When a new leader takes the helm, a reckoning often follows. Mark Carney, succeeding his predecessor, swiftly dismantled several policies deemed unworkable, notably eliminating the carbon tax. Yet, one controversial initiative remained – a gun “buyback” program steeped in political origins rather than practical safety measures.
The program’s genesis lay in the raw emotion following the horrific Nova Scotia massacre of April 2020. Capitalizing on national grief, the previous administration announced a ban on AR-15s and similar firearms, promising a future free from such tragedy. The message was clear: action was being taken, safety was paramount.
However, the uncomfortable truth was that this very program would have done nothing to prevent the Nova Scotia tragedy. The perpetrator, Gabriel Vortman, was already prohibited from legally owning firearms, and his weapons were illegally obtained – smuggled across the border from the United States. Reports of his illegal arsenal even reached the RCMP prior to the event, yet went unheeded.
Years were spent formulating a plan for the “buyback,” a process Carney could have halted upon taking office. He could have redirected focus to the real issue: gun crime fueled by illegal weapons flooding in from the US. Instead, he chose to continue a course already proven ineffective.
The numbers tell a stark story. As of recently, only 32,406 individuals registered for the program, declaring a total of 57,440 firearms. This represents a tiny fraction of the estimated 150,000 to two million guns covered by the ban – over 2,500 models and variants of rifles and shotguns.
Many gun owners are adopting a “wait and see” approach, according to Tracey Wilson of the Canadian Coalition for Firearm Rights. The CCFR has already launched legal challenges, losing at both the Federal Court and Federal Court of Appeal. Now, the Supreme Court has agreed to hear their case, a glimmer of hope for those opposing the ban.
The core of the CCFR’s argument centers on the method of the ban itself. Was it lawful for the government to invoke such a sweeping measure through an Order in Council – essentially an executive order – rather than through proper legislation? The question is whether such a drastic step can be taken without due process and legislative debate.
The CCFR is seeking an injunction to protect law-abiding gun owners from criminal prosecution while the Supreme Court deliberates. Meanwhile, the current administration presses forward, despite widespread opposition from law enforcement agencies across the country.
Alberta and Saskatchewan have outright refused to participate, enacting legislation to shield their gun owners. Ontario, while not actively assisting, has ensured its provincial police force will not be involved. Only Quebec, along with limited police services in Halifax, Waterloo, Cape Breton, and Winnipeg, have pledged support.
Crucially, the 57,440 registered firearms remain in the possession of their owners – simply registered, not collected. This program, conceived in the aftermath of tragedy, has become a costly and largely symbolic gesture, a misstep that a new leader had the power to correct. It remains a demonstrably flawed plan, and one that should have been abandoned.
