Connect with us
[bsa_pro_ad_space id=12]

Business

The gun ban and buyback still isn’t worth it for taxpayers

Published

5 minute read

From the Canadian Taxpayers Federation

By Gage Haubrich

Even worse than the cost is the simple fact that the policy isn’t making Canadians safer. Trudeau banned the initial list of 1,500 guns in 2020, meaning that it’s illegal to buy, sell or use them. In every year since, violent gun crime in Canada has increased.

Right from the beginning, experts have told the prime minister that his gun ban and buyback will divert resources away from fighting crime rather than making Canada safer.

Instead of changing course, the Trudeau government announced it’s diverting even more taxpayers’ money to its failing gun policy policy.

And it’s an expensive diversion.

The federal government recently announced an additional 324 models of firearms are now prohibited and being added to the buyback list. That brings the total makes and models banned to almost 2,500.

Even though Ottawa hasn’t confiscated a single gun yet, costs have already begun to pile up for taxpayers. Since 2020, when the ban was first announced, the government has spent $67 million on the program. By the end of the fiscal year the government is likely to increase that number to about $100 million, according to government documents.

The projected costs of this scheme have been a problem from the start. In 2019, the government  said the buyback would cost taxpayers $200 million. But according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, buying back the guns could cost up to $756 million, not including administrative costs. Other government documents show that the buyback is now likely to cost almost $2 billion.

Those costs do not include the newly banned firearms. And it looks like the government has plans to expand the list even further. That means even more costs to taxpayers.

Minister of Public Safety Dominic Leblanc, who is charge in charge of the gun ban, hinted during the press conference the popular SKS rifle might be added to the ban list next. There are estimated to be a million of those firearms in Canada.

That means the costs to taxpayers could soar and even more people could lose their guns. The  PBO report estimates that there were about 518,000 firearms banned on the original list. Adding the SKS could more than double the projected $756 million it would cost to confiscate the guns.

The government tried to ban the SKS before. It was included in an amendment to Bill C-21 that would have seen it banned along with a lot of hunting rifles. The Assembly of First Nations immediately passed an emergency resolution opposing this amendment at the time.

“It’s a tool,” said Kitigan Zibi Chief Dylan Whiteduck about the list of rifles that would have been banned. “It’s not a weapon.”

The government backed down on that amendment. There is no doubt it would encounter similar resistance from Indigenous hunters if Ottawa reimposed it.

Even worse than the cost is the simple fact that the policy isn’t making Canadians safer. Trudeau banned the initial list of 1,500 guns in 2020, meaning that it’s illegal to buy, sell or use them. In every year since, violent gun crime in Canada has increased.

And international examples confirm the pattern. New Zealand conducted a similar, but more extensive, gun ban and buyback in 2019. New Zealand had 1,216 violent firearm offenses in 2023. That’s 349 more offences than the year before the buyback.

All of this only confirms what experts have said from the beginning: This cost a lot of money, but won’t make Canada safer.

The union that represents the RCMP says the buyback “diverts extremely important personnel, resources, and funding away from addressing the more immediate and growing threat of criminal use of illegal firearms.”

“The gun ban is not working,” said the president of the Toronto Police Association. “We should focus on criminals.”

Academics who study the subject also agree.

“Buyback programs are largely ineffective at reducing gun violence, in large part because the people who participate in such programs are not likely to use those guns to commit violence,” said University of Toronto professor Jooyoung Lee.

Everyone but the prime minister can see the obvious. The costs for this program keep ballooning and taxpayers have every reason to worry the tab is only getting bigger. Yet our streets aren’t safer. Trudeau must scrap this ineffective and expensive gun buyback.

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Automotive

Measure overturning California’s gas car ban heading to Trump’s desk

Published on

From The Center Square

By 

Congress has passed a measure to overturn California’s phased-in 2035 ban on the sale of new gas cars.

The vote impacts 11 other states and the District of Columbia, which make up 40% of the nation’s car market and adopted California emissions standards.

The measure, which was passed by the Senate Thursday after its previous approval by the House, now heads to President Donald Trump’s desk for his signature. But the Senate parliamentarian’s objection to Congress’s authority to overturn the EPA waiver approving the ban could set the stage for a possible legal battle between the federal government and states that have adopted the California ban.

The phased-in zero-emission vehicle requirement is set to apply to California, Massachusetts, New York, Oregon, Vermont and Washington for the ongoing model year 2026, and Colorado, Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, New Mexico, Rhode Island and Washington, D.C. for model year 2027.

In the last weeks of the Biden administration, the EPA approved a waiver allowing California’s gas car ban to move forward. Because California’s emissions regulations — they were created to combat the state’s notorious smog — predate the EPA, the state was grandfathered in with the ability to set more stringent emissions requirements than the federal standard so long as the EPA grants a waiver for each such requirement.

Under the power of congressional review, Congress can vote to overturn executive regulatory decisions within 60 legislative days, suggesting the Biden administration’s decision not to approve the waivers until its final weeks could have been made with this power in mind.

Now, California Attorney General Rob Bonta announced he is suing the Trump administration for unlawful use of the Congressional Review Act.

“These unlawful and unlawful CRA resolutions purport to invalidate clean air act waivers that allow California to enforce state-level emissions standards,” said Bonta at a news conference. “The nonpartisan Government Accountability Office and the Senate parliamentarian … both determined the CRA’s process does not apply to the EPA waivers.”

“California has received approximately 100 waivers … and the CRA has not been applied,” continued Bonta.

In 2019, the first Trump administration withdrew a California vehicle emissions EPA waiver, leading to ongoing court cases that were withdrawn by the federal government when the Biden administration took power in 2021, and a reinstatement of the waiver in 2022. A lawsuit filed by multiple states and the energy industry against the 2022 reinstatement failed when a court ruled the plaintiffs did not have standing to sue, with the Supreme Court agreeing to review the finding on the lack of standing.

After the overturn’s anticipated signing by President Trump, the matter of Congressional Review and the constitutionality of California’s regulations are likely to bring the issue to a more final adjudication.

The ban would have required that 35% of cars in model year 2026 be qualifying zero-emissions vehicles, which allows for a large share of plug-in hybrid models, in addition to the now ubiquitous battery-electric vehicles, and rare hydrogen fuel cell vehicles. In California, which has the nation’s largest EV charging network and highest EV adoption rates, ZEV sales declined from 22% in the last quarter of 2024 to 20.8% in the first quarter of 2025, suggesting buyers are becoming less enthusiastic about purchasing electric vehicles.

Given that the 2026 model year is already under way for many automakers, a ZEV increase from 20.8% to 35% would have required a 68% increase in ZEV market share within the year, leading Toyota to call California’s requirement “impossible to meet.”

Automakers would have had to either restrict the inventory of non-qualifying vehicles, as Jeep has done in the past, purchase costly excess credits from automakers with excess ZEV credits such as Tesla or Rivian, or pay a $10,000 fine for each car they sell that doesn’t meet the requirement. Consumers still would be able to buy gas-powered cars in other states, or buy them on the used market, which experts say would have resulted in rising used car prices not only in states impacted by the ban, but nationwide, as used cars from around the country would likely be imported to impacted states to meet continued demand for gas-powered cars.

The typical financing payment for a new electric vehicle is over $700 per month, even after accounting for subsidies, putting EVs out of reach for most American families.

“We need to ‘Make California Affordable again’ by giving consumers options and not boxing them into a single choice and forcing them to purchase expensive electric vehicles they can’t afford,” said state Sen. Tony Strickland, R-Huntington Beach, after Congress passed a measure overturning the ban. “Furthermore, as vice chair of the Senate Transportation Committee and a member of the Senate Energy Committee, I am concerned that California is not truly prepared to have 15 million electric vehicles on the road by 2035 … If everyone plugs in and charges their EVs, we will experience rolling blackouts because of inadequate energy capacity.”

In 2022, California energy grid officials requested that EV owners not charge their cars during a heat wave, highlighting the grid’s insufficient capacity to meet even recent demand. UC Berkeley researchers say the state must spend $20 billion on grid upgrades to handle energy transfers to electric vehicles, not including additional costs to the grid to support the anticipated transition from natural gas-powered appliances, which would increase grid strain even further.

Continue Reading

Alberta

SERIOUS AND RECKLESS IMPLICATIONS: An Obscure Bill Could Present Material Challenge for Canada’s Oil and Gas Sector

Published on

From Energy Now

By Tammy Nemeth and Ron Wallace

Bill S-243 seeks to “reshape the logic of capital markets” by mandating that all federally regulated financial institutions, banks, pension funds, insurance companies and federal financial Crown Corporations align their investment portfolios with Canada’s climate commitments

Senator Rosa Galvez’s recent op-ed in the National Observer champions the reintroduction of her Climate-Aligned Finance Act (Bill S-243) as a cornerstone for an “orderly transition” to achieving a low-carbon Canadian economy. With Prime Minister Mark Carney—a global figure in sustainable finance—at the helm, Senator Galvez believes Canada has a “golden opportunity” to lead on climate-aligned finance. However, a closer examination of Bill S-243 reveals a troubling agenda that potentially risks not only crippling Canada’s oil and gas sector and undermining economic stability, but one that could impose unhelpful, discriminatory measures. As Carney pledges to transform Canada’s economy, this legislation would also erode the principles of fairness in our economic and financial system.

Introduced in 2022, Bill S-243 seeks to “reshape the logic of capital markets” by mandating that all federally regulated financial institutions, banks, pension funds, insurance companies and federal financial Crown Corporations align their investment portfolios with Canada’s climate commitments, particularly with the Paris Agreement’s goal of limiting global warming to 1.5°C.  The Bill’s provisions are sweeping and punitive, targeting emissions-intensive sectors like oil and gas with what could only be described as an unprecedented regulatory overreach. It requires institutions to avoid financing “new fossil fuel supply infrastructure” and to plan for a “fossil-free future,” effectively discouraging investment in Canada’s energy sector. To that end, it imposes capital-risk weights of 1,250% on debt for new fossil fuel projects and 150% or more for existing ones, making such financing prohibitively expensive. These measures, as confirmed by the Canadian Bankers’ Association and the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions in 2023 Senate testimony, would have the effect of forcing Canadian financial institutions to exit oil and gas financing altogether. It also enshrines into law that entities put climate commitments ahead of fiduciary duty:

“The persons for whom a duty is established under subsection (1) [alignment with climate commitments] must give precedence to that duty over all other duties and obligations of office, and, for that purpose, ensuring the entity is in alignment with climate commitments is deemed to be a superseding matter of public interest.”

While the applicability of the term used in the legislation that defines a “reporting entity” may be a subject of some debate, the legislation would nonetheless direct financial institutions to put “climate over people”.

 

There are significant implications here for the Canadian oil and gas sector. This backbone of the economy employs thousands and generates billions in revenue. Yet, under Bill S-243, financial institutions would effectively be directed to divest from those companies if not the entire sector. How can Canada become an “energy superpower” if its financial system is directed to effectively abandon the conventional energy sector?

Delivered to You: It’s Free! Sign Up for the EnergyNow Canadian Energy Focused Newsletter Here
Delivered to You: It’s Free! Sign Up for the EnergyNow US Energy Focused Newsletter Here

Beyond economics, Bill S-243 raises profound ethical concerns, particularly with its boardroom provisions. At least one board member of every federally regulated financial institution must have “climate expertise”; excluded from serving as a director would be anyone who has worked for, lobbied or held shares in a fossil fuel company unless their position in the fossil fuel company was to help it align with climate commitments defined in part as “planning for a fossil fuel–free future.” How is “climate expertise” defined? The proposed legislation says it “means a person with demonstrable experience in proposing or implementing climate actions” or, among other characteristics, any person “who has acute lived experience related to the physical or economic damages of climate change.” Bill S-243’s ideological exclusion of oil and gas-affiliated individuals from the boards of financial institutions would set a dangerous precedent that risks normalizing discrimination under the guise of environmental progress to diminish executive expertise, individual rights and the interests of shareholders.

Mark Carney’s leadership adds complexity to this debate. As the founder of the Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero, Carney has long advocated for climate risk integration in finance, despite growing corporate withdrawal from the initiative. Indeed, when called to testify on Bill S-243 in May 2024, Carney praised Senator Galvez’s initiative and generally supported the bill stating: “Certain aspects of the proposed law are definitely achievable and actually essential.”  If Carney’s Liberal government embraces Bill S-243, or something similar, it would send a major negative signal to the Canadian energy sector, especially at a time of strained Federal-Provincial relations and as the Trump Administration pivots away from climate-related regulation.

Canada’s economy and energy future faces a pivotal moment.  Bill S-243 is punitive, discriminatory and economically reckless while threatening the economic resilience that the Prime Minister claims to champion. A more balanced strategy, one that supports innovation without effectively dismantling the financial underpinnings of a vital industry, is essential. What remains to be seen is will this federal government prioritize economic stability and regulatory fairness over ideological climate zeal?


Tammy Nemeth is a U.K.-based energy analyst. Ron Wallace is a Calgary-based energy analyst and former Permanent Member of the National Energy Board.

Continue Reading

Trending

X