Alberta's recent stand against a federal firearm seizure program is not an isolated act of defiance. It is, instead, the latest chapter in a long-standing Canadian tradition of provincial pushback against Ottawa's gun control measures, a history that offers both context and potential precedent for the current dispute.
A Legacy of Provincial Defiance
The scene now unfolding with Alberta Justice Minister Mickey Amery bears a striking resemblance to events from the early 2000s. This week, Amery directed all provincial entities not to participate in the federal government's firearm buyback program, signaling a clear refusal to enforce a policy he views as an overreach.
This move directly echoes the resistance mounted two decades ago by a coalition of provinces against the federal long-gun registry. That registry, established in the 1990s, was marketed as a public safety measure but was widely criticized for imposing burdensome regulations on owners of commonplace rifles and shotguns without demonstrably improving security.
The High Cost and Legal Battles of the Long-Gun Registry
The financial trajectory of the long-gun registry became a central point of contention. Initially projected to cost a mere $2 million, the program's expenses had catastrophically ballooned to an estimated $1 billion by 2003. Despite this staggering overrun and ongoing provincial objections, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that gun control was a federal matter.
Provincial governments responded with a collective shrug. Justice ministers from British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, New Brunswick, and Nova Scotia issued directives instructing their provincial police forces and prosecutors not to enforce the registry program. While federal prosecutors and the RCMP could still theoretically lay charges, the coordinated provincial snub sent an unmistakable message of opposition.
The Prairie Provinces Lead the Charge
The pushback was spearheaded by the Prairie provinces. Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba announced their non-enforcement policies as early as 2000. Alberta, in particular, continued to challenge the registry through additional legal and political avenues. By 2003, the rebellion had gained momentum, drawing in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, with British Columbia and Ontario also voicing strong criticism.
The premiers and justice ministers of the time framed their resistance around themes of practicality and fiscal responsibility. They denounced the registry as a wasteful and ineffective burden. Then-Nova Scotia Justice Minister Jamie Muir captured the sentiment in 2003, stating bluntly, "It's their law, let them enforce it." Similarly, then-New Brunswick Premier Bernard Lord argued, "We don't want to perpetuate this waste of taxpayers' dollars," and called for the program's termination.
Historical Precedent and Modern Implications
This historical precedent provides a clear framework for understanding Alberta's current stance. While the non-enforcement orders of the 2000s did not provide absolute legal immunity for gun owners—federal charges remained a possibility—they significantly undermined the program's application and legitimacy. The collective action demonstrated the considerable power provinces can wield in challenging federal policies they deem unjust or poorly conceived.
For Alberta today, this history offers a form of optimistic foreshadowing. It illustrates that provincial resistance to federal firearm crackdowns has a established lineage in Canadian federal-provincial relations. The ultimate demise of the long-gun registry in 2012 serves as a potent reminder that costly and unpopular federal gun programs can be reversed, especially when met with sustained and coordinated opposition from multiple provinces.
