Latest ASFCP Communication Blurs Lines Between Police, Politics
Earlier today, firearms owners received the above email (text follows below):
REMINDER OF COMPLIANCE OBLIGATION
Our records indicate that certain firearms previously registered to you were deemed prohibited by a change to their classification in 2020, 2024 or 2025.
This email serves as a reminder that these prohibited firearms must be disposed of by the end of the Amnesty Orders. These Amnesty Orders end on October 30, 2026. After this date, you will be in illegal possession of these prohibited firearms.
Several options are available to you to ensure compliance prior to the expiry of the Amnesty Orders. One disposal option is participation in the Assault-Style Firearms Compensation Program (ASFCP). To participate in the ASFCP you must declare your firearm(s) by March 31, 2026.
Other options to dispose of your prohibited firearm(s) before October 30, 2026 include:
deactivating your firearm(s) without compensation surrendering your firearm(s) to police without compensation exporting your firearm(s)
For further information about the ASFCP, please visit the Public Safety Canada website at https://www.canada.ca/en/public-safety-canada/campaigns/firearms-buyback.html.
Registrar of Firearms Canadian Firearms Program Royal Canadian Mounted Police
This marks the third email firearms owners have received regarding the ASFCP, all from the same email address, but most notably is the first to be issued on RCMP letterhead and with the RCMP formally recognized as the signatory. All prior emails were marked with Public Safety Canada's letterhead, and signed as follows:
The Canadian Firearms Program facilitated the delivery of this notification on behalf of Public Safety Canada and has not shared or disclosed any licence holder names, addresses or personal information with Public Safety Canada.
Obviously both this recent communique's tone and content reflect a dramatic departure from previous communications, and in doing so, worryingly blurs the lines between politics and policing.
To explain: The RCMP, as Canada's federal police agency, are tasked with enforcing the law. The Canadian Firearms Program, which is operated by the RCMP's Specialized Policing Services branch, is responsible for the administration of the Firearms Act, with its Registrar of Firearms specifically tasked with the issuance and revocation of firearms registration certificates and carriers' licences, in accordance with the Firearms Act.
However, the ASFCP is not part of the Firearms Act. In fact, the ASFCP is not contained in any legislative act, because the ASFCP is not law. It is an optional compensation program provided and administered by Public Safety Canada that has become one of the most controversial federal programs in recent memory: Quebec is the only provincial government who remains supportive of the program, and with recent news that all potential NDP leadership candidate oppose the program, the Liberal Party of Canada is the program's sole national political backer in the House of Commons.
So for the RCMP to tacitly threaten gun owners with the considerable criminal charge of illegal possession of a prohibited firearm if they do not comply with a deadline still eight months away, while also misleading them by believe no alternative methods are available in the interim to receive compensation for said firearms (owners who choose to deactivate their firearms are compensated for doing so), may not only be beyond the scope of the RCMP and the Canadian Firearms Program, but also an obvious effort to drive participation in the ASFCP, and as such, is tantamount to the RCMP carrying water for a program that by any metric can be accurately described as a nakedly partisan Liberal Party of Canada effort.
And this sets a dangerous precedent, because in no uncertain terms, most recipients of this recent email - all of whom who get daily criminal record checks conducted by the RCMP - are interpreting this missive as a threat, delivered by those same RCMP to support a Liberal Party program. It blurs the lines between political and policing efforts, and in doing so, subverts the ability of the latter to the benefit of the former.
Gun Ban Costing $25,000 Per Firearm
With the deadline to participate in Public Safety Canada’s “Assault-Style Firearms Compensation Program” (ASFCP) one month away, somewhere between just 1.6 and 6 percent of newly prohibited firearms in circulation have been declared, at an eye-watering cost to the taxpayer of over $25,000 per firearm.
According to figures released by the government, the program has seen 32,000 firearms declared since it was formally launched on January 17, with the vast majority of those coming from Ontario (13,219), British Columbia (7,368), and Quebec (5,539).
For context, verifiable estimates produced by the Canadian Small Arms and Ammunition Association, an organization that represents the Canadian firearms industry, put the number of firearms prohibited by then-Prime Minister Justin Trudeau in May of 2020 at somewhere north of 518,000. More recent estimates produced by the Canadian Coalition for Firearms Rights, which incorporate the two additional gun bans announced in 2024 and 2025, puts the total number of impacted firearms at over 2 million.
Meanwhile, documented program costs now total $800M. This includes $673.4M earmarked by Public Safety for the ASFCP since 2021, and a further $126.6M spent by the RCMP over 2024 and 2025 in support of the same. But notably absent from this sum are the costs accrued by more than a dozen partner agencies that have also contributed to the program, including significant contributions by the Justice Department and Public Service and Procurement Canada, as well as the costs incurred by Public Safety in the period from the program’s introduction in May of 2020 to the beginning of the follow fiscal year in April 2021.
This is all to say that the current known, documented cost to the taxpayer of $25,000 per firearm declared is a baseline figure, with the realized, but undocumented cost being even higher. Moreover, Public Safety Canada indicated that it expected to pay out an average of $1,800 per firearm in compensation, meaning that the program’s current administrative cost per firearm is $23,200 - over 13 times that of the average compensation amount.
And gun owners aren’t the only ones refusing to participate in the program - over half the country’s provincial and territorial governments have publicly stated that they will not be participating in the ASFCP, with many more municipal police forces and organizations stating the same, including the Canadian Association of the Chiefs of Police, who stated: “The program may not align with current policing priorities, including the illegal importation, trafficking, smuggling, and criminal use of firearms. For this reason, police services remain focused on disrupting criminal networks and preventing crime by deploying limited resources where they will have the greatest and most immediate impact on public safety."
Update - 7 March 2026: A recent follow-up article published by the National Post cites a slightly lower figure of $24,000 per firearm, causing some questions about the discrepancy between the figures above and those provided by the National Post. The cause of this discrepancy is that the federal government published updated quarterly financial reports for Public Safety and the RCMP in the days between this article's publication and the National Post's. Below is a breakdown of both departments' annual spending, with sources, utilizing the latest quarterly financial reports available (for the period ending Dec. 31, 2025):
2025: Easiest way to get this sum is through Public Safety's latest Quarterly Financial Report, as it reports on total *increase* in spending authorities over last year by cost centre, which is $387.9M above last year - which added to the pre-existing spending authorities established last year brings a total of$493.8M this year (new spending last year: 61.9M in expenditures, 319.2 in G&Cs, and $6.8M in transfer payment expenses incurred by the ASFCP)
2024: Order paper says $1.8M, from start of fiscal year to Sept. But year-end quarterly report says "Increase of $15.7 million to advance the collection of banned assault-style firearms." So if 2023-2024 fiscal was $8.5M as reported on the order paper, then the RCMP actually ended 2024 spending $15.7M than that, meaning $24.2M.
The above does not include any costs incurred by the program from when it was announced in May 2020 to April 2021, nor does it include the costs incurred by any of the dozen or so partner agencies that have contributed to the program (including SSC, TBS, ESDC, PSPC, Justice, Privacy, Cyber Canada, etc), nor does it include any of costs likely related to the ASFCP but not directly attributable, such as the roughly $90M in new funding the RCMP have sought over the last couple years for the Canadian Firearms Program.
It is also unlikely to include the bulk of the costs incurred by the confiscation and destruction of declared firearms, as the program's declaration period ends on the same day as the federal government's fiscal year, and with just three weeks remaining, reports from owners who have participated in the program indicate that nearly none of the 32,000 declared firearm have been collected and none appear to have been destroyed.
Gun Ban is $1BN Vote-Buying Effort: Leaked Audio from Public Safety Minister
In a recently released audio recording, Minister of Public Safety Gary Anandasangaree claims that the Liberal government’s so-called “assault-style firearms compensation program,” slated to cost an estimated billion dollars, is intended to retain Liberal votes in Quebec, while the gun ban underpinning the program will not be enforced.
In short, Anandasangaree indicates that the program amounts to the Liberal government spending a billion dollars to buy votes in Quebec with a program he states isn’t enforceable.
In the conversation, recorded by an unnamed individual, Anandasangaree says he cannot explain the logic behind his government’s 5-year-old long gun ban and invites gun owners who possess firearms prohibited by his government to simply ignore the ban, saying that he doubts police have the resources to enforce it. He reinforces this opinion by later offering to pay the cost of bail for the gun owner who recorded the conversation.
Anandasangaree also indicates that he’s been told to initiate the confiscation program by Prime Minister Mark Carney, and states “one of the main reasons” his party insists on continuing the unenforceable ban and ensuing confiscation/compensation program is that the ban “has been a big deal for many of the Quebec electorate who voted for us.” He also states that “Quebec is in a different place than Ontario,” ostensibly seeming to indicate he is aware that the Quebec voter coalition he’s referring to has a more positive attitude towards the ban than voters elsewhere.
Furthermore, Anandasangaree stipulates that the budget is “capped” at $742 million, which, combined with the amounts spent since the ban’s announcement in 2020, brings the program’s total taxpayer cost to roughly $1 billion. Anandasangaree also indicates that when that sum has been exhausted, no additional compensation will be offered to gun owners who choose to participate in the gun ban, which he continuously refers to as “voluntary.” When the gun owner he is speaking with on the recording broaches the subject that the compensatory amounts previously floated by the government were significantly below the amount he had paid for firearms that have since been prohibited, Anandasangaree offers to “personally” compensate the individual for the difference.
The Liberal Party of Canada currently holds 44 seats in Quebec, including Châteauguay—Les Jardins-de-Napierville, held by novice MP and former gun control lobbyist Nathalie Provost.
Gun Ban Budget Crosses Half-Billion Mark, Taxpayer Cost-Per-Firearm Confiscated Currently $24,416
The long gun ban initiated by former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau in May of 2020, originally estimated to cost $200 million by then-Minister of Public Safety Bill Blair, is now budgeted to cost Canadian taxpayers over $803.4 million.
However, this $342.6 million in Grants and Contributions is separate from and in addition to the operational expenses Public Safety Canada expects to incur to support and deliver the ASFCP, which are not broken down by program within the Main Estimates themselves, but are at least partially accounted for in the most recent quarterly financial statement published by Public Safety, where new funding is justified in more detail. According to the quarterly report, the ASFCP’s operating expenses were responsible for the largest increase in the department’s operating expenses year-over-year, incurring $53.1M in new funding as of December 31, 2024 - meaning at least that much would have been included in the 2025-2026 Main Estimates’ budgeted amount for Public Safety’s operating expenses vis a vis the ASFCP - and potentially more, depending on how much pre-existing funding the program already had allocated.
That means the most conservative amount Public Safety will spend confiscating rifles and shotguns from licensed Canadian gun owners, over the next fiscal year, will be an eye-watering $395.7 million. Moreover, it joins the $100.8 million budgeted towards the AFSCP and related programs last year ($30.4M by Budget 2024 and the remainder appropriated through Supplementary Estimates A & B) and $51.6 million spent from 2021 to 2023 (as indicated by a response to an Order Paper question tabled by CPC MP Larry Brock) to arrive at a budgeted total of at least $548.1 million from 2021 to the end of this fiscal year. Incorporate the promised-but-not-yet-budgeted remaining amount called for by 2024’s Fall Economic Statement, and the $25.8M spent or budgeted to support the ASFCP by the RCMP (reported both in the response to the Order Paper question and the Supplementary Estimates), and the figure begins to close in on the billion-dollar mark, at $803.4 million.
But Wait, There’s More
As stated, this is a very conservative estimate. According the aforementioned quarterly financial report from Public Safety, $30.8 million in new funding was earmarked explicitly for Public Safety's operation and administration of the business-only component of the program, which, according to government estimates, only targets 9,000 of the roughly 140,000 firearms prohibited in May of 2020 - meaning the amount in operating expenses budgeted by Public Safety, per potential firearm confiscated as part of the business portion of the program, was $3,422. Add in the $13.7M in new funding for Grants and Contributions required by the business-only component of the buyback (also reported in the quarterly report and likely to provide a portion of the compensation for businesses that reported their prohibited inventory before the Public Safety-imposed deadline for compensation in April), and you arrive at the even less believable figure of $4,944 per potential firearm confiscated. But somehow, it gets worse.
Final quarterly financial report by Public Safety Canada, for the period ending December 31, 2024
Because the business-only component of the confiscation program is, by far, the easiest portion of the ASFCP to deliver. The few hundred impacted business and their inventory are inspected by Firearms Officers annually, and they all interface with the Canadian Firearms Program on a daily basis. By contrast, seizing the estimated 131,000 privately owned firearms that the government estimates it prohibited in May of 2020 involves liaising with exponentially more parties to arrange everything from the logistics to compensation, making it an exponentially more difficult program to deliver. And that means it’s unlikely that even the eye-watering expense-to-firearm rate budgeted for by the business-only component of the AFSCP will prove sustainable when the program transitions to confiscating firearms from individuals. In other words, operating expenses of $448.3 million for Public Safety to administer the ASFCP might be the best-case scenario - a far cry from $51.3 million included in the above estimates. Add in the cost of compensation, based on last year's new funding for the business portion, and that sum rises to $647.6 million.
Additionally, while the government estimates there to be only 140,000 firearms prohibited in May of 2020, firearms industry import records actually show to be dramatically higher; at least 518,000. Using the figure supported by import records, the projected operating expenses rise to $1.8 billion, with the cost of compensation bringing the total north of $2.6 billion. Add in the additional required expenses incurred by the RCMP and other partner agencies to support the program, and the total cost quickly surpasses $3 billion. And one of these totals include the thousands of additional firearms banned in the second and third round of bans imposed in December of 2024, and March of this year - all of which are expected to be subject to a similar compensation program.
Long Gun Registry Parallels
If this all sounds familiar, it should: In 1993 The Firearms Act was introduced by former PM Kim Campbell, calling for massive revisions to Canada’s gun control regime including the creation of the Canadian Firearms Centre, firearms possession licenses (replacing acquisition certificates), and an expanded gun registry that required all owners register their long guns in the same way handgun owners had for decades prior. The bill passed and became law on December 5, 1995, but due to the complexity of the reforms required, it took three more years for the fledgling Canadian Firearms Centre to begin issuing the new Possession and Acquisition Licenses and registering firearms in the equally new Canadian Firearms Registry. In the interim, owners were provided a protective amnesty to prevent previously law-abiding gun owners from being charged with possession of an unregistered firearm.
But a few years after the registry had been created, rumours of cost overruns during its development and operation began to swirl, and in December of 2002, nine years after the bill requiring its creation was passed, then-Auditor General Shiela Fraser issued a scathing report on the registry, estimating that by 2005 costs would eclipse $1 billion with revenues not exceeding $140M.
In 2006, a Director of the Canadian Shooting Sports Association also levelled allegations of improper lobbying at the program, citing a $380,000 contract awarded to a Liberal Party consultant to lobby the federal government for additional funding for the registry. The five-month contract was awarded by the Justice Department in March 2003 to lobby the federal Solicitor General, Treasury Board and Privy Council, according to a detailed lobbyist report, causing Bernado to ask, "[isn't it] inappropriate for the Federal Government to hire a private lobbyist with taxpayers' dollars to lobby itself?"
Eventually, the registry would become a political hot potato, with responsibility for the Firearms Centre that administered the registry moving from the Justice Department to the RCMP, all while ever-growing reports of ballooning budgets led to the long-gun registry earning the moniker of a “billion-dollar boondoggle.” Eventually even that nickname would prove insufficient as reports began to indicate that costs were encroaching on, and then exceeding $2 billion, eventually culminating in not one but two Harper-era Conservative efforts to scrap the registry - one thwarted by Jack Layton’s NDP supporting the long gun registry, the second carried to a successful resolution by former PM Stephen Harper’s final, and majority government. Over three years in the planning phase and 14 more in operation, the registry that was initially slated to cost $2 million was estimated to have consumed $2.7 billion in taxpayer funding, with an estimated compliance rate of less than 50%. It was so ill-regarded that then-Leader of the Liberal Party of Canada Justin Trudeau referred to it as a failure in 2012, before continuing, saying, "I was raised with an appreciation and an understanding of how important in rural areas and right across the country gun ownership is as a part of the culture of Canada. I do not feel that there's any huge contradiction between keeping our cities safe from gun violence and gangs, and allowing this important facet of Canadian identity, which is having a gun."
Ironically, it has been five years since that same man informed 2.3 million licensed firearm owners that hundreds of thousands of firearms in Canada were no longer legal for them to possess. Five different Ministers of Public Safety have grappled with the incredibly complex, and perhaps impossible, task of confiscating hundreds of thousands of devices they themselves have deemed too dangerous for licensed individuals to possess - most of which are, in reality, unregistered and thus entirely untraceable by the government. And to help familiarize themselves with this problem, they've most recently sought the advice of an expert panel that is provided with catered meals during three-day long meetings, access to RCMP Firearms Program resources and staff, guided tours of the Firearms Program's gun vault, all at the taxpayer's expense - but without any accountability as the identity of the experts comprising the panel are kept secret, as are all discussions and deliberations of the panel. Even the identities of government staff who attend panel meetings are redacted from Access to Information records.
Schedule of the first meeting of Public Safety's Experty Advisory Panel on firearms.Slides from Public Safety's first presentation to their Expert Advisory Panel on firearms.
Moreover, government requests for proposals to help fulfill the program have gone unanswered, while other associated contracts have been abandoned by successful bidders, resulting in the awarding of sole-source contracts that provide no transparency or accountability. For example, in one such case, an Inquiry of Ministry (Q-1862) filed by Cheryl Gallant in 2023 generated a response from Public Safety citing the awarding of $199,993 for project management services to "Ultimate Management Group." Beyond the screenshot below, no other record of Public Safety's formal response seems to exist on the internet today:
Furthermore, no record of such a company exists on the internet, and the government transparency database listing contracts of over $10,000 returns no results for a company of that name. Public Safety's response to the Inquiry of Ministry has been similarly expunged from the internet, and the Access to Information request we filed seeking "contract information for Ultimate Management Group,' any documents discussing how this sole source vendor was selected, and any specifics of the role" did not provide any information on how Ultimate Management Group was selected, and had any and all references, contact information, or otherwise pertaining to Ultimate Management Group explicitly inappropriately redacted as, partially, "personal information." The only information provided about the company within was a check box that indicated it operates as a Sole Proprietorship, rather than a corporation. Additionally, previous ATIPs indicate that Ultimate Management Group has been contracted by Public Safety in support of the ASFCP as far back as 2021, for sums of $9,000, $14,250, and $16,000, and potentially more.
Adding to the intrigue is that the proposal for the initial contract, valued at $99,157, was produced by Public Safety on Febraury 8, 2021, and was awarded on February 26, 2021 - but within, contained the stipulation that Public Safety "expected that the main project management elements are competed by March 31, 2021," just 33 days after the contract was signed. Then, on June 22, 2022, an amendment to the contract was signed that provided the sole proprietorship with an additional $100,835.55 in funding (bringing the total to the $199,993.05 cited in the response to the initial inquiry), but no documentation nor correspondence contained within the ATIP provides any insight as to why. The only reference to the amendment is an email from an unknown Public Safety staffer saying, "Please find attached an amendment for your review and signature."
A somewhat strange LinkedIn profile can be found for an individual claiming to be a senior partner at the firm, which lists a Hotmail email address, but no response to our missives has been forthcoming over the course of the past months.
Portions of the heavily redacted ATIP seeking information about Ultimate Management Group and its work on the ASFCP.
Finally, in addition to spending attributed directly to the ASFCP, the innocuous-sounding "Funding to Enhance Canada’s Firearm Control Framework" (FECFCF) horizontal initiative sees Public Safety provide additional funding to the RCMP and Justice Department in the furtherance of three shared goals, or themes. The first two are beyond reproach: To "Strengthen services to support the lawful acquisition, ownership and use of firearms," with the desired outcome being "Canadians and law enforcement benefit from easier access to and improved delivery of firearms regulatory services," and "Combat illegal firearm-related activities," with the stated goal being "Illegal firearm-related activity in Canada is reduced."
But the third is entitled "Enhance firearms policy advice and promote awareness of firearm programs," so "Canadian communities are safe from firearm-related crime," and includes the allocation of $42 million dollars for three things, broadly: Social media campaigns designed to influence Canadians' behaviour in favour of Liberal gun reforms, introduce or amend three gun laws a year, and get the RCMP to support Public Safety's requests for additional buyback funding.
Theme 3 of the Funding to Enhance Canada’s Firearm Control Framework aims to incite Canadians to "take action" based on awareness campaigns advertising the Liberal government's gun reforms, and seeks to perpetually change gun laws on an annual basis.
A parliamentary committee note associated with last year's Main Estimates provides some insight into the FECFCF's genesis: "Prior to Budget 2021, funding supported program measures to address gun and gang violence and increase capacity and technology for law enforcement and border control. Budget 2021 allocated $312.0 million over five years, starting in 2021-22, and $41.4 million ongoing, for the Funding to Enhance Canada’s Firearms Control Framework Horizontal Initiative to implement legislation (e.g. the former Bill C-71 and the former Bill C-21) and to fight gun smuggling and trafficking." Its full text also provides some insight into the tangled web of funding that exists for gun confiscation programs and policy/regulatory reforms within Public Safety Canada.
Questions of Credibility
Although questionable contracts and self-perpetuating initiatives form a proverbial drop in a bucket that is otherwise occupied by the hundreds of millions of budgeted taxpayer dollars outlined earlier in this article, it is the combination of excessive spending without any indication of positive outcomes, and obfuscation to the point of evading all accountability that creates serious questions of irresponsibility, if not impropriety, around recent Canadian gun reforms.
Like the long gun registry before it, the Assault-Style Firearms Compensation Program is proving far more complicated than the politicians who envisioned it ever imagined, accounting for the largest increases in new spending at Public Safety, as well as the bulk of the 25.5% increase in staffing at the department from 2022 to 2025. And yet, for all the hundreds of millions of dollars thrown at the spectre of gun crime in Canada, the rate at which it occurs has seen a meteoric rise over the same period of time, with Statistics Canada reporting that the rate of gun crime incidents is 8.5% higher today than when the first ban was enacted, and 29% higher than it was a decade ago.
As a result, entire provinces have created laws to prevent the confiscation from occurring in their jurisdictions. And with nearly $200 million budgeted for the program from 2021 to March of this year, and just 7,299 firearms claimed to be confiscated by the government from licensed businesses, the overall cost per firearm confiscated is currently $24,416.* It is, in short, the definition of regulatory capture run amok, and may represent the single most significant programmatic failure of the Trudeau era - and as a result will remain an ever larger, ever more obvious albatross about the neck of any future government that seeks credibility with regard to responsible spending and pragmatic, rational policy, just as the long gun registry proved to be in its waning days.
If even Justin Trudeau could gaze upon the rampant and useless excess of the long gun registry and opine, as he did in 2012 that, "We have a government, or successive governments, that have managed to polarize the conversations around gun ownership to create games in electoral ways - when you don't have to have a conflict," surely those who have and will come to power after him, and who aspire to better his performance, can do the same.
*: Public Safety Canada provided updated ASFCP, Phase 1 progress figures after publication. Businesses have claimed 12,195 prohibited firearms. This indicates a 135.5% compliance rate, given government estimates of 9,000 prohibited firearms in possession of licensed firearm businesses whose inventory is, and has been for decades, subject to annual inspection and inventory confirmation by firearms officers from the Canadian Firearms Program.
FRT Recordkeeping Regs Repealed - But Why Might (Actually) Surprise You
On December 16th, the Liberal Party authored a new Order in Council that was then published in the Canada Gazette on January 1st, 2025, entitled “Regulations Repealing the Firearms Records Regulations (Classification): SOR/2024-276.”
This order repeals SOR/2014-198; a firearms regulation created in 2014 when then-Minister of Public Safety Steven Blaney, serving in PM Stephen Harper’s Cabinet, sought to rectify issues raised by the reclassification of the Swiss Arms and CZ-858 Tactical 2P and 4P rifles by the RCMP on March 14th of that year.
The reclassification fiasco of 2014
Early in 2014, the RCMP announced they would be amending the Firearms Reference Table (FRT) entries for all Swiss Arms rifles, and specific models of the CZ-858 rifle to reflect their newly-held opinion that both formerly non-restricted rifles were in fact prohibited: The Swiss Arms being considered a variant of an existing prohibited firearm, and the CZ-858 Tactical 2P and 4P models on account of being built from receivers that were originally manufactured as fully automatic rifles that were then welded up during the manufacturing process to limit their function to semi-automatic - hereby running afoul of Criminal Code 84(1) that defines a prohibited firearm as “an automatic firearm, whether or not it has been altered to discharge only one projectile with one pressure of the trigger,” among other things.
Obviously, this was a controversial decision, mainly owing to both rifles’ longstanding status as non-restricted firearms. With many businesses and individuals having bought, sold, and used the rifles for years without issue, the news that the RCMP was, or even could, unilaterally determine formerly non-restricted firearms to be prohibited left many feeling frustrated, and among stakeholders especially, brought a long-simmering sense of resentment with the RCMP’s FRT division to a head.
Because at the time, the FRT itself was not publicly available, and stakeholders felt that the process of classification had become too opaque and that the RCMP was abusing the classification system. Importers and manufacturers often waited years for a classification decision only to receive decisions that made little to no sense, and being afforded no explanation whatsoever, were frequently told that the justification for the decision could not be divulged for reasons of public safety, nor could it be challenged in any way.
Government vs. the RCMP
In response to the outrage from stakeholders in the firearms community, Minister Blaney’s response was largely twofold: The creation of the Common Sense Firearms Licensing Act (C-42) and SOR/2014-198. The former provided a definition for “non-restricted firearm” that granted the Minister of Public Safety the ability to deem a firearm as non-restricted by regulation, providing a remedy that would allow both rifles in question to be named as non-restricted firearms in a binding manner that put them out of the reach of the RCMP’s firearms technicians, and beyond the scope of the Criminal Code’s definition of prohibited firearms.
The latter, SOR/2014-198 sought to provide industry with stability and the RCMP’s FRT department with accountability by requiring the RCMP keep and maintain all records pertaining to classification decisions and prohibited the alteration or amendment of those records one year after their publication. Bluntly, this regulation required that an FRT record needed to be maintained, could not be deleted, and could not be altered after a year had elapsed.
And it is this regulation, SOR/2014-198, that was repealed last month.
So, why repeal SOR/2014-198?
In 2017, concerns that themselves dated back to the regulations’ introduction were brought to the attention of the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations (also known as REGS). In plain language, the issue was simple: By prohibiting the Registrar (RCMP) from amending classification records in the FRT, the regulations sought to supersede the Criminal Code; something that obviously exceeds the Registrar’s authority.
If that’s a little hard to follow, consider this salient example: If these regulations were in place when the CZ858 Tactical 2P was initially classified as a non-restricted rifle, the RCMP would not have been able to reclassify it within the FRT, even upon learning it met the Criminal Code definition of a prohibited firearm. In effect, SOR/2014-198 would force the RCMP to allow a prohibited firearm to remain non-restricted within the FRT, but in contravention of the Criminal Code - something that the RCMP, as the Registrar, do not have the authority to do.
As it was put by the Committee’s General Counsel Cynthia Kirkby; “If it is the intent of the regulations that the determination kept in a record could somehow overrule the Criminal Code itself, then much stronger enabling authority is required than the power related to recordkeeping.”
A 7-year Process
In response to REGS’ queries on the subject, Public Safety provided no clarification on the question of authority around the regulations. It simply demurred that they intended to repeal the regulations, and thus any concerns about their authority would die with the regulations.
However, REGS would spend the next seven(!) years discussing these regulations, with Public Safety repeatedly expressing a desire to repeal them but seemingly forgetting to at every possible turn; initially stating that they intended to repeal them with a clause in Bill C-71, then again with a clause in Bill C-21 (the first one), and then again with Bill C-21 Part Deux before the committee appears to have grown frustrated. Again, General Counsel for the Committee, Cynthia Kirkby opened discussion in REGS around SOR/2014-198 in February of 2019 thusly:
“The issue raised in 2014 is that either these regulations create a record-keeping requirement that has little consequence, or their intended effect exceeds by far the scope of the authority relied upon. Public Safety Canada has never provided an explanation that attempts to reconcile the gap between what the enabling act authorizes and what the regulations are purported to accomplish. As the chronology in the note describes, there has been a history on this file of the department failing to reply to correspondence and of the department delaying action on these regulations as it conducts broader policy work.”
One member put it more succinctly: “Hit your alarm, it’s Groundhog Day again. This is like Punxsutawney Phil coming back to haunt this committee.”
However, after seemingly endless delays and ignored correspondence, on May 27th, 2024, the committee demanded the regulations be repealed by December 31, 2024 under the threat of disallowance, and it appears that it was this deadline that this latest Order in Council served to meet.
Conclusions - Mostly, not not all bad news
So, does this enable more gun bans in the future? In a word: Yes. By repealing this regulation, the FRT is once again able to be amended unilaterally by the RCMP just as it was in 2014 when the CZ858 and Swiss Arms rifles were reclassified.
Perhaps even more concerning is also that in the earliest discussions around SOR/2014-198 within the REGS committee, the government’s lawyers who took issue with the regulation’s authority noted that what the regulations sought to do was otherwise made possible by the aforementioned clause in Bill C-42, which gave the Governer-in-Council the ability to determine a firearm to be non-restricted by name - and that doing so did not invoke the same questions around authority as the regulations around recordkeeping would have.
But Bill C-71 repealed that particular component of C-42, meaning that in very real terms, with the recordkeeping regulations now repealed, firearm classification is right back to where it was in 2014; with the RCMP able to reclassify firearms through the FRT, with no recourse or remedy available to those impacted through our elected representatives.
However, while it does allow for the prohibition of firearms through an avenue gun owners haven’t had to worry about for over a decade, none of this is to say that the repealing of these regulations necessarily signals an appetite for additional prohibitions through FRT. On the contrary, with seven years’ worth of well-reasoned legal arguments in favour of repealing the regulations and unanimous support from every member of the committee (including many members of the CPC over the course of those seven years), it does indeed appear to be a regulatory correction, rather than indicating any nefarious intent.
Moreover, from a broader political perspective, this government has repeatedly gone to great lengths to ensure every gun ban they’ve instituted is both extremely public and very much a product of the Liberal Party’s governance, likely to accrue as much political capital and create the largest wedge issue possible. An RCMP-led ban conducted via FRT does not advance any of those goals and would likely invite further allegations of mismanagement of the gun file into a government that, for all intents and purposes, appears to be quickly reaching its expiration date.
Public Safety Minister indicates new long gun ban OIC "in coming days"
Yesterday, in response to a question from Bloc MP Kristina Michaud, Minister of Public Safety Dominic LeBlanc testified before the Standing Committee on Public Safety (SECU) that the government intends to issue another OIC prohibiting yet more long guns “in the coming days.”
Prefacing her question by citing the pending 35th anniversary of the tragic massacre that occurred at Polytechnique on December 6, 1989, Michaud then went on to repeat a line of inquiry often put forward by anti-gun lobbyists Polysesouvient; stating that although the government banned 1,500 firearms on May 1, 2020 (a number that has since eclipsed 2,000 as a result of ongoing prohibitions by FRT) there remain hundreds of “similiar firearms” that are not banned, and that unless those firearms are also prohibited, gun owners will simply take the compensation the government provides them in exchange for their prohibited firearms and purchase one of these similiar, but non-restricted firearms - rendering the entire program moot. She then closed, asking LeBlanc “can we expect a total ban of assault-style firearms before implementation of this program?”
LeBlanc’s circuitous response was to the affirmative; saying that yes, a new OIC is going to be presented in the coming days with a “final list of prohibited weapons” that will prevent the situation Michaud laid out and prevent gun owners from being able to buy a “modern version” of their prohibited firearm. He specifically referred to a “gap list,” presumably indicating the existence of a new list of firearms the government believes it failed to prohibit initially, and so it appears the government intends to expand the list of prohibited long guns significantly, and imminently - likely in conjunction with the upcoming anniversary of the Polytechnique mass murder.
LeBlanc also mentioned the existence of a “task force” that will work with the RCMP to achieve this objective, and that this “technical team” has had numerous meetings, with the most recent one occurring just last week. This is noteworthy both because it indicates that the government has abandoned its commitment to reconvening the Canadian Firearms Advisory Committee, instead preferring to use a murky, entirely non-transparent “task force” to produce the so-called “gap list.” Additionally, the comment that this team “works with the RCMP” would seem to indicate that they do no work for the RCMP - meaning it is not comprised of members of the RCMP’s Firearms Program.
More on this developing story as it unfolds.
Total Spending On Long Gun Ban Will Exceed $100M This Fiscal Year
The amount of money allocated by Public Safety for the Liberals’ long gun ban announced four years ago has increased again, according to Public Safety’s most recent financial report, and means the combined total spent by Public Safety and the RCMP on the ban since its inception will eclipse $100M this fiscal year. It has not yet confiscated a single firearm.
Having originally been provided with $30.4M over two years by Budget 2024 “for the buyback of assault-style firearms,” Public Safety’s most recent Quarterly Financial Report for the period ending June 30th indicates that the department is now earmarking $36.9M for the program this fiscal year: $23.2M in operating expenses for the Assault Style Firearms Compensation Program (ASFCP), and $13.7M for new funding delivered through grants and contributions “to complete the collection and destruction of business owned assault style firearms and to establish a compensation program.”
Additionally, Budget 2024’s allocation of $30.4M stated that funding would be “sourced from existing departmental resources,” however, the financial report identifies the $23.2M in operating expenses incurred by the Assault Style Firearms Compensation Program (ASFCP) as the largest contributor to a 21.9% increase in Public Safety’s operating costs year-over-year, with the ASFCP now constituting 9.6% of Public Safety’s annual operating budget. Additionally, the $13.7M provided for grants and contributions to action Phase 1 of the gun ban is explicitly referred to as “new funding.”
Ban’s Total Budgeted Cost Eclipses $100M
A recent Order Paper question tabled by Ontario MP Larry Brock revealed that Public Safety had spent $51.6M on the ban from 2021 to 2023, which brings their total projected spending on the ban to at least $88.5M by the time the government’s fiscal year ends next March. However, that total may grow again, if Public Safety felt the need to increase the program’s funding after the period reflected by the quarterly report. It also does not include the amount spent by Public Safety during the 11-month period between the ban’s introduction on May 1, 2020 and the following April 1st, 2021. But for context, Public Safety reports having spent $12.5M and $12M on the ban in the 2021 and 2022 fiscal years, respectively.
Additionally, that same Order Paper question revealed that the RCMP have spent $13.4M on the ban thus far, meaning the combined known cost of the ban will surpass $100M sometime between now and next March, when it is projected to reach $101.9M - and it’s entirely possible that figure will be surpassed, or perhaps already has been, given the full scope of the RCMP’s financial commitment to the ban for 2024/2025 is not known, and Public Safety’s inability to report on what introducing the ban cost.
54 Months Later, Ban Still Plagued With Delays
Public Safety’s 2024/2025 Departmental Plan laid out the ministry’s intent to “continue work towards the launch of the Firearms Compensation Program (FCP) for businesses,” eventually indicating that it hoped to begin the confiscation of firearms from businesses in the Fall of 2024. Questioned about this in a press conference on September 25th, Minister of Public Safety Dominic Leblanc claimed the program was “on track,” and that the confiscation of firearms from businesses would begin no later than November 8. To this end, on October 16th, the government introduced an order-in-council allowing Canada Post to handle and store these prohibited firearms deemed too dangerous for even firearms businesses to retain, but as of now, the confiscation / compensation program remains unintroduced and unavailable to both business owners and individuals.
Moreover, with the government’s chosen shipping company for the business portion of the confiscation being served a strike notice by their unionized labour force, even if introduced, this first phase of the so-called “buyback” may stall if postal workers walk off the job later this month.
Finally, the confiscation of firearms from individuals was entirely omitted from the 2024/2025 departmental plan, meaning the much larger and more complicated task of seizing firearms from licensed gun owners and issuing compensation was never projected to begin before the end of this fiscal year. It is expected to come after the confiscation of firearms from businesses begins, but due to obvious logistical issues (Canada Post, for example, has refused to handle firearms being confiscated from individuals, citing concerns over staff safety), will likely look almost entirely different from the portion of the program targeting businesses. Lastly, anyone possessing these firearms is protected from being criminally charged for owning them until October 30th, 2025 - just days after the next fixed election date.
All For Naught
Over the same span of time as all this has occurred, Public Safety has not just been failing to achieve its own goals with regard to crime prevention and community safety, it’s been falling further behind in some of the most important metrics year-over-year. According to Public Safety’s own reporting, the Crime Severity Index has risen from 73.96 in 2021, to 74.9 in 2022, before jumping considerably to 78.1 in 2023 - getting farther and farther from Public Safety’s goal of 70.1. The crime rate, similarly, has gone from 5,301 to 5,375 to 5,625 - again, farther from the department’s stated goal of getting the crime rate below 5,200. The only metric by which Public Safety is actually achieving its goal in the name of “Canadian communities are safe” is the percent of homicides categorized as firearm-related, where 2023’s result of 39.2% satisfies Public Safety’s goal of maintaining a rate less than 40%. However, it’s going in the wrong direction: 36.6% of homicides were gun-related in 2021 and 37.7% in 2022.
More mystifying is that while Public Safety states that Statistics Canada provides these indicators, none of the figures reported by Public Safety match those available from Statistics Canada, and generally seem to understate the reality. According to Statistics Canada, the Crime Severity Index was 74.87 in 2021, 78.76 in 2022, and 80.45 in 2023. Likewise, the crime rates reported directly by Statistics Canada are dramatically higher; 5,921 in 2021, 6,229 in 2022, and 6,302 in 2023. The percentage of homicides committed by shooting seems entirely disconnected from Public Safety’s reporting, at 37.3, 38.8, and 37.1. These discrepancies perhaps give some insight as to why Public Safety also reports a reduction in the “percentage of stakeholders who report consulting Public Safety research or policy documents to inform their decision making” from 91% in 2021 to 70% in 2023.
Late last month, in the lead-up to British Columbia’s provincial election on October 19th, John Rustad stated that his Conservative Party of BC, if allowed to form government, would follow in the footsteps of various other provincial governments and refuse to dedicate provincial resources to the fulfillment of Justin Trudeau’s firearms bans; specifically the May 2020 OIC-instituted ban on 2000+ varieties of long gun, and the ban on handguns dating back to 2022 and more recently codified into law with the passage of the Liberals’ Bill C-21.
This statement is, as all licensed gun owners know, absolutely untrue.
This claim is nothing more than a cheap attempt to leverage misinformation to sow fear among the electorate. Eby’s allegation that Rustad’s unwillingness to allocate a budget for the confiscation of licensed firearms will result in violent criminals being “allowed to carry assault weapons unchecked” conflates legal gun ownership with violent crime to an offensive degree and does so at a time when too many British Columbians have been made abundantly aware of how thin the province’s police resources are stretched.
These comments will likely (and should) offend BC’s gun owners. Eby’s allegation that allowing British Columbians to retain firearms they’re licensed to possess is somehow analogous to gang members carrying them is, in a word, nothing short of slanderous. Licensed gun owners are among the least likely to commit crimes and their ability to retain the possession of handguns and semi-automatic firearms they bought legally does not constitute a risk to Canadian public safety.
Finally, that these claims emanate from a party whose leader is a lawyer, a former Attorney General, and once served as a professional spokesperson for civil liberties indicates that they are not the product of ignorance. Rather, it indicates the alternative: That the BC NDP has a clear, intentional, and repeated desire to incite a fear of firearms, and the nearly 400,000 British Columbians who own them.
Vote accordingly.
Editor’s note: We requested a comment from the BC NDP over 24 hours ago, asking “if the NDP would like to clarify their position to the nearly 400,000 legal firearms owners in the province who may feel as if your party views them as analogous to violent criminals.” We did not receive a response.
Casio G-Shock GBD-200: The Almost Smartwatch
We’ll cut right to the chase and lead off with the absolute best part of the GBD200: It’s not a smartwatch, but it’s not a dumb one either. Sporting a modern Bluetooth connection and a reasonably reliable smartphone app, the GBD200 has the ability to alert the wearer to all manner of phone notifications without the somewhat distracting feature of also displaying those notifications nor the requirement that it be charged nightly. To clarify, while there is a menu through which you can use the GBD200 to read messages, it’s not a primary function - in fact, it’s pretty onerous, to be honest. Rather, when messages or phone calls come in, the watch can beep, vibrate or do nothing (depending on your notification settings selected in the app), while a simple message appears on the screen; usually taking the form of the app name that’s sending the notification (Instagram, Facebook, etc) and the sender’s name when applicable. After a brief period, the notification disappears and is added to the notification counter in the top left.
This lets it bridge the gap between a conventional smartwatch that all but mirrors your phone screen on your wrist, and a traditional digital watch; providing some of the benefit of a smartwatch without the intrusiveness. In my case, that takes the specific form of having set the watch to vibrate for incoming calls, and remain muted for all others. It’s a perfect balance.
MIP Screen Means No Recharging
The other advantage over a conventional smartwatch is the GBD’s unique display. Referred to as a “memory-in-pixel,” or MIP display, this sort of digital readout differs from a conventional LCD display in that the individual pixels do not consume power unless they are actively changing from shaded to unshaded, and once shifted, revert back to not requiring power. Obviously, for a watch, where the majority of the pixels remain static for minutes, hours, or days at a time, this provides a massive boost in battery life and so the GBD200 boasts an estimated battery life of 2-years on a single CR2032 cell. That compares very favourably against conventional smartwatches that almost all require recharging in a matter of days.
Of course, the downside is that it’s a black and white display and obviously lacking in the vibrancy of the high-resolution TFT displays on most smartwatches. But when compared to standard LCD displays it actually ranks quite high in terms of visibility. For example, compared to a digital watch with a similarly “negative” conventional LCD display (where the background is black and the digits appear brighter, as opposed to a “positive” display where the background is lighter than the digits being displayed), the MIP display is noticeably more legible in all conditions and the backlight is exceptional, being both brighter and more uniform across the display. Overall, it almost has the same quality as an e-book display, being somehow flatter and crisper than the average LCD, but being both higher resolution and faster to refresh than the average e-ink display by a large margin.
Fitness Tracker
In addition to being a sorta-smartwatch for those of us that don’t like smartwatches, the GBD200 is actually marketed as a fitness watch, on account of it having both a step tracking function and a pretty reasonable workout/activity tracker. And again, it does so in a very intelligent way intended to prevent unnecessary power consumption: When paired with your phone and permitted access to GPS, the smartphone app and an accelerometer in the watch will basically work out how the movement of your arm correlates to distance traveller - or rather, what your stride is. In essence, it compares the accelerometer inputs with the GPS data, so as to provide accurate data on steps taken, distance travelled, time and speed.
The coolest part is that as it learns your gait, it can end up becoming quite accurate without the phone’s GPS connection; relying on just the watch’s accelerometer inputs to come up with an accurate activity log. And if you do go for a hike or jog without your phone, at the next available opportunity the watch will transfer the data recorded to the app, which of course has a whole host of additional fitness features beyond the watch’s simple step tracker or activity recording displays. Calorie counting, activity plans, data logs, distance goals; it’s all there. Of course, for someone like myself, the simple step-tracking display on the watch is enough to remind me of my too-sedentary lifestyle. But, if you’re planning on wandering through the woods this fall, it’s certainly more than capable of giving you plenty of feedback as to how far!
Unfortunately though, for the outdoorsman, it doesn’t include a few features we’d love to see. First and foremost would obviously be solar charging to stave off battery changes entirely, but simply put, without becoming a much larger watch to allow for the installation of a solar cell that’s an impossibility - and much of the GBD200’s appeal is its relatively small size.
Additionally, it’d be great if the GBD featured a sunrise/sunset display, and perhaps a moon phase and tide display. Any digital calendar can produce an accurate moon phase calendar, and moreover, all of these are offered as features on the GBD’s surfing-market cousin, the GBX100. Functionally and physically nearly identical with the solitary differences being a metal bezel insert, a heavier-duty strap, and the addition of the tide table/moon-phase display, the GBX generally runs about $50 more though, so perhaps that price differential explains why those features were left off the GBD. Bit of a bummer, nonetheless.
Conclusions
In daily use, the GBD200 is quite simply excellent, on account of being possibly the most comfortable G-Shock on the market with a softer and more breathable strap than most and a relatively slim, cuff-friendly case, combined with a feature set that makes it among the most broadly useful. Add to that the display has the low profile of a negative display without the legibility issues, and you’d have a winner already. Add the smartphone connection, vibration alarm, and fitness tracking features, and with a retail price of $200 it feels like an absolute bargain. And of course, short of doing something you really wouldn’t want to put your arm through, you will not kill it; it’s subjected to all the same extreme durability testing that all G-Shocks are which means it’s among the most indestructible watches on the market. If you lead an active lifestyle and want something to help you track that activity with minimal intrusion and maximum durability, this may be the ticket.