Trudeau promises more gun control and goes on the attack against Scheer
- Thread starter IronNoggin
- Start date
IronNoggin
Well-Known Member
Canada gun grab: Amnesty expiration nears as top officials sow confusion
Canada’s Liberal government has consistently and misleadingly used “buyback” to describe the 2020 mandatory “assault weapon” confiscation law in an attempt to make the scheme appear less hostile to property rights and Canada’s responsible gun owners and more palatable to the general public. Recent pronouncements on the gun ban and confiscation have now veered even further down the road of disingenuous political messaging.In a Sept. 10 interview with Alberta podcaster Ryan Jespersen, Prime Minister Mark Carney went so far as to describe the scheme as “voluntary.” “This is not about confiscation,” Carney said. “This is about voluntary return of firearms for compensation. … We’re not confiscating guns. People aren’t going around confiscating guns. … That is a mischaracterization. What it is, is an opportunity for Canadians to return guns for compensation.”
A day later, a Juno News reporter asked the latest federal Public Safety Minister, Gary Anandasangaree (who oversees the department responsible for implementing the gun ban and confiscation law) about the prime minister’s comments. Anandasangaree agreed with Carney and said, moreover, that “it’s always been voluntary.”
Carney’s interview included another whopper, with the Prime Minister claiming that the ban does not affect hunting rifles or sporting firearms. “We are not talking about hunting rifles. We’re not talking sports shooting or anything like that. We’re talking about assault rifles.” Automatic firearms have been classified as “prohibited” firearms in Canada for decades, so the gun ban list of prohibited firearms and devices almost exclusively features semi-automatic firearms (not just rifles, but shotguns and handguns) along with many bolt action and pump action models. It was obvious from the start that the ban covered “hunting rifles” because it includes an explicit exception (here and again in 2024, here) “for Indigenous peoples’ exercising a right under section 35 of the Constitution Act, as well as those who use firearms for sustenance hunting, which enables them to continue to use their newly prohibited firearms to hunt.”
One could speculate that either this language is a cynical PR exercise to misrepresent the ban as applying solely to dangerous and unusual “military grade assault weapons,” or Carney is unaware of just how far-reaching the gun ban actually is.
Certainly, his public safety minister has demonstrated a lack of knowledge about the basics of Canada’s gun laws and the confiscation scheme. A podcast by the Canadian Taxpayers Federation (CTF) featuring Kris Sims and Gage Haubrich (both firearm owners) examined an exchange between Anandasangaree and conservative member of parliament Andrew Lawton. Asked by Lawton about how many prohibited firearms are liable to be collected under the confiscation scheme, Anandasangaree responded that the “anticipation is about 179,000.” The podcast notes that Anandasangaree’s latest figure is at odds with a 2021 report by the Parliamentary Budget Officer, which indicated that the number of impacted firearms is unknown but could exceed 500,000. (To mix things up even more, in late 2023 Canadian gun rights site TheGunBlog.ca reported that the Liberal government gave an estimate of 144,000 rifles and shotguns to be destroyed, based on a document prepared for the public safety minister at the time.) Due to the significant expansion of the prohibited firearms list in 2024 and again in 2025, the 2021 and 2023 figures are likely obsolete and call into question the minister’s new estimate.
In response to Lawton’s follow-up questions, the public safety minister admitted he doesn’t know what an RPAL or a CFSCis. (An RPAL is the possession and acquisition license necessary to lawfully acquire and possess a “restricted” firearm, like handguns and certain long guns; the CFSC is the mandatory Canadian firearms safety course that all would-be gun owners must complete successfully to be eligible for a PAL.) The minister, as the podcasters note, “doesn’t seem to know a single thing about the thing he is supposed to be in charge of,” akin to a Health Minister “who has never, like, seen a band-aid.”
The most alarming part, however, was Anandasangaree’s retort to a question about whether he understands the classes or other safety demands required of law-abiding gun owners, in which he stated, “this (the gun ban law) is not about law-abiding gun owners.”
That answer pretty much sums it up.
The gun ban amnesty and compensation scheme apply exclusively to legal owners of the now-prohibited firearms. In fact, as the government’s own website notes, the only individuals eligible to claim compensation are those who “held a valid firearms licence on May 1, 2020 (and who have maintained that licence in good standing).” To echo the CTF podcasters, does the minister really believe that Canadian gun rights groups would be advocating in favor of criminal gun possession — that “there would be this big hullabaloo if this was about criminals not getting guns? Like, nobody would be opposed to this…of all the really dumb answers he gave there, him saying that this wasn’t about law-abiding gun owners was the most mind-blowing.”
As for the claims that the confiscation is “voluntary” and has “always been” voluntary, the current Public Safety Canada website on the now-prohibited firearms states, unequivocally, that the gun ban “takes effect immediately” and the “Government will not provide any option for owners to grandfather these weapons as it intends to bring forward a mandatory buyback program” (emphasis added). To the extent that an owner has any other options, it is the Hobson’s choice of surrendering the gun to authorities without compensation, permanently deactivating the gun, exporting the gun “in accordance with all applicable legal requirements, including the legal requirements of the country to which it is exported,” or face criminal prosecution and sanctions.
There is other trouble on the horizon. Anandasangaree disclosed earlier this month that provincial law enforcement in Canada’s most populous province has refused to participate in the government’s gun confiscation program. According to the news source, the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) is “responsible for more than a quarter of the policing in Ontario;” the refusal compels the federal government to now convince local governments with their own police to implement the confiscation, while looking for an alternative in places without local law enforcement. According to the article, though, that doesn’t appear promising: representatives for several such local forces either indicated that they had no active plans regarding participation or declined to respond. Further, the office of Ontario’s solicitor general, Michael Kerzner, has lately advised that “Ontario police services do not have the resources to attend residential addresses to confiscate previously lawful but now prohibited firearms from lawful gun owners.”
This obfuscation on the law from the highest officials in the land is exacerbated further by the imminent expiry of the already twice-extended amnesty period. The amnesty is all that stands between responsible gun owners and criminal liability for the possession of their lawfully acquired, but now illegal, firearms. Even so, at the time of writing Public Safety Minister Anandasangaree was prevaricating over whether another extension was in the works — “his government is not ready to announce when and for how long its gun amnesty program will be extended,” states a Sept. 17 news report from the CBC. Given that the confiscation and compensation program for individual owners is still not operational, this seems to be the latest example of the government’s directionless drift on this blatantly ineffective, pointless and likely unworkable law.
Canada gun grab: Amnesty expiration nears as top officials sow confusion | Buckeye Firearms Association
Canada’s Liberal government has consistently used “buyback” to describe the 2020 mandatory “assault weapon” confiscation law in an attempt to make the scheme appear less hostile to property rights and Canada’s responsible gun owners and more palatable to the general public. Recent pronouncements...
IronNoggin
Well-Known Member
IronNoggin
Well-Known Member
Opposition mounts as assault-style gun buyback program launches in Cape Breton
Opposition is mounting to a federal pilot project that launched Wednesday in Cape Breton, N.S., aimed at buying prohibited assault-style firearms from gun owners.Police and government officials say the buyback program is already drawing interest, but opponents are planning a demonstration in Sydney on Thursday, hoping the government will reconsider the gun ban.
"I don't think that you can just call something assault style, convince the public that it's scary and then not expect any pushback," said Anna Manley, one of the rally organizers. "There are [.22-calibre guns] on that list. That is a small entry-level rifle. It is absolutely ridiculous that they're calling that assault style."
Manley, a Sydney lawyer who ran unsuccessfully for the federal Conservatives in the last election, said banning those guns will not reduce crime.
Mark Voutier, a gun owner in Cape Breton, said he's not happy with the idea, but he will take the federal government's buyback offer and turn in his banned assault-style rifle.
However, he also said the program is not going to have any effect on gun crime and the government is wrong to call it voluntary.
"It's not voluntary," Voutier said last week. "It's turn it in now for this offer or else."
Voutier legally bought a .22-calibre semi-automatic rifle that holds a magazine with 21 bullets and is now on the federal government's list of prohibited firearms.
He said after the program ends and there are no more buybacks, police will know who still has banned guns, so he may as well comply now and get something for it.
"I want to take them up on the offer now, because they're just going to come and get it eventually anyway."
Besides, he said, anyone found with a banned firearm can lose the gun without compensation and lose their licence and ability to own a gun.
'Waste of money'
Still, Voutier said the buyback program doesn't make sense and the federal public safety minister confirmed that in privately recorded comments just before it was announced.
"Who [came] up with the value of some of the guns on the list? You know, they're offering $7,000 for guns that retail for $1,100 is just one prime example.
"It's just a waste of taxpayers' money. It was so poorly thought through right from the beginning, I think it was just an election promise and that was it."
Voutier said he'll take advantage of the program to purchase a semi-automatic rifle that only holds 11 bullets instead of 21, but is not prohibited.
"There are similar guns that aren't on the list," he said. "Almost identical guns. So I'm going to take their money and I'm going to go buy a very similar gun that's not on the list."
Talal Dakalbab, senior assistant deputy minister for crime prevention with Public Safety Canada, said Wednesday the federal government has already changed six entries on the banned list, citing the $7,000 gun as one example, to get ready for the pilot program launch.
He said the values were determined in consultation with gun owners and retailers and he's confident the list is fair.
Dakalbab also said polling shows most people, including gun owners, agree with the ban and buyback program and he's confident they will work.
"Some people have already returned their guns, by the way, without compensation ... because they don't want to have a prohibited gun at home," he said.
The pilot program launched Wednesday in Sydney, North Sydney and Glace Bay, where there are about 200 banned guns. The government expects most if not all will be turned in, Dakalbab said.
Buyback voluntary, law is not
"I am very confident that the 200 will be collected through the pilot, but that is something that we will have to monitor and see and ensure that if we don't collect the 200, then we will have to discuss with the people who were contacted to understand better what is their intention to comply with the law before the end of the amnesty order," Dakalbab said.
He also said the buyback during the amnesty period, which expires next year, is voluntary.
"Abiding by the law by the end of the amnesty order is not voluntary, it's mandatory," Dakalbab said. "But how to dispose of the guns, that's where it's optional and the buyback is one option that the government put in place."
He said people can choose to hang onto their guns and pay to have them deactivated.
On Wednesday afternoon, Cape Breton Regional Police Chief Robert Walsh said the buyback program had only been open a few hours and gun owners had already started looking to cash in their prohibited weapons.
"We are hearing that there are people that are interested in participating in the collection program and they have already contacted us to make arrangements to dispose of their firearms."
Walsh said the police headquarters on Grand Lake Road will be closed to the public on Thursday because of the rally, but services such as criminal record checks and accident reports could still be taken over the phone.
"We did this because we anticipate there could be a large number of people here and we didn't want to cause any disruption to people that may be coming for those services."
The closure is not out of any concern for safety, he said.
Manley said the rally is also being organized by the Port Morien Wildlife Association and will include speakers from the Canadian Coalition for Firearms Rights and the Canadian Taxpayers Federation.
She said the protest is simply to let the police and government know they want changes to the ban and buyback program, especially when it comes to guns she said are not assault-style firearms.
"We're there for a very serious reason. It's very close to a lot of our hearts, but I mean we're not planning on shaking anything up, or doing anything violent. That's just not the purpose of this protest."
IronNoggin
Well-Known Member
IronNoggin
Well-Known Member
IronNoggin
Well-Known Member
Public Safety Minister Gary Anandasangaree stated the gun confiscation plan was being pushed because it was popular in Quebec.
Turns out that’s not true.
Quebecers want feds to tackle illegal guns, not confiscate legally-owned firearms: poll
Despite claims by the Public Safety Minister, new Leger poll says most Quebecers don't favour federal gun grab
OTTAWA — Disarm criminals, not licensed firearm owners.
That’s the opinion shared by a plurality of Quebecers according to a new Leger poll released this week, suggesting citizens of la belle province want the government to take action on illegal firearms smuggled into Canada from the United States rather than confiscate legally-owned firearms from licensed owners.
“This shows there’s clearly a disconnection between what the Public Safety Minister said a few weeks ago, versus what Quebecers believe is the right approach to tackle gun crime,” said Nicolas Gagnon, Quebec director for the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, who commissioned the poll.
“And it really shows that Quebecers believe we should not be going after legal gun owners and hunters, but against the real culprit here — the smugglers bringing illegal firearms over the borders.”
“This shows there’s clearly a disconnection between what the Public Safety Minister said a few weeks ago, versus what Quebecers believe is the right approach to tackle gun crime,” said Nicolas Gagnon, Quebec director for the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, who commissioned the poll.
“And it really shows that Quebecers believe we should not be going after legal gun owners and hunters, but against the real culprit here — the smugglers bringing illegal firearms over the borders.”
Gun grab is big in Quebec, Anandasangaree claims
The poll was prompted by remarks made by Public Safety Minister Gary Anandasangaree, where in leaked audio recordings he implied that strong support in Quebec is behind the government’s gun grab.
“Quebec is in a different place than other parts of Canada,” Anandasangaree said in a recorded conversation with a tenant of his that was made public in September.
“This is something that (is) very much a big, big, big deal for many of the Quebec electorate that voted for us.”
According to the poll, 51% of respondents favour introducing tougher measures to stop the flow of prohibited weapons flooding into Canada from the United States — a problem police agencies have long said is responsible for most of the crime guns found on Canadian streets.
Article content
Only 37% said banning the sale or ownership of many varieties of firearms should be the focus of gun crime reduction measures, including the government’s so-called “buyback” gun grab.
Six per cent said none of those two options are the answer, and 7% didn’t have a response.
Experts and police agree: licenced gun owners aren’t behind street crime spike
While the government claims confiscating firearms is the key to improving public safety, licensed owners, firearms athletes and even Canada’s police chiefs have gone on record saying Canada’s gun crime problem lies in prohibited weapons being smuggled into Canada — not with law-abiding hunters and shooters.
Many of the guns taken off city streets are firearms not legal for lawful sale in Canada, as criminals favour smaller handguns with prohibitively-short barrels.
The gun grab, maintains the Canadian Coalition for Firearms Rights (CCFR,) is shaping up to be an expensive and politically-damaging boondoggle — costing over $100 million to buy back 10,000 firearms.
The CCFR has long called for a relaxation of the confiscation, urging the government to incorporate grandfather clause.
As well, many retailers forced to surrender their now-prohibited firearms are still waiting to be paid.
Canada’s current effort to confiscate weapons stemmed from the April 2020 Nova Scotia attacks, where a 51-year-old gunman used firearms smuggled into Canada from the United States to kill 22 people.
That prompted the Justin Trudeau Liberals to enact a May 2020 order-in-council banning the sale, transportation or use of so-called “assault-style” firearms.
The poll was conducted between Oct. 3 and Oct. 5 via Leger’s online panel of 1,010 Quebec-resident adults.
As margins-of-error cannot be applied to online panels, a comparable sample would yield a margin of ±3.1%, 19 times out of 20.
torontosun.com
Turns out that’s not true.
Quebecers want feds to tackle illegal guns, not confiscate legally-owned firearms: poll
Despite claims by the Public Safety Minister, new Leger poll says most Quebecers don't favour federal gun grab
OTTAWA — Disarm criminals, not licensed firearm owners.
That’s the opinion shared by a plurality of Quebecers according to a new Leger poll released this week, suggesting citizens of la belle province want the government to take action on illegal firearms smuggled into Canada from the United States rather than confiscate legally-owned firearms from licensed owners.
“This shows there’s clearly a disconnection between what the Public Safety Minister said a few weeks ago, versus what Quebecers believe is the right approach to tackle gun crime,” said Nicolas Gagnon, Quebec director for the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, who commissioned the poll.
“And it really shows that Quebecers believe we should not be going after legal gun owners and hunters, but against the real culprit here — the smugglers bringing illegal firearms over the borders.”
“This shows there’s clearly a disconnection between what the Public Safety Minister said a few weeks ago, versus what Quebecers believe is the right approach to tackle gun crime,” said Nicolas Gagnon, Quebec director for the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, who commissioned the poll.
“And it really shows that Quebecers believe we should not be going after legal gun owners and hunters, but against the real culprit here — the smugglers bringing illegal firearms over the borders.”
Gun grab is big in Quebec, Anandasangaree claims
The poll was prompted by remarks made by Public Safety Minister Gary Anandasangaree, where in leaked audio recordings he implied that strong support in Quebec is behind the government’s gun grab.
“Quebec is in a different place than other parts of Canada,” Anandasangaree said in a recorded conversation with a tenant of his that was made public in September.
“This is something that (is) very much a big, big, big deal for many of the Quebec electorate that voted for us.”
According to the poll, 51% of respondents favour introducing tougher measures to stop the flow of prohibited weapons flooding into Canada from the United States — a problem police agencies have long said is responsible for most of the crime guns found on Canadian streets.
Article content
Only 37% said banning the sale or ownership of many varieties of firearms should be the focus of gun crime reduction measures, including the government’s so-called “buyback” gun grab.
Six per cent said none of those two options are the answer, and 7% didn’t have a response.
Experts and police agree: licenced gun owners aren’t behind street crime spike
While the government claims confiscating firearms is the key to improving public safety, licensed owners, firearms athletes and even Canada’s police chiefs have gone on record saying Canada’s gun crime problem lies in prohibited weapons being smuggled into Canada — not with law-abiding hunters and shooters.
Many of the guns taken off city streets are firearms not legal for lawful sale in Canada, as criminals favour smaller handguns with prohibitively-short barrels.
The gun grab, maintains the Canadian Coalition for Firearms Rights (CCFR,) is shaping up to be an expensive and politically-damaging boondoggle — costing over $100 million to buy back 10,000 firearms.
The CCFR has long called for a relaxation of the confiscation, urging the government to incorporate grandfather clause.
As well, many retailers forced to surrender their now-prohibited firearms are still waiting to be paid.
Canada’s current effort to confiscate weapons stemmed from the April 2020 Nova Scotia attacks, where a 51-year-old gunman used firearms smuggled into Canada from the United States to kill 22 people.
That prompted the Justin Trudeau Liberals to enact a May 2020 order-in-council banning the sale, transportation or use of so-called “assault-style” firearms.
The poll was conducted between Oct. 3 and Oct. 5 via Leger’s online panel of 1,010 Quebec-resident adults.
As margins-of-error cannot be applied to online panels, a comparable sample would yield a margin of ±3.1%, 19 times out of 20.
Quebecers want feds to tackle illegal guns, not confiscate legally-owned firearms: poll
Despite claims by Public Safety Minister Gary Anandasangaree, a new poll finds most Quebecers do not favour federal gun grab. Read more.
IronNoggin
Well-Known Member
IronNoggin
Well-Known Member
IronNoggin
Well-Known Member
Nelson Police Chief warns gun buyback could strain small forces
Nelson Police Chief Donovan Fisher said the federal government’s assault-style rifle buyback program could strain smaller police forces without extra support.At the Oct. 8 Nelson Police Board meeting, Fisher discussed the program and the role of municipal police services in its implementation.
In September, the federal government moved forward with implementing the voluntary assault-style firearm compensation program for individual firearm owners, rolled out first in Nova Scotia on Sept. 23.
Public Safety Canada said the compensation program will open to all eligible firearms owners with a nationwide declaration period later in fall 2025, followed by a collection and compensation period in 2026.
Fisher said the B.C. Association of Municipal Police Chiefs supports participation in the buyback and has issued recommendations to the federal government on how to run it without overloading police resources.
“They provided some suggestions to the federal program as to how they think it would be better implemented, ” said Fisher.
“Having dedicated teams and potentially dedicated mobile teams that would arrange to be in communities at different times to collect the firearms, facilitate the storage or destruction, and handle the actual refunding or buying back of the firearms from individuals who are turning them in.”
He said the topic arose at a recent B.C. Association of Municipal Police Chiefs meeting, amid differing stances on the program across the country – specifically in Alberta, which has decided not to participate.
“B.C. supports the program and wants to participate in it. The discussion is more around how do you facilitate it without overloading and burdening detachments and smaller police departments – and even bigger police departments – across the country to manage this,” Fisher said.
Mayor Janice Morrison asked how many assault-style rifles have been turned in in Nelson recently, and Fisher said none.
“I shouldn’t say none. None that I’m aware of – I don’t recall anybody bringing any in.”
Part of the problem, according to Fisher, is amnesty requirements.
“There’s some risk with somebody bringing them in. Even though the amnesty’s on, the amnesty requires people to keep it basically locked up in their house and they’re not allowed to take it out,” Fisher explained.
“One of the requirements of bringing it in is you have to call ahead of time, make arrangements and get permission to bring it here. So if you walked in the front counter with it … let’s just say the outcome could be bad,” he added.
Morrison then asked if Fisher felt the general public was aware of the requirement to phone ahead.
“I guess if I’m cleaning out grandma’s house and I find out she’s got an AK-47 in the basement that I didn’t know about, I’d just think, I’ve got to get rid of this. I’d throw it in the back of my car and drive it to a police station. Are people aware that they should phone ahead?” Morrison asked.
Such situations rarely have occurred locally, though Insp. Jason Jewkes said there have been some similar.
“I think it’s rare that that happens. More often people are calling, and that happens quite often when we get calls to relinquish firearms – like people going through to seize people’s houses – and they generally call us and we go and pick them up,” Jewkes said.
Fisher added that most people seem to be aware of the rules.
“I think generally there’s an awareness that this is happening. And I think people would be more apt to err on the side of caution and fullness before they did anything.”
Nelson Police Chief warns gun buyback could strain small forces : My Nelson Now
My Nelson Now delivers the latest local news, events, contests, and radio features for Nelson, BC.
www.mynelsonnow.com
IronNoggin
Well-Known Member
BERNARDO: Saskatchewan’s line in the sand — Ottawa must pay full compensation for confiscated firearms
Saskatchewan’s bold play of turning the ‘gun grab’ into a financial quagmire for Ottawa.As most affected firearms owners already know, Ottawa placed a funding cap on its “voluntary” Firearms Confiscation Compensation Scheme, saying if you wait too long to surrender your guns, you’ll get nothing.
They’ve announced $742 million for compensation, but even federal officials acknowledge that this falls far short of full compensation for affected firearms owners.
Saskatchewan, through legislation set to be introduced in November, is about to legislatively hold Ottawa accountable for the full financial consequences of its firearms confiscation scheme.
Under provincial jurisdiction, Saskatchewan can legislate how property is valued, held, and compensated.
While Ottawa can criminalize possession, it cannot sidestep the financial consequences of devaluing millions of dollars in privately owned property.
This isn’t about obstruction. It’s about constitutional jurisdiction and property rights.
The failed long-gun registry collapsed under the weight of its astronomical cost overruns, over $2 billion when the registry was finally repealed.
Saskatchewan’s legislative strategy weaponizes this fiscal reality and puts Ottawa’s latest firearms confiscation scheme at risk of the same fate.
Saskatchewan has already committed to establish “a Firearms Compensation Committee to determine the fair market value of any firearms, ammunition and related accessories being expropriated by the federal government.”
Saskatchewan’s Firearms Compensation Committee could open the doors to apply even more financial pressure on Ottawa.
Estates could use the valuations from the Committee to file claims for firearms made worthless by Ottawa’s decrees. Ottawa could be forced to pay fair compensation or face decades of litigation.
With each federal budget cycle, this financial pressure would mount because compensation costs wouldn’t be a one-time expense. They would be a permanent, compounding line item.
If other provinces follow Saskatchewan’s lead, the federal government will face a united wall of compensation demands, not just political opposition to bad policies.
That’s how you force Ottawa to account for its actions.
Saskatchewan’s approach rests on constitutional jurisdiction and legal force.
The province is also playing a smart political game. Saskatchewan doesn’t need other provinces to oppose Ottawa’s policy outright.
It just needs them to demand full and fair compensation for firearms owners in their provinces.
If Ontario, Quebec, and other provinces adopt a similar position, Ottawa’s underfunded confiscation scheme will collapse under its own financial weight.
Provinces can also use their political capital to make federal budget support conditional on adequate compensation funding. That kind of interprovincial pressure is far more potent than angry press releases or hollow promises.
Critics have already accused Saskatchewan of “selling out” or “legitimizing” Ottawa’s gun grab.
But that’s a fundamental misunderstanding of Saskatchewan’s strategy.
This proposed legislation is not about helping Ottawa confiscate firearms; it’s about making sure Ottawa pays the real cost of its actions.
The reality is simple: compliance will only happen if Canadians receive fair compensation.
Nobody sells their house or their car for a fraction of its value. Firearms are no different.
By making compensation mandatory, Saskatchewan is protecting its citizens from uncompensated losses, while exposing Ottawa’s financial weakness and constitutional overreach.
Saskatchewan isn’t declaring war on Ottawa; it’s setting the price of Ottawa’s actions.
If the federal government wants to proceed with its firearms confiscation scheme, it must pay, not just politically, but financially.
Saskatchewan is proving that provinces don’t need to defy Ottawa to fight back effectively.
By anchoring its position in property rights and fiscal responsibility, it is turning the federal gun confiscation program into a political and financial liability for Mark Carney and his Liberal government.
Every other province should follow Saskatchewan’s lead and do the same.
BERNARDO: Saskatchewan’s line in the sand — Ottawa must pay full compensation for confiscated firearms
As most affected firearms owners already know, Ottawa placed a funding cap on its “voluntary” Firearms Confiscation Compensation Scheme, saying if you wait too long to surrender your guns, you’ll get nothing.
IronNoggin
Well-Known Member
IronNoggin
Well-Known Member
Taxpayers have right to see costs of Ottawa’s gun ban, confiscation
Federal government has been anything but clear on full price of Canada's gun ban, confiscation schemeIf you walk into a car dealership to ask about the price of the car out front and the answer is, “Probably tens of thousands of dollars,” it’s unlikely you’re going to buy that car.
Consumers need the full information on the price of something before they can decide if it’s a good decision. The same goes for taxpayers and proposed government programs.
Since 2020, the federal government has banned more than 2,500 makes and models of firearms owned by licensed Canadians. Now, the federal government is pushing ahead with its gun-confiscation scheme for individual firearms owners, starting with a six-week pilot project in Cape Breton, N.S.
But the federal government has been anything but clear on the full price of its gun ban and confiscation scheme.
The Canadian Taxpayers Federation filed an access to information request with the RCMP in July 2023 to reveal all projected costs to confiscate firearms. The government answered this request in January 2024.
Since 2020, the federal government has banned more than 2,500 makes and models of firearms owned by licensed Canadians. Now, the federal government is pushing ahead with its gun-confiscation scheme for individual firearms owners, starting with a six-week pilot project in Cape Breton, N.S.
But the federal government has been anything but clear on the full price of its gun ban and confiscation scheme.
The Canadian Taxpayers Federation filed an access to information request with the RCMP in July 2023 to reveal all projected costs to confiscate firearms. The government answered this request in January 2024.
That’s why it’s so important that taxpayers have timely and easy access to information on how much the government thinks programs like gun confiscation will cost.
Access to information is quasi-constitutional, as access to government information is a necessary component for the meaningful exercise of freedom of expression. Without timely access to these types of documents, taxpayers have their ability to exercise their fundamental freedom of expression limited by the government.
This problem is compounded because estimates the government has produced on the program so far have been wide ranging, lacking detail and being not at all helpful for taxpayers trying to decide if the cost is worth it.
Originally, the government said the confiscation would cost $200 million in 2019. Then the parliamentary budget officer said it will cost up to $756 million to compensate owners for their firearms without even considering administration costs. Other experts have put the final price tag at about $6 billion.
The stats and the experts say the confiscation isn’t worth it.
The union representing RCMP members said Ottawa’s program “diverts extremely important personnel, resources and funding away from addressing the more immediate and growing threat of criminal use of illegal firearms.”
“It won’t impact crime rates,” said Mount Royal University professor Doug King. “Individuals who have registered firearms are much less likely to commit criminal offences than people who don’t have firearms.”
That makes it even more important for taxpayers to know the full price of the scheme.
That’s why the CTF is going to court to compel the information commission to do its job and issue a decision on the CTF’s complaint and release the information.
Ottawa should not be hiding the full picture of costs from taxpayers for any program and this court fight will enforce the transparency taxpayers deserve.
HAUBRICH: Taxpayers have right to see costs of Ottawa’s gun ban, confiscation
The federal government has been anything but clear on the full price of its gun ban and confiscation scheme.
IronNoggin
Well-Known Member
IronNoggin
Well-Known Member
It appears that they do not intend to reimburse most folks for their confiscated firearms. The budget numbers are a sure indication of that:
Latest budget indicates that $38.7M will be allocated over the next 3 years although they are claiming that they will keep the original $742M envelope. Page 205 of the budget document.
Cut/Paste from the Budget 2025 Document:
Latest budget indicates that $38.7M will be allocated over the next 3 years although they are claiming that they will keep the original $742M envelope. Page 205 of the budget document.
Cut/Paste from the Budget 2025 Document:
IronNoggin
Well-Known Member
Carney budget spends more on gun confiscation than NATO, borders
The Liberal government plans to spend more on its firearm buyback program next year than on NATO operations and border enforcement combined, prioritizing gun confiscation over national security.
The Liberal government plans to spend more on its firearm buyback program next year than on NATO operations and border enforcement combined, prioritizing gun confiscation over national security despite widespread opposition to the program and an extended amnesty period.According to the 2025 federal budget, Prime Minister Mark Carney’s government plans to spend $364 million on its firearms “buyback” initiative in 2025–26, compared to $253 million combined for NATO operations and border security.
EXCLUSIVE: Carney budget spends more on gun confiscation than NATO, borders
The Liberal government plans to spend more on its firearm buyback program next year than on NATO operations and border enforcement combined, prioritizing gun confiscation over national security.
www.junonews.com
