Mr. Speaker, I listened intently. I will be honest with you. I wanted to stand up and just ask relevance as to this artificial indignation of a speech that this individual, this hon. member, just delivered. We are on a subamendment to a question of privilege related to SDTC. We did not hear any of that come from the hon. member, yet they say they have respect for the chamber.
She refers to kids starving, yet the Conservative Party of Canada refuses to support a tax-free, means-tested Canada child benefit that is lifting hundreds of thousands of kids out of poverty. They voted against a national food program that the chamber advanced. Can we guess what? Premier Ford, the Conservative Premier of Ontario, just signed on; his province is the third to do so. He said he can get behind this. The only people who cannot get behind Canadians seem to be those in the Conservative Party of Canada.
Therefore, when she refers to not one area of this country functioning, I will just say quickly that I will always fight for constituents in Waterloo. That member and the member who spoke before her have been told that they cannot actually support their municipalities and fight for housing, and that is why there are parts of this country that are dysfunctional. In Waterloo, I will fight for constituents, both those who agree with me and those who do not.
Today, we are referring to this question of privilege. The Speaker's ruling states, referring to the paragraph before, “I believe the best way for this to be achieved would be to follow the usual course for a prima facie question of privilege, that is, a referral to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.”
Does the member agree with and support the Speaker's ruling?