Maple Ridge, British Columbia
Joined March 2011
- Tweets2.6K
- Following1.1K
- Followers237
- Likes1.5K
Pinned Tweet
Question was do I have any ideas on how to deal with the opioid epidemic.
As I said, lost two siblings to overdose and another family member not far off😢
See my response below and give it a share
End the decriminalization of hard drugs.
Mandatory life sentences for big time fentanyl and gun dealers .
Mandatory minimums for the smaller dealers.
Mandatory treatment for addicts charged with crimes.
Right now there is nothing you can do if a family member is harming themselves with drugs, I would like to see some form of mandatory treatment based on family input. It’s a very helpless feeling to watch a family member slowly kill themselves, watch them go through the cycle of checking into rehab only to bail out and go back to the lifestyle.
I also believe we need a more holistic approach to drug treatment where after the detox/treatment component the people stay on site and are able to slowly re-integrate back into society , where they can get jobs and still have a place to go home too.
I see it a lot that people go to treatment and come out with a very clear hand and feeling great about themselves, but it is very hard to get by today , when you can barely make rent, feed yourself and pay all your bills. Eventually, you reach the point of despair and go back to addiction. We need a good way to end the cycle permanently.
Look at this ratio
Leader profile: How David Eby balances kids, kittens and running B.C. ctvnews.ca/vancouver/article…
Brownman retweeted
Leader profile: How David Eby balances kids, kittens and running B.C. ctvnews.ca/vancouver/article…
Brownman retweeted
Prime Minister, enough speeches and theatre. It's time for results at home: conservative.ca/cpc/no-more-…
Brownman retweeted
We need people in Canada and the US that genuinely want to be at the table to work out our issues.
We don't need lectures from those who are interested in using challenges in the relationship to bolster their domestic political fortunes on either side of the border.
@Shelby_Kramp
Brownman retweeted
Former president of @nspc, @cpc, & former 2025 candidate. While I respect @RobertFife’s investigative journalism body of work, this political take is 100% nonsense. Nobody has chased out this Progressive Conservative.
Brownman retweeted
Some people forget that the @CBCNews & @TorontoStar tried to tie @erinotoole to @POTUS when he was the leader of the @CPC_HQ @cbcwatcher
Brownman retweeted
Good thing nobody takes advice from Fife. If we had two parties playing in the center why would we even have elections?
Brownman retweeted
Hey @grok who would actually improve life for everyday Canadians: Pierre Poilievre or Mark Carney? Short answer.
Brownman retweeted
This is where you are 100% incorrect, they are there to represent the people who voted them in not their individual power grab. Sad state of affairs Canada is in, the nation is crumbling and fast.
Brownman retweeted
Really! What about the damn people they are supposed to represent? See, that's where you are wrong. MPs and politicians WORK FOR US. Not we work for them, and they get to decide to do whatever the hell they want. You're a disgrace to democracy.
Brownman retweeted
Your campaign's shenanigans with the Juno debate have cost you your place on my ballot.
Your true colours have been revealed and I will fight against this utter disdain for donors, voters and democracy.
Kelowna! It’s time to defeat the NDP and bring back hope to British Columbia.
RSVP to our campaign rally: winforbc.ca/event/kelownaral…
Brownman retweeted
KELOWNA, B.C. — Caroline Elliott has scheduled a campaign rally for April 8 at the Ramada by Wyndham Kelowna, with doors opening at 6 p.m., directly overlapping with a leadership debate organized by Juno News.
The debate, hosted by Aaron Gunn and Lindsay Shepherd, is expected to feature candidates answering questions in a live, unscripted format aimed at conservative voters.
The scheduling conflict effectively prevents her participation.
That decision lands hard.
Elliott built her campaign on sharp commentary and media presence. She steps into the arena as a communicator. Leadership demands more than controlled messaging. It demands confrontation. It demands exposure.
Her campaign fills rooms with supporters. The Kelowna rally pushes energy and optics. Friendly crowds deliver applause on cue. That environment offers zero resistance. A debate stage delivers the opposite. Real questions. Real pressure. Real risk.
This race remains volatile. Polling shows a narrow lead with a massive undecided bloc watching closely. Those voters expect to see candidates tested. They want contrast. They want clarity under pressure.
Skipping a debate hosted by voices trusted within the conservative grassroots sends a signal. Campaign strength looks conditional. Access looks selective. Confidence looks managed.
#cdnpoli #bcpoli
Brownman retweeted
Mark Carney, Xi Jinping & Michael Ma “Soft Tone” Keeping all that Motherland criticism on the DOWN LOW… Full video drops TOMORROW on YouTube!
Brownman retweeted
It is not too late to be honest, Caroline.
Peter Milobar is the only candidate with a genuine, long-standing scheduling conflict. His team has been working through this process in good faith to try and make it work, and may still be able to.
Your campaign made a different set of decisions.
You initially agreed to the date, the format, and the venue. After that, your campaign moved quickly to purchase large blocks of tickets at the moment they became available, limiting access for others who wanted to attend. (Was this a campaign expense, or dark money?)
When that became clear, we expanded the venue to ensure that no single campaign could dominate the room and that all candidates would be heard in front of a fair and representative audience.
At that point, your campaign withdrew.
You then asked for the debate to be moved to a later date. We considered that request carefully. Consulted other campaigns. (This isn't the Caroline Elliott Show). But we could not move it for you. The reason we couldn't is simple, and was communicated to your team.
This debate is scheduled before the membership cutoff for a reason. 25% of Juno News readers in BC are "not yet, but hope to be" members. Almost 70% already are.
Voters are making decisions right now. They deserve to hear directly from the candidates while those decisions are still being made, not after the fact. Moving it would reduce its relevance to members and diminish its value to the people paying attention.
That is the principle guiding this event.
Most campaigns recognized that and confirmed their participation.
They understand that this is an opportunity to speak directly to engaged voters, in a setting that is fair, open, and accessible.
They are showing up.
Your campaign is choosing not to.
You’ve framed this as a matter of timing and process. From the perspective of voters, it is much simpler.
There is a stage.
There is an audience.
There are questions.
And there is a decision about whether to stand in front of it or cower away.
We are proceeding with the debate as planned. It will be a professional, fair, and substantive forum for candidates to present their ideas and make their case.
The invitation remains open.
If you choose to attend, you will be treated with the same respect and given the same opportunity as every other candidate.
If not, voters will draw their own conclusions.
It is not me running to be Premier of BC. You are. It is not my integrity that is in question here. Yours is.
This looks like playground politics, and you are the one throwing gravel.
There’s a lot of chatter about debate participation. A few things:
1. I’m excited to take part in any & all debates sanctioned by the Conservative Party of BC including the two that are currently scheduled for the end of April.
2. The Juno debate is unsanctioned. Its timing before the membership cut-off date is taking time away from growing the party through membership sign-ups. And it involves candidate(s) who may not even be on the final ballot (major payments are due after the debate date).
3. When we originally agreed to participate, it was due to a misleading communication by a Juno representative (sent on March 12) that *all* other candidates had been confirmed to participate. To be clear: a message was sent to me, directly, saying that “everyone else is confirmed.”
This was untrue.
4. When it emerged that one main candidate had, in fact, *not* agreed to participate, we encouraged Juno to move the debate until after the membership cut-off so as not to be at a disadvantage (taking time to prepare for the debate while a competitor was signing up members).
5. The same Juno representative told us they would consider this. When they came back and said they wouldn’t reschedule, we declined to participate for all of the above reasons - but reiterated that I am (and remain!) happy to participate at a later date.
For now, I’m going to keep doing what I’ve been doing.
Meeting British Columbians all over this province. Hearing their concerns & taking their questions. Getting them excited about change & signing them up. Raising funds. Participating in the two scheduled, sanctioned debates. And - most of all - building a party and a movement that will defeat the NDP.
Brownman retweeted
If we can’t even get people to go to a debate stage without a shit-show happening, we should just forfeit the next election.
Why would we not have a debate before the membership cutoff, now is when people actually want to decide if they want to buy a membership to join the BC Conservatives to vote for a candidate.
@PeterMilobar @NVanCaroline
We should also be supporting Juno news since they are absolutely fantastic in terms of putting out accurate news.
It is not too late to be honest, Caroline.
Peter Milobar is the only candidate with a genuine, long-standing scheduling conflict. His team has been working through this process in good faith to try and make it work, and may still be able to.
Your campaign made a different set of decisions.
You initially agreed to the date, the format, and the venue. After that, your campaign moved quickly to purchase large blocks of tickets at the moment they became available, limiting access for others who wanted to attend. (Was this a campaign expense, or dark money?)
When that became clear, we expanded the venue to ensure that no single campaign could dominate the room and that all candidates would be heard in front of a fair and representative audience.
At that point, your campaign withdrew.
You then asked for the debate to be moved to a later date. We considered that request carefully. Consulted other campaigns. (This isn't the Caroline Elliott Show). But we could not move it for you. The reason we couldn't is simple, and was communicated to your team.
This debate is scheduled before the membership cutoff for a reason. 25% of Juno News readers in BC are "not yet, but hope to be" members. Almost 70% already are.
Voters are making decisions right now. They deserve to hear directly from the candidates while those decisions are still being made, not after the fact. Moving it would reduce its relevance to members and diminish its value to the people paying attention.
That is the principle guiding this event.
Most campaigns recognized that and confirmed their participation.
They understand that this is an opportunity to speak directly to engaged voters, in a setting that is fair, open, and accessible.
They are showing up.
Your campaign is choosing not to.
You’ve framed this as a matter of timing and process. From the perspective of voters, it is much simpler.
There is a stage.
There is an audience.
There are questions.
And there is a decision about whether to stand in front of it or cower away.
We are proceeding with the debate as planned. It will be a professional, fair, and substantive forum for candidates to present their ideas and make their case.
The invitation remains open.
If you choose to attend, you will be treated with the same respect and given the same opportunity as every other candidate.
If not, voters will draw their own conclusions.
It is not me running to be Premier of BC. You are. It is not my integrity that is in question here. Yours is.
This looks like playground politics, and you are the one throwing gravel.
