Originally Posted by Arnisador
Originally Posted by Goldman
This is somewhat offtopic, but I can't for my life remember. Did we ever get a reply to the options paper we submitted to the CFC?
I'd have to go digging in the thread to confirm, but from what I remember, it was taken under advisement and there were small wording changes that reflected some of the content we submitted. Changes were somewhat positive, but small...nothing significant. If anything, it seemed to indicate that they at least took time to read the options paper.
I havn't seen KD around in a long while though, and he's the one who had his ear to the ground with some of the bureaucratic types.
I read perhaps, at best and no more than a few times a week, less than 1 per cent of the threads on this board now.
It's amusing to me that I just happened onto the thread where I was mentioned. Really, it’s purely by chance.
Anyway, yes, we received a response, three in fact. I have the original signed copies from the (now former) Commissioner in my files somewhere, as well as the others.
I also spoke at length about airsoft with a few people in the federal government a few times back when that initiative was still on, at least one at the senior level.
Arnisador is correct that, for the most part, it was taken under advisement at the time, largely because of the political climate that existed then, i.e. the larger policy framework of the former federal government. We were also alerted to a number of other factors in play, all of them beyond our immediate control.
However, I see the options paper as having resulted in a number of positive developments:
1) Our interactions with the federal government created an awareness at the staff level around airsoft where there was, quite clearly, none before -- at least not with the individuals I spoke with. The documentation of that awareness provides at least some measure of a knowledge base for future policy documents to work from.
For ourselves, we were also able to learn about a number of things that are not really discussed on ASC. All of that was helpful in framing things for our discussions and products.
2) It made those of us actively involved in the file aware that staff within the federal government were actively reading Airsoft Canada, which is why a number of discussions around positioning were taken offline.
3) We were alerted to a number of what I will refer to as parallel initiatives, which we were able to provide feedback and input into. I feel this is one of the most positive benefits of the options paper.
4) I believe that by providing our context and input, a measurable degree of goodwill was established with staff within the federal government who were, at the time, actively looking at the issue.
5) It provided, in at least some form, a formal written submission to the federal government where none had previously existed; I believe this provided, at least to some, a benchmark to consider actions (or lack thereof) around airsoft as a sport in Canada.
For all the time and effort that went into it, and despite the problems that were encountered (most details around both remain largely unknown to most of ASC), overall, I am still somewhat pleased to have participated in that effort.
In retrospect, I would have approached the product a bit differently and characterized things in a different context, but, for the resources that were available, it was an acceptable product given the considerations in play, timing constraints and operating environment that we were forced to work with.