Criticism of the draconian program was immediate and widespread. Critics charged that collecting the nation’s semi-automatic weapons — the so-called “assault rifles” — would cost as much as $2 billion, far beyond the $400-$600 million floated by the federal government.
Ontario became just the latest to plant the flag against confiscation, and it joined several other jurisdictions in taking a strong stand.
As the National Rifle Association reported, the resistance began in earnest in late 2022.
It was then that Alberta, Manitoba and Saskatchewan, followed shortly by New Brunswick and Yukon, drew a line in the snow over Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s scheme. All announced that their law enforcement resources were not available for the government’s plan.
None would allow federal agencies to utilize their personnel or networks for implementing the confiscation program.
This came on the heels of a letter from the federal minister spearheading the program to provincial governments that they sought “partnership and collaboration that support the safe roll-out of this program in your jurisdiction.”
It was Alberta that led the charge. The then-Minister of Justice/Solicitor General flatly rejected cooperating with the plan to take guns away from the people. They announced that there would be no provincial resources made available to assist in the “politically motivated confiscation.”
The office further declared that citizens “will not tolerate taking officers off the streets in order to confiscate the property of law-abiding firearm owners.”
Now comes word that Ontario is standing up and being counted as against Trudeau’s controversial program. And this is not some small and distant province beating its chest.
By far, Ontario has Canada’s largest number of adults with gun licenses, and that tally continues to expand.
The Ontario Solicitor General made it clear that provincial leaders know that the confiscation scheme will not deter violent crime. They released a statement asserting, “More than 90% of guns used in crimes are illegally imported into Ontario from the United States. At a time when crime is on the rise, Ontario’s police resources can’t be diverted to criminalize farmers and hunters.”
The missive charged that if the government is truly serious about fighting criminal activity and illegal firearms, “they need to spend the resources on securing the border.”
Finally, the Solicitor General warned that Ontario “will not request our police services administer this program as it is operational and ultimately their discretion. Ontario should not be spending taxpayers’ money towards the program.”
Well said. And very likely the reaction that Washington would receive if it were to attempt to implement a similar program in the U.S. Just imagine the responses from states such as Texas, Montana, Florida and so many others.
The federal program comes at a bad time for the sprawling metropolis of Toronto. City authorities face proposed cuts to the police department even as the agency struggles to maintain the force necessary to function in a rapidly growing area.
Police Chief Myron Demkiw noted recently that the force only has 37 more officers than it did a quarter of a century ago when the population was substantially lower.
Taking officers off their duties to labor for Trudeau’s pet project is not in the cards. It is encouraging to see the stands taken by Ontario and others against this program, and those in the U.S. who would follow Canada’s path would be wise to take note.
