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.

From the Fraser Institute

By Steven Globerman and Lawrence Schembri

The Bank of Canada’s decision last week to lower its policy rate by 50 basis points increases the gap between the U.S. Federal Reserve’s policy rate and the Bank of Canada’s rate to approximately 130 basis points. While this gap might close somewhat if the Federal Reserve lowers its rate at its meeting this week, a substantial U.S. premium will still exist.

Since borrowing rates are tied to policy rates, interest rates in Canada will remain well below those in the U.S. for the foreseeable future. This gap will continue to put downward pressure on the value of the Canadian dollar against the U.S. greenback, as investors favour higher-earning U.S. dollar-denominated assets over Canadian dollar assets. President-elect Trump’s threatened trade actions against Canada could also exert further downward pressure on the loonie, especially if the Bank of Canada responds to Trump’s actions by making additional rate cuts. For context, it took $1.33 Canadian dollars to purchase one U.S. dollar on January 1, 2024, compared to $1.43 Canadian dollars on December 13, 2024. This represents a substantial depreciation in the Canadian dollar’s value of approximately 7.6 per cent over the period.

What effects will a declining Canadian dollar have on the Canadian economy?

In short, it will increase demand for domestic output and labour and put upward pressure on inflation via higher import prices, and it could also lower productivity growth and further hurt living standards.

Why the impact on productivity?

Because Canada imports most of its machinery and equipment (including information and communications technology) from the U.S. and other countries, and investment in this type of physical capital helps drive productivity growth. A declining Canadian dollar makes capital equipment imports more expensive, thereby discouraging investment and slowing productivity growth. A declining Canadian dollar may also shelter domestic firms from foreign competition, which could dampen their incentive to invest in productivity-enhancing assets, even if they price their output in U.S. dollars.

Hence, if the Canadian dollar remains weak against the U.S. dollar and other currencies, it may be more difficult to reverse Canada’s productivity woes. Again, productivity—the amount of GDP per hour of labour the economy produces—is key to improving living standards, which have been on the decline in Canada. From July to September of 2024, the economy grew by 0.3 per cent yet per-person GDP (an indicator of living standards) fell by 0.4 per cent (after adjusting for inflation).

Canada also indirectly imports technology via direct investments made by U.S.-based companies in their Canadian subsidiaries. While a declining Canadian dollar makes it cheaper for U.S. companies to buy assets in Canada, it also reduces the U.S. dollar value of profits earned over time in Canada by American-owned companies. This phenomenon, combined with an unstable Canadian dollar, might discourage inward foreign direct investment and associated technology transfers by increasing the financial uncertainty of such investment.

To be clear, this is not a criticism of the Bank of Canada’s move last week to help lower domestic interest rates given the Bank’s primary mandate to meet its inflation rate target of 2 per cent. Rather, governments—including the Trudeau government—must enact policies to encourage business investment in productivity-enhancing assets.

For starters, policymakers should reduce business tax rates and the tax rate on capital gains, to encourage innovation and entrepreneurship. They should also dramatically reduce the regulatory burden and other barriers to entry and growth, especially those faced by small and medium-sized businesses. And the federal and provincial governments should increase competition in the domestic economy by reducing interprovincial trade barriers.

For example, the provinces could adopt a policy of “mutual recognition” so the standards and licencing requirements in one province would be accepted by all provinces. Provinces can also unilaterally eliminate self-imposed trade barriers (as Alberta did in 2019 with grazing permits for livestock). Of course, due to resistance from special interest groups that benefit from internal barriers, such reforms will not be easy. But the economic risks to the Canadian economy—from even the threat of a trade war with the U.S.—could generate support among Canadians for these reforms. Indeed, reducing interprovincial barriers to trade and labour mobility might be the single most important thing that governments in Canada could do to improve productivity.

With Canada’s lower inflation rate, weaker labour market and weaker economic growth outlook compared to the U.S., lower interest rates in Canada seem appropriate. Bank of Canada Governor Tiff Macklem wants to see economic activity pick up to absorb slack in the economy and prevent inflation settling below the bank’s 2 per cent target. Clearly, the Bank should focus on inflation and domestic economic conditions. But policymakers must do their part to create a better environment for investment and innovation, the keys to productivity and increased living standards for Canadians.

Steven Globerman

Senior Fellow and Addington Chair in Measurement, Fraser Institute

Lawrence Schembri

Senior Fellow, Fraser Institute