Thank you, Mr. Chair.
It was my assumption and my belief that all of the parties were committed to 20 hours. As you said, Mr. Chair, we have had a good relationship in the past, so I was counting on that occurring. I certainly made it clear to MP Beech, among others, that 20 hours of testimony was what the Conservatives were expecting. While I certainly was surprised that there weren't meetings scheduled on Monday or even on Saturday or Sunday, which we certainly would have been more than willing to do, my assumption was simply that the chair was going to move back the clause-by-clause study so that we could hear more witness testimony. However, that is obviously not the case.
I would direct to the chair and the clerk that we are given a wide path in what we are able to talk about with respect to a motion. That's meant for, I believe, the very important and very good purpose of promoting democracy. I have certainly been on committees where I've heard Liberal members talk about varied subjects, to which I have patiently listened while perhaps pondering the relevance of the varied issues, but I would certainly never be one to silence the opposition. That's just not how democracy should work.
Quite frankly, I'll remind the members in government that they will not be in government forever, and if they wish to set this precedent, I suspect that it's not a good one for when they will be in opposition. However, that's up to them. The chair's ruling will certainly be on the record if in fact they chose to silence the opposition.
If you want, I am more than happy to talk off the cuff, as it were, with respect to the motion. The motion is, of course, to have an additional 10 hours of testimony.
I have to commend the chair and also the clerks on a terrific job well done. They were able to arrange, in I believe less than 24 hours, 10 hours of testimony, and I believe that could happen again. I know that all parties have provided lists that would more than fill the 10 hours of testimony. I believe that individuals and organizations have even written in. Certainly my inbox was full of individuals, organizations and groups wanting to testify before the finance committee to talk about their various issues and concerns. Ten hours, in my opinion, is just not enough.
I'm surprised that no one has talked about the pre-budget consultation we had, as that did provide the ability for many individuals to talk. The challenge is that those individuals didn't know what was going to be in the budget and weren't necessarily in a great position to provide commentary.
If we want to go back and rewrite history, the reality is that the reason this committee was stalled and stuck in some lengthy debates and discussions was that the deputy leader, Minister Freeland, would not agree to speak for two hours. It's not really my interest to relitigate this debate. However, because it's been brought up by Parliamentary Secretary Beech, among others, I think it's important to note that unfortunately the Minister of Finance has refused to come to committee on three separate occasions. We did not get the opportunity to listen to her testimony, so the Conservatives asked for her to speak for two hours at committee. That is by no means unprecedented. There have been many ministers of finance who have spoken for two hours or more. That seemed very reasonable.
I was actually really stunned by some of the testimony I heard in that short 10 hours. It certainly made me want to hear more. We heard from the food banks, for instance, that individuals at food banks were contemplating medical assistance in dying not because of an illness or injury but because of the status of their personal situation with respect to food and economics. I was absolutely shocked and disturbed when I heard the gentleman from the food banks say—his message to us was quite clear and crisp—that we should be terrified of the situation on the ground. That's a big word to use. I have to commend both individuals from the food banks. They gave some excellent testimony that made me want to hear more.
That testimony was validated, I would say, by the testimony of Philip Cross. Mr. Cross's testimony was extremely well spoken, articulate, intelligent and all based in fact. He said our GDP growth was the worst since the 1930s. Obviously I speak to constituents, so I know that times are tough. Many Canadians are experiencing the worst days of their lives right now. However, to go back to the Great Depression.... That is absolutely staggering. It's staggering.
Quite frankly, maybe that's why the Liberals don't want any more witness testimony. Maybe they've heard enough. Maybe that's why they're refusing to hear another 10 hours, which, at $490 billion, is $50 billion an hour. Surely our time is worth $50 billion an hour. More importantly, the cause of democracy is worth more than 10 hours of testimony.
If we go back to the beginning of this discussion, the Conservatives were clear: We wanted two hours with the Minister of Finance and 20 hours of witness testimony. That is by all means reasonable. In fact, the original motion had us hearing witness testimony on a Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday, and getting those full 20 hours in. However, that seemed to just evaporate.
As I said, the Conservatives agreed to work collaboratively and congenially. We were appreciative of the Minister of Finance staying for the extra half an hour. We appreciated her giving that additional time. It's unfortunate that she didn't provide any answers in that time, especially when I go back to the testimony elicited by my colleague Mr. Chambers, who asked very reasonable questions of the Minister of Finance.
Excuse me, Mr. Chair, I hear paper rattling. I don't know whether there's a microphone not on mute that should be on mute or otherwise. It's a bit distracting.