Evaluation of the Transfer Payment Program for the Canadian Firearms Program

Table of contents

• Acronyms and definitions
• Executive summary
• 1.0 Introduction
  • 1.1 Purpose of the evaluation
  • 1.2 Evaluation scope and context
• 2.0 Program overview
  • 2.1 Program description
  • 2.2 Program resources
  • 2.3 Previous evaluation
• 3.0 Evaluation methodology
  • 3.1 Evaluation approach and design
  • 3.2 Data sources
  • 3.3 Methodological limitations and mitigation strategies
• 4.0 Findings
  • 4.1 Relevance
  • 4.2 Effectiveness
  • 4.3 Efficiency
• 5.0 Conclusions and recommendations
• 6.0 Management response and action plan
  • 6.1 Management response
  • 6.2 Action plan
• End Notes

Acronyms and definitions

AOCO

Aboriginal and/or Other Communities and Organizations

CFIS

Canadian Firearms Information System

CFO

Chief Firearms Officer

CFP

Canadian Firearms Program

CPS

Central Processing Site

FY

Fiscal Year

NPES

National Program Evaluation Services

RCMP

Royal Canadian Mounted Police

SDM

Service Delivery Model

TPP

Transfer Payment Program

Executive summary

Introduction

This report presents the results of the Evaluation of the Transfer Payment Program for the Canadian Firearms Program conducted by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) National Program Evaluation Services (NPES).

Program profile

The Transfer Payment Program (TPP) is a voted payment program under the RCMP's Canadian Firearms Program (CFP), implemented in 1997 as a result of provisions of the Firearms Act.

The TPP consists of the following elements:

1. Firearms Funding Program for Opt-in Provinces

   Provinces may enter into an agreement with the Government of Canada in administering the Firearms Act with a provincially appointed Chief Firearms Officer (CFO). There are currently contribution agreements with five provinces – New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Ontario, Quebec, and Prince Edward Island. Provinces that are not part of the TPP fall under a federally run program administered by federal CFOs.

2. Aboriginal and/or Other Communities and Organizations (AOCO) Contribution Funding Program

   Funding and support are provided to Indigenous and non-Indigenous groups and organizations to ensure education on firearms legislation is available and to facilitate the application of, and compliance with, the Firearms Act.

What we examined

The objective of the evaluation was to provide a neutral, timely and evidence-based assessment of the TPP for the CFP. The evaluation focused its assessment on the relevance, effectiveness, and efficiency of the TPP during fiscal years (FY) 2014-15 to 2018-19. The evaluation was national in scope, inclusive of National Headquarters (Ottawa, Ontario), all opt-in provinces, and a selection of provinces and territories with AOCO recipients, including Ontario, Quebec, Newfoundland, and the Northwest Territories.

The following evaluation questions were examined:

1. Is there a continued need for the TPP?
2. Is the objective of the TPP consistent with RCMP and government-wide priorities?
3. Are the roles and responsibilities of the TPP clearly defined and understood?
4. To what extent is the administration and delivery of the TPP effective?
5. To what extent is the TPP achieving its objectives?
6. To what extent is the TPP being administered and delivered in a cost-efficient manner?
7. To what extent are the funding allocations for the TPP appropriate?

What we found

1. There is a continued need for the TPP to provide funding to ensure compliance with the Firearms Act.
2. The TPP's objectives are aligned with RCMP and government-wide priorities to enhance public safety through firearms safety training and raising awareness within communities.
3. While roles and responsibilities are documented for both the RCMP and recipients, there is less clarity around the RCMP's role in certain operational activities.
4. While effective policies, procedures and oversight mechanisms are in place for the TPP, there are areas for improvement.
5. Performance data is being consistently collected and analyzed.
6. The TPP contributes to the effective administration of the Firearms Act and supports AOCO recipients with the delivery of firearms safety courses.
7. While there have been efforts to enhance service delivery of the TPP, further cost-efficiency improvements were identified.
8. While service standards were generally met, there is some evidence that additional funding is needed to support work volumes in opt-in provinces.

Recommendation

Based on the findings of the evaluation, it is recommended that the Deputy Commissioner Specialized Policing Services:

1. In consultation with opt-in provinces and federal CFOs, improve consistency in administering the Firearms Act through
   1. strengthening current operating procedures; and
   2. further defining and communicating roles and responsibilities between the CFP and provinces.

1.0 Introduction

1.1 Purpose of the evaluation

This report presents the results of the Evaluation of the Transfer Payment Program for the Canadian Firearms Program conducted by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) National Program Evaluation Services (NPES). The evaluation was conducted in compliance with Section 42.1 of the Financial Administration Act that requires all ongoing programs of grants and contributions to be evaluated every five years. The objective of the evaluation was to provide a neutral, timely, and evidence-based assessment of the Transfer Payment Program (TPP) for the Canadian Firearms Program (CFP).

1.2 Evaluation scope and context

The Treasury Board Policy on Results (2016) allows departments to calibrate evaluations in order to focus on core areas that are both relevant and of importance to the organization. As a result, consultations were conducted with senior management to determine key risk areas associated with the TPP. The most predominant areas identified through these consultations informed the scope of the evaluation.

The evaluation focused its assessment on the relevance, effectiveness, and efficiency of the TPP during fiscal years (FY) 2014-15 to 2018-19.

Specifically, the evaluation assessed:

1. Relevance of the TPP
   • A continued need for the TPP;
   • Alignment of TPP objectives with RCMP and government-wide priorities; and,
   • Alignment and clarity of roles and responsibilities as they pertain to the TPP.
2. Effectiveness of the TPP
   • The extent to which the administration and delivery of the TPP is effective; and,
   • The extent to which the TPP is achieving its objectives.
3. Efficiency of the TPP
   • The extent to which the TPP is being administered and delivered in a cost-efficient manner; and,
   • Whether funding allocations for the TPP are appropriate.

The evaluation was national in scope, inclusive of National Headquarters (Ottawa, Ontario), all opt-in provinces, and a selection of provinces and territories with AOCO recipients, including Ontario, Quebec, Newfoundland, and the Northwest Territories.

2.0 Program overview

2.1 Program description

The TPP is a voted payment program implemented in 1997 as a result of provisions in the Firearms Act.^{Endnote 1} At that time, the Canadian Firearms Centre was established to oversee the Firearms Act and the Canadian Firearms Program (CFP). In 2003, the CFP was established as an independent department within the Public Safety portfolio, and in 2006, the RCMP assumed responsibility for the administration of the Firearms Act and the CFP.

At present, the CFP is an operational service line within the RCMP's Specialized Policing Services. It provides a broad range of firearms-related expertise, regulatory control, assistance and advice to the general public in support of safer communities, as well as consultative and operational support to law enforcement.

The TPP consists of the following elements:

1. Firearms Funding Program for Opt-in Provinces

   As stipulated in Section 95 of the Firearms Act, provincial and territorial governments have the option to enter into contribution agreements with the federal government to assume responsibility for the administration of the Firearms Act within their jurisdiction. These are referred to as "opt-in" provinces, whereas provinces that are not part of the TPP fall under a federally run program administered by federal CFOs and are referred to as "opt-out" provinces.

   The contribution agreement sets out the terms and conditions by which the opt-in provinces are to abide. Contribution agreements are in place with New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Ontario, Quebec, and Prince Edward Island. Of note, Quebec participates as an opt-in province through an agreement in principle, but does not currently have a contribution agreement.

   The contribution agreements are signed by the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, and the administration of the TPP falls under the responsibility of the Firearms Regulatory Services Directorate within the CFP (RCMP).

   The objectives of this element are:

   • to support participating provinces (opt-in provinces) in administering the Firearms Act within their jurisdiction by encouraging the responsible ownership, use and storage of firearms, thereby furthering the government's objective of enhancing public safety and helping reduce the risk of death, injury and threat from firearms; and,
   • to ensure that the Firearms Act and associated regulations are administered in an effective, efficient and consistent manner in each of the participating provincial jurisdictions.

2. Aboriginal and/or Other Communities and Organizations (AOCO) Contribution Funding Program

   This element provides funding and support to Indigenous and non-indigenous groups and organizations to ensure education on firearms legislation is made available, and to facilitate the application of, and compliance with the Firearms Act.^{Endnote 2}

   Through these contribution agreements, project partnerships have been established with Indigenous communities, tribal councils, hunter and trapper associations, and other community organizations to train and certify local firearms safety instructors and examiners.^{Endnote 3}

   In order to be considered for funding, a proposal / application must meet criteria associated with a focus on safety training, education, and awareness of the safe use and handling of firearms. Proposals are reviewed and assessed annually by the Firearms Management and Strategic Services Directorate within the CFP. Final approval of successful proposals / applications is the responsibility of the Director General of the CFP, who takes into consideration the Directorate's assessment and recommendations. Successful applicants are required to report to the CFP on their activities, as outlined in their agreements.

2.2 Program resources

Eligibility for compensation varies by funding elements of the TPP, with funding for opt-in provinces open to any who enter into an agreement to administer the Firearms Act, and funding for the AOCO element of the TPP using the previously mentioned application process that uses specific criteria to assess the funding proposal/application.

According to the RCMP's 2017-2018 Departmental Results Report, the TPP represents 6% of the overall planned spending for the RCMP's transfer payment programs.^{Endnote 4} The following table illustrates that actual funding for both elements has remained steady at approximately $14.5 million per year. Of note, AOCO funding represents a small portion of the overall TPP of approximately $256,000 per fiscal year.

2.3 Previous evaluation

The TPP was previously evaluated by NPES in 2015.^{Endnote 5} The evaluation found that the TPP was generally administered and managed in a timely and efficient manner; however, some concerns were identified regarding delays in finalizing contribution agreements. In addition, the evaluation identified opportunities to strengthen communications between the CFP and the provinces to increase awareness of the TPP.

The evaluation provided the following two recommendations based on the findings:

1. Together, the opt-in provinces and the CFP should examine ways to improve both internal and external communications in support of increasing awareness about the funding available under AOCO.
2. The CFP should examine opportunities to strengthen communications between the CFP and the opt-in provinces where possible.

Both recommendations were addressed and concluded by 2016, with CFP improving communications, awareness, and engagement with CFOs through face-to-face meetings and scheduled teleconferences. In addition, CFP established a critical path for assessing criteria for AOCO funding proposals.

It should also be noted that an audit of the Canadian Firearms Program Continuum of Eligibility for Firearms Licensing was completed in 2018. Among five other audit recommendations, it recommended that the CFP should ensure standardization at the national level by updating the CFP manual. This recommendation is consistent with and supports recommendation 1 a) from this evaluation.

3.0 Evaluation methodology

3.1 Evaluation approach and design

A theory-based approach was used for this evaluation. NPES applied triangulation as an analytical method, where multiple lines of evidence helped corroborate findings. Qualitative and quantitative information was utilized to inform findings, provide recommendations for improvement, and help inform senior management decision-making.

3.2 Data sources

The following lines of evidence were used to inform the findings and recommendations:

1. Document review: Internal and external documents, such as foundational documents, performance related reports, previous assessments, operational documents and policies, were reviewed and analyzed.
2. Data analysis: Administrative, financial and performance measurement data from the Canadian Firearms Information System (CFIS) and the Cognos business intelligence platform were reviewed and analyzed.
3. Key informant interviews: A total of seventeen interviews were conducted with RCMP personnel (n=7), CFOs (n=6), and AOCO recipients (n=4) involved with the administration of the TPP. Of note, RCMP personnel varied in their areas of responsibility, meaning some were able to respond to questions for both elements of the TPP while some were only able to respond to one element of the TPP.

Descriptive scale of interview responses

All

Findings reflect the views and opinions of 100% of interviewees

Most

Findings reflect the views and opinions of at least 75% but less than 100% of interviewees

Many

Findings reflect the views and opinions of at least 50% but less than 75% of interviewees

Some

Findings reflect the views and opinions of at least 25% but less than 50% of interviewees

A few

Findings reflect the views and opinions of at least two respondents but less than 25% of interviewees

3.3 Methodological limitations and mitigation strategies

A key limitation for the evaluation was the limited number of representatives participating in key informant interviews, which resulted in small sample sizes. One potential risk of having a small sample size is that themes unique to a small set of interviewees may not be generalizable for all individuals involved with the administration of the TPP.

In order to mitigate this risk, the evaluation applied triangulation as an analytical method, where multiple lines of evidence helped corroborate findings. This approach was used in order to demonstrate reliability and validity of the findings and to ensure conclusions and recommendations were based on objective and documented evidence.

4.0 Findings

4.1 Relevance

The evaluation found that opt-in provinces need the funding provided through the TPP to ensure compliance with and administration of the Firearms Act and its related activities. This is articulated in Section 95 of the Firearms Act:

"The federal Minister may [...] enter into agreements with the governments of the provinces providing for payment of compensation by Canada to the provinces in respect of administrative costs actually incurred by the provinces in relation to processing licenses, registration certificates and authorizations and applications for licenses, registration certificates and authorizations and the operation of the Canadian Firearms Registration System."^{Endnote 6}

In line with what is stated in legislation, all opt-in province interviewees stated there is a continued need for the TPP, with some specifically describing the funding provided by the RCMP as being essential to the delivery of services outlined in the contribution agreements (e.g. issuing, refusing, and revoking firearms licenses).

As reported in the 2016 Commissioner of Firearms annual report, there has been a growing need for awareness of safety objectives and requirements of the Firearms Act.^{Endnote 7} In part, the AOCO element of the TPP contributes to this growing need through its partnerships with communities and organizations.

As depicted in Table 2, an increase in proposals for AOCO contribution agreements suggests project partnerships with Indigenous communities, non-Indigenous groups and organizations supported the growing need for safe firearms education and public safety.^{Endnote 8} Of note, the CFP redesigned its AOCO strategy in FY 2015-16 to better align with the previous evaluation's recommendations. As a result, the CFP did not undertake contribution agreement activities in FY 2015-16 other than to prepare the revised AOCO strategy for implementation in FY 2016-2017.

The continued need for the TPP was further supported by all AOCO interviewees, who stated the TPP provides funding for services to Indigenous and remote northern communities in relation to the administration of the Firearms Act. For example, interviewees described services, such as delivering firearms safety courses, as being particularly important to ensure safety of individuals who are dependent on using guns for sustenance hunting.

The TPP is aligned with the RCMP's strategic outcome of "criminal activity affecting Canadians is reduced", and the government-wide priority of a "safe and secure Canada" by entering into contribution agreements with opt-in provinces to provide compensation for services related to safe handling, transport, storage, and use of firearms.

The Services Delivery Model (SDM) of the TPP was established to ensure effective administration of the Firearms Act and to ensure consistent provision of services across the provinces. A key principle behind the SDM is stated as being "to enhance public safety in all provinces and territories" through safe firearms handling, transport, storage and use.^{Endnote 9}

Funding under the AOCO element of the TPP supports the RCMP's strategic priority of "contributing to safer and healthier aboriginal communities" through education and awareness of firearms safety.^{Endnote 10} The AOCO element of the TPP provides recipients with funding to support the delivery of firearms safety training, education and awareness in communities, which is also aligned with the previously mentioned RCMP and government-wide outcomes and priorities.

This was consistent with the responses from most interviewees, who when asked whether the objectives of the TPP aligned with the RCMP's and Government of Canada's strategic outcomes and priorities, stated the TPP contributed to safe and responsible firearms ownership in Canada.

4.2 Effectiveness

Roles and responsibilities for the RCMP and CFOs were clearly defined in the Firearms Act. The contribution agreements signed by each opt-in province also clearly defined the roles and responsibilities of the RCMP and CFOs through the SDM established to administer the Firearms Act.

In addition to roles and responsibilities outlined in broad terms, the agreements also outlined specific actions required from the CFP as well as the CFOs for services such as processing licenses, refusals and revocations, authorizations, transfers, investigations and inspections.^{Endnote 11}

While all interviewees stated roles and responsibilities for CFOs and AOCO recipients were clearly defined, some stated the roles and responsibilities for the RCMP were not as clearly defined. Interviewees were less clear about the role of the RCMP related to certain operational activities (e.g. reimbursement on procuring office equipment, the handling of administrative fees, and responding to inquiries from the public). The interviewees further expressed more standardization for service delivery would be beneficial in addressing the gap in clarity of roles and responsibilities.

Policies and procedures were clearly defined and applied through the established SDM to administer the Firearms Act.^{Endnote 12} However, only half of interviewees stated effective policies and procedures were in place. The key theme that interviewees expressed as a barrier was the lack of guidance and standardization to ensure consistent practices across the country (i.e. Standard Operating Procedures).

All opt-in province interviewees and many NHQ interviewees cited the following challenges and gaps with the TPP procedures:

• inconsistencies in procedures between the various opt-in provinces, and between opt-in provinces and federal provinces (e.g. how information is entered into Cognos, inconsistent training standards), and/or;
• lack of communication and coordination from the CFP on key issues (e.g. strategic direction for the program, potential impacts from changes in legislation, etc.).

The interviewees that described these challenges often spoke of them as being connected, and suggested they could be addressed through standardization of procedures coordinated by the CFP.

Furthermore, the 2018 audit of the Canadian Firearms Program Continuum of Eligibility for Firearms Licensing recommended that the CFP should ensure standardization at the national level by updating the CFP manual. While this audit focussed on "opt-out" provinces, the evidence from both the 2018 audit and 2015 evaluation supported the recommendation that increased standardization would benefit the program.

When interviewees were asked to describe the oversight mechanisms in place for the TPP, all cited quarterly and annual reports on activities by CFOs and AOCO recipients. Annual reporting of program results for both elements of the TPP are published on the RCMP's external website in accordance with Treasury Board requirements. In addition, annual reporting of the CFP's operational activities, including activities under both elements of the TPP, are published in the annual Commissioner of Firearms Report and submitted to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness for tabling in Parliament.^{Endnote 13}

Other examples of oversight mechanisms most often cited by interviewees were regular check-ins from the CFP on activities for CFOs and AOCO recipients, and provincial government accountability functions (e.g. providing updates for activities to the Ministry of the Solicitor General).

Lastly, audits, as agreed to in contribution agreements signed by opt-in provinces, serve as an oversight mechanism. Within the agreements, opt-in provinces agree to keep full and complete records of all documents and financial accounts associated to the implementation of the Firearms Act so that they can be made available for audit purposes.^{Endnote 14}

Performance data for the TPP is being consistently collected through a network of systems that includes the Canadian Firearms Information System (CFIS) and the Canadian Police Information Portal database.^{Endnote 15} In addition, the collection of performance data was also integrated into the processes involved in administering the Firearms Act. For example, the firearms application process for individuals requires information from applicants to be provided to the Central Processing Site (CPS), which is responsible for entering the data into CFIS.^{Endnote 16}

As stated in contribution agreements, opt-in provinces compile information on activities and enter the information into the business intelligence platform InSitesII/Cognos. These activities include:

• Authorization to carry;
• Alternate certification;
• Firearms safety courses;
• Shooting clubs;
• Gun shows and auctions;
• Business and shooting range inspections;
• Stakeholder liaison; and
• Regulatory responsibilities.^{Endnote 17}

Interviewees most often cited the following data as being collected: counts on services delivered outlined in contribution agreements; delivery of firearms safety courses; and, financial data such as salaries, administrative costs, and other costs. Of note, while all interviewees stated data was being collected, a few indicated that the CFP should expand data analysis beyond program outputs to examine alternative performance measures that can inform improvements to the program (e.g. analyzing person hours for tasks).

TPP funding to opt-in provinces has supported the issuance of firearms licences. As shown in Table 3, the total number of firearms licenses issued and renewed was consistent from FY 2014-15 to 2018-19, with 1,190,083 firearms licences issued and renewed.

In addition to issuing and renewing firearms licenses, TPP funding also supports other activities involved with administering the Firearms Act as outlined in contribution agreements. For example, opt-in provinces are responsible for the revocation of firearms licenses, which increased 16% from FY 2014-15 to 2018-19, as shown in Table 4.

The CFP publishes annual performance information on the RCMP's website that is measured against established service standards and performance targets. Based on the performance information published on the website, the CFP met many of the service standards across all areas. For those that were not met, the majority were within 10% of meeting the established performance target, as shown in Table 5.

While many interviewees stated that the opt-in provinces were achieving their objectives, particularly in administering the Firearms Act (e.g. processing firearms licenses and conducting firearms investigations), some expressed concern regarding the provision of adequate levels of service (e.g. backlogs due to being under resourced).

In the previous TPP evaluation conducted in 2015, it was recommended that the CFOs and CFP work together to improve communication in order to increase awareness of funding available for the AOCO element of the TPP. In response to the recommendation, the AOCO element of the TPP was redesigned in fiscal year 2015-16, but it was noted no agreements were signed and no funding was distributed.

Since the AOCO was redesigned, the number of communities reached, safety courses delivered, and individuals certified has increased. In addition, the number of applications received, approved, and signed increased with each fiscal year, as shown in Table 6.

Most AOCO interviewees were of the opinion the TPP was achieving its objectives by supporting the delivery of firearms safety courses and increasing firearms safety awareness and knowledge in communities. However, some interviewees expressed that if more funding was made available, more communities, particularly in the remote northern regions, could benefit from the firearms safety training courses.

4.3 Efficiency

In an effort to enhance service delivery to clients in both opt-in and opt-out provinces, it was reported in the 2017 Commissioner of Firearms Report that online firearms license renewals for individuals and firearms registration and transfers for businesses were implemented through an online portal.^{Endnote 18} The implementation of web-based services resulted in program efficiencies such as faster turnaround time for issuing renewed licenses as well as reduced processing times for CFP staff.

While efforts have been made through the implementation of web-based services to enhance service delivery, many opt-in province interviewees stated the TPP was not being administered and delivered in a cost-efficient manner. Interviewees were of the opinion that administration of the TPP could be improved by integrating more web-based technology into the services provided to the public and more communication from the CFP to standardize policies and procedures.

Funding for opt-in provinces has remained steady from FY 2012-13 to 2018-19 at approximately $14.2 million. However, the number of firearms license holders increased for some opt-in provinces, particularly Ontario and New Brunswick, which had a significant increase of 16% and 17% respectively during this period. Based on financial data, each opt-in province spent nearly all of its planned funding from FY 2014-15 to 2018-19 (see Table 7), which may have been a reason for some opt-in provinces to report that additional provincial funds were required to support work volumes and operations.

Most interviewees stated that while service standards were generally met, the funding provided to opt-in provinces was insufficient to support the work volumes. The interviewees explained that the funding envelope for the TPP has not increased to keep pace with the increased workload and complexity of the services delivered.

Despite views on the sufficiency of funding to opt-in provinces, evidence indicated the funding was appropriately allocated amongst opt-in provinces, as the amounts for each were proportional to the number of firearms license holders (see Figure 1 and Figure 2). For example, Ontario and Quebec consistently received the most funding (approximately 43% and 41% of the total funding respectively), and had the highest number of firearms license holders (approximately 48% and 40% of the total license holders respectively) out of the opt-in provinces.

Figure 1. Proportion of TPP funding to opt-in provinces by fiscal year (2014-15 to 2018-19)

Figure 1 - Text version

The image is a stacked column chart representing the proportion of transfer payment program funding to the opt-in provinces (Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and Prince Edward Island) by fiscal year.

In fiscal year 2014-15, Ontario received $6,150,000; Quebec received $5,871,000; Nova Scotia received $1,009,446; New Brunswick received $934,136; and Prince Edward Island received $225,000.

In fiscal year 2015-16, Ontario received $6,121,549; Quebec received $5,871,000; Nova Scotia received $978,373; New Brunswick received $925,703; and Prince Edward Island received $225,000.

In fiscal year 2016-17, Ontario received $6,150,000; Quebec received $5,871,000; Nova Scotia received $1,009,000; New Brunswick received $887,266; and Prince Edward Island received $225,000.

In fiscal year 2017-18, Ontario received $6,150,000; Quebec received $5,871,000; Nova Scotia received $1,009,000; New Brunswick received $875,390; and Prince Edward Island received $225,000.

In fiscal year 2018-19, Ontario received $6,150,000; Quebec received $5,871,000; Nova Scotia received $1,009,000; New Brunswick received $918,527; and Prince Edward Island received $225,000.

Figure 2. Proportion of firearms license holders in opt-in provinces by fiscal year (2014-15 to 2018-19)

Figure 2 - Text version

The image is a stacked column chart representing the proportion of firearms license holders in opt-in provinces (Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and Prince Edward Island) by fiscal year.

In fiscal year 2014-15, Ontario had 561,165 firearms license holders; Quebec had 493,301 firearms license holders; Nova Scotia had 73,460 firearms license holders; New Brunswick had 68,177 firearms license holders; and Prince Edward Island had 6,144 firearms license holders.

In fiscal year 2015-16, Ontario had 571,339 firearms license holders; Quebec had 492,946 firearms license holders; Nova Scotia had 73,172 firearms license holders; New Brunswick had 67,736 firearms license holders; and Prince Edward Island had 6,110 firearms license holders.

In fiscal year 2016-17, Ontario had 583,900 firearms license holders; Quebec had 491,673 firearms license holders; Nova Scotia had 74,163 firearms license holders; New Brunswick had 67,897 firearms license holders; and Prince Edward Island had 6,131 firearms license holders.

In fiscal year 2017-18, Ontario had 602,729 firearms license holders; Quebec had 496,540 firearms license holders; Nova Scotia had 75,341 firearms license holders; New Brunswick had 69,322 firearms license holders; and Prince Edward Island had 6,282 firearms license holders.

In fiscal year 2018-19, Ontario had 620,122 firearms license holders; Quebec had 499,769 firearms license holders; Nova Scotia had 76,659 firearms license holders; New Brunswick had 70,298 firearms license holders; and Prince Edward Island had 6,416 firearms license holders.

Similar to the funding for opt-in provinces, funding under the AOCO element of the TPP has remained unchanged from FY 2014-15 to 2018-19 at approximately $256,000. During the reference period of the evaluation, as demonstrated in Table 8, the actual spending reported to Treasury Board was less than the planned spending for a number of fiscal years (2014-15, 2016-17, and 2017-18). Of note, no expenditures were recorded for FY 2015-16, as the AOCO element of the TPP was undergoing a redesign during this period.

Contributing factors to the variance between planned and actual expenditures were described by the program as being unanticipated service delivery efficiencies, unexpected in-kind contributions and discounts, student and course delivery attrition, and delays in contribution agreement implementation.

When asked whether the funding provided was appropriate to support the work volumes within each community, half of AOCO interviewees stated funding for the AOCO element of the TPP was appropriate.

5.0 Conclusions and recommendations

The evaluation found that the TPP continues to fulfill a need in ensuring firearms safety and compliance with the Firearms Act by supporting the administration of the Firearms Act through opt-in provinces, and ensuring Indigenous and non-Indigenous groups and organizations are provided information and education on firearms safety. These objectives are aligned with departmental and government-wide priorities to enhance public safety through firearms safety training and raising awareness within communities.

The two elements of the TPP were effectively implemented. Through legislation and contribution agreements between the CFP and TPP funding recipients, key aspects of the program such as roles and responsibilities, policies, procedures, oversight mechanisms, the collection and reporting of performance information, and service standards were in place to ensure the effective administration of the Firearms Act and support for AOCO recipients.

While the TPP was generally effective, areas for improvement were identified, such as the need for more standardization of procedures and more communication from CFP to opt-in provinces.

Numerous enhancements to the ways in which TPP services were being delivered to the public were identified in documentation as well as cited by interviewees. Further improvements such as providing enhanced web-based services were suggested as means to enhance the efficiency of the TPP.

Lastly, there was evidence that additional funding for both elements of the TPP is needed to support work volumes and to help deliver more firearms safety courses to communities; however, the impacts from current program efficiencies and/or contributions from provincial governments could not be determined.

Based on the findings of the evaluation, it is recommended that the Deputy Commissioner Specialized Policing Services:

1. In consultation with opt-in provinces and federal CFOs, improve consistency in administering the Firearms Act through:
   1. strengthening current operating procedures; and
   2. further defining and communicating roles and responsibilities between CFP and provinces.

6.0 Management response and action plan

6.1 Management response

The Deputy Commissioner, Specialized Policing Services, accepts the findings (outlined within Section 4) and the recommendations (outlined within Section 5) proposed by National Program Evaluation Services.

6.2 Action plan

Date modified:

2020-12-09