Records Show No Internal Analysis on Crime-Reduction Impact of Federal Firearms Confiscation Program

Newly released access-to-information records have intensified debate over Ottawa’s firearms confiscation program after revealing that Public Safety Canada was unable to provide internal analysis assessing whether the initiative will reduce crime or improve public safety.

The records were obtained through an Access to Information and Privacy (ATIP) request submitted by the Canadian Taxpayers Federation (CTF). The request sought departmental analysis regarding the effectiveness of the federal “assault-style firearms” compensation and confiscation program, specifically its anticipated impact on crime rates and public safety outcomes.

According to the response provided by Public Safety Canada, no records matching the request were found within the department.

The disclosure comes as the federal government continues moving forward with its firearms confiscation initiative, which was first announced following the prohibition of thousands of firearm models in 2020. Budget 2025 allocated an additional $742 million toward implementation of the program, bringing total federal spending commitments into the hundreds of millions of dollars.

Critics of the program argue that the lack of publicly available internal analysis raises questions about the evidence used to support the policy. The Canadian Taxpayers Federation says taxpayers deserve proof that the program will achieve its stated public-safety objectives before additional funds are committed.

Cost estimates for the initiative vary widely. While the federal government has not released a final projected cost, some independent analysts estimate the total price tag—including compensation payments, collection, transportation, storage, destruction, administration, and enforcement—could reach several billion dollars.

Researchers at the Fraser Institute have compared the program to Canada’s former long-gun registry, which became controversial after costs significantly exceeded original projections. Some estimates place the potential cost of the current confiscation program between $2.6 billion and $6.7 billion, depending on participation rates and implementation requirements.

The debate also extends to law enforcement. Several police organizations and policing representatives have expressed concerns about the program’s effectiveness as a crime-reduction measure. Critics argue that resources could be directed toward combating firearms smuggling, organized crime, repeat violent offenders, and illegal gun trafficking instead.

Supporters of the federal policy maintain that restricting access to certain firearms is an important component of a broader public-safety strategy. The government has argued that the measures are intended to reduce the availability of firearms deemed unsuitable for civilian ownership and lower the risk of future violence.

The issue remains politically divisive. Opponents note that licensed firearms owners are already subject to extensive background checks, safety training requirements, secure storage regulations, and continuous eligibility screening through the RCMP. They also point to data suggesting that many firearms used in criminal activity originate from illegal sources rather than from licensed owners.

As implementation of the confiscation program continues, questions surrounding its cost, effectiveness, and measurable impact on public safety are likely to remain central to the national debate over firearms policy in Canada.

Rising Federal Debt Interest Costs Expected to Top $1,400 Per Canadian This Year

New federal budget projections are drawing attention to the growing cost of servicing Canada’s national debt, with estimates suggesting interest payments alone will amount to roughly $1,400 per Canadian in the current fiscal year.

The figures are based on a recent analysis by the Parliamentary Budget Officer (PBO), which found that federal debt charges continue to rise and are expected to consume an increasing share of government revenues in the years ahead. According to the report, debt-servicing costs are projected to reach nearly $59 billion this year.

The Canadian Taxpayers Federation (CTF) says the growing interest burden means billions of dollars are being directed toward debt payments rather than public services, infrastructure projects, or tax relief. The organization argues that escalating borrowing costs are reducing the government’s fiscal flexibility at a time when Canadians are already facing affordability challenges.

The PBO’s assessment noted that while debt charges remain broadly in line with previous fiscal projections, they are on what it described as a “concerning upward track.” Current forecasts indicate public debt charges could rise from 10.6 per cent of federal revenues to 13.2 per cent by 2030-31 if existing trends continue.

On a per-capita basis, federal debt charges are expected to increase from approximately $1,409 annually this year to nearly $1,900 by the end of the decade. The report also projects Canada’s federal debt burden per person will continue to climb over the same period.

Fiscal watchdogs and taxpayer advocates are urging Ottawa to exercise greater spending restraint to slow the growth of debt-servicing costs. They argue that as interest expenses consume a larger portion of government revenues, future governments may face more difficult decisions regarding taxation, spending priorities, and deficit management.

The debate comes amid broader discussions about Canada’s long-term fiscal outlook and the sustainability of federal spending commitments. While supporters of government investment programs argue borrowing can support economic growth and public services, critics contend that rising interest costs demonstrate the risks of sustained deficit spending during periods of higher interest rates.

With debt charges projected to continue increasing over the next several years, the issue is likely to remain a key point of discussion as policymakers weigh future spending plans against the growing cost of carrying the federal debt.

Federal Journalism Tax Credit Reaches $71M as Reported Subsidized Jobs Decline

A federal tax credit program aimed at supporting journalism has reached approximately $71 million in total claimed benefits, according to reporting on the program’s latest figures.

The program, designed to provide financial relief to qualifying news organizations through refundable tax credits, has been positioned by the federal government as a way to help sustain journalism in Canada amid ongoing financial pressures in the media sector.

However, critics of the program argue that the structure of subsidies raises questions about long-term sustainability and its impact on the industry. They point to reported data suggesting that the number of journalism jobs supported through subsidized positions has declined to roughly 3,300.

Those raising concerns argue that while total spending through the tax credit continues to rise, it is not clear whether the program is stabilizing newsroom employment or simply offsetting broader structural declines in the sector.

Supporters of the policy maintain that direct financial assistance helps preserve journalism outlets that might otherwise struggle to survive in a changing media environment, particularly as advertising revenues continue to shift toward digital platforms.

At the same time, policy critics argue that reliance on public subsidies could increase government influence over the media landscape, while doing little to reverse long-term employment trends in journalism.

The debate reflects broader tensions over how best to support news organizations in Canada, balancing concerns about media independence, market disruption, and the financial viability of journalism in the digital age.

The federal government has defended its suite of journalism support measures, stating that they are intended to strengthen access to reliable news and ensure the continued availability of journalism services across the country.

Feds Triple Streaming Tax, Making Life More Expensive

The Canadian Taxpayers Federation is urging Prime Minister Mark Carney to reverse a newly announced increase to Canada’s streaming levy following a decision by the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) to raise the rate from 5 per cent to 15 per cent of Canadian revenues.

According to the CRTC, the updated levy will apply to major online streaming platforms with annual Canadian broadcasting revenues exceeding $25 million, including services such as Netflix, Prime Video, and Disney+, as reported by CBC News.

Franco Terrazzano, Federal Director of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, said the increase runs counter to efforts to improve affordability for Canadians. He argued that higher business costs could ultimately be passed on to consumers in the form of higher subscription prices.

Industry representatives and policy analysts have also raised concerns about the potential impact of the decision. The Motion Picture Association of Canada warned that the increased levy could significantly raise operating costs for streaming services in Canada, potentially discouraging investment and innovation in the sector.

Michael Geist, Canada Research Chair in internet and e-commerce law at the University of Ottawa, similarly cautioned that the policy could lead to higher prices for consumers and make Canada a more expensive market for streaming companies to operate in.

Critics of the decision argue that increasing regulatory costs on digital services may add pressure to an already inflation-sensitive economy, with potential consequences for both consumers and industry competitiveness.

Terrazzano said the federal government should reconsider the policy direction, emphasizing that increased taxation on digital services risks making everyday entertainment more expensive for Canadians.

In response, the federal government has stated that it is currently reviewing the CRTC’s decision.

The CRTC has framed the measure as part of its broader regulatory approach to the broadcasting sector, while debate continues over its economic impact and implications for consumers and industry investment.

Federal Gun Confiscation Program Faces Scrutiny Over Lack of Evidence

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.