said that Canadians must be vigilant about their constitutional rights and freedoms because they can be easily taken away, especially in times of crisis.

“I would encourage Canadians to fight for their freedoms, whether it’s by taking the CCF’s free privacy course, signing up for our weekly Freedom Update newsletter or becoming a monthly donor,” Baron said.

“Concerned Canadians are also encouraged to write to their MPs using our form letter, to tell them to amend these bills to ensure Canadians’ rights to privacy and free expression are protected,” Baron added.