Thumbs up Nathalie Provost has quit the federal firearms advisory committee

IronNoggin

Well-Known Member
Shooting survivor quits panel over 'timid' Liberal record on assault-style guns

OTTAWA -- Mass-shooting survivor Nathalie Provost has quit the federal firearms advisory committee in frustration, saying she is "extremely disappointed" with the Liberal government's failure to crack down on assault-style rifles.

Provost, who was shot four times during the 1989 spree by a gunman at Montreal's Ecole Polytechnique, says she feels used by a government unwilling to take the steps needed to make Canadians safer.

The Canadian Press obtained a copy of Provost's resignation letter sent Monday to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and the cabinet members responsible for firearms issues -- Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale and Organized Crime Reduction Minister Bill Blair.

Provost, who served for more than two years on the advisory committee, says the government repeatedly ignored her calls for an overhaul of the firearms-classification system -- a move that could tighten restrictions on some semi-automatic rifles.

She claims the committee contributed nothing to the Liberal firearms bill, C-71, recently passed by Parliament -- legislation she considers very timid.

Provost was not granting interviews Monday, letting her letter speak for itself.

She has long been active with PolySeSouvient, a group that pushes for stricter gun control and includes students and graduates of the Polytechnique engineering school.

In late 2016 the Liberals made Provost vice-chair of the firearms advisory committee, which counsels the public safety minister on Canada's gun policies, laws and regulations. At the time, the committee was chaired by a former Supreme Court justice and has counted a police chief, a competitive sport shooter, an emergency physician and a farmer among its members.

Provost says she saw the appointment as an opportunity to take concrete action to improve public safety. But she was surprised in early 2018 when Goodale introduced Bill C-71 "without any discussion" with the advisory committee, putting members in a difficult position.

The legislation expanded the scope of background checks on those who want to acquire guns, strengthened record-keeping requirements for sales and required purchasers to present valid firearms licences.

Some firearms owners accused the Liberals of targeting law-abiding hunters and target-shooters, while gun-control advocates said the bill did not fulfil a Liberal vow to get assault-style rifles and handguns off Canadian streets.

Scott Bardsley, a spokesman for Goodale, said Monday the government was grateful to Provost for her service. He also defended the government's "substantive action" to fight gun violence, including Bill C-71, $86 million to combat smuggling and $214 million for community-level prevention and enforcement efforts.
"And we will seek a mandate from Canadians to strengthen public safety," Bardsley added.

Last August, Trudeau asked Blair to study the possibility of a ban on handguns and assault-style rifles after a deadly shooting in Toronto. A summary of federal consultations said Canadians were divided on the idea.

In her letter, Provost blasts the exercise as a scientifically discredited and "obviously useless" consultation that delayed any further legislative action until after the fall election.

Blair said last month that more must be done to address gun violence, but he also signalled no new measures would be coming soon.

Future steps could include efforts to prevent theft, illegal diversion and cross-border smuggling of handguns. The government is also open to the idea of allowing municipalities to decide exactly where, or even if, firearms can be stored within their boundaries, Blair said.

However, any additional gun-control initiatives are expected to be planks in the Liberal election platform. Goodale and Ottawa-Vanier MP Mona Fortier are co-chairing the party's national platform committee in advance of the October ballot.

The Liberals could immediately ban a range of rifles by regulation, Provost says.

By limiting efforts "to timid measures or half-measures," the government provokes the fierce opposition of the firearms lobby without delivering worthwhile improvements, she adds.
"In fact, the pro-gun lobby will oppose any tightening -- be it modest or daring -- so why not move quickly to prioritize public safety?"

https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/sho...iberal-record-on-assault-style-guns-1.4509015
 
That's only 1 down, the committee is rattled with agenda seeking fools. Maybe need a clean sweep in Oct??? Glad she did not get her way and even happier that she has a hissi fit and quit.

HM
 
It is always the same with these things, many want to blame the tool and not the individual. Until we figure out how these individuals get to this state of mental imbalance and start treating the true causes these horrendous acts, will continue to take place.
 
Last edited:
I think one of the more obvious faults w this Committee is that the Liberals struck it up in order to gain points w the "anti" crowd - esp. in Quebec - and "appointed" Provost to appease the "anti" crowd in Quebec, specifically - where the liberals generate most of their support. I think the committee was generally not well thought-out and not well engaged with nor understanding the larger section of Canadian public outside of the narrow confines of Ottawa/Montreal urban areas.

Additionally, the question arises - do we really need such a committee? and if the answer to that is an apolitical "yes" incorporating other, broader, more experienced and qualified voices - then the question(s) become:
1/ What is the mandate of such a committee?, and how does it engage consensus?, and where does any such consensus get incorporated into recommendations that could be voted on by a plebiscite? and where does any such plebiscite get rolled into draft law?
2/ What is the Terms of Reference for any such a panel?, and what skill sets/experiences are we needing to fill for delegates/representatives and in what quantities in regards to general population?
3/ What is the apolitical and open, transparent process to submit names of delegates to any such committee?, and who gets to approve these applications and why using what set of criteria?,
4/ Where is the feed-back and referral mechanisms to generate consensus both within the narrower self-interest groups that these representatives purportedly represent?- but more importantly - to the general public?

I think this committee has failed even to ask these rather obvious and important questions - let alone answer them.

I tried to get minutes and answers to some of these questions listed above and was refused. They wanted and received total secrecy IMHO - not the openness and transparency that should accompany any democratic endeavor that infringes on our rights and freedoms.

So...

good riddance I say... This committee is beyond saving at this point.
 
Back
Top