Debates of Oct. 1st, 2024

Opposition Motion—Request for a Royal Recommendation for Bill C-319

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Lévis—Lotbinière.

We are gathered here today to talk about seniors. Canadian society owes seniors a tremendous debt. Canadian families owe seniors a tremendous debt. Seniors are the ones who built the country we live in, a country that has unfortunately been broken over the past 10 years but that nevertheless makes us proud to be Canadian, prouder than ever, in fact, in the face of the challenges that lie ahead.

Seniors are community builders. It is thanks to them that this country is prosperous, although it is not as prosperous as it could be. We owe seniors our respect.

Madam Speaker, I am sure it is the same in your riding. On weekends, when we meet with charitable groups, when we do the rounds in our ridings, we meet a lot of senior volunteers. Where would our country be without volunteers? It would be even worse off than it has been for the past nine years. Seniors step up. They do all kinds of volunteer work in each of our ridings. We can never thank them enough.

That is why seniors are economically vulnerable. It has been reported that 1.6 million Canadian seniors are low-income. It is especially challenging because they are on a fixed income and inflation has been so brutal for them these past few years.

That inflation was created and fuelled by this government's fiscal irresponsibility. Just a few minutes ago, I heard the Liberal member talk about taking money from here or there. The thing is he is forgetting is that this money is being taken out of taxpayers' pockets. This government has proven over the last nine years that it cannot control its spending. It spends with zero sense of responsibility and thinks that it is no big deal how much it spends, because the budget will balance itself, as the Prime Minister once said.

This government has saddled us with a chronic deficit of over $500 billion. Whenever we buy something, we have to pay the goods and services tax, the GST. Those watching this debate should know that every penny paid in GST goes purely toward servicing the interest on this government's debt. None of the GST goes toward programs to enhance Canadians' well-being. It merely serves to pay for this government's senseless, out-of-control spending. This drives up inflation.

Inflation is one of seniors' worst enemies, given that they live on a fixed income. When inflation surges, as it has over the last few months and years, it has a direct impact on seniors. The Parliamentary Budget Officer and the governor of the Bank of Canada have acknowledged that fact. That is why a government needs to be much more prudent when dealing with public finances.

Earlier, I asked my colleague a question about dividing up seniors. Three years ago, the government tabled a budget that created two categories of seniors: people between the ages of 65 and 74, and people 75 and older. What was its rationale? Why did it divide up seniors? Why did it create one class of seniors that gets more than the other?

Only the Liberals could have dreamt up such an idea. It is so sad to see the impact this has had. I am sad to say that when I chat with seniors and listen to what they have to say, because listening to them is our first duty, some tell me they thought it was very cruel of this government to create these two categories. Why would one senior deserve more than another based solely on their age? After all, they are both retirees.

It is very sad to see this government taking advantage of a situation. It made things worse for many seniors. If it were truly interested in helping seniors, it would have acted completely differently. However, to help seniors, one must understand their reality.

I do not know how many times people 65 and over have approached me in a store or on the street to tell me they wish they could keep working, not full-time, but two or three days a week, so they could keep their hand in, see other people, do some work, contribute to society, and share and pass on their know-how. After spending 40 years at a job, people have knowledge they can share and pass on to the next person, the next generation. They can mentor others two or three days a week.

Unfortunately, today's tax rules penalize work, so some people would rather stay home because going out to work would cost them money. These tax measures could be fixed with the stroke of a pen by a government that really valued work and that wanted to help seniors who are interested in staying active and passing on their knowledge. That is the basis of our party's approach, but unfortunately, it is what the government has been completely denying, especially over the past nine years, despite having the opportunity to do something about it.

We need this kind of mentorship for the next generation. To be honest, when I go to a service business like a hardware store, I tend to gravitate toward the employees with grey hair. I feel like they will be better able to advise me on a purchase, to make sure I am getting the right thing. That is what seniors bring to the table. Penalizing seniors aged 65 and over who want to work two or three days a week is not the right thing to do.

The same goes for fixing the tax measures. In some cases, with the GIS, people get less because they will pay more income tax later on. People often bring this up when we meet on the weekends or when they call my riding office looking for clarification. People should not be penalized. These measures can be corrected with the stroke of a pen in a budget if the will is there. Unfortunately, this government has failed in that respect. Moreover, with the stroke of a pen, it decided to separate seniors into two groups: older seniors and younger seniors.

It is a shame to see that today's seniors are struggling. Every generation has its challenges, but it is important to understand that this generation of seniors has had some very big challenges. Many of them were born during the Great Depression and went through it. They lived through the hardships of war. Although Canada was not invaded, people here still had to suffer through rationing. These are the people who built and created post-war wealth. These are the people who are responsible for the baby boom, the period when families had lots of children, who then contributed to the country's prosperity. The least we can do for seniors is to respect their choices and their lives. Too often, we have seen this government introduce inflationary measures, which have cost seniors dearly. This must be taken into account.

Soon, I expect, when we have a chance to express our opinion on this government and decide Canada's future, people will remember its reckless, out-of-control spending and belief that the budget would balance itself. They will remember that it is going to take us decades to pay that off. Today, our debt has topped over $500 billion, in large part due to this inflationary government, aided and abetted by the Bloc Québécois 189 times. Each time, when confidence in the government hung in the balance, the Bloc Québécois gave the government its support. We saw it do so again recently for the 189th time.

Today, the Bloc Québécois will have an opportunity to vote on another confidence motion.

I can assure you that we, on this side of the House, have no confidence in this government. We will have to wait and see whether the Bloc Québécois will give this government its vote of confidence for the 190th time, or not.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, a number of Conservatives across from me were part of the Stephen Harper government when it made the decision to increase the age of retirement from 65 to 67 in order to collect OAS.

Could the member clearly indicate that former prime minister Stephen Harper and those Conservative MPs at that time made a bad decision, and that in no way will the Reform-Conservative party raise the age of retirement from 65?

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Madam Speaker, unfortunately, I did not have the privilege and the honour to sit with the Right Hon. Stephen Harper. Those were great years for Canada, and we were in a great economic position. Unfortunately, after nine years of the current government, it has destroyed all the good work that was done by Mr. Harper.

My hon. colleague from Winnipeg North talked about the age of eligibility going from 65 to 67. Does he remember Mr. Bill Morneau, the former finance minister of the Liberal government? What did he write in his book a few years before? He said that we should apply for it at 66-year-olds.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague for his speech because there was a lot of content. It is probably because he was speaking to a Bloc Québécois motion. It is also our job to provide content. I am very pleased to hear that.

There was something a little less convincing at the end of his speech, when he was talking about voting. The only answer that I can give him is that when it comes to voting on content and not replacing one party in government with another, we will be there. If it is not good for Quebec and if it is an intrusion, we will be there. There is nothing to worry about.

I would like to come back to the best part of his speech, when my colleague talked about the motion and the respect we owe seniors. I agree with most of what he said. One of the interesting points he made was that the government is penalizing retirees who want to work but cannot. He said that he has met with a lot of them. I have met with a lot of them too. I could even give the names of people who say that if they worked two days, it would be like working for free because their income would be cut.

The bill would increase the exemption from $5,000 to $6,500, but I think other things could be done as well. I invite my colleague to tell me about his party's plans and vision. For example, could a tax credit be established up to a certain threshold that would be complementary to the GIS exemption?

This will be of interest to people aged 65 and over.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Madam Speaker, I think the member is trying to break down a door that we had already opened, meaning that we too want to encourage employment. We want to reward work, not penalize it.

Unfortunately, not only has the current government done nothing for nine years, but it has made things worse with its inflationary policies. Worse still—and the member may not want to hear this, but facts are facts—the Bloc Québécois has voted to support this government 189 times.

How can a sovereignist have confidence in this Liberal government which, just a week ago, asked what purpose the Bloc Québécois serves in Ottawa?

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would agree with one point, that the Liberals have a long way to go before seniors will be able to live with the dignity and respect they need and deserve.

However, one point that the member across brought up was around the fact that the Conservatives, when they were in government, made it harder for seniors to retire by raising the age to access OAS from 65 to 67. I know this was brought up, but I am not hearing a clear response as to why the Conservatives expect seniors across Canada to think that the Conservatives would do any better, when they made the largest cut ever to Canada's public pension system, made retirement more difficult for Canadians and pushed thousands of seniors into poverty. How can the Conservatives justify it, or even think that Canadians would trust them to do any better?

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Madam Speaker, if those members want to know where Canadians are, and if they trust us, they can just call an election and repeat what their leader said three weeks ago, which was that he had no confidence in the government. However, suddenly, when it is time to vote, the New Democrats vote confidence in the government. Shame on them.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to take part in today's debate on the Bloc Québécois motion to pressure the Liberal government. However, if the Bloc Québécois really wants to put pressure on the Liberal government, all it has to do is vote with us, the Conservatives, this afternoon to defeat this government. Otherwise, the Bloc Québécois will continue to be known as the “Liberal Bloc” for some time to come, if not forever. As the saying goes, heaven is blue and hell is red. There is nothing worse than the pact that the Bloc Québécois wants to make, which will hold the public hostage and keep everyone under pressure.

I would like to talk about the Canadian dream. Forty years ago, young, hard-working families were able to settle down, buy a home, start a family, eat well, buy all of the necessities required for a good life and take vacations. All of this was possible thanks to the honest work of honest people who, day after day, got up in the morning to provide for themselves and their loved ones. Unfortunately, for the past nine years, day after day, extreme policies, like the carbon tax and other tax measures, have been taking more and more money out of the pockets of Canadian taxpayers. Now, the work is not worth doing and hard work is not fairly compensated.

People are being penalized for working, because it is costing far too much in taxes, thanks to the Liberal government's inflationary policies and the myriad of expenses that this Prime Minister has incurred in recent years. Despite our best efforts, our country's debt has reached such a level that future generations will be forced to use a lot of the money they earn at work to pay the interest on the debt. All of the revenue from the GST goes toward paying the interest on the debt. That means there is a lot less money to spend on social services.

Let us come back to our seniors. I would like to pay tribute to all of our Canadian seniors who worked all of their lives, who worked hard to give us the Canadian society that we have now. Unfortunately, the Liberal government is undoing all of that work with its bad policies. Our seniors believed that all of the sacrifices that they made over a lifetime of hard work would mean that their children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren would have a good future, a promising future, in Canada. That was the Canadian dream.

Today, the Bloc Québécois is once again using smoke and mirrors by threatening to pressure the government, while knowing full well that it will hypocritically support this incompetent Liberal government yet again. The Bloc Québécois is trapped by its own promise to leave the Liberal government in power because it has issued the October 29 ultimatum. The vote on this Bloc Québécois opposition motion will probably take place on Thursday of this week, and it will not bring down this government. No need to worry, we can rest easy. Because of the “Liberal Bloc”, there will not be an election until October 29.

I would like to point out that the only thing the Bloc Québécois will achieve today is perhaps grab some headlines. It certainly is not defending the interests of Quebeckers and all Canadians. I truly believe that we need a change in government, and that is in the best interests of our country. The Bloc Québécois's pernicious strategy right now is to draw attention to potential electoral gains in the coming weeks and months, unfortunately targeting a vulnerable population. Unfortunately, it still aims to achieve more in the House, but it will never be enough for it to form government. Then again, if it would align itself with the next Conservative government, we could make substantial progress for all Canadians, for the Bloc Québécois and for all Quebeckers.

I am reaching out as I repeat here in the House that, if the Bloc Québécois truly intends to bring down the Liberal government, I invite it to vote with us this afternoon and send a strong message that the Bloc Québécois is ready to work with the next Conservative government for all Canadians and Quebeckers.

The Bloc Québécois makes no secret of the fact that it is a sovereignist party. It has repeated that many times here in the House. Its real dream is to return to Quebec City, to the National Assembly, to go back to its parent company, the Parti Québécois, and work on sovereignty. We must all work together in the interest of all Canadians and the Canadian federation. The Bloc Québécois is merely a refuge for Parti Québécois members when they do not have a lot of seats in Quebec City. We might say that here in Ottawa, the Bloc Québécois is the senate of the Parti Québécois in Quebec.

The Bloc Québécois is being totally hypocritical. It is funded with money from all Canadian taxpayers who have to work hard to serve the entire Canadian nation. This is a huge scandal.

The Bloc Québécois also insists on keeping this government on life support. The treatment is becoming overly aggressive. The Bloc Québécois's attempt at bargaining has very little chance of succeeding. It comes at the expense of Canadians from coast to coast to coast who are calling for real change. The Conservative Party will improve the quality of life of all Canadians, at a time when the rising cost of living is affecting every single person. We are committed to improving the lives of seniors who have worked hard all their lives and deserve to live with dignity. That is why we previously voted to move forward with Bill C-319. However, the fact that the Bloc is now holding it out in exchange for keeping this dying government alive shows it is a political ruse with very little chance of success. If the Bloc Québécois really cared about people, it would instead support a Conservative non‑confidence motion and change the leadership of our country.

However, we in the Conservative Party support the principle that we need equality among seniors and that we have previous generations to thank for this country's prosperity. We owe them nothing less than our eternal gratitude and the means to live a dignified life. Seniors' vulnerability is therefore a very important issue, but the Bloc Québécois's strategy serves no purpose.

Everyone in Canada is struggling right now. Young adults are no longer able to buy their first home because rents have doubled in the past nine years. I am also thinking of the middle class, who are feeling the impact of the carbon tax, and the small business owners affected by the increase in the capital gains tax, which threatens the investments they hope to use as a retirement fund.

The Bloc Québécois must vote to bring down this government, especially since many of its nationalist voters are unhappy that it is using an issue that has nothing to do with Quebec to keep the most centralizing Prime Minister in history afloat. All of a sudden, the Bloc Québécois has forgotten how fiercely anti-Quebec the current Prime Minister has been when it comes to the French language, immigration, respect for jurisdictions, and many other issues.

It is high time to call an election. It is still difficult to understand why the Bloc Québécois is opposed to that. It is either because of its close ties with the Liberals or because of a strong bias against the Conservatives. At the same time, we know how many seats the Bloc Québécois had in the House when we were in power, so we can understand their reluctance. Quebec was respected and even recognized as a nation by the Right Hon. Stephen Harper in 2006. The Bloc Québécois is not unfamiliar with contradictions. This so-called anti-monarchist party is calling for a royal recommendation to move its bill forward. Now the House has seen it all.

A Conservative government will act for the common good of all Canadians by lowering taxes, so that hard work pays off again for our waitresses, truck drivers and plumbers, so that those who work more get more.

We are going to incentivize municipalities to speed up building permits, cut building taxes and free up land for development, while axing the taxes that block construction.

We are going to cap population growth so that the housing stock grows faster than our population.

We are going to fix the budget with legislation that requires the government to find a dollar in savings for every new dollar of spending. We will eliminate consultants, whose excessive fees were supported by the Bloc Québécois. We will eliminate red tape, waste and big handouts to multinational corporations that take money out of our country.

We will also stop the crime, not by banning hunting rifles, as the Bloc and the Liberals want to do, but by cracking down on criminals and strengthening border security.

Finally, we will rebuild the Canadian dream, creating a country where hard work brings home a more powerful paycheque to pay for food, housing and gas in safe communities where anyone can do anything with hard work.

That is our agenda, and that is what we are going to offer Canadians. I urge the Bloc Québécois to use common sense.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, there is plenty of ineptitude I could capitalize on, but I will try to focus.

The member has the audacity to say that today's motion is purely a publicity stunt that serves no purpose, yet his party has pledged to vote in favour of it. I want to thank the Conservative members for voting in favour of seniors today. However, I find it hard to understand how, in a logical speech, a member can stand up and say that this is just a stunt that will serve no purpose and is not in the interests of seniors.

Is the member saying that a 10% increase in the OAS starting at age 65 is pointless? Is that what he is telling me?

I imagine that there are some seniors listening. The member really should answer.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Madam Speaker, if my colleague is actually serious and really wants to put pressure on the Liberal government—which does not seems to have any concerns about the Bloc Québécois—all he has to do is vote with us this afternoon. All he has to do is vote for our motion of non-confidence in the government. It just might give the government a scare.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Madam Speaker, I think that today's debate is much appreciated. I agree that we must support our seniors. I think that since we are marking National Seniors Day today, this is a good debate to have. However, I would like to ask a question. I know that my colleague will not answer my question, but I will still try to ask him a simple question.

Is moving a motion during an opposition day the right way to request a royal recommendation? Is it the right way to ask the government to give a royal recommendation? I would like to know.

I do not always agree with the Bloc Québécois. I like having the 10 provinces and three territories in my country, Canada. I do not agree that we should separate our country, but I know that the Bloc Québécois followed the rules and I just want to know if its way of asking the government for a royal recommendation is the right way.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague's question is highly relevant. Very few precedents exist for private members' bills that received a royal recommendation. If the Bloc Québécois had really been sincere, its motion would have demanded that the government incorporate the spirit of Bill C‑319 in the next budget or in an amendment to the budget. The Bloc Québécois would have done that today if it was serious, but it is only stalling for time. It wants media attention to make itself heard across Quebec.

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, I could not help but notice the member generally has a lot more oomph in his interventions in the chamber, and today it did not seem to be quite as exciting as usual. I was wondering if that might be because of the fact that we know the Conservative Party is threatening to make cuts to necessary supports seniors rely on. Can the member share with the chamber today why the Conservatives are saying that they would cut, for example, the essential diabetes medication and devices many seniors rely on in their day-to-day just to survive?

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I listened to my colleague and I think she made up some fake news. What we are telling Canadians is that we are going to save a dollar for every new dollar we spend on Canadians. That is how every Canadian family manages their own budget, and we are going to do exactly the same across Canada.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, the Conservatives said that they were going to support this motion. It will generate an extra $3-billion expenditure. However, the Conservatives also said that for every new expenditure, they would make cuts.

What are the the Conservatives going to cut to make up for the $3 billion in spending included in this motion?

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Madam Speaker, what we are going to cut is wasteful spending.

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie.

The NDP support the motion because, unlike Conservatives and Liberals, we believe that every Canadian deserves to live with dignity. This callous and cruel Liberal government does not. This patriarchal vision is how the Liberals govern. They hoard and keep resources for themselves, along with their corporate friends and allies, leaving Canadians behind. Most obvious in this patriarchal culture is the cruel perpetuation of the oppression and abuse of indigenous peoples.

On the day after the day to take time to reflect on truth and reconciliation, the calls for justice for murdered and missing indigenous women and girls are still unmet, and women continue to go missing. The killing of indigenous people by RCMP and law enforcement over the past months led to an emergency debate in the House a couple of weeks ago.

Genocide of indigenous people in Canada is well documented. For women, it was about erasing them through death and enfranchisement. Their legal rights, identities and connections to their communities were targeted based solely on their gender, and that continues today. I recently raised in committee a report, which was presented to metro Vancouver-elected officials many years ago, called “Red Women Rising”. The indigenous presenters from the Downtown Eastside of Vancouver said that no indigenous woman should be homeless on her own land, yet that is what is happening today.

Conservatives are no better. Racist John A. Macdonald and the Conservatives created the Indian Act and residential schools. Macdonald is quoted as saying this about his Indian agents: “the agents as a whole…are doing all they can, by refusing food until the Indians are on the verge of starvation, to reduce the expense”. Reducing expense has always been the will and culture of the House when the NDP were not within it. The NDP is the only party that believes everyone is equal in this country and that everyone deserves to share in its abundant resources.

Women and children have always been the targets of white patriarchy and the lack of government investment. Today, when we talk about old age security, it too is rooted in the vision, shared by the Liberals and the Conservatives, of controlling and defining the family. Women are affected by low pensions because the House decided that they should stay home, should not be part of employment insurance, should not be working outside of the home, and were not able to earn an equal income to men. Now, 75 years after the Employment Insurance Act was put into place, women do not have the same rights as men. Women are affected by low pensions because they are not able to earn an income equal to that of men. They work in the not-for-profit sector and in caregiving, which pay much less. Do members know why? It is because they are women's careers, according to patriarchy.

I think about those caregivers, who had reduced earning potential and are now affected by a reduced OAS because they could not earn the same income as a man. I think about the 65- to 74-year-olds who the Liberals have decided do not deserve to have the same pension, do not deserve the measly $73 more that these Liberals are refusing them. They have to wait until they are 75 for that extra $73.

Women took the time and off-ramped their careers to stay at home and raise their families because it was so discriminatory out there in the workforce. My own mother tells the story of when she was pregnant and working in a doctor's office. She was told to rest every day at lunch and had to go and lay down. After her tummy started to show a bump, they told her she could not come to work anymore.

I think now about caregiving and how caregiving has come around. We now know that many people who are aged 65 to 75 are actually working in care homes, caring for elders, and then doing unpaid care at home. The Liberal government thinks that 65- to 75-year-olds should be at work. We did not want them at work in the forties, fifties and sixties, even in the seventies, but we want them at work now. In 2024, we want them at work. It is not acceptable.

StatsCan recently did a study of employment by choice versus necessity for seniors. It broke it up by those 65 to 75 and 75-plus. The Liberals actually did a study on why one should stay at work when one is 65. Through this study, they found that 20% of seniors aged 65 to 74 worked due to necessity. That is good news for the Liberals because now they can say that we need to stay at work, that, because they have made housing and food so expensive, they want us to stay at work.

For immigrant seniors, that percentage is even higher. I will take a moment here to say that the most at-risk people aged 65 to 75 are men who rent. They need to stay at work to keep their housing. It is an absolutely cruel and callous housing policy of the Liberal government's, and the Cons are worse on housing. They lost 800,000 affordable housing units and they want the power back. Forget it. We cannot afford to lose another 800,000 units of housing.

The Cons do not care about people. They voted against dental for seniors. I was just at a dinner this weekend at a church. There was a number of people who approached me to thank me for the dental care program. They have actually been able to get their teeth fixed. The Conservatives are voting against diabetic medication. Have any of them ever had an aging parent with diabetes who cannot afford their medication? It is life-threatening, yet they vote against pharmacare. They voted to deny pensioners aged 65 to 75 their hard-earned pensions while they can take theirs at 55. These Conservatives and Liberals, sitting MPs, when they leave the House, will be able to take their pension at 55.

I think about the leader of the Conservative Party, who has a whole diatribe about pensions right now. That member would take pensions in the millions and has the audacity to come in the House to say that he is not going to feed kids, not going to give us any diabetic medication and not care if we live in a tent. It is not just that. This is gross and sickening: in B.C., the Conservatives are taping people living in tents and putting it out on social media for their own gain. It is absolutely sickening. The Cons want people living in poverty so that they can gain power.

I want to talk about this bill and the royal recommendation needed. I totally agree. The callous and cruel Liberal government would not give a royal recommendation for the Canada disability benefit. How many times have I tried to get the government to provide an adequate income for persons with disabilities with the Canada disability benefit, and it said no? Do members know what the minister and the parliamentary secretary said to me over and over again? They said to keep pushing. It is really shameful. Why does the government need to be pushed for people to live not in poverty?

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, the member across the way is referring to Conservatives in the Conservative caucus by using the word “Con”, which has a very negative connotation to it. It is unparliamentary, and I would hope that she would use the proper terminology, which is “Conservatives”, and correct her statements from now on.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

There is no judgment on whether it is parliamentary or not parliamentary, but I would advise the hon. member to use the proper name for the party.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, on the same point of order, I know that our Conservative friends have found some sensitivity about the abbreviation of their name, which has been known to be in public usage for quite some time. They are the Conservative Party, which is “Con” for short. Anything else is simply ridiculous.

I would encourage them to continue to pay attention—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

Let us just remind ourselves of the proper names of the parties on both sides of the House.

The hon. member for Port Moody—Coquitlam.

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is interesting that every time I have said “Cons” in the House, there is a fury in the back, with them saying, “She shouldn't be saying that.”

The reality is that the Conservatives are the worst users of language I have ever seen. I was disgusted last week with what they said and how they acted in the House. It shows how they care more about how they are being portrayed than actually making sure people are not living in poverty.

I will close by saying that far too many seniors are now unhoused. Medications continue to be expensive, and across Canada, too many seniors cannot afford to pay their costs of living. They are making choices that hurt their health because the Liberal government and the Conservatives are cruel and callous.

The NDP protects seniors and, as a government, we would fix unfair taxation, support seniors with adequate income and support persons with disabilities with adequate income—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

We are out of time.

Continuing with questions and comments, the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader has the floor.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, since 2015-16, the Liberal government and the Prime Minister have been there in a very real and tangible way. We are the only political party in the chamber that has consistently voted in a progressive nature.

I will use this as an example: The Canada disability benefit did not exist until we brought it in, and now the member criticises it because it is not enough. The point is, it did not exist.

We understand and appreciate that we have brought in a multitude of progressive programs. It would be wonderful to be able to give a million dollars to every Canadian. It would be wonderful, but we cannot do that.

Would the member not recognize that, in supporting our seniors, there are direct ways and indirect ways to do it? It is something that we have consistently done from 2015 through to today.

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Speaker, again, there is that whole patriarchal view of who is allowed to keep the wealth. We know that the Liberals have given millions of dollars to their corporate buddies, corporate friends and corporations, but when it comes to people, they are not interested.

I would just remind the member that, if it were not for the NDP bringing forward a unanimous motion to the House to get the Canada disability benefit on the agenda, Canadians would still be waiting.