[adrotate banner="3"]

Firearm Buyback Program Faces Scrutiny After $67.2M Spent, No Guns Collected

Launched in response to Canada’s deadliest mass shooting in Nova Scotia in 2020, which left 22 people dead, the buyback program was designed to remove assault-style firearms from circulation.

The Canadian government’s firearm buyback program has sparked controversy after revelations that it has cost taxpayers $67.2 million since its announcement in 2020, yet not a single firearm has been collected. The program, introduced by the Liberal government, aims to compensate owners of assault-style firearms that were banned in 2020, but delays and lack of clarity have frustrated both gun owners and opposition leaders.

Launched in response to Canada’s deadliest mass shooting in Nova Scotia in 2020, which left 22 people dead, the buyback program was designed to remove assault-style firearms from circulation. The government estimates there are about 150,000 prohibited firearms in Canada, and gun owners have until October 2025 to surrender, deactivate, or dispose of these weapons. However, after four years, many details of the program remain murky.

So far, $56.1 million has been spent by Public Safety Canada, with an additional $11.1 million from the RCMP. Out of this, $11.5 million has gone to external consultants for software development, logistics, and communication services—expenditures that have raised eyebrows among opposition lawmakers.

Senate opposition leader Donald Plett has been a vocal critic of the program, calling it a “boondoggle” that targets law-abiding gun owners rather than criminals. “$67 million is an incredible, shocking amount of money to spend on a program that doesn’t yet exist,” Plett said in a statement to CTVNews.ca. He specifically took issue with the $11 million paid to external consultants, urging the government to release the details of these contracts to the public.

In response, government Senate representative Marc Gold acknowledged that the program has seen delays but emphasized its importance for public safety. “This government’s position on its firearm legislation and its work to launch its firearms buyback program are centerpieces of its concern for the well-being of Canadians,” Gold said, defending the ongoing efforts.

Canada’s buyback program was inspired by a similar initiative in New Zealand, which was launched after the Christchurch mosque shootings in 2019 that left 51 people dead. New Zealand’s program collected over 56,000 banned firearms in its first six months. In contrast, Canada has yet to collect a single firearm, raising questions about the effectiveness and efficiency of the Canadian approach.

The Canadian program is expected to roll out in two phases: first targeting business owners with banned firearms in stock, and then focusing on individual gun owners. Around 2,000 models and variants of assault-style firearms are covered under the ban, with compensation ranging from $1,100 to over $6,200 per firearm. Gun owners have until October 30, 2025, to comply with the program.

However, the cost of the program continues to be a point of contention. In 2021, the parliamentary budget officer estimated that compensating gun owners at fair market value could cost the government up to $756 million—a figure far higher than the current $67.2 million expenditure.

Despite the criticism, the government remains committed to advancing the buyback program. A spokesperson for Public Safety Canada stated that work on the program is “well advanced” and that more details about the business phase will be available by late 2024. “The Government of Canada continues to engage with various stakeholders and service providers to ensure a safe, efficient, and cost-effective program,” the spokesperson said. Once the program officially begins, gun owners will have the option to surrender their firearms for compensation, deactivate them at the government’s expense, or export them with a valid permit.

As the deadline approaches, debates over the program’s implementation and cost are likely to intensify, with critics arguing that the focus should be on targeting criminal misuse of firearms rather than licensed gun owners.