CTF Calls on Ford to Block Trudeau-Era Long Gun Ban

The Canadian Taxpayers Federation is calling on Ontario Premier Doug Ford to stand up for gun owners and taxpayers by passing legislation to block Ottawa’s gun ban in Ontario.

“Ford is right to oppose Ottawa for wasting money on this program that police say won’t make Ontarians safer,” said Gage Haubrich, CTF Prairie Director. “But now he needs to follow the lead of Alberta and Saskatchewan and pass legislation to block Ottawa’s gun ban in Ontario.”

Ford has publicly stated that the gun ban is ineffective.

“You’re focusing on the wrong group,” Ford said about Ottawa’s gun grab. “I support law-abiding hunters and gun owners.”

All provinces, except for British Columbia and Quebec, are refusing to participate in Ottawa’s gun ban and confiscation scheme.

The governments of Alberta and Saskatchewan have gone further and passed laws to block the federal government from confiscating guns in those provinces.

The government has committed at least $742 million to carry out its gun ban and confiscation scheme, according to Budget 2025. Other experts estimate the total cost to taxpayers could reach $6 billion.

According to Leger polling, among those with an opinion, 62 percent of Ontarians think that the money Ottawa is budgeting for gun confiscation should fund law enforcement instead.

Law-enforcement experts have been saying for years that Ottawa’s program won’t work.

“We know that the gun buyback program is going to have, essentially, zero impact on the crime in Toronto,” said Clayton Campbell, the president of the Toronto Police Association.

Dozens of police forces across the country have also declined to participate in the program.

“Law enforcement experts in Ontario say the gun grab will do nothing to make this province safer,” said Noah Jarvis, CTF Ontario Director. “All governments need to focus on the real problem of criminals and illegal guns, not going after licensed firearm owners.”

A Gun Owner’s Guide to the Conservative Party of British Columbia Leadership Candidates

It may surprise some to learn that among provinces with over 2 million inhabitants, British Columbia boasts one of the highest rates of gun ownership, second only to Alberta and almost 40% higher than Ontario's. And on May 30th, the Conservative Party of British Columbia (CPBC) will announce its next leader and, with it, take what will likely be a hugely formative step for one of the fastest-growing political parties in recent memory - and the province's gun owners.

A Brief History

The modern resurgence of the Conservative Party of British Columbia began in 2023 when John Rustad, a former BC Liberal MLA expelled over controversial views, became leader of a long-marginal party with no recent legislative presence. Under Rustad, the party rapidly gained traction, capitalizing on dissatisfaction with the governing British Columbia New Democratic Party and the decline of its traditional centre-right rival. By 2024, the Conservatives had transformed from a fringe movement into a competitive political force, aided significantly when Kevin Falcon suspended the BC United campaign mid-election and encouraged supporters to back Rustad. This consolidation of the right-wing vote helped propel the Conservatives into the role of Official Opposition following the 2024 provincial election.

During 2024–2025, the party’s growth was accompanied by internal strain. Rustad led a large and ideologically diverse caucus, many of whom had defected from other parties, creating tensions over discipline, messaging, and policy direction. While the party had achieved unprecedented electoral success and visibility, it struggled with cohesion and governance as an opposition party. Reports throughout 2025 highlighted disagreements within caucus ranks and challenges in maintaining unity, even as the Conservatives sought to present themselves as a government-in-waiting.

The crisis culminated in early December 2025, when a majority of Conservative MLAs publicly declared they had lost confidence in Rustad and demanded his removal. After initially refusing to step down, Rustad resigned on December 4, 2025, following a brief but intense internal revolt and months of mounting turmoil. His departure triggered a leadership vacuum and the appointment of an interim leader, setting the stage for the current leadership race.

The Candidates

Peter Milobar is the MLA for Kamloops Centre and previously served as mayor of Kamloops, giving him extensive municipal and provincial political experience. Before entering provincial politics, he built a reputation in local government leadership and policy-making in British Columbia’s Interior.

Yuri Fulmer is a Vancouver-based entrepreneur and business executive with a long career in real estate development and private enterprise. He has not held elected office, instead bringing a background in corporate leadership and economic development.

Kerry-Lynne Findlay is a former federal Conservative MP who served as a cabinet minister under Prime Minister Stephen Harper. She is also a lawyer by training, with decades of experience in law, public policy, and national politics.

Caroline Elliott is known as a political commentator and media personality with experience in communications and public advocacy. Her background is rooted more in political analysis and grassroots engagement than in elected office.

Warren Hamm is a contractor and trades professional with experience in construction and small business operations. He has no prior political office, representing a candidacy grounded in hands-on industry work rather than government or corporate leadership.

Iain Black is a former BC Liberal MLA and cabinet minister who later transitioned into the business sector as a senior executive. His career spans both provincial government leadership and private-sector economic development roles.

The Gun Question

We contacted each of the campaigns through whatever means possible, and asked for comment on the following:

“British Columbia is home to the second-highest percentage of gun owners of any province with a population over 2 million, with 64.6 gun owners per 1,000 residents. The only such province that surpasses this figure is Alberta, with 74.7. Third place falls to Ontario, with just 40.

As such, absent the legislative protections afforded to Albertans by Danielle Smith’s government, British Columbian firearm owners have found themselves disproportionately impacted by the bans on over 2,500 models of long guns passed by former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. This is reflected by BC’s position as having submitted the highest number of claims to the Liberal government’s Assault-Style Firearms Compensation Program on a per-capita basis.

Currently, BC’s NDP government has stated that police support for this program will not be compulsory. In a statement on participation in the program, the BC Association of Chiefs of Police has advised that instead, they will “continue to prioritize enforcement and investigative activities that disrupt organized criminal networks and achieve the most immediate and measurable public‑safety outcomes.

If you are elected to lead the Conservative Party of BC, how will you address this issue for the over 370,000 firearms owners in the province?”

The Responses (Or Lack Thereof)

Iain Black provided a direct response. It is as follows:

“I do not support the federal government’s gun buyback program, nor do I support arbitrary gun bans. Not because I don’t take public safety seriously—quite the opposite. Keeping British Columbians safe is one of the most fundamental responsibilities of government. But we need policies that actually work, that target the real sources of gun violence, and that respect law-abiding citizens.

The current approach misses the mark on all three.

It focuses billions of dollars on confiscating firearms from licensed, vetted owners—people who have followed every rule, passed background checks, and stored their firearms safely. These are not the individuals driving gun crime in our communities.

The real issue is illegal guns—often trafficked across the border—and the organized crime networks that use them. That’s where enforcement needs to be stronger. That’s where resources need to go.

At a time when families are struggling with affordability, when our healthcare system is under pressure, and when communities are dealing with addiction and mental health challenges, it’s hard to justify spending billions on a program that does little to address the root causes of violence.

I believe in a smarter, more focused approach:

We can be tough on crime and smart on policy at the same time. British Columbians expect results—not symbolism. And as Premier, my focus will always be on solutions that actually make people safer.”

Caroline Elliott provided the following response:

“British Columbia is home to more than 370,000 lawful firearms owners, including hunters, farmers, sport shooters, and responsible citizens who follow the rules and contribute to their communities.

I understand this personally, my husband is a hunter and a licensed firearms owner, and like so many British Columbians, he takes that responsibility seriously.

Law-abiding firearms owners in this province should not be treated like criminals by a federal government that continues to pursue costly, ineffective, and politically driven policies.

The federal firearms buyback program is a clear example. It targets law-abiding Canadians, not criminals, and diverts valuable public resources away from where they are actually needed, tackling organized crime, gangs, and the illegal flow of firearms.

As Premier, I would join provinces like Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba in opposing this program. We would not allocate provincial resources, including law enforcement, to support a policy that does nothing to improve public safety.

I support the position taken by the BC Association of Chiefs of Police to prioritize enforcement efforts that deliver real results by disrupting organized crime and targeting illegal firearms.

Our focus must be clear: go after criminals, not law-abiding gun owners.

At the same time, we will continue to advocate for practical, evidence-based approaches to public safety, including stronger action on border enforcement, tougher penalties for gun trafficking, and support for police to do the work that actually keeps communities safe.

British Columbians deserve a government that respects their rights, uses resources wisely, and focuses on real solutions, not political optics.”

Peter Milobar did not provide a response. His campaign page features no policy on firearms, and he did not attend the Juno News debate, where candidates were asked whether they would follow the lead of Alberta and Saskatchewan in opposing the gun ban.

Yuri Fulmer did not respond. His campaign page, however, features a section devoted to firearms, which states Fulmer would oppose federal firearm confiscation and affirm the right to use lawful force to defend home and family. Fulmer also stated yes to following the lead of Alberta and Saskatchewan in opposition to the gun ban during the Juno News debate.

Kerry-Lynne Findlay could not be contacted. The policies listed on her campaign page make no mention of firearms. She did say yes to following Alberta and Saskatchewan's lead in opposing the gun bans during the Juno News debate.

Warren Hamm did not respond. His campaign page features no policy on firearms, but he did attend the debate convened by Juno News and stated he would follow the lead of Alberta and Saskatchewan in opposing the gun ban.

A Historic Show of Unity: Canada's Three Largest Firearms Groups Speak With One Voice on ASFCP

In what may be an unprecedented alignment among Canada's major firearms advocacy organizations, the National Firearms Association (NFA), the Canadian Coalition for Firearm Rights (CCFR), and the Canadian Shooting Sports Association (CSSA) are delivering an identical message to gun owners across the country: if you've registered a declaration with the Assault-Style Firearms Compensation Program, withdraw your consent. If you haven't participated, don't.

A Voluntary Program

The ASFCP, launched in January 2026, was designed to compensate owners of firearms prohibited under the federal government's 2020 Order in Council ban. As Prime Minister Mark Carney made clear, participation in the program is entirely voluntary; owners were never legally required to register a declaration. To this end, the program's own terms and conditions confirm that those who have submitted declarations may withdraw their consent by contacting the program’s Contact Centre.

Additionally, owners who do withdraw are not left without legal protection: A federal Amnesty Order currently protects licensed owners of impacted firearms from criminal liability related to the possession of affected firearms until October 30, 2026, regardless of participation in the voluntary ASFCP. According to Public Safety Canada, that protection applies regardless of whether an owner has participated in the compensation program.

Supreme Court to Weigh In

A significant legal development is also shaping the calculus for firearms owners. The Supreme Court of Canada has agreed to hear an appeal headed up by the CCFR challenging the federal government's authority to prohibit more than 2,500 types of firearms through an Order in Council. The top court will hear the CCFR's appeal together with cases led by Christine Generoux and Michael Doherty alongside industry members such as O'Dell Engineering Ltd and Wolverine Supplies, with the governments of Alberta and Saskatchewan backing the challenge.

A final ruling is expected to be at least a year away, and the outcome remains uncertain. Should the court find in favour of the challengers, the prohibitions could be struck down. Legal observers have noted that the existence of an active Supreme Court challenge makes an extension of the current Amnesty Order likely, as allowing it to lapse while the matter remains before the court could expose owners to criminal liability for possessing firearms whose legal status has yet to be conclusively determined. 

What Owners Are Being Told

The NFA, CCFR, and CSSA have each advised their members that, given the legal uncertainty and questions surrounding the program's ability to deliver on its compensation commitments, participation in the ASFCP is not in owners' best interests at this time. All three groups have framed withdrawal as a straightforward exercise of the rights participants already hold under the program's own terms.

Owners who have submitted a declaration and wish to withdraw their consent can contact the ASFCP Contact Centre at 1-833-759-4551.

ASFPC: Quiet Cuts to Compensation Cause Concerns

As reported previously, although the pending 2026-2027 fiscal year will see the Assault-style Firearms Compensation Program (ASFCP) eclipse the $1BN spending mark, it comes with an expected surprise: That the amount of compensation that will be available to participants of the program has plummeted from the $250M promised earlier this year to just $64.8M - creating concerns that owners may receive significantly less than initially expected - if anything at all.

Bait and Switch?

When launched just over two months ago, the Minister of Public Safety, Gary Anandasangaree, indicated that the amount of total compensation available to individuals would be capped at $250M. To back this commitment, Public Safety Canada requested $260M in spending authority from the Treasury Board for the 2025-2026 fiscal year, to support transfers of funds to individuals and businesses as part of the ASFCP - ostensibly including the $250M for individuals referenced by Minister Anandasangaree, with an additional $10M to cover off claims made by businesses during the first phase of the program, late last year.

But because Public Safety Canada has stated that the processing of compensation claims will not begin until after the declaration period ends on March 31st, which happens to (coincidentally) be the last day of the 2025-2026 fiscal year, none of the claims for compensation will fall within the same fiscal year for which Public Safety Canada sought the promised $250M in total compensation. Instead, they will be processed within the 2026-2027 fiscal year, for which Public Safety Canada has sought $64.8M in spending authority to compensate owners participating in the ASFCP; a $185.2M reduction from the initially promised amount.

Will Gun Owners Get Stiffed?

For gun owners who have opted to participate, this has led to the obvious concern that the significant reduction in available compensation will have ramifications on the amount eventually provided. According to the government, the $250M in available compensation they committed to in January was intended to provide compensation for an estimated 136,000 firearms, with the resulting estimated average compensation per firearm of $1,838 echoing explicit government claims of paying, on average, $1,800 per firearm.

But with only $64.8M available, the government intends to either compensate owners for just over 35,000 firearms in total or significantly reduce its benchmark payment per firearm. The former would reflect the government’s original position that claims would be paid out “fairly,” and that all declarations received after the available funding had been exhausted would simply not be eligible for compensation.

In the latter case, if all claims are to be paid, based on the 51,000 firearms declared, with one week remaining before the program’s conclusion, the average compensation per firearm falls to $1,270. If uptake remains modest, and the program’s total claimed firearms remains at or below 60,000, the most participants can expect to receive on average is just over $1,000.

Put another way, in the case of the former outcome, somewhere upwards of likely 20,000 gun owners who have opted to participate in the ASFCP, and who have volunteered all the information participation requires, will receive no compensation for voluntarily offering their firearms up for confiscation. In the latter, all participants will, on average, receive almost half of what they expected to.

OIC Challenge Advances to Supreme Court

The legal challenge to the government's prohibition of millions of formerly non-restricted long guns by Order in Council will be heard by the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC).

The case, which has been previously dismissed by the Federal Court and the Court of Appeal, revolves around a section of the Criminal Code of Canada that stipulates:

"(2) In making regulations, the Governor in Council may not prescribe any thing to be a prohibited firearm, a restricted firearm, a prohibited weapon, a restricted weapon, a prohibited device or prohibited ammunition if, in the opinion of the Governor in Council, the thing to be prescribed is reasonable for use in Canada for hunting or sporting purposes." 

In plain language, the above section basically reads: "The Minister of Public Safety cannot issue an OIC prohibiting anything that is, in their own opinion, something that is reasonable for Canadians to use for hunting or sporting purposes."

And while the obvious argument against such regulatory bans finds its fulcrum in the well-documented history of non-restricted and restricted rifles being used for hunting or sporting purposes in this country, unfortunately, equally obvious is that, according to the wording of the law, none of that matters if the Minister of Public Safety is of the opinion that the rifles in question aren't reasonable for hunting or sporting purposes.

This caveat seems to create a conflict within the law, as its wording seems to indicate that it seeks to limit the ability of the government to prohibit hunting and sporting firearms, but also provides limitless license to the government to opine on what the definition of "reasonable for Canadians to use for hunting or sporting purposes.” And in doing so, it effectively renders itself moot, as no Minister of Public Safety would issue an Order in Council prohibiting firearms and then admit holding the opinion that those same firearms are reasonable for hunting or sporting purposes.

And although the Supreme Court of Canada has not provided any specifics of the legal clarity that they seek to provide in hearing this case, given this particular section of law is worded in such a manner as to make it effectively null and void, it is likely that the Court will be examining the potential spirit of the law, versus the letter of the law, in an effort to ensure the section's future applicability. In other words, it is reasonable to expect their deliberations to largely focus on how firearms are determined to be reasonable for hunting and sporting purposes, and what the Governor in Council's role is in making that determination - with the knock-on effect being that their ruling will determine the legal legitimacy of the Orders in Council issued by the Trudeau government that have seen millions of long guns prohibited.

What's Next?

With leave having been granted, the next step in the process is for the Supreme Court to hear the appeal and provide a decision. Decisions can be provided orally immediately after the appeal hearing (known as a decision from the bench) or reserved and delivered in writing at a later date. Decisions from the bench are becoming the more common outcome, but matters that may encounter a higher degree of dissent among the Supreme Court's judges (as opposed to unanimous decisions), or that may be more nationally significant than others, are more likely to see the verdict delivered in writing after further deliberation. In either case, a decision is probably over a year away. Additionally, it is worth noting that, statistically speaking, Supreme Court outcomes are effectively a coin toss: the chances of an appeal being granted or dismissed are roughly 50/50.

And that the legality of a policy that’s been at the core of the Liberal government for six years now comes down to a coin toss puts undeniable pressure on the government. If the SCC grants the appeal, the ramifications would be both severe and far-reaching: The existing long gun bans would be considered illegal and immediately struck down, a precedent would be set that would limit future governments’ ability to ban firearms by Order in Council, and the government would be exposed to significant financial damages sought by businesses whose revenues were negatively impacted by the bans.

How the government reacts to that pressure remains to be seen. In the near term, it’s very likely that the amnesty protecting owners from criminal charges will be extended, as a failure to do so would greatly increase the likelihood of the court issuing an injunction against the bans to prevent owners from being jailed for contravening a regulation that the SCC may eventually deem to be itself illegal.

But on a broader perspective, while extending the amnesty is a band-aid solution, it would not solve the government’s overarching problem of facing accountability for potentially being found to have illegally banned millions of firearms. To that, there are only two remedies: Striking a deal that would see the appellants* agree to discontinue their appeal in exchange for the cancellation of the long gun bans, or passing amendments to the Firearms Act that would prohibit the impacted firearms legislatively, rather than by regulation/OIC. The former would prevent the SCC from finding the prohibitions illegal, thereby negating any potential political and financial liability that may arise from such a decision, while the latter would indemnify the government against the same, regardless of the SCC’s eventual decision.

*Appellants: 

Canadian Coalition for Firearm Rights, 
Maccabee Defense Inc.,
Wolverine Supplies Ltd.,
O’Dell Engineering Ltd.,
Burlington Rifle and Revolver Club,
Montreal Firearms Recreation Centre Inc.,
Rodney Giltaca,
Ryan Steacy,
Christine Generoux,
John Perocchio,
Vincent Perrochio,
Michael John Doherty,
Nils Robert Ek,
Richard William Robert Delve,
Lindsay David Jamieson,
Mark Roy Nichol,
Peter Craig Minuk,
Jennifer Eichenberg,
David Bot,
Leonard Walker.

Gun Ban Budget Exceeds $1BN

According to recently released departmental plans and Treasury Board documents, the cost of the gun ban launched by former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau nearly six years ago has officially crested $1BN.

According to their 2026-2027 Departmental Plan, Public Safety Canada has earmarked $145.1M in spending for the 2026-2027 fiscal year in support of the Assault-Style Firearms Compensation Program (ASFCP), which the Treasury Board's 2026-2027 Main Estimates provides further clarity on:

1) $64.8M in expected compensation for those businesses and individuals participating in the compensation program,

2) $28.8M in transfers to other entities supporting the delivery of the ASFCP, including all private contractors providing logistical, storage, and security services, and the destruction and disposal of confiscated firearms,

3) $51.5M in operating and administrative costs.

Additionally, the department's plan budgets a further $3.6M for the program during it's forecasted sunset period through the 2027-2028 fiscal year, which, when combined with the estimated $651.3M spent by the department on the ASFCP from 2021-2025 and $145.1M estimated over the next fiscal year, brings Public Safety's bill for the ASFCP to an even $800M.

Additional Cost Centres

Unfortunately, neither the Treasury Board's Main Estimates document nor the RCMP's 2026-2027 Departmental Plan includes any programmatic spending details related to their commitment to the ASFCP for 2026-2027, but recent financial reports indicate the RCMP's contribution to the ASFCP required $85.6M in spending authorities last year. If that funding level holds steady for the next fiscal year, which seems reasonably conservative given their involvement is unlikely to decline as the program moves into the collection and destruction/disposal phase, it will bring the RCMP's total projected spending on the ASFCP to $214.1M from 2021 to 2027.

Projections: $1BN for 42,000 Firearms & Worse Performance Than the Long Gun Registry

This brings the total projected cost of the ASFCP, initially estimated to cost between $47 and $225M when launched in 2020, to at least $1B by the end of the 2026 fiscal year.

To put that in historical perspective, it means the ASFCP will have incurred at least half the cost of the defunct long-gun registry (LGR), in roughly half the time.

Worse still, with AI models predicting a total involvement of roughly 42,000 firearms by the compensation program's end later this month, the ASFCP's projected participation rate is estimated to land between 2-4%; a far cry from the LGR's heady estimate of 50% compliance, which was itself considered a dismal failure and a significant contributor to that program's eventual demise.

Finally, if both the budgeted amounts and AI-powered models of participation rates hold true, the cost to the taxpayer is projected at $24,145. However, as we all know, two truths are unavoidable: 1) AI is fallible, and 2) the ASFCP has required additional funding beyond the amount allocated by the Treasury Board's main estimates every year since its inception. So while we may see more (or less) than 42,000 firearms declared to the ASFCP, in all likelihood, the total cost to taxpayers by the end of the fiscal year will exceed the $145.1M currently indicated - perhaps significantly, as the program moves into the cost-heavy collection, destruction, and payment phase.

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):

Public Safety

2021-2023: 51.6M (Order Paper question is source)

2024: 30.4 budgeted in the Main Estimates, then another 33.8M provided by the TB on Supplementary Estimates A (https://www.canada.ca/en/treasury-board-secretariat/services/planned-government-spending/supplementary-estimates/supplementary-estimates-a-2024-25.html#ToC6) and another $41.7M in Supplementary Estimates B (https://www.canada.ca/en/treasury-board-secretariat/services/planned-government-spending/supplementary-estimates/supplementary-estimates-b-2024-25.html#ToC6) for a total of $105.9M.

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)

Total Public Safety bill: $651.3M

RCMP

2021-2023: $10.2M (Order Paper question is source)

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.

2025: Quarterly financial report ending Dec 31, 2025 indicates another increase, of $61.4M, over previous year, so $85.6M

Total RCMP bill: $128.5M

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.

The video: https://youtu.be/AMK-gFbifYU?si=T6rBeC2j_ZaqS2L7