Mr. Speaker, I think that the hon. member who has just spoken about the reasons why we should maintain the amounts allocated to the Governor General has not really given the matter much thought.
When she speaks of the people who are so pleased to receive medals from the Governor General and to spend time in her presence, I can tell the hon. member that last year I received one of the most prestigious medals from the Governor General.
I would, however, have had no objection to eating ham sandwiches and drinking Seven-Up, instead of savouring wine and other things, if it meant the people of my riding could get enough to eat.
When we know that there are one million children who do not get enough to eat, that there are single parents without social housing, seniors not getting the guaranteed income supplement they are entitled to, I wonder how this member can think that $450,000 can make such a difference.
Will this mean the Governor General will not have a place to sleep? That she will not have enough to eat? That her aides will be able to travel only once instead of three times? No, every time the Governor General takes a trip, they get two or three, because they have to go there ahead of time to look into security matters.
The Governor General does not need that money. It can be put to better use, and I guarantee that, if the hon. member can look me straight in the eye and tell me that the people in her riding would rather see the Governor General have $450,000 more, rather than see it put into social housing, or—