The Liberal Party of Canada has long been known for its political adaptability, frequently repositioning itself toward the centre to remain electorally competitive. That ability to pivot most recently seen in the transition from Justin Trudeau’s leadership to Mark Carney has helped the party dominate federal politics for much of the past century.
However, critics argue that one area has consistently resisted reinvention: gun control.
For more than three decades, successive Liberal governments have pursued policies aimed at registering, banning, or buying back legally owned firearms. Despite repeated revisions, those efforts have drawn sustained opposition from firearm owners, provincial governments, and Conservative critics, who say the policies have failed to deliver measurable public-safety benefits while consuming significant public resources.
The debate dates back to 1993, when the Liberal government under Prime Minister Jean Chrétien introduced the national long-gun registry. The program faced immediate resistance, particularly in rural Canada, where firearm ownership is more common. Many owners feared the registry would eventually lead to confiscations, citing Australia’s experience with firearm registration followed by widespread bans.
Financial concerns quickly became central to the controversy. Initially projected to cost just $2 million, the registry’s budget ballooned dramatically. By 2002, the auditor general reported that costs would exceed $1 billion by 2004. Ultimately, total spending surpassed $2 billion before the registry was dismantled by Stephen Harper’s Conservative government in 2012.
Effectiveness was also questioned. Only about 5.8 million firearms were registered, while estimates placed civilian gun ownership closer to 13 million. Accuracy issues further undermined confidence in the system. Despite these shortcomings, the Liberals defended the registry until losing power.
Following the 2020 mass shooting in Nova Scotia, the Trudeau government shifted strategies. Rather than reintroducing a registry, it banned approximately 1,500 models of firearms, a list that has since expanded to more than 2,500. The bans targeted many rifles that critics describe as sporting firearms with military-style appearances rather than functionally distinct weapons.
Because no registry existed, authorities lacked clear data on who owned the newly prohibited firearms. The government relied on voluntary compliance, offering amnesty periods that were repeatedly extended as few owners surrendered their guns.
A pilot buyback program launched in Cape Breton, Nova Scotia, was intended to test the policy’s viability. After six weeks of advertising and outreach, just 16 individuals turned in 25 firearms. The results drew sharp criticism, though Public Safety Minister Gary Anandasangaree later described the pilot as successful overall.
Opposition to the buyback program has extended beyond firearm owners. Premiers from across the political spectrum, including Alberta’s Danielle Smith and Manitoba’s Wab Kinew, have stated they will not cooperate with the initiative. Without provincial participation, experts say the program’s prospects are limited.
Meanwhile, law enforcement data increasingly indicate that many firearms used in violent crime are smuggled from the United States, rather than sourced from Canada’s legal gun owners. Critics argue that focusing on lawful firearms diverts police resources from combating organized crime and cross-border trafficking.
With Mark Carney now leading the Liberal government, some observers suggest there is an opportunity for the party to reassess its approach. Shifting resources toward border enforcement and anti-smuggling measures, they argue, could yield more tangible results in reducing gun violence.
So far, however, the government has shown little indication of abandoning its current course. For critics, the issue represents an ideological blind spot for a party otherwise renowned for its pragmatism.
Whether the Liberals ultimately recalibrate their firearm policies or continue to defend them may shape the next chapter of Canada’s long-running gun-control debate and could once again test the party’s reputation for political reinvention.
