The compensation window has closed on the Liberal government’s firearms buyback program, and the numbers tell a story of bureaucratic ambition colliding with on-the-ground reality. More than 67,000 guns have been registered for turnover—a figure that sounds substantial until you realize it’s roughly half of what officials had budgeted for.
Public Safety Canada released the tally on Wednesday, marking the end of a declaration period that began in mid-January. The program targets more than 2,500 makes and models of firearms that Ottawa banned starting in 2020. Those weapons, deemed prohibited under the Liberal government’s gun control push, were supposed to flow back into federal hands through a compensation system designed to remove them from circulation.
But the gap between expectation and delivery is hard to ignore. The department had set aside funding for 136,000 firearms. What they got was less than half that number, coming from nearly 38,000 gun owners across the country. Prime Minister Mark Carney acknowledged the shortfall the day before the announcement, calling it “obviously a gap” without offering much explanation for why the participation rate fell so short.
Public Safety Canada says it’s still working through declarations from owners who started the registration process but hit technical snags along the way. Military and law enforcement members currently deployed outside Canada are also being factored in. But even with those additions, the program appears unlikely to meet its original targets.
The next phase involves assessing each declaration individually before actual collection efforts begin. Officials say that process will start sometime this spring and continue through early fall 2026. That timeline means guns declared months ago won’t physically leave owners’ hands for at least another year in many cases. It’s a slow-moving operation for a policy that was pitched as urgent public safety action.
The Liberal government banned these firearms in May 2020, citing public safety concerns and framing the move as a response to mass shootings. The decision was polarizing from the start. Urban voters in Toronto and Montreal largely supported the ban. Rural communities and gun owners across the Prairies and northern regions saw it as federal overreach that targeted lawful owners while doing little to address illegal firearms trafficking.
That regional split has defined the politics of this issue ever since. Conservatives have hammered the Liberals over the cost and effectiveness of the buyback. They argue that the billions being spent on compensation would be better used targeting gun smuggling at the border, where the majority of crime guns actually originate. The Liberal response has been to frame the ban as a necessary step in reducing access to military-style weapons, even if it doesn’t address every dimension of gun violence.
What complicates the picture is compliance. Gun owners had to voluntarily register their prohibited firearms to receive compensation. Many appear to have chosen not to participate. Some may be holding out for better terms. Others may simply disagree with the policy and refuse to cooperate. There’s also the possibility that the government’s initial estimate of 136,000 affected firearms was inflated to begin with, either through optimistic modeling or incomplete data on how many of these guns were actually in civilian hands.
The compensation amounts themselves have been another sticking point. The government set prices based on firearm models, but many owners argue the offers don’t reflect what they paid or the value of accessories and modifications. When people feel shortchanged, participation drops. And unlike a mandatory confiscation, which would require enforcement mechanisms and likely court challenges, this program relies entirely on voluntary turnover.
That voluntary nature is both a political cushion and a practical problem. It avoids the confrontation of forced seizures, which would have been a nightmare for both the RCMP and the government’s relationship with rural Canada. But it also means the program’s success hinges on persuading gun owners to give up their property. When fewer than half participate, questions arise about whether the policy is achieving its stated goals.
Critics have pointed out that the firearms targeted by the ban are rarely used in crime. Handguns smuggled from the United States dominate gun violence statistics in Canadian cities. The banned rifles and shotguns are more commonly found in the hands of sport shooters, hunters, and collectors. That reality has fueled accusations that the buyback is more about political optics than evidence-based policy.
Supporters counter that reducing access to high-capacity firearms is a reasonable precaution, regardless of current crime trends. They argue that mass shootings, while rare, justify proactive measures. The debate has largely broken down along partisan and geographic lines, with little common ground emerging.
The cost of the program has ballooned over time. Early estimates suggested a price tag around $250 million. More recent figures have pushed past $600 million, and that’s before accounting for the administrative overhead of assessing, collecting, and destroying tens of thousands of firearms. With only half the expected guns declared, there will be pressure to either extend the program, increase compensation to boost participation, or accept that a significant portion of prohibited firearms remain in circulation.
Public Safety Canada has indicated that enforcement will eventually target non-compliant owners, but the mechanics of that enforcement remain unclear. Tracking down individuals who own specific firearms requires coordination between federal authorities, provincial police forces, and the Canadian Firearms Program. It’s resource-intensive work, and there’s no guarantee it will be politically sustainable if it results in charges against otherwise law-abiding citizens.
The declaration period may be over, but the political and practical challenges of this buyback are just beginning. Collection won’t wrap until fall 2026 at the earliest. That’s well into the next federal election cycle, meaning this issue will continue to surface in campaign debates and parliamentary question periods. For a policy that was supposed to deliver clear public safety wins, the Liberals are left defending a program that’s missed its targets and cost more than promised.
Gun owners who participated now wait for assessments and eventual collection. Those who didn’t remain in a legal gray zone, holding prohibited firearms under amnesty provisions that will eventually expire. And the government faces the uncomfortable reality that ambitious policy doesn’t always translate into measurable results, especially when it depends on voluntary compliance from a skeptical population.
