There have been multiple developments on the Canadian gun grab and ban in the last few days, but the most astounding has got to be a leaked bombshell recording of the Liberal Public Safety Minister, Gary Anandasangaree, discussing what he really thinks of the law and its enforcement prospects. It confirms what NRA-ILA has been saying all along about the 2020 “military grade assault weapon” ban and so-called “buyback” created by then-Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and his Liberal government: completely unfair to Canada’s responsible gun owners, blatantly ineffective and unworkable as a public safety measure, and successful only as a massive waste of taxpayer dollars.
First, though, let’s recap what Anandasangaree, the minister in charge of overseeing the program, had to say officially during a September 23 press conference announcing the progress of the gun grab and the beginning of Phase 2, the enforcement against individual owners.
The minister, surrounded by a coterie of glum faces, described how the Liberal government has committed to “moving ahead with an efficient gun buyback program for assault style firearms such as the AR-15s.”
Phase 1, which deals with gun businesses, closed in April and resulted in “over 12,000 firearms” being “claimed and destroyed, with over C$22M in compensation given to businesses.” (Presumably, these were the guns that the government earlier promised to donate to Ukraine.) Phase 2 kicks off with a five- to seven-week pilot project in Cape Breton, NS (approx. pop.13,000) in collaboration with the Cape Breton Regional Police Service and an “external service provider” responsible for destroying the prohibited firearms. The government wants “to make sure everything is working properly” before the program is expanded nationwide. It has come up with a “fair assessment” of compensation to be paid for what the minister estimates to be about 180,000 registered guns subject to the ban. Anandasangaree again emphasized that “[t]his program is voluntary. Nobody is having their weapon confiscated. People who use rifles to hunt can still hunt.”
A reporter questioned how the program could be “truly voluntary” when gun owners become noncompliant with the criminal law as soon as the amnesty ends. Anandasangaree responded with a masterpiece of Orwellian doublespeak. It’s “strictly voluntary” because “nobody is being forced to undertake the buyback program,” but “our expectation is that law abiding citizens will abide by the law and beyond that, the police with jurisdiction is tasked with… implementing the Criminal Code.” In other words, the choice is comply or expect the police at your door.
The minister’s interpretation of voluntariness was reinforced when Police Chief Robert Walsh of the Cape Breton Regional Police Service stepped up to speak. “This program,” he said, “is really a way to help lawful gun owners stay in compliance with the law. We see this as giving them an opportunity to surrender what they are no longer allowed to possess, to prevent criminal liability,” and “without having to use extra police resources to go and seize them.”
Confronted with the recording (which the minister confirmed was authentic but made without his knowledge), a flailing Anandasangaree attempted to explain it away as a private conversation and “bad humor,” and expressed his “absolute confidence” in the government’s gun grab. He concluded with a reminder that the program is all about fighting crime, as “[y]ou cannot be serious about being tough on crime if you’re not willing to be tough on guns. This program is part of that solution.”
Unofficially, the minister was caught out expressing considerably different sentiments in a conversation made public the weekend before the press conference. The recording reportedly involves a gun owner in Toronto, with Anandasangaree initiating the discussion by sharing that Phase 2 is about to launch. A video by Tracey Wilson, lobbyist for the Canadian Coalition for Firearm Rights, goes through parts of the 20-minute recording with the main takeaways.
Anandasangaree insists the program is voluntary, but when pressed on the options besides turning the gun in at a loss or irreversibly deactivating it (at the owner’s cost and a loss) he says, “the third option is you don’t do either.” When the owner replies that makes him a criminal, Anandasangaree says, basically, only “if the local police enforce it, yes.” (Note to the minister: not being likely to get caught is not the same thing as not being criminal.) The owner continues that “you’re going to turn me into a criminal” because the police know he has registered prohibited guns, know where he lives, and he’ll be arrested for refusing to hand in his guns after police “rip open” his gun safe, to which the minister responds, “I doubt very much it’s going to go that far,” as “I just don’t think municipal police services have the resources to do this.” If it does happen, “I’ll bail you out.” When they get to the costs of the “buyback,” the minister says participation is at the gun owner’s “prerogative,” to which the owner persists, “how is it voluntary? I do not want to give [my gun] to you… I don’t want money back, I want what I legally can own, that I’ve been able to use for years.”
In a direct contradiction of the claim of fair compensation being offered, the owner mentions a firearm he paid around $2,200 or so for, and may have made aftermarket improvements to, and states he’ll still lose money if he turns it in. Anandasangaree responds, “probably, …right,” but jokingly offers to make up the difference – a clear indication he’s aware that gun owners are going to get stiffed. He mentions that C$742M has been allocated for the program, but it is not apparent whether this covers compensation exclusively (not administration and other implementation costs), whether it includes the C$22M paid out in Phase 1, and what happens when this allocation is not enough.
Contrary to the assertion that this is an “efficient gun buyback” and a good “solution” to crime, the minister remarks that “If I were to redo this … like from scratch, I would have a very different approach” and focus on criminals with illegal guns. The reason the Liberal government is moving forward with this is not because of public safety or being “tough on crime,” but because of campaign promises and pressure from Quebec – specifically, “this is something that’s very much a big, big, big deal for many of the Quebec electorate that voted for us.” The message: the Liberals need to hang on to those votes.
Perhaps the most damaging part of this already very damning conversation is the minister’s admission that there isn’t any sense in this gun ban and grab law – “don’t ask me to explain the logic to you on this.”
Another commentator, Canadian criminal lawyer Ian Runkle, posted a longer and more detailed analysis of the recording here. Given how badly the minister attempts to defend the gun grab as “voluntary,” Runkle opines it ventures into “law society complaint-y” and legal ethics territory because Anandasangaree is not just the government minister charged with enforcing this law but a lawyer. Lawyers “actually have obligations not to tell people to violate the law,” like to ignore the gun ban mandate because it’s only a problem in the unlikely event the police come up with enough resources for enforcement. Overall, though, the recording provides “a terrifying look into how the Liberal Party operates.”
Prime Minister Mark Carney is now being asked how he can still have confidence in Anandasangaree, with calls from the Official Opposition that the minister resign due to the awkward and embarrassing disclosure that he doesn’t really believe in the crappy program he’s overseeing.
Canada’s indefensible gun grab program remains a developing story, and your NRA-ILA will keep you updated.
More Like This From Around The NRA
