Trudeau promises more gun control and goes on the attack against Scheer
- Thread starter IronNoggin
- Start date
IronNoggin
Well-Known Member
IronNoggin
Well-Known Member
SpringFever2359
Well-Known Member
What a waist of oxygen that guy is, with his thought process cars , knives baseball bats are all designed to kill people what a fk n moron
IronNoggin
Well-Known Member
IronNoggin
Well-Known Member
BERNARDO: Why Saskatchewan’s Bill 42 matters — even if you don’t own a firearm
When Ottawa changes the law, Saskatchewan is rewriting the power dynamic and demanding accountability.Bill 42 does not rewrite federal licencing or abolish “gun control.” What it does is more technical and, in many ways, more enduring.
It builds a more robust provincial architecture for administering firearms law and strengthens oversight where firearms are used most intensively (ranges and instructors).
It creates a cautious but meaningful bridge between health professionals and public safety, while asserting that when federal law significantly strips property of its lawful use, fair compensation should follow.
For those who study or care about Canadian firearms policy, Bill 42 is a clear example of how a province can balance safety, fairness, and constitutional realities.
For everyone else, it’s a window into how complex legal tools are used to navigate the intersection of individual rights, federal power, and public safety in a modern federation.
If you care about the rule of law, federal–provincial balance, public safety, or property rights in Canada, there are important benefits here — whether you personally own a firearm or not.
Even if you have no intention of ever owning a firearm, Bill 42 is a live case study in several core themes of Canadian public law.
How provinces respond to federal policy. Deemed‑seizure and compensation rules demonstrate a provincial attempt to protect residents from sudden, uncompensated losses driven by federal regulations.
Balancing rights with safety. The medical‑reporting framework, inspection powers, and instructor controls show how safety measures can be built with safeguards for privacy, due process, and transparency.
The commissioner/deputy/assistant structure reflects a move toward more professional, scalable public administration.
Bill 42 signals that when government action (especially from another order of government) dramatically affects valuable property, there should be a clear, fair, and transparent compensation pathway.
Predictable legal frameworks: Owners, clubs, medical professionals, instructors, and the general public benefit when the law is clear about duties, processes, and consequences.
Bill 42 turns the “Saskatchewan firearms commissioner” from a single‑person role into a structured office of commissioner, deputy commissioners, and assistant commissioners.
The minister can delegate powers to the commissioner, and the commissioner can further delegate to deputies and assistants, subject to conditions.
This is administrative plumbing, but it matters. Strong governance frameworks generally result in more timely decisions, clearer lines of responsibility, and fewer “black holes” where files disappear.
Bill 42 changes a crucial word in the penalty provisions: instead of applying only to one division of Part 3, the offence and penalty clauses now apply to the entire Part 3.
If you’re a firearms owner, you get clearer expectations and more predictable consequences. If you’re not, you benefit from a regulatory landscape that is more coherent and easier to apply.
Bill 42 adds a simple but important rule. If a person is subject to a court order imposing alternative penalties (such as training, restrictions, or conditions) and they ignore it, that non‑compliance is now a separate offence.
This is a principle that goes beyond firearms. It reinforces the idea that when courts craft tailored conditions instead of simply punishing, those conditions still carry real weight.
Bill 42 creates an explicit inspection regime for shooting clubs and ranges that are approved, or seeking approval, under the federal Firearms Act.
Obstructing or interfering with an inspector becomes an offence.
Even if you never visit a shooting range, this structure is an example of preventive regulation. It’s checking systems before something goes wrong, not only after.
Bill 42 introduces a framework allowing medical professionals to report individuals who, in their professional opinion, may be dangerous if they possess or use firearms, and who hold or have applied for a firearms licence.
Reporting is permitted but not mandatory, requiring a reasonable belief about the licence status and a professional opinion about danger. Medical professionals are protected from civil liability if they report in good faith. Reports are privileged and not admissible as evidence, except to prove the fact of good-faith reporting.
For non‑owners, this is a reassuring bridge between health and public safety.
For firearms owners, the safeguards, limited scope, and good‑faith protections help prevent arbitrary or malicious use while acknowledging rare but serious cases.
Bill 42 gives the Chief Firearms Officer explicit power to designate who may deliver the Canadian Firearms Safety Course and administer tests in Saskatchewan.
Only designated instructors may teach or test.
The CFO can revoke designations as appropriate.
Policies and guidelines for designation and revocation must be published.
Failing to follow these rules is an offence.
This is a classic “public interest” reform by improving standards for people who interact with potentially lethal tools.
Bill 42 clarifies that “owner” includes the heirs, executors, administrators, and legal representatives of an owner.
This is part of a bigger principle of laws dealing with property should anticipate real‑life events like death and succession so families are not left in legal limbo.
The most politically charged part of Bill 42 is the new Division that treats certain federal changes as a “deemed seizure” for compensation purposes if the owner isn’t fully paid within a year.
When a federal law or regulation (a “specified law”) takes away an owner’s ability to possess or transfer a firearm they previously owned lawfully, and the owner doesn’t receive full compensation within 12 months, Then, for the purposes of Saskatchewan’s Act, the firearm is deemed seized, and the Government of Canada is required to pay full fair‑market‑value compensation under the provincial valuation machinery.
The law also applies to specified laws that came into force before this provision, not just future changes. It resets limitation‑period clocks so that time limits cannot be used to easily defeat compensation claims.
Why this is significant beyond firearms?
Saskatchewan is taking a firm stance on property-rights signalling by asserting that when federal rules effectively strip a class of property of its lawful use and transferability, it should be regarded as a seizure, necessitating a duty to compensate.
Saskatchewan is utilizing its jurisdictional tools to influence the interaction between federal firearms policy and the property interests of its residents through federal–provincial dialogue. This approach serves as a clear constitutional and political statement that any federal policy imposing significant economic loss should include a plan for fair compensation, regardless of whether the scheme is ever litigated.
Rule-of-law clarity is enhanced for affected owners as the rules are now more straightforward. If your firearm is essentially legislated out of lawful existence and you are not compensated within a year, Saskatchewan law stipulates that you have a recognizable compensation claim.
For others watching from the sidelines, this is a high‑profile example of a province building structured responses when residents face sudden regulatory loss of value.
Regardless of where you stand on “gun control,” Saskatchewan’s architecture is a model for how provinces may respond when federal action dramatically alters private property rights.
Bill 42 adds practical mechanisms for handling firearms caught by the federal firearms confiscation scheme.
The commissioner may collect and store firearms while value is being determined. Firearms can be tested (for forensic and ballistic purposes) under adapted rules from the testing division.
The commissioner may contract private entities to store firearms, and these entities are explicitly not considered “seizure agents.” Neither the commissioner nor the storage contractor is compensated; the obligation falls on the Government of Canada. Once the owner receives full payment, the firearm must be destroyed or deactivated as directed.
This is a design that tries to be both practically workable and aligned with public safety priorities.
Bill 42 is about far more than firearms. It’s Saskatchewan drawing a constitutional line in the sand.
If the federal government uses its power to legislate a class of lawfully owned property out of existence, that loss should be treated as a seizure and should be met with fair, transparent compensation.
Everything else in the bill — the stronger commissioner’s office, the inspection powers, the medical reporting framework, the control over instructors — is important scaffolding.
But the heart of Bill 42 is that deemed seizure and compensation regime. It converts what would otherwise be a political grievance into a structured legal claim, backed by clear timelines, valuation rules, and a defined path to resolution.
Whether you own firearms or not, that is a powerful precedent.
It says that safety measures and public order do not have to come at the quiet expense of individual property rights, and that provinces are prepared to stand up for their residents when federal policy imposes sudden, uncompensated losses.
Bill 42 may not settle Canada’s debates over “gun control,” but it does something more durable. It models how a province can insist on both public safety and the rule of law, both responsible regulation and honest compensation, inside a complex federal system.
BERNARDO: Why Saskatchewan’s Bill 42 matters — even if you don’t own a firearm
Bill 42 does not rewrite federal licencing or abolish “gun control.” What it does is more technical and, in many ways, more enduring.
IronNoggin
Well-Known Member
Wildlife Federation urges Winnipeg to abandon federal gun buyback as pressure mounts across Canada
The Manitoba Wildlife Federation (MWF) is calling on Winnipeg to pull out of the Trudeau government’s gun buyback program, warning City Hall that support for the initiative is collapsing nationwide and accusing Ottawa of spending millions to confiscate firearms from licensed gun owners while failing to target crime.In a letter sent to Mayor Scott Gillingham and all city councillors, MWF managing director Carly Deacon said Winnipeg now stands alone as the only jurisdiction in Canada whose police service has publicly agreed to run the federal buyback. Alberta and Yukon have already refused to participate, Charlottetown voted unanimously last week to opt out, and Saskatchewan has introduced legislation to guarantee “fair compensation” for gun owners.
“With each passing week, fundamental flaws in this costly, ineffective program continue to emerge,” Deacon wrote, calling the buyback “entirely politically motivated” and “a wasteful attack on legal firearms owners that fails to address the criminal element.”
The group pointed to a federal pilot project in Cape Breton this fall that aimed to collect 200 prohibited firearms but reportedly recovered fewer than two dozen, at an estimated public cost of between $1,079 and $2,159 per gun. The federation said Ottawa has refused to release details on what was collected or whether the firearms were among models newly prohibited through cabinet order.
Despite the small yield, the City of Winnipeg and the Winnipeg Police Service have been budgeted more than $287,000 for 2024–25 and more than $2.5 million for 2025–26. MWF argues those funds could instead be directed toward “programs and projects that reduce crime,” rather than purchasing decades-old hunting rifles from law-abiding owners.
The letter comes as the federal government expands the list of prohibited firearms again, this time banning semi-automatic firearms with detachable magazines through an amended Order-in-Council, following advice from a newly released Expert Advisory Panel.
That panel, convened by Public Safety Canada, recommended prohibiting many semi-automatic shotguns and rifles with military-style features, higher-capacity magazines, or rapid-fire capability. While acknowledging that firearms have long been part of hunting and Indigenous harvesting traditions, the panel concluded that “the interests of gun owners need to be balanced against public safety interests,” particularly in the wake of mass-casualty tragedies.
The report also drew on 2023 recommendations from the Mass Casualty Commission, which urged Ottawa to ban semi-automatic centre-fire rifles and shotguns capable of accepting magazines larger than five rounds.
Deacon told the mayor that the combination of buyback costs, shifting definitions of prohibited weapons, and growing political resistance across provinces shows the program is “unjust and a waste of taxpayers’ money.”
“On behalf of our 15,000 members and common-sense Canadians,” she wrote, “we urge the City of Winnipeg to withdraw scarce taxpayers’ dollars from this program.”
IronNoggin
Well-Known Member
IronNoggin
Well-Known Member
Federal government confirms 25 guns collected in 'buyback' pilot, as Quebec pledges support
The department said in a statement it would compensate Quebec to the tune of $12 million to assist in collection effortsOTTAWA — With time ticking down until the Liberals launch their long-awaited “buyback” program for government-banned firearms, the federal government has confirmed that only 25 guns were turned over as part of a test run.
Late Wednesday, Public Safety Canada announced the results of a six-week pilot program that ran in parts of Cape Breton last fall, which was designed to test the system before it rolled out nationally.
The pilot had been launched with the intent of collecting up to a maximum of 200 banned guns. The department confirms only 25 were turned in and destroyed.
In a statement outlining the “lessons learned” from the pilot, the Public Safety department identified how a clearer registration process would help boost participation and that a “significantly longer declaration period” would be in place when the national program launches, as compared to the several weeks gun owners were given during the test period.
It also identified “gaps” in the portal gun owners used to register, which it says may have created confusion.
“The pilot demonstrated that clearer and more timely instructions are required to facilitate participation,” the statement read.
Since 2020 the federal government has banned more than 2,500 makes and models of guns it has deemed as being “assault-style” firearms, arguing they are unfit for public use.
Prime Minister Mark Carney’s government has announced plans to launch the program promised under his predecessor, former prime minister Justin Trudeau, to compensate gun owners with these weapons sometime this month, slightly later than its initial target, which was by the end of last year.
It had, up until Wednesday, only signed two agreements with Winnipeg and Cape Breton, whose police force agreed to collect firearms to be turned over by gun owners under the controversial program.
That day, the federal government added a province to its list of willing participants: Quebec. The Public Safety department announced it would compensate Quebec $12 million to assist in coordinating collection efforts.
Quebec is one of several provinces with its own provincial police force, the Sûreté du Québec, and is the first province to publicly declare its intention to support the federal program.
Simon Lafortune, a spokesman for Public Safety Minister Gary Anandasangaree, said in a statement that “several contribution agreements” remain in the works with both provinces and different police forces.
“However, it is also important to note that, where able, the federal government will be collecting these weapons through mobile collection units that will be dispatched across the country,” he added.
Some provinces have outright rejected taking part in the program, such as Ontario. Saddam Khussain, a spokesperson for the provincial solicitor general, said in a statement that it shares “the concern” voiced by the Ontario Provincial Police about how the federal policy would not lead to “meaningful public safety results.”
Alberta Premier Danielle Smith has said much the same, with Mike Ellis, her United Conservative Party government’s public safety minister, sending letters to provincial police chiefs last month advising them against taking part, including any “contracted RCMP service provider.”
Robert Freberg, who serves as commissioner of the Saskatchewan Firearm Office, also said Premier Scott Moe’s Saskatchewan Party government would not be directing local police to partake in the program.
New Brunswick Premier Susan Holt’s Liberal government also decided against striking any kind of a deal with the federal government and requested that police resources not be used.
“We have decided against a contribution agreement and advised Public Safety Canada accordingly. Provincial involvement is not required for the federal government to implement its own policy,” Robert Gauvin, the provincial public safety minister, said in a statement.
“We also asked Public Safety Canada to ensure, as they develop their own plan to implement their compensation program, that active police officers are not used. Police officers’ time is a valuable resource that is better spent on other tasks.”
The Nova Scotia government says the province has no role in the program, while the British Columbia government said it supports the program and was leaving it up to different police forces to determine their participation.
Public Safety officials told reporters in a not-for-attribution briefing last fall, when the government announced the launch of the pilot program in Cape Breton, that they did not intend to disrupt the day-to-day operations with administering the “buyback” program and that negotiations with police were ongoing.
While police in Fredericton say they intend to participate in the program, Charlottetown city councillors voted last month against their local police doing so.
Others say they still need more information.
In Nova Scotia, New Glasgow Regional Police Chief Ryan Leil wrote in an email that it had “not received any formal updates, directives, or operational guidance from the federal government” about participating, or information about how the pilot went in Cape Breton.
Around the Greater Toronto Area, Peel police say discussions with the federal government remain ongoing, but that no decisions have been made.
Police in Durham also say it has yet to make a decision and had agreed to attend working group meetings organized by Public Safety Canada to learn more information before deciding either way.
Toronto police said its position from last fall that it would review details of the national program once fully announced had not changed.
Mark Campbell, president of the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police, which represents police leaders across the province, said it had been in contact with federal Public Safety officials to help provide information about the program to different police in the province.
Last October, the association released a statement outlining concerns it had heard from police in the province about the impending rollout, from a lack of clarity around the scope and procedures to the fact that resources were already “stretched.”
Campbell, who heads the Strathroy-Caradoc Police Service, said policing leaders also voiced concerns about what would happen once the amnesty period ends this October for firearms owners still in possession of a prohibited firearm.
“What expectations would there be on policing organizations who, you know, turn from being gun collectors to, you know, starting or initiating investigations for illegal firearms in your communities,” he said.
Tracey Wilson, vice-president of public relations and lobbyist for the Canadian Coalition of Firearm Rights, which identifies itself as “Canada’s Gun Lobby,” said that from the start she has viewed the policy as “logistically impossible.”
She suggested the minister had found himself in a position where “nobody wants to touch this,” not only because of its inherent controversy but because of the fact that many police officers are themselves gun owners.
“They’re gunnies. They’re in our community,” Wilson said.
Ken Price, a spokesman for the Danforth Families for Safe Communities, whose daughter was shot during a 2019 shooting in Toronto’s Greektown neighbourhood, said frustration is growing to see the long-promised program finally launched.
“To take this long, I think it’s disappointing.”
Federal government confirms 25 guns collected in 'buyback' pilot, as Quebec pledges support
Federal officials have ramped up their search for police and provinces to help carry it out.
IronNoggin
Well-Known Member
CTF says failed pilot shows gun grab program should be scrapped
Ottawa’s gun grab program is under renewed fire after a federal pilot project in Cape Breton netted just 25 firearms, far short of government targets, prompting critics to call the entire scheme a costly failure.The Canadian Taxpayers Federation says the six-week pilot project, launched in September 2025, demonstrates what law enforcement and policy experts have warned for years: confiscating firearms from licensed owners will not make communities safer.
The federal government provided at least $149,760 to the Cape Breton Regional Municipality to carry out the project, with an initial goal of collecting 200 firearms.
Instead, authorities seized barely one-eighth of that number — 25.
“Ottawa’s pilot project cost a lot of money, but only picked up a fraction of the guns projected,” said Gage Haubrich, the CTF’s Prairie director.
“Law enforcement experts told the government the gun confiscation won’t work and now the failed pilot project has proven the point.”
Police leaders and unions have repeatedly argued the program diverts resources away from tackling real crime.
Clayton Campbell, president of the Toronto Police Association, has said the federal gun grab will have “essentially zero impact” on violent crime in major cities.
The union representing RCMP members has likewise warned the program pulls personnel, funding, and attention away from combating the growing threat of illegal firearms.
Despite those concerns, the federal government continues to move forward with the broader gun ban and confiscation agenda.
Budget 2025 states Ottawa has committed $742 million to carry out the program, though critics say the true cost remains unclear.
In 2019, the Liberal government estimated the price at $200 million.
The Parliamentary Budget Officer later projected costs could reach $756 million just to compensate gun owners, while other analysts have pegged the final bill at roughly $6 billion.
Skeptics point to Ottawa’s track record on gun control spending.
The now-defunct long-gun registry was initially sold to taxpayers as a $2 million program, but ultimately cost more than $2 billion before being scrapped.
“The results of this pilot project show exactly why police officers, academics, licenced gun owners and everyday taxpayers knew that the gun ban was going to be a failure from the start,” Haubrich said.
“The federal government needs to own up to its failure, listen to the experts and direct resources to stop illegal gun smuggling instead of confiscating guns from licensed gun owners.”
CTF says failed pilot shows gun grab program should be scrapped
Ottawa’s gun grab program is under renewed fire after a federal pilot project in Cape Breton netted just 25 firearms, far short of government targets, prompting critics to call the entire scheme a costly failure.
