Firearms buyback program moves ahead

by Steve Galea | January 5, 2021
tagged firearms on a rack

IBM Canada Limited (IBM) has been chosen by the federal government to develop its controversial firearms buyback program. That program intends to pay law-abiding firearms owner for the confiscation of their recently banned “military-style assault rifles” firearms.

IBM Canada Limited was one of 15 companies invited to submit proposals for the $1.2 million contract, which was awarded on Dec. 29.

Two-phase approach

As successful bidder, IBM is required to provide professional services to develop a range of options and approaches to inform the design and implementation of a potential buyback program for recently prohibited firearms.

The contract will be completed in a two-phase approach.

Consultation compensation model

The first phase requires the contractor to consult with other government departments, potentially consult with other levels of government, as well as additional experts in the industry (by February 8) to create compensation model options that include the following:

  • Identification of a proposed compensation structure for each affected firearm.
  • Analysis of benefits and risks associated with each compensation model.
  • Identification of other considerations that may impact the feasibility of each approach and/or model.

That phase will end by March 3.

Task authorization process

Phase two will be managed through a task authorization process and will include the review and revision, where required, of the program design steps and processes to align with the decision made at the end of phase one.

This phase will also include the implementation of the selected process options, associated controls and system improvements, if required. The contractor must be available for phase two for up to one additional two-year period.

The firearms to be confiscated were formerly legally purchased and owned by law-abiding firearms owners. They include approximately 1,500 categories now referred to military-style assault firearms and large bore firearms that were only prohibited by Order in Council on May 1, 2020. They can no longer be legally used, sold or imported.

OFAH responds

Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters (OFAH) Director of Fish and Wildlife Programs Matt DeMille said, “The OFAH has maintained a position that most of the May 1, 2020 prohibitions aren’t justifiable. This government is clearly intent on forging ahead, so it is absolutely necessary to have processes in place that allow for grandfathering and/or compensate Canadians for their property.

Who designs the buyback program isn’t the issue, the bottom line is that the Government of Canada shouldn’t be spending money needlessly, especially with what we continue to face as a nation. Money should absolutely be spent on reducing gun violence, but buying guns from law-abiding Canadians shouldn’t even register on the priority list.”

Click here for more outdoors news

For more on what’s happening with firearms, click here

Sign up for our mailing list

indicates required
Email format


  1. Tyson wrote: What a waste of money. Like this will do anything to stop gun crimes.
  2. Jack Hague wrote: Honest citizens will reluctantly comply while the crocks, gangs, hoods will maintain the firearms they have. This is just another Liberal law to satisfy misinformed voters that they are doing something. Did it do anything with the registration of firearms other than over budget with liberal contributors gaining financially.?
  3. Dave wrote: OFAH thinks most firearms on the list shouldnt be there? My question to you is why should ANY be on this list? Why should there even be a ban list? There is zero data to show that firearms legally owned by vetted owners pose a safety threat to the public. The Liberals like to claim they only make decisions based on the data and not subjective opinion, guess they are neglecting to take that approach here.
    • Meghan Sutherland wrote: Dave, a response from Matt DeMille: “The use of the word ‘most’ is recognition that there are some listed arms such as grenade launchers that are included in the prohibitions. From an OFAH perspective, our interest and expertise is in firearms used for hunting, trapping, and recreational shooting, so there are some changes that go beyond what we are able to comment on whether or not their classifications are justifiable.”
  4. Rob wrote: Blair and Justin are incompetent and trying to buy votes. Let's get rid of them first chance we get
  5. Peter Maddock wrote: I will no longer do business with IBM or purchase any product with there name on it and encourage everyone else to do the same and let it be known!!
  6. Allan Gibbs wrote: Not only is this an issue totally unrelated to the real problem, the fact that our elected reps. continue to ignore any feedback from knowledgeable, concerned taxpayers and insist on wasting massive amounts of money on consultants to help keep things going in circles is not only amazing, it is totally disgusting!!! Our political and bureaucratic system needs to be fixed!!
  7. Terry Clark wrote: As has been already stated, this is a complete waste of money that will yield no tangible results regarding safety, but I am sure will provide the politicians with lots of airplay to constituents. The government should listen to its own organizations that have suggested a "fact-based approach on gun violence". However, the one activity the Liberal government excels at is wasting taxpayer dollars with no accountability or tangible results.
  8. Lawrence wrote: I wish that the media & OOD in particular would stop calling this a "buy back Program" The government never owned the firearms, so, how exactly is this a Buy back? Please, for goodness sake, call it what it is. It's a confiscation program, with possible remuneration.
  9. Scott wrote: What would happened if no one turned in their previously unrestricted firearms?
  10. Tim Everett wrote: I honestly can't see anybody complying. It's a ridiculous waste of taxpayers money and time. Will cost in the billions. Go after the real issues not the most vetted citizens in the country. More folks in Canada participate in legitimate firearms related activities than all the other organized sports activities combined! It's one of Canada's largest economic drivers. If IBM believes that they're going to have a viable business in Canada after they proceed with this I think they're sadly mistaken. Push back to them being involved is already massive. It's very hypocritical of them because they provide business machinery and software to firearms businesses and defense contractors within Canada that Supply our federal government and IBM has a history of manufacturing firearms for various militaries and various Global conflicts.
  11. Fred Lammi wrote: Is the NRA on the take scratching comments they don't the the Liberals will like ?
  12. Charles SchaferSeems to me wrote: Seems to me that we have a cluster of politicians that are focused on saving their careers as opposed to improving Canada's economy by exploiting the nation's bountiful natural resources that, at the moment, are seen as a threat to poorly-conceived strategy for mitigation of climate warming that is based on UNIPCC mathematical models that have not be verified. They are apparently unaware of past natural warming intervals such as the Medieval Warm Period or Iron/Roman Age Climate Optimum that lasted respectively about 300 and 700 years between about 400 BC and 1200 AD.
  13. Steven Jones wrote: Absolutely a waste of money to chase legal gun owners and waste money when they already wasted billions of our tax paying dollars
  14. Bob Watson wrote: Why in a democratic country like Canada do we allow an enforcement department such as the RCMP decide what we own or don’t own. Looking at this scenario they could be given the go ahead to form other laws like driving, if they don’t like a particular model of car they can ban it. Guns could be the tip of the iceberg. Government makes the call and police enforce it.
  15. s.skidmore wrote: I think the public should look at 1938 germany and ask the question should this be aloud to happen
  16. MICHAEL PETER wrote: It would be great to have a list of companies part or in whole owned by IBM we could boycott using?.
  17. George Palik wrote: I worked for l...Ashamed of them now. The history tells us they assisted Hitler with the European "Jewish solution". Now they engage in disarming Canadians the way the Nazis and the Communists did. In China you are not permitted to posses any firearms, not even a pellet gun. Shame on IBM! Those individuals that will engage in this process probably know nothing about our gun laws or guns and they are most likely Liberals. Baaah Humbug!
  18. george doucette wrote: wow, taking away PRIVATE PROPERTY. I guess the realty of a gun ban doesn't sink in, that this is 100% useless. Convict and deport anyone who commits ANY criminal offence here. They shit talk other countries about their mistreatment of people but do it to us. When I woke up, as a kid, grabbed my Cooey .22, and brought home a Rabbit I wasn't a flagged extremist. This kind of stuff is what tears a country apart and Good luck because my children will never wear a military uniform, but then again neither did you or your dad Mr. Leader.
  19. Shawn wrote: Unbelievable!! I think the government should confiscate cars next. More people are killed or hurt with a car. What about knives and great fruit spoons ?
  20. COLIN WILSON wrote: The thing that is the most sickening about all of this is that the leaders who have headed down this path know as well as we do that this will not in any way be a solution to the real problems. And they choose to do this anyway only in the interest of votes by people that have no clue about firearms and firearm owners in Canada. Votes over public safety! So maddening!
  21. Roger wrote: Justin Trudeau I can understand but Bill Blair to follow this idiot in a democratic country...I thought!?? Those anyone in our elected officials have a brain of their own?How in the world is this going to stop anyone from using a gun of any kind or even a knife to commit a crime??Stop wasting money on such a program & use it to send criminals behind bars,give our justice system the tools needed but lay off the average person trying to enjoy some freedom on their free time that was well paid for & legal!!
  22. Bob wrote: There is only one solution here and it is political. Vote the Liberal party out at the Federal and Provincial levels along with their NDP buddies. Unfortunately, my experience has shown me that the majority of my fellow hunters and fishers are lacking in making their voices, support and votes count with their government representatives. Most, I have discovered don’t even know the name of their MPP or MP. Until this sad situation improves and the hunting and fishing community can move forward with one voice we will continue to be saddled with the Liberal government who will continue to push forward their anti-firearm, anti-hunting and anti-fishing agenda.
  23. Edward Soukup wrote: The Federal Liberal Party is intent with gun confiscation. This only the beginning. They DO NOT CARE about statistics or dialogue. They DO NOT CARE about gangs with crime guns. The Liberal Party WILL NOT REST until every long gun or hand gun is out of the hands of lawful Canadian gun owners. Peaceful Protesting on Parliament Hill DID NOT GET their attention or work ! Then they will be able to DICTATE and CONTROL Canadians in a mirror image of the Chinese Communist Party. What does it take to get them to listen......perhaps RIOTING and INSURRECTION as was demonstrated a few days ago on Capitol Hill in Washington DC, USA ??
  24. Paul Walsh wrote: IBM...I was sure the shoe polished one would advocate that only his friends at the WE organization could administer such a program...
  25. Wayne C wrote: "Scott" Asked the question, what if no one turned in their firearms. Don't believe for one minute that the gun registry data is gone. It's still available, this stuff never goes away. Next, your neighbours will be encouraged/rewarded for ratting you out; after that...maybe a different Federal party will be in power and put and end to this hysterical nonsense. The Liberals, Blair included know they can pander to the high rise city dwellers who know nothing about firearms except what the government tells them. Blair is the most pathetic, because he knows the truth from his law enforcement background and doesn't have the backbone to speak it.
  26. CHARLES ROSS wrote: bill blair could not solve gun crime in one city when he was police chief yet he thinks he can solve the problem in the whole country. taking guns from laww abiding gun owners will not do any thing to stop illegal gunss from coming into canada
  27. Ted Tiemessen wrote: This buyback is a joke and make work project for the government to say we are working on crime!! 1, guns to not kill people do 2, legal hunter’s and gun owners to not commit the crimes 3, statistics have shown over and over that the crime in our country has nothing to do with the people and the guns and rifles they legally own. 4 I believe that spending millions of dollars wasted on this could be used in far more productive ways. Bill Blair would be better off working on COVID-19
  28. Bill Sherman wrote: The following statement made by Matt DeMille, has me concerned as an OFAH member and as a firearm owner and hunter. 'Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters (OFAH) Director of Fish and Wildlife Programs Matt DeMille said, “The OFAH has maintained a position that most of the May 1, 2020 prohibitions aren’t justifiable.' The word 'most' implies that the OFAH believes 'some' of the prohibitions 'are justifiable'. Does the OFAH support the prohibition and confiscation of 'some' of the firearms listed? The prohibition of any previously legal firearms should not be supported by OFAH.
    • Meghan Sutherland wrote: Bill, a response from Matt DeMille: "The use of the word 'most' is recognition that there are some listed arms such as grenade launchers that are included in the prohibitions. From an OFAH perspective, our interest and expertise is in firearms used for hunting, trapping, and recreational shooting, so there are some changes that go beyond what we are able to comment on whether or not their classifications are justifiable."
  29. wayne carbino wrote: What is the grandfather clause ?
    • Alesha Howran wrote: Wayne, from “Grandfathering Generally, you may have prohibited firearms only if you have been “grandfathered” under section 12 of the Firearms Act. Being grandfathered means that you can keep certain prohibited firearms that were registered to you on specific dates set out in the Act. You can possess certain prohibited firearms if you had one registered in your name when it became prohibited, and you have continuously held a valid registration certificate for that type of prohibited firearm from December 1, 1998, onward. It is important to note that both the owner and the firearm must be grandfathered for the same category. To be able to hold a registration certificate for a firearm, you need a licence allowing you to possess that class of firearm. It is essential that firearms licences are renewed before they expire. All registration certificates issued under the former law (prior to December 1, 1998) expired on December 31, 2002, so it was important to have re-registered the firearm(s) under the Firearms Act before the old certificate expired. Exception You do not need to be grandfathered to acquire a prohibited handgun if all of the following apply: - the handgun was made before 1946 - the handgun is currently registered in Canada (under s.12(6.1)) - you are the child, grandchild, brother, sister, or spouse / common-law partner of the lawful owner Anyone who acquires a prohibited handgun under these circumstances will have 12(7) printed on their firearms licence. This means that you can lawfully possess a pre-1946 handgun passed on by a direct relative, but you are not authorized to acquire other prohibited handguns. Any prohibited firearms that you acquire must have been registered in Canada on December 1, 1998. This means that even if a licence holder has grandfathered status, you cannot bring a prohibited firearm into Canada as a new import and you cannot acquire a prohibited firearm that has never been registered.”
  30. CLAY STOWELL wrote: I would like to applaud the OFAH for standing firm against this governments actions on stealing our private property by stating it's a safety issue. We all know that as an outright lie.
  31. Mike Cuddihey wrote: If anybody tells you that the government doesn't want to ban our guns, just tell him to look back over the past 50 years. That's exactly what they've been doing, bit by bit.
  32. Rob wrote: This is a reflection of a Liberal government that can not spend money fast enough and go into debt. Legal licensed gun owners are an easy target scape goat. Criminals do not abide by gun laws. It would be appropriate to target the criminals to enhance public safety. Not law abiding citizens. Confiscating guns in this manner reflects a socialist dictatorship mentality not a democracy. Do not vote Liberal in the next election.
  33. IVAN PERSIN wrote: With this buy back program of 1.2 M, non-gun owners should lift an eyebrow on the waste of all tax payers money for this useless Liberal program!! Just like the billions spent on the registration that did nothing for crime. Wondering when ppl are going to give their head a shake!!
  34. Ron Haggart wrote: What law abiding gun owner does not want to see the illegal guns off the street. Perhaps the government should have surveyed us. We would help in any way and would agree more of our hard earned tax payer money should be directed towards this. Why not put the billion dollars this will cost to address the urban illegal gun problem. This is a disgrace.