As B.C. reckons with the events surrounding the mass shooting at Tumbler Ridge that left nine dead, a program aiming to prevent future mass killings by paying people to turn in prohibited firearms is just getting up and running across Canada.
The program allows people to get money — several thousand dollars in some cases — for turning over assault-style firearms that were recently made illegal. It is the culmination of several pieces of federal legislation designed to help reduce gun violence and avert mass shootings.
The buyback program opened for declarations on Jan. 19 and closes on March 31. Collections are supposed to begin on April 1.
People must declare by the end of March to get compensated. Whether or not they take part in the program, all owners of prohibited models will need to dispose of or permanently deactivate their firearms by Oct. 30 when the amnesty period ends, or face criminal liability.
But it appears implementation will be uneven, and some provinces, such as Alberta, have refused to support or enforce the program.
In B.C., police chiefs question the strain on resources, and the provincial government won’t force them to participate.
A statement to Black Press Media from B.C.’s public safety ministry said independent municipal police departments will determine “whether and how they participate,” and if they choose to participate, funding will be provided by the federal government.
There are 12 independent municipal police forces in B.C., including in Vancouver, Victoria and Surrey. If those local forces do not participate in the program, the RCMP will administer collection efforts.
An email sent on Feb. 23 to licensed firearms owners in B.C. from the RCMP seems to acknowledge that local police reluctance could hinder collection efforts and send mixed signals. The email attempts to head off any confusion with a clarification.
“Please note: while some police services choose not to participate in the [buyback program], this does not impact the role of police in enforcing the law on the possession of prohibited firearms, nor does it change your obligation as a law-abiding firearms owner to comply with the law.”
The program is in its infancy and could not have prevented the Tumbler Ridge tragedy. But advocates say it could prevent similar future massacres and can make them less lethal.
“We know that when semi-automatic, military-style firearms are used, the number of fatalities is often very high,” said Wendy Cukier, co-founder of the Coalition for Gun Control.
Because so much of the information about the guns used in the Tumbler Ridge shootings is sealed or not being released by police, it is unclear if the types of firearms covered under this program were used.
Public Safety Canada says that as of Feb. 20, 32,000 guns have been declared as part of the buyback program, including 7,368 in B.C.
Vocal support will not necessarily mean physical support
Premier David Eby says the province is supportive of police participating, unlike many other provinces. Pointing out that it is a federal program, he advocates for police to participate “as they have resources to do it.”
“The reason why we support it is we see the impact of semi-automatic rifles in communities in our province, not the least of which was this most recent horrific incident in Tumbler Ridge,” he said in an unrelated news conference on Tuesday (Feb. 24).
Public Safety Canada is administering the program and has not released details on collection efforts, except to say people will be able to drop off weapons at RCMP stations, turn them in at mobile collection units, or provide them to local police participating in the program.
But, Leanne MacLeod, interim executive director of the B.C. Association of Chiefs of Police, says there has been no directive from the province to participate in the collection efforts, and she did not commit local police to participating. (MacLeod’s statement predates the Tumbler Ridge shootings, and a request for an updated statement did not receive a response.)
She said the association “recognizes each municipal agency has unique priorities, staffing, and infrastructure,” and defers to each chief to decide if they will make their municipality available as a collection site.
Tim Warmington, a Public Safety Canada spokesperson, said in an email that a “key principle” of the program is that it will not impact front-line police resources, which is why federal funding is being provided. Private contractors may even be hired to help.
Frank Grosspietsch, a former RCMP officer and firearms expert, said there may be several other reasons why police may not want to participate.
They may not agree with the law, or they may feel that most of the firearms they seize in crimes are actually illegally imported ones, not guns covered by this program. They also may not want to put themselves in dangerous situations.
A Feb. 4 statement from the police chiefs’ association says police leaders have consistently identified illegally imported and trafficked firearms as the predominant source of firearm-related violence.
“In this context, emphasis has been placed on ensuring that enforcement resources are directed toward addressing the primary drivers of firearm‑related crime,” the statement says.
Asked whether he thought police should be forced to participate in the buyback program, Chris Voller, the Pacific region director of the National Police Federation, the union representing RCMP officers, said allowing police to start picking and choosing what laws they enforce undermines the principles of fairness in policing.
“If police start deciding what they should or should not do, I think that’s a very slippery slope,” Voller said. “If we’re legislated to do something, then we should.”
Reducing the risk versus personal freedom
Cukier helped found the Coalition for Gun Control in response to the 1989 École Polytechnique mass shooting in Montreal, in which 14 women were killed with a semi-automatic rifle. Legislation introduced in the ensuing years banned large-capacity magazine clips like the one used there, and now these new prohibitions ban the gun itself — a Ruger Mini-14.
In her view, allowing the public to own these types of weapons presents too great a risk.
“No legislation is guaranteed to prevent all tragedies,” she said. “What it does is reduce the risk that they will occur.”
Cukier said resistance to this type of legislation by people who are against strengthening gun laws often prevails because “politics gets in the way.”
On the other hand, Jesse Zeman, executive director of the B.C. Wildlife Federation, argues the buyback program is disconnected from real sources of gun crime, which he says are illegal firearms.
“It’s not going to improve public safety,” he said. “It’s not going to reduce crime.”
He says hunters use some of the rifles on the list, and target shooters use others. The laws seem arbitrary to him. He said they seem to be based on what a gun looks like rather than how it is used.
“This is the land of moving goalposts,” he said.
According to Zeman, the new prohibitions have the effect of singling out people who are not the ones committing gun crimes.
“Our advice would be don’t go after people that pay into conservation and are law-abiding citizens and make them a pariah,” he said.
Zeman said that what the Tumbler Ridge shooting really shows is the need to address underlying mental health issues and ensure people in a mental health crisis do not have access to firearms.
“Given the background that’s been shared, that individual should not have ever had access to or owned a firearm,” he said. “So, we’re still in this place where we’re talking about creating rules for people who don’t follow the rules.”
Many questions remain about Tumbler Ridge firearms
Police have still not revealed detailed information about the weapons found at the two Tumbler Ridge shooting scenes. Initial reports were of a modified handgun and a long gun found at the school, and a shotgun at the suspect’s house. Police later corrected the guns found at the school to a modified rifle and a long gun.
Police also say that several weapons were taken from the house where the suspect, Jesse Van Rootselaar, lived in 2024. Those were later returned, but police did not say to whom. Van Rootselaar had a licence at one point, but that had expired by the time of the shooting.
They also found a “number of other firearms” at the house after the shootings, but would not elaborate, except to confirm that the shotgun found at the home and the main weapon used at the scene were not previously seized.
There is also evidence circulating on social media.
In August 2024, Van Rootselaar’s mother Jennifer Jacobs, who is one of the shooting victims killed on Feb. 10, posted a picture on Facebook of a cabinet with at least six guns in it, and the caption “Think it’s time to take them out for some target practice.”
Grosspietsch, who is a former member of the RCMP’s National Weapons Enforcement Support Team, says that by his analysis, when that post was made the guns in the picture were all legal and unrestricted. But by the time of the shootings, at least one — a Kriss Vector — had been banned and would now qualify for the buyback program.
Police will not reveal whether any of the weapons in the picture were found at the scenes of the shootings or were taken from the home afterward.
RCMP spokesperson Kris Clark acknowledged in an email on Feb. 24 that some information is being kept secret by the courts — and may not be made public.
“The B.C. RCMP is committed to answering as many questions as possible, but must also adhere to the law and some information may never be available through us while other information will take time,” he said.
Grosspietsch said the “big question” is why those guns were given back, considering what is also known about police attending mental health-related calls at the house. There are mechanisms the police could have used to prevent those weapons from being returned to the house based on the risk posed by a resident, even if that resident was not the owner, he said.
“The headline is: Why aren’t we being told what was done or what wasn’t done with relationship to the initial seizure and the subsequent handling of the firearms and considerations for the future of public safety,” he said.
Eby says that many questions remain unanswered, including why OpenAI flagged Van Rootselaar’s online activity, but did not report it to the police. He said answers are also needed about the guns.
“Why were the guns in the house?” Eby asks. “Why were the guns returned? What guns were available? Where did they come from?”
He promised inquests and hearings to find answers.
“We’ll use our processes available to the province to ensure that every question is answered and that we have a clear path forward in terms of how we can minimize the risk of this ever happening again.”