28

Patrick Brown Maverick Watch

Why a Conservative MP is now an honorary firefighter


 

While the rest of us were more interested in other matters of MP independence, Conservative MP Patrick Brown was named an honorary firefighter by the International Association of Fire Fighters this week, in honour of his efforts to help pass a Liberal motion last fall that called for a “Public Safety Officer Compensation Benefit.”

Brown laid down the party mantle and fought for M-388 to be adopted. The bill provides assistance for a firefighter’s family if he/she is killed or becomes permanently disabled while on the job. Canadian firefighters have been fighting for the security that American firefighters have had for 20 years in knowing their families will be taken care of, should they no longer be able to do so.

“It’s close to home for us because we lost Bill Wilkins in the line of duty. You have to negotiate a payout (now),” said White, which can be tough for a grieving family. “At least we will know our families will be taken care of.” Wilkins was killed in a house fire in 2002. Since then Brown has held an annual chilifest to raise money for a scholarship fund honouring Wilkins.

Brown said M-388 was simply the right thing to do. “The party whips were surprised when they lost that vote about three months ago,” Brown recalled.

The Harper government opposed the motion on the grounds of jurisdiction and cost, but 18 Conservative backbenchers voted in favour.


 

Patrick Brown Maverick Watch

  1. Why does this government hate the firefighters?

  2. An MP who supports something that’s just plain right. Good for Patrick Brown.

    • I’d say! Good for Patrick Brown, the CPC MP. And the 18 other CPC MP’s who did the same when the voting counted.

      How many NDP voted in favour of the Terrorist Bill yesterday? Or were all NDP MP’s against the motion? I don’t think we will ever find out about that one!

      • You probably will if you look up hansard…sigh

        • So, this means you won’t be ‘nice’ to me; no chance of getting the question of the request from you. But I understand; you are not the writer or the article above: Wherry is.

          I think Wherry should have played it ‘nice’ by having included the question, no?

          Does it not bother you that some things are left out of Wherry’s articles? In this case, relevant information, to be sure!

          • You know what a rational person would do? He/she would go and get the info themselves and say, aha Wherry, why didn’t you post this? Other people do it, why can’t you? You’d rather sit here and whine all day about what a shill Wherry is.

          • Thank you for reading my posts. And I’m sure Wherry is impressed with your loyal support.

          • Did you ask him, or is that something you feel entitled to assume as well?

          • No I did not ask Wherry is he is impressed by your loyal support.

            And so yes, I made an assumption.

            Making assumptions is not being questioned when Macleans writers do it? Have you read Macleans Jesse Brown’s article of today entitled:

            “Is Harper exploiting cyberbully panic to reboot the Internet spying bill?”

            Are you ok with that sort of assuming before the beginning of a debate?

          • It’s a question you fool. That’s why there’s one of these ? tacked on the end.

          • I’m so sorry. Now I understand much better. Thank you for such great insight.

            Wherry is impressed by your loyal support, not?

            Could Wherry be any more impressed by your loyal support??

            How could Wherry not be impressed by your loyal support?

            May Wherry count on your loyal support in the near future?

          • Is,could,How, may…You forgot should or does or will or shall or must. Did i miss any?

          • Should Wherry be impressed by your loyal support?

            Should Wherry be less impressed with your loyal support?

            When was Wherry not impressed with your loyal support?

            I will try and find some more possibilities if I have the time.

          • Yeah, i heard parrots live almost forever.

          • Should you not say:

            Did you hear that parrots live almost forever?

            Because how could you be sure. Or is heresay also allowed when doing the assuming?

          • Wherry no doubt appreciates your loyal support, Francien.

            1426 comments on Macleans, 18th most prolific Macleans commenter overall. People reading his blog no doubt ensures his employment.

          • Isn’t it fun!

            (Oh, kmc2 has told me that you are not supposed to do the assuming without a question mark attached at the end. So, according to kmc2, you should have said: “Would Wherry not appreciate your loyal support, Francien? You can form the question in any form possible, but make sure it is a question……………………… :)))))

          • And the more they squawk, they longer they live. Or maybe it just feels like a long time.

      • Precisely the same number of NDP MPs voted in favour of it as Con MPs voted against it.

  3. Kudos to Patrick Brown for being independent of mind. And you say that 18 other CPC MP’s were independent of mind likewise when voting on that motion!..

    Now, when was the last time 18 members of the LPC or the NDP voted against party wishes? How far and how deep would Wherry have to dig for coming up with answers to that one?

    (Sorry, I forgot; Wherry does not really answer questions.)

    • You’re an admitted troll on this site who isn’t paying Wherry.
      Why on earth would he bother doing your bidding?

      • I have never asked Wherry to do my bidding. I am asking Wherry to include the necessary information to make a reasonable debate possible.

        • How is that information necessary?

          I mean, other than for your pathetic attempt to distract from the fact that the CPC party in general is against supporting the family of a fire-fighter if he was killed or permanently disabled in the line of duty?

          • Oh, another Liberal or NDP campaign slogan:

            The CPC (‘party’ is already mentioned within the name!!) in general! is against supporting the family of a firefighter!

            Good one. It may work. Give it a try.

          • Right, so you don’t have any reason why the information you want is necessary.

          • C(onservative) P(arty) of C(anada).

  4. I would be very wary of relying on the reporting of the Barrie Advance’s Laurie Watt. Watt erroneously refers to the motion as a ‘bill’ and says it ‘provides assistance for a firefighter’s family’ even though, as private members’ business, it cannot require the government to spend money. If you look at the bottom of the article, you’ll notice that, unlike most articles on the site, comments are not allowed. Watt’s many articles promoting Patrick Brown rarely quote anyone but Brown himself. Watt offers no evidence to corroborate Brown’s role in the passing of the motion, and Hansard reveals that Brown did not speak on the motion when it was debated in the House of Commons on October 4, 2012 and November 19, 2012.

  5. Someone who votes 99.29% with his own party is hardly a maverick. Even if Brown does vote for the odd opposition motion, what does he have to lose? He’s into his third term as an MP still hasn’t even been elected to chair a committee. Brown is noted for being one of the most prolific spenders on partisan junk mail and for taking a lot of trips abroad (more than $50,000 worth of ‘sponsored travel’) when Parliament is not in session. Even when Parliament is in session, Brown doesn’t seem too interested. This January, when the rest of Canada’s MPs returned to Parliament, Patrick Brown was in Las Vegas playing hockey at Wayne Gretzky’s $12,000 hockey fantasy camp.

Sign in to comment.