SoVote

Decentralized Democracy

Member of Parliament

Colin Carrie

  • Member of Parliament
  • Conservative
  • Oshawa
  • Ontario
  • Voting Attendance: 67%
  • Expenses Last Quarter: $112,288.05

  • Government Page
Context: House Hansard - 321 - May/30/24
Mr. Colin Carrie (Oshawa, CPC)
  • May/30/24 9:02:34 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe how easy it is to fool the NDP. We heard the NDP member stand up to talk about universal pharmacare. We have this bill in front of us, and it is covering two important things, which are contraception and medication for diabetes, but it is being promoted as universal pharmacare. What does my colleague from Edmonton think Canadians are going to think about this? Again, this is another promise that is not being fulfilled, but the way it is being presented is really deceptive. What does he think Canadians are going to think about that?
100 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 321 - May/30/24
Mr. Colin Carrie (Oshawa, CPC)
  • May/30/24 7:13:24 p.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Mirabel for a very well-thought-out speech. I come from Ontario, and the Conservative Government of Ontario has something called the Ontario drug benefit program. The member is aware of, and quite rightly pointed out, the jurisdiction of the provinces. The pharmacare program that the government is bringing forward is not really a pharmacare program. It is like an announcement. It does not cover most of the drugs that the provincial plans cover. No Canadian, no Ontarian, wants a worse plan that would cover less. Perhaps the federal government would only cover certain medications. Could the member explain to the Liberals and the NDP a little more about the jurisdictional issues that they are dealing with, and what people on the ground in his community are really asking for?
139 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 200 - May/18/23
Mr. Colin Carrie (Oshawa, CPC)
  • May/18/23 11:44:20 a.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his very sincere speech, because this is about real people. I would like to share with him that in my family we have struggled with this. I want to discuss what he accuses us of, which is strict dogma. The term “safe supply” was a marketing term by Purdue Pharma in order to get people to feel these opioids are safe. In the case in my family, it was not street drugs, it was prescription drugs. There may be less dangerous ways of managing them, but they are not safe. They are dangerous and they kill people. A friend of mine who runs a recovery clinic said that with the Liberal approach the challenge is addicts are drowning. He said when they come in to see him it is like he pulls them out of the water and asks if they are okay. They say that they are and they thank him very much, and then he throws them back in for another day. If he listened to our leader's speech, we were talking about recovery communities. Get them off the opioids and give them hope for the future. Does he agree the Liberal approach is not working and we have to invest in recovery and treatment in order to make a real difference? Nobody wants to be an addict. No family wants to lose a member because of this addiction.
243 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border