Now What’s Going To Happen?
- 5 days ago
- 6 min read
Re-printed without permission.
Will the government reverse its confiscation plans?
Guy Lavergne, Attorney at Law
For the Canadian Firearms Journal,
March/April, 2026 Issue
This column was updated as of Jan. 19, 2026. The initial phase of the federal firearms “buyback” program has been implemented on Cape Breton Island. It was not a success! Although it would be more accurate to call the program a confiscation program, I will nevertheless use the official designation. Police associations and other organizations have denounced the initiative as a waste of public funds and stressed it would have no significant positive impact on public safety. The government is forging ahead. The declaration phase of the program will start as of Jan. 19, 2026, and will last until March 31, 2026. Many people are skeptical. The government has also announced that the underlying budget is limited and hence, compensation will only be available to those who declare their guns before the allocated budget runs out.
INDIVIDUALS
In Cape Breton, the goal was to collect 200 firearms from individuals. At last count, 25 items, of which 22 are firearms, were handed over, or about 12.5 per cent of the announced target. In other words, the non-compliance rate is 87.5 per cent in a province, Nova Scotia, that is one of the most liberal in Canada. Such a high level of non-compliance necessarily begs the question: what will happen next? If the low success of Cape Breton’s gun buyback program proves to be a harbinger of success (or lack thereof) at the national level, the federal government has a major problem on its hands. Several provinces and at least one territory have already announced their resources will not be made available to the federal government under this program. At least one province, Alberta, has announced it will grant immunity from prosecution to individuals who refuse to surrender their firearms.
A FEW FIGURES
There are approximately three million firearm licence holders in Canada. Approximately 2,500 distinct models of firearms have been reclassified under the three orders in council. Most of these firearms were restricted firearms and were therefore registered under the Canadian Firearms Registry. Government authorities therefore know the identity and address of their owners, at least in theory. However, there is a significant proportion of these firearms that were non restricted and were not subject to registration (except in Quebec), and for which the identity of the owners is not known to the government. As for the total number of firearms covered, we are certainly talking about several hundred thousand items, or even more than one million. It should also be remembered that the affected owners have kept them in their possession since the beginning of the underlying prohibitions. In most instances, it has been more than five years, and there have been no significant public safety concerns.
GOVERNMENT OPTIONS IN THE EVENT OF MASS NON-COMPLIANCE
First, I want to unequivocally mention that I cannot encourage anyone to disobey the law in any way whatsoever. Further, this column is not a legal opinion that anyone should rely upon to determine their future course of conduct. Rather, it is a theoretical discussion of the possible scenarios and the underlying contingencies. For an individual, the potential consequences of a refusal to comply include the possibility of criminal prosecution, the seizure of the firearms concerned, revocation of their licence, and the denial of financial compensation under the buyback program. There are, however, practical considerations that cannot be ignored. The first of these considerations is the social acceptability of coercive measures, the second relates to the lack of resources to prosecute a large number of individuals.
CRIMINAL PROSECUTION
The criminal justice system is already overloaded. Pending cases proceed slowly, often too slowly, and delays result in the dismissal of many cases pursuant to the Jordan precedent. Jordan stands for the principle that an accused has the right to be tried within a reasonable time and that the consequence of not respecting that right is a stay of proceedings. Already, many criminals, often violent, must be released and the charges they face must be dropped because the justice system is unable to guarantee them a timely trial. The system cannot accommodate a multitude of additional prosecutions against people whose only crime is to refuse to turn over to the government their legally acquired property. The seizure of a now-prohibited firearm and the laying of charges against its owner would require, at a minimum: an application for a search warrant, police resources to conduct the search and seizure and, finally, the resources of the provincial crown to lay criminal charges and conduct the prosecution. In a context where the criminal justice system is under-resourced, it is difficult to see how the remaining resources could be allocated in this direction. It should be remembered that the administration of criminal justice is the prerogative of the provinces and that it is the provinces who can determine their priorities and give instructions to their respective police forces and prosecutors. While there is a federal crown, its role is to prosecute matters under federal statutes other than the Criminal Code. However, the potential offence related to refusing to comply with the firearms buyback program would be that of unauthorized possession of a prohibited firearm, under section 91 of the Criminal Code. It would be up to the provincial crown to prosecute it. Moreover, the individuals who currently possess these firearms are technically committing this very offence, but they are currently protected from prosecution by the amnesty decree initially enacted in May 2020 and renewed several times since. It is also impossible to know whether this amnesty decree will be renewed again, and for how long.
SEIZURES WITHOUT PROSECUTION
This scenario requires fewer resources than full-on prosecution, but nevertheless requires an application for a search warrant, a search and seizure and a notice of hearing for an order for disposition of the seized firearm. Although this scenario is less demanding in terms of the resources required, those resources are nevertheless not negligible.
ADMINISTRATIVE SANCTIONS
It is possible and open to the various chief firearms officers of the provinces to revoke the firearms licences of owners who refuse to comply. A distinction must be made as to the three different situations that prevail. For some provinces that have not designated a provincial chief firearms officer and for the three territories, the RCMP acts as the chief firearms officer ex officio. It is reasonable to assume that the RCMP will do what the federal government tells it to do. The other provinces have their own chief firearms officer. In cases where the province has announced that its resources will not be used in support of the buyback program, it can be assumed that the provincial chief firearms officer could refuse to act, but it will not necessarily be so. As for Alberta, the provincial chief firearms officer has already announced there would be no sanctions towards those who refuse to comply.
ENHANCE THE OFFER
An enhanced compensation offer could lead some reluctant people to comply. Such an eventuality seems unlikely to me since it would probably be perceived as a reward for delinquency.
BUY TIME
The government could be tempted to buy time, by extending the expiry date of the amnesty order. An extension of the amnesty would allow the government to get extra political mileage out of this issue, by making it an election issue again.
BACKING OFF
Backing off could ultimately be the ideal solution to solve the expected social and political crisis. If there were to be a rollback, it would probably be partial, in the sense that there would be no annulment of the orders in council enacted to date. A withdrawal or annulment of the orders in council might cause the government to lose face. For certain, they will not want to admit they were wrong. Moreover, the Conservatives will not fail to promise a cancellation of the program during the next election campaign. The Liberals will want to keep this issue on hold for the election campaign that will inevitably come. A rollback could take the form of grandfathering, with or without the possibility of transfer or use. Grandfathering would allow the government to “save face,” at least in part, and try and justify its decision based on budgetary or justice system considerations. The government could also emphasize that the number of affected firearms “out on the street” will not increase, and will eventually reach zero, as the owners of those firearms cease to have firearms licences, for whatever reason. In short, the government would be able to say that its goal has been achieved or will eventually be achieved, even though it will take much longer. In any event, I very much doubt we will come to a situation where the police would use force to seize the firearms in question and arrest those who resist the program, even if it is not impossible. Is it unthinkable that a government would deliberately provoke a social crisis to gain votes? Certainly not. Nevertheless, the possibility of something going very wrong is significant. Presumably, the ultimate answer will depend upon the level of non compliance, but above all, upon the political clout to be gained or lost by pursuing one or the other of the alternatives.
Comments