Heidi Rathjen has been advocating for a ban on assault-style rifles since 1989, a stance born from the tragic shooting at Montreal’s École Polytechnique, where a gunman targeted her classmates.
The massacre, which claimed the lives of 14 women and injured over a dozen others, marked a pivotal moment for Canada, profoundly altering the nation’s perspective on gun violence.
Over two decades later, following another devastating mass shooting in 2020, the Canadian government in Ottawa implemented a ban on approximately 2,500 models of what it classified as “assault-style” weapons.
However, the buyback program designed to retrieve these now-prohibited firearms from their owners has encountered significant challenges, casting doubt on its overall success.
Widespread distrust among legal gun owners, coupled with the refusal of two provinces to participate, has plagued the initiative. Even gun control advocates like Rathjen contend that the federal efforts, while representing a step forward for public safety, are fundamentally flawed due to the ban’s limited scope.
“Without a comprehensive ban on assault weapons, there is no ban… and the money will be wasted,” asserted Rathjen, a spokesperson for the gun control advocacy group PolySeSouvient.
Adding to the controversy, Canada’s own Minister of Public Safety, Gary Anandasangaree, was recorded criticizing his government’s program in an audio clip leaked to the Toronto Star.
“Don’t ask me to explain the logic to you on this,” he admitted to a Toronto resident during a secretly recorded conversation late last year, when questioned about the program’s value given that most gun crimes in Canada involve illegally obtained weapons.
Anandasangaree later retracted his statements, labeling them “misguided” and affirming his belief in the program’s importance.
This raises the question: Why is Canada struggling to implement a measure that has proven successful in other nations, such as Australia – which retrieved and destroyed 650,000 firearms following the Port Arthur massacre in 1996, according to government figures – and New Zealand, which collected approximately 56,000 firearms after the Christchurch mosque shooting in 2019?
Joel Negin, a professor of public health at the University of Sydney, suggests that Australia’s 1996 measures were effective largely because they were implemented “very quickly” as part of a comprehensive strategy in the wake of the tragedy.
He also noted that Australia’s program was well-funded, supported by a temporary levy imposed on taxpayers.
“The situation in Canada is that the gun buy-back has been proposed, but it’s not necessarily linked closely to other interventions,” Negin explained, adding that the program’s rollout, along with other gun-related legislation following the 2020 Nova Scotia mass shooting, has been fragmented.
Similar to the approaches taken in Australia and New Zealand, Canada’s plan involves reimbursing gun owners for surrendering their weapons. The government has allocated over C$215 million ($155 million; £117 million) to this initiative.
Frank Nardi, a gun shop owner in Montreal, argues that the law unfairly targets law-abiding hunters and sport shooters. He suggests that mass shootings in Canada are more likely linked to failures within the mental health system.
“Let’s concentrate on that before slapping all these regulations and confiscations on all these legal firearm owners, who have always supported safety and followed the protocols,” he urged.
Speaking at his shop, Nardi told the BBC that he has heard from numerous gun owners who are confused about the program, uncertain about which firearms are affected, attributing this confusion to inadequate communication from the federal government.
He contends that the criteria for which firearms fall under the ban – or escape it – are often illogical, holding up two weapons that appear nearly identical.
“Same caliber, all the same type of cartridges,” he demonstrated, noting that one is banned while the other is not.
Meanwhile, Alberta and Saskatchewan, two conservative provinces in western Canada, have opted out of participating in the program.
Alberta has stated that it will not enforce the ban, while Saskatchewan will shield gun owners from criminal liability until they receive what the province deems fair compensation for their firearms.
Blaine Beaven, Saskatchewan’s newly appointed firearms commissioner, informed the BBC that his province’s law is designed to protect gun owners. However, he and other Saskatchewan officials have strongly criticized the firearm ban itself.
“At its core, it’s an ideological mandate that’s being put out there that has limited to no discernible benefit to public safety,” Beaven stated.
Several police forces in Canada have also announced their refusal to assist the government in the program, citing it as a “significant operational burden” that may not align with their priority of focusing on illegal gun smuggling.
This resistance is occurring within a nation that generally supports gun control and has significantly stricter gun laws than the United States.
Polls indicate that most Canadians believe their country’s gun laws are either appropriate or not strict enough, with 82% expressing support for a ban on military-style assault weapons in 2020.
Canadian gun ownership is governed by laws that require prospective gun owners to obtain a license by completing a safety course and undergoing rigorous background checks before purchasing a firearm.
The United States’ more lenient gun laws have notably contributed to a flow of illegal firearms across the US-Canada border. Data from Ontario, Canada’s most populous province, reveals that the majority of handguns recovered from crimes in 2024 – approximately 91% – originated in the US.
However, in Canada’s infrequent mass shootings, perpetrators have often used long guns, as was the case at École Polytechnique and in Portapique, Nova Scotia in 2020, where 22 lives were lost.
In the country’s most recent mass shooting, which occurred in the small town of Tumbler Ridge, British Columbia in February, at least one of the guns used was a “modified rifle.” The firearms were also not registered to the suspect, an 18-year-old who died from a self-inflicted gunshot wound in the attack.
The tragedy claimed the lives of eight people, many of whom were children attending a local secondary school.
The Canadian government has stated its intention to proceed with the buyback scheme despite the criticism surrounding its policy.
Over 67,000 firearms have been voluntarily declared by more than 37,000 Canadians across the country.
The government had allocated funds to buy back a total of 136,000 guns.
Anandasangaree expressed his gratitude to the firearms owners who declared their guns by the Tuesday deadline, stating in a statement that “these types of weapons do not belong in our communities.”
While the amnesty period for gun owners has been extended several times, the current deadline for the firearms to be destroyed is October 30.
However, whether that date will stand remains uncertain. The Supreme Court of Canada recently agreed to hear a challenge to the gun ban brought by the Canadian Coalition of Firearm Rights, after two lower courts upheld the ban.
Tracey Wilson, one of the group’s founders, told the BBC that they are advising those who declared their firearms to withdraw their applications pending the court’s decision, which is not expected for several months.
Her group is also considering applying for an extension of the amnesty date if the government fails to do so.
“We’re not going to wait for them to do the right thing by Canadians,” Wilson stated.
As for Rathjen, time is running out to implement what she describes as a “comprehensive ban” that would prohibit the ownership of all assault-style rifles, particularly the SKS semi-automatic.
She characterized the government’s willingness to compensate current owners without banning new purchases of all rifle models as “a nightmare scenario.”
“It’s just unbelievable that the government has invested so much in this controversial and difficult file, so much money, so much political capital, and yet they’re heading for failure,” she concluded.