If someone were about to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on a major public program, most people would expect at least some evidence that it works.
Critics say that expectation does not appear to have been met in Ottawa’s firearms confiscation initiative.
The Canadian Taxpayers Federation submitted an access-to-information request to Public Safety Canada, the department overseeing the federal firearms buyback and confiscation program. The request asked for any internal analysis on whether the “assault-style firearms compensation program” would improve public safety or reduce crime.
According to the department’s response, no such analysis exists within Public Safety Canada.
That disclosure has raised concerns among critics, who argue that the federal government is advancing a costly program without producing evidence of its effectiveness.
The program has been budgeted at a minimum of $742 million, though some estimates place its total cost in the billions. Despite this, critics point out that there appears to be no publicly available departmental analysis demonstrating measurable safety benefits.
Federal officials have previously defended the policy on public safety grounds, arguing that reducing the number of firearms in circulation would reduce violence.
However, opponents say that claim is not supported by available research or expert opinion.
Some law enforcement representatives and researchers have questioned the program’s likely impact. Clayton Campbell, president of the Toronto Police Association, has said the initiative would likely have “essentially zero impact” on gun crime in Toronto. University of Toronto professor Jooyoung Lee has similarly noted that firearms buyback programs tend to attract lawful owners rather than individuals engaged in criminal activity, limiting their effect on violent crime.
Participation from police services across Canada has also been limited, with several agencies opting not to take part in implementation.
International comparisons are also frequently cited in the debate. New Zealand’s 2019 firearms buyback program, which removed more than 50,000 weapons from circulation, has been referenced by critics who note that violent firearm crime reportedly increased following the initiative, though analysts caution that multiple factors can influence crime trends.
At the provincial level, the program has also faced resistance. Manitoba Premier Wab Kinew has expressed concerns about its effectiveness and administrative burden, while Ontario Premier Doug Ford has emphasized support for law-abiding firearms owners and questioned the policy’s focus.
Alberta and Saskatchewan have gone further, passing legislation intended to block enforcement of federal confiscation efforts within their jurisdictions. Most provinces and territories, with the exception of British Columbia and Quebec, have declined to participate in implementation, citing concerns about effectiveness and cost.
Public opinion polling, including surveys conducted by Leger, suggests Canadians may prefer increased enforcement against firearms smuggling and illegal trafficking over confiscation efforts targeting licensed owners.
Taken together, critics argue that the program faces skepticism from multiple directions—law enforcement, provincial governments, and segments of the public—while lacking publicly available federal analysis demonstrating its expected outcomes.
They say that without clear evidence of effectiveness, the cost and scope of the program remain difficult to justify.
The federal government, meanwhile, maintains that its firearms policies are designed to improve public safety and reduce gun violence across Canada.
