Nobody forgets December 6, 1989. You don’t have to be from Montreal—or even born yet—to feel the shadow that day still casts over Canada. Fourteen women murdered at École Polytechnique. Nathalie Provost survived, barely. She’s carried that day with her ever since.
No one questions her pain or her courage. But in Ottawa, Provost’s tragedy has become more than a personal mission—it’s turned into a vendetta. And it’s not aimed at criminals. It’s aimed directly at millions of regular, licensed gun owners.
Every time gun control comes up, we see the same playbook. Provost steps up, recounts her trauma, and then turns her sights on the people who’ve done nothing wrong: hunters, sport shooters, farmers, collectors. Her message is loud and clear—if you own a firearm, you’re part of the problem. She’s not interested in nuance, compromise, or the difference between law-abiding citizens and criminals. For Provost, every legally owned gun is a threat, and every gun owner is suspect.
Now she sits in Parliament—elected as a Liberal MP, celebrated by her party as a hero. But let’s be real: her campaign isn’t about public safety anymore. It’s about erasing the very existence of legal firearms ownership in Canada. With every speech, every interview, every bill she supports, Provost pushes for more bans, more restrictions, more punishment for those who follow the law.
And the government is happy to let her lead the charge. Why not? When Provost speaks, dissent dries up. Who wants to argue with a survivor? Who wants to be labelled heartless? The Liberals know that as long as she’s out front, they can push any law they want—and silence anyone who dares to push back.
But here’s what never gets said: legal gun owners aren’t the ones committing crimes. They’re the ones getting punished. Shotguns and hunting rifles get banned, while smuggled handguns and gang crime barely get a mention. Rural Canadians lose their tools, their traditions, and their rights—all because one person’s vendetta has become government policy.
Is that justice? Ask the farmer who can’t protect his land, or the family who’s lost their legacy. These aren’t just numbers. These are Canadians being steamrolled by an agenda that refuses to listen.
This isn’t how democracy is supposed to work. One voice—no matter how powerful—shouldn’t drown out millions. Debate should be open. Facts should matter. Laws should be made for everyone, not just to satisfy a grudge.
We grieve for Nathalie Provost. But we also grieve for a country where honest people can be targeted, silenced, and blamed for tragedies they had no part in. Canada deserves better.
The Canadian Shooting Sports Association stands for safety, fairness, and the rights of every law-abiding citizen. We won’t be silenced by anyone’s vendetta—even one born from tragedy. We’ll keep fighting for reason, for freedom, and for the truth.
Next time Parliament debates guns, listen closely. If you only hear Nathalie Provost’s story, ask yourself: who’s being left out—and why?
3 Comments
Michael McGrath
Instead of criminalizing the law abiding people, why not put all the energy into taking the guns from criminals and changing the laws to keep them in jail instead of releasing them back into the public to do more damage…
Tom
We need to accept the reality that evil exists within society at large, for a variety of reasons. Some will be overt and can be stopped before acts of violence occur; others cannot be predicted. In either case, the safe-guarding of life always rests with the individual person being targeted in the moment. Any government denying a good person from being able to defend themselves from evil carries the responsibility for events of this nature. There is no excuse for the perp’s actions, and there is no excuse for any government that prevents a good person from defending themselves.
Tom
The entire event could have been eliminated if law-abiding Canadians would have been able to carry concealed firearms for self-protection. There is no tool more effective at stopping a threat of death or grave bodily harm than a good trained Canadian with a firearm. Even back then, you had the Right to defend yourself from the threat of death or grave bodily harm. That Right is no good when the government takes away the tools that are required to exercise that Right. She can blame successive governments, the apparatus she has lobbied for decades and now has become an integral part of, for how the events unfolded on that day. How terribly ironic.