Sign up and stay connected to your favorite communities.
Emailed all the interested parties. This could be a smoking gun (pun!) that could discredit CFAC for the obvious sham it is. They are advising the Minister on policy for firearms yet refuse to even take the Canadian Firearms Safety course.
This has been known for a few months now, I had made a post about it and e-mailed the public safety minister,no response.
I even submitted a formal complaint thought the house of commons ethics commissioner.
Still waiting to hear back,,😀
To be fair.. the ethics commissioner has been pretty busy lately.
Haha, good one
I emailed them when I saw this 3 days later I got.
This is in response to your email expressing concern about alleged lobbying activities conducted by a member of the Canadian Firearms Advisory Committee. As this matter is not within the jurisdiction of Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner Mario Dion, we cannot assist you in resolving your concerns.
Good thing our governement doesn't really give a fuck about ethic violations in general
As someone in Metro Vancouver, this is true from the top all the way down. At this point I don't see any path to clarity, when every meaningful party at every level seems to be corrupted in some manner.
This needs to go up on r/Canada.
If nobody has taken up the torch by tomorrow afternoon I might.
Be well prepare with your post and make sure you have all the facts and details.
My account doesn't make it past the auto mod cuz of my post history or I'd take the downvotes for the team.
Why does your post history restrict you from r Canada?
Anyone who says anything that isn't ultra left leaning is branded as literally hitler on r/canada
Hopefully someone comes up with an article about it, I think that'd do better than a video
Has this been psosted to Rcanada? I am new to using reddit...
I don't think so
time to rebrand it the Corrupt Firearms Advisory Committee?
I have been a political junky my whole life. I will give you my honest take on what is going on with our gun right and legislation and what will work to get them restored.
Slowly over a period of decade our right have been eroded bit by bit. The more we accept the more they will take away. The more insane the laws the more legitimacy we give to the anti gun crowd. The work the CFAC, CCFR and the NFA is doing is great. But they need to acknowledge those thing:
*The media bias is real and you have to deal with it aggressively. *Logical argument do not work. This mean we need to use derision and humour to counteract the other side.
Gun control in Canada is a popularity contest not a safety issue. Yes I know this will shock many, please hear me out. This is about politics and what they can make the public accept vs the popularity of the new bill.
The gun control crowd is using emotion to drive the debate and win. We have to play on theirs turf. Once the NFA, CFAC, CCFR start using humour and emotional appeal they will start to make a dent. Then the anti-gun crowd will use try to use Fact and logic to win back the argument...... But we all know that the fact are on our side ;)
The next step is to discredit the anti gun movement in Canada as the hysterical bunch they are.
Then we win..
I'm glad it wasn't just me! Tracy we need to get you a new microphone!
I'm not sure. The links provided in the yt description appear to be same ones posted on the cgn submission.
Not directed specifically at you OP.
I did email, got a reply.
We confirm receipt of your email.
Please note that your email has been forwarded to the appropriate directorate.
Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying of Canada
Email: QuestionsLobbying@ocl-cal.gc.ca / Tel: 613-957-2760 / Fax: 613-957-3078
Who is considered a lobbyist? As far as my interpretation goes, the Lobbying act stipulates that a lobbyist is someone who communicates with government and is paid by an organisation (or may be self employed) to do so. Tracy mentioned that before being on the committee, that she was a registered lobbyist prior to being on CFAC but Provost is no longer listed. So we should be requesting an investigation to determine if she continued to receive funds, after joining CFAC? (also I did some digging, expecting the polysesouvien site to be at least as robust as the CCFR's - short answer it's not)
Whether she was receiving funds or not from PolySeSouvient, the fact she co-signed the political ask that PSS put out shows that she was still working for them while sitting on the committee.
I don't know whether that counts as illegal lobbying or just a garden variety conflict of interest, but it's pretty clear she was using her position to influence government policy on behalf of PolySeSouvient. And lo and behold, most of what PolySeSouvient asked for ended up in bill C-71.
The agreement that she signed features the following condition (condition 3 under the Conflict of Interest Section):
"Any member participating in this committee in his or her own personal capacity or as an authorized representative of a specific organization or corporation agrees, for the duration for his or her term as a member of this committee, not to:"
"3. Engage in lobbying activities or work as a registered lobbyist on behalf of an entity making submissions or representations to the government of Canada on issues relating to the mandate of this committee."
Her signing off on PolySeSouvient's policy recommendation document as a spokesperson for the organization sure looks like a clear violation of this agreement to me. I'm not a lawyer, but this is pretty plain English. I'm obviously open to being corrected, though.
I read the document and the lobbying act. What my question was, "what constitutes lobbying?" I was hoping someone more knowledgeable than myself could chime in. Without knowing legal definitions, I could only write my email to ask for an investigation to be initiated. I can't in good conscience make an accusation.
Perfectly fair. I misunderstood and thought you were positing that she would have to be registered as a lobbyist for the accusation to be valid.
I'm not a lawyer, but this is pretty plain English
Ah, well there's your problem. Laws aren't written in English, they're written in Legalese. It's not like the people who are subject to the vast, unknown number of laws need to understand them, right?
Joke legal system.
I predict nothing will happen, because laws and rules don't apply to people at the government level. Or rather, they only apply when it's politically beneficial.
The only problem is no one cares. Most people don't know what the Firearms Advisory Committee is, and if you try to explain it they stop listening because they don't care.
Yet another example of our government blatantly violating ethics because they know the common sheep won't notice.
Here are some other e-mails that should be CC'd with the first four:
email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, rWarnica@postmedia.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org
any others you guys can think of?
Ok: Here we go.
To Whom it may concern,
Ms. Nathalie Provost, Vice-Chair of the Canadian Firearm Advisory Committee (CFAC), signed a document and agreed to not lobby to the Canadian Government on issues relating to the mandate of the CFAC while she is a member. This document was signed on January 26, 2017.
On November 24, 2017, Ms. Provost co-signed a document for PolySeSouvient (Poly Remembers, Polytechnique school shooting survivors), which was then mailed to the Office of the Honorable Ralph Goodale, P.C., M.P.
In this document, PolySeSouvient made eight recommendations/demands on gun control.
Bill C-71 has five out of those eight recommendations/demands.
Is this not a conflict of interest?
The relevant sections of both documents are highlighted in yellow.
(inserted links and supplied documents here)
Any clarification on the matter is greatly appreciated.
Who's the guy who always does the progun articles for the National Post and Global? I'll bet he would take it. I'd know his name if I saw it and it's not there, I'm just drawing a blank
Edit: it's Matt Gurney, can't find an email address though
Edit: @mattgurney tweet the video link at him
Do I really have to listen to her talk for 8 minutes? I'm just assuming that she's stating that she intends to use her role on the CFAC to attempt to ban all firearms in Canada with no regard to evidence or due process. Am I correct?
Edit - Ok, I thought that was Natalie Provost in the video thumbnail, not Tracey from the CCFR. I don't actually know what most of these people look like, I just hear their voices and read their writing.
Tracy is just outlining the situation. Basically Provost worked with the PSM to allow her conflict of interest. She also co-signed a letter, dated Nov 2017 (11 months after joining CFAC) with a list of demands for further gun control. 5 of those demands made it into the legislation, which shows that she is still successfully lobbying the government.
I emailed them 4 months ago about it. Still no response. I sent a letter last week referencing the email with all the documentation. I'll post the response when I get it back.
I didn't know it was Tracey, thought it was a video by Natalie Provost.
Edit: Poly se souvent
Not professional scrum master.
I still have no idea what they do though.
PSM Public Safety Minister, Ralph Goodale
She (Provost) seems to have violated the Terms and Conditions of serving on the Committee by continuing to formally lobby the government on behalf of PolySeSouvient, while sitting on the Committee. This could be actionable, and would result in her ass being thrown off the Committee in a just world. It's highly unlikely that the Liberals will want to be seen to take action against someone who can so easily claim victimization, but we should absolutely make a giant fucking stink anyway. Tracey shows you the evidence you need to cite, and the emails to hit (Goodale, Committee Chair John Major, Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, and Lobby Canada).
EDIT: Changed some language to be less certain. IANAL.
I had a similar initial reaction, but having watched through the 8 minutes, I'd say it's worth it.
To summarize for you, she
outlines the purpose of the CFAC
shows document from PolySeSouvient of political asks, signed by Provost, to the government, 5 of the 8 asks making its way into C-71.
shows a signed agreement by Provost in which she agrees to cease lobbying while serving as a member of CFAC as a conflict of interest
Conclusion: Ethics and CFAC violation by Provost by lobbying on behalf of PolySeSouvient while serving on CFAC.
Oh lawd, 8 minutes!!! You can assume or you can take those 8 minutes and be totally informed on what she has to say. So when you're asked about what its all about next time you're at the shop, you can speak like you're informed instead coming across like a kid with ADD. Can't sit for 8 minutes, shucks.
Do you know what kind of person Nathalie Provost would want to be dealing with most? The kind of person who can't sit for 8 or more minutes.
So downvote and flame on as usual but these are the small microcosms of why we always seem to be in these positions. More and more people can't sit for 8 minutes, more and more people have less time to be vigilant. There are fewer and fewer people like Tracy doing the work to expose this and thus we have even more people saying "Why am I not surprised?".
We let them play games thinking this kind of thing will never be challenged. Why else would they be so blatant? They know we're largely unorganized. They don't see a challenge to the games they play so they play them more and more.
8 minutes of your time.
Look at the 2 linked documents. It speaks for itself.
I'd recommend watching the video and reading the documents yourself. Taking people's word for it or only reading the title of a video is how the anti-gunners still justify their position (on top of cherry picking data or falsifying it).
Why am I not surprised?
Can't watch the video, can someone provide a summary for me?
This subreddit is for posting news and the discussion of shooting sports in Canada - ownership, firearms, hunting, target shooting, Canadian gun laws, and the like.