Cost of Ottawa’s gun ban fiasco may reach $6 billion

According to the government, it has already spent $67.2 million, which includes compensation for 60 federal employees working on the “buyback,” which still doesn’t exist.

Four years ago, the Trudeau government banned “1,500 types” of “assault-style firearms.” It’s time to ask if public safety has improved as promised.

This ban instantly made it a crime for federally-licensed firearms owners to buy, sell, transport, import, export or use hundreds of thousands formerly legal rifles and shotguns. According to the government, the ban targets “assault-style weapons,” which are actually classic semi-automatic rifles and shotguns that have been popular with hunters and sport shooters for more than 100 years. When announcing the ban, the prime minister said the government would confiscate the banned firearms and their legal owners would be “grandfathered” or receive “fair compensation.” That hasn’t happened.

As of October 2024, the government has revealed no plans about how it will collect the newly-banned firearms nor has it made any provisions for compensation in any federal budget since the announcement in 2020. Originally, the government enacted a two-year amnesty period to allow compliance with the ban. This amnesty expired in April 2022 and has been twice extended, first to Oct. 30, 2023, then to Oct. 30, 2025.

Clearly, the ban—which the government calls a “buyback”—has been a gong show from the beginning. Since Trudeau’s announcement four years ago, virtually none of the banned firearms have been surrendered. The Ontario government refuses to divert police resources to cooperate with this federal “buyback” scheme. The RCMP’s labour union has said it’s a “misdirected effort when it comes to public safety.” The Canadian Sporting Arms & Ammunition Association, which represents firearms retailers, said it will have “zero involvement” in helping confiscate these firearms. Even Canada Post wants nothing to do with Trudeau’s “buyback” plan. And again, the government has revealed no plan for compensation—fair or otherwise.

And yet, according to the government, it has already spent $67.2 million, which includes compensation for 60 federal employees working on the “buyback,” which still doesn’t exist.

It remains unclear just how many firearms the 2020 ban includes. The Parliamentary Budget Officer estimates range between 150,000 to more than 500,000, with an estimated total value between $47 million and $756 million. These costs only include the value of the confiscated firearms and exclude the administrative costs to collect them and the costs of destroying the collected firearms. The total cost of this ban to taxpayers will be more than $4 billion and possibly more than $6 billion.

Nevertheless, while the ban of remains a confusing mess, after four years we should be able to answer one key question. Has the ban made Canadians safer?

According to Statistics Canada, firearm-related violent crime swelled by 10 per cent from 2020 to 2022 (the latest year of comparable data), from 12,614 incidents to 13,937 incidents. And in “2022, the rate of firearm-related violent crime was 36.7 incidents per 100,000 population, an 8.9% increase from 2021 (33.7 incidents per 100,000 population). This is the highest rate recorded since comparable data were first collected in 2009.”

Nor have firearm homicides decreased since 2020. Perhaps this is because lawfully-held firearms are not the problem. According to StatsCan, “the firearms used in homicides were rarely legal firearms used by their legal owners.” However, crimes committed by organized crime have increased by more than 170 per cent since 2016 (from 4,810 to 13,056 crimes).

Meanwhile, the banned firearms remain locked in the safes of their legal owners who have been vetted by the RCMP and are monitored nightly for any infractions that might endanger public safety.

Indeed, hunters and sport shooters are among the most law-abiding people in Canada. Many Canadian families and Indigenous peoples depend on hunting to provide food for the family dinner table through legal harvesting, with the added benefit of getting out in the wilderness and spending time with family and friends. In 2015, hunting and firearm businesses alone contributed more than $5.9 billion to Canada’s economy and supported more than 45,000 jobs. Hunters are the largest contributors to conservation efforts, contributing hundreds of millions of dollars to secure conservation lands and manage wildlife. The number of licensed firearms owners has increased 17 per cent since 2015 (from 2.026 million to 2.365 million) in 2023.

If policymakers in Ottawa and across the country want to reduce crime and increase public safety, they should enact policies that actually target criminals and use our scarce tax dollars wisely to achieve these goals.

Author:

Gary Mauser

Related Topics:#FraserInstitute feature GaryMauser OttawaGunBan OttawaGunBuybackProgram

Up Next

B.C. crime survey reveals distrust in justice system, regional divides

Don't Miss

Report: More than 50 jihadist cases in 29 states show ‘persistent terror threat’

Todayville

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

The Left Thinks Drug Criminalization Is Racist. Minorities Disagree

Business / 56 mins ago

Dallas mayor invites NYers to first ‘sanctuary city from socialism’

Health / 4 hours ago

RFK Jr. Unloads Disturbing Vaccine Secrets on Tucker—And Surprises Everyone on Trump

Business

National dental program likely more costly than advertised

Published on July 4, 2025

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Matthew Lau

At the beginning of June, the Canadian Dental Care Plan expanded to include all eligible adults. To be eligible, you must: not have access to dental insurance, have filed your 2024 tax return in Canada, have an adjusted family net income under $90,000, and be a Canadian resident for tax purposes.

As a result, millions more Canadians will be able to access certain dental services at reduced—or no—out-of-pocket costs, as government shoves the costs onto the backs of taxpayers. The first half of the proposition, accessing services at reduced or no out-of-pocket costs, is always popular; the second half, paying higher taxes, is less so.

A Leger poll conducted in 2022 found 72 per cent of Canadians supported a national dental program for Canadians with family incomes up to $90,000—but when asked whether they would support the program if it’s paid for by an increase in the sales tax, support fell to 42 per cent. The taxpayer burden is considerable; when first announced two years ago, the estimated price tag was $13 billion over five years, and then $4.4 billion ongoing.

Already, there are signs the final cost to taxpayers will far exceed these estimates. Dr. Maneesh Jain, the immediate past-president of the Ontario Dental Association, has pointed out that according to Health Canada the average patient saved more than $850 in out-of-pocket costs in the program’s first year. However, the Trudeau government’s initial projections in the 2023 federal budget amounted to $280 per eligible Canadian per year.

Not all eligible Canadians will necessarily access dental services every year, but the massive gap between $850 and $280 suggests the initial price tag may well have understated taxpayer costs—a habit of the federal government, which over the past decade has routinely spent above its initial projections and consistently revises its spending estimates higher with each fiscal update.

To make matters worse there are also significant administrative costs. According to a story in Canadian Affairs, “Dental associations across Canada are flagging concerns with the plan’s structure and sustainability. They say the Canadian Dental Care Plan imposes significant administrative burdens on dentists, and that the majority of eligible patients are being denied care for complex dental treatments.”

Determining eligibility and coverage is a huge burden. Canadians must first apply through the government portal, then wait weeks for Sun Life (the insurer selected by the federal government) to confirm their eligibility and coverage. Unless dentists refuse to provide treatment until they have that confirmation, they or their staff must sometimes chase down patients after the fact for any co-pay or fees not covered.

Moreover, family income determines coverage eligibility, but even if patients are enrolled in the government program, dentists may not be able to access this information quickly. This leaves dentists in what Dr. Hans Herchen, president of the Alberta Dental Association, describes as the “very awkward spot” of having to verify their patients’ family income.

Dentists must also try to explain the program, which features high rejection rates, to patients. According to Dr. Anita Gartner, president of the British Columbia Dental Association, more than half of applications for complex treatment are rejected without explanation. This reduces trust in the government program.

Finally, the program creates “moral hazard” where people are encouraged to take riskier behaviour because they do not bear the full costs. For example, while we can significantly curtail tooth decay by diligent toothbrushing and flossing, people might be encouraged to neglect these activities if their dental services are paid by taxpayers instead of out-of-pocket. It’s a principle of basic economics that socializing costs will encourage people to incur higher costs than is really appropriate (see Canada’s health-care system).

At a projected ongoing cost of $4.4 billion to taxpayers, the newly expanded national dental program is already not cheap. Alas, not only may the true taxpayer cost be much higher than this initial projection, but like many other government initiatives, the dental program already seems to be more costly than initially advertised.

Matthew Lau

Adjunct Scholar, Fraser Institute

Business

Prairie provinces and Newfoundland and Labrador see largest increases in size of government

Published on July 3, 2025

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Jake Fuss and Grady Munro

A recent study found that Canada has experienced one of the largest increases in the size of government of any advanced country over the last decade. But within Canada, which provinces have led the way?

The size of government refers to the extent to which resources within the economy are controlled and directed by the government, and has important implications for economic growth, living standards, and economic freedom—the degree to which people are allowed to make their own economic choices.

Too much of anything can be harmful, and this is certainly true regarding the size of government. When government grows too large it begins to take on roles and resources that are better left to the private sector. For example, rather than focusing on core functions like maintaining the rule of law or national defence, a government that has grown too large might begin subsidizing certain businesses and industries over others (i.e. corporate welfare) in order to pick winners and losers in the market. As a result, economic growth slows and living standards are lower than they otherwise would be.

One way to measure the size of government is by calculating total general government spending as a share of the economy (GDP). General government spending refers to spending by governments at all levels (federal, provincial, and municipal), and by measuring this as a share of gross domestic product (GDP) we can compare across jurisdictions of different sizes.

A recent study compared the size of government in Canada as a whole with that of 39 other advanced economies worldwide, and found that Canada experienced the second-largest increase in the size of government (as a share of the economy) from 2014 to 2024. In other words, since 2014, governments in Canada have expanded their role within the economy faster than governments in virtually every other advanced country worldwide—including all other countries within the Group of Seven (France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom, and the United States). Moreover, the study showed that Canada as a whole has exceeded the optimal size of government (estimated to fall between 24 and 32 per cent of GDP) at which a country can maximize their economic growth. Beyond that point, growth slows and is lower than it otherwise would be.

However, Canada is a decentralized country and provinces vary as to the extent to which governments direct overall economic activity. Using data from Statistics Canada, the following charts illustrate which provinces in Canada have the largest size of government and which have seen the largest increases since 2014.

The chart above shows total general government spending as a share of GDP for all ten provinces in 2023 (the latest year of available provincial data). The size of government in the provinces varies considerably, ranging from a high of 61.4 per cent in Nova Scotia to a low of 30.0 per cent in Alberta. There are geographical differences, as three Atlantic provinces (Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, and New Brunswick) have the largest governments while the three western-most provinces (Alberta, Saskatchewan, and British Columbia) have the smallest governments. However, as of 2023, all provinces except Alberta exceeded the optimal size of government—which again, is between 24 and 32 per cent of the economy.

To show which provinces have experienced the greatest increase in the size of government in recent years, the second chart shows the percentage point increase in total general government spending as a share of GDP from 2014 to 2023. It should be noted that this is measuring the expansion of the federal government’s role in the economy—which has been substantial nationwide—as well as growth in the respective provincial and municipal governments.

The increases in the size of government since 2014 are largest in four provinces: Newfoundland and Labrador (10.82 percentage points), Alberta (7.94 percentage points), Saskatchewan (7.31 percentage points), and Manitoba (7.17 percentage points). These are all dramatic increases—for perspective, in the study referenced above, Estonia’s 6.66 percentage point increase in its size of government was the largest out of 40 advanced countries.

The remaining six provinces experienced far lower increases in the size of government, ranging from a 2.74 percentage point increase in B.C. to a 0.44 percentage point increase in Quebec. However, since 2014, every province in Canada has seen government expand its role within the economy.

Over the last decade, Canada has experienced a substantial increase in the size of total government. Within the country, Newfoundland and Labrador and the three Prairie provinces have led the way in growing their respective governments.