Okay. My apologies. I'm pretty sure I heard something.
What we were talking about at the very beginning of this budget process—and Conservatives were clear—was that we wanted two things: 20 hours of testimony and two hours of Minister Freeland's time. We were hopeful that she would engage in a meaningful way and answer simple questions like what the total transfer payments for health were and what the interest payments were. She refused to answer those questions. At least she gave us an hour and 20 minutes or an hour and a half. I'm sure the clerk could tell us exactly how long she was here. We did appreciate her staying for the extra time, but we were still short on what we asked for, which was two hours. I still believe that is an incredibly reasonable request. However, we decided that we'd move ahead. One act of good faith needs to be repaid with another act of good faith, so let's carry forward.
We were certainly under the belief that we would have at least 20 hours of testimony before we would go to clause-by-clause. As I said, I know it's short notice, but the clerks were able to move mountains and get 10 hours in a couple of days, yet in the intervening four or five days, they weren't able to get any, which to me seems strange. As I said, it seems like resources are always there when it's in the Liberals' favour, but when it's not, those resources are not there.
What Conservatives wanted was just to hear more people speak, 10 more hours. This is not a wild request. We're not asking for months and months of debate, or years, or even days. We're asking for hours here. We're asking for 10 more hours of discussion.
I have to say, I think the testimony was really excellent, and there were high-quality discussions. I can't, for the life of me, think why anybody wouldn't want to hear more of those discussions. I go back to Mr. Cross when he was talking about the economic record of this government. It has presided over the lowest GDP growth numbers per capita since the Great Depression. If that's not disturbing, and if that doesn't wake people up and merit more discussion, I don't know what does. With the GDP, it's numbers and data, but it is what's driving the underlying issues that our country and many of us are facing. We heard that it's driving those food bank numbers and that the number of people who are employed and using food banks has doubled.
One of the other stats that were just shocking to me was that one in 20 people in Mississauga has to use food banks. Food banks are hopefully there to be of transitory assistance. Bad things can often happen to good people—issues can happen, or restructuring can happen with employers—and people doing all the right things can get side-swiped by some of the challenges of life. There's certainly no doubt about that. Thank you to all the charitable organizations, including food banks, that are there to help people who get side-swiped by some of life's misadventures and challenges.
However, what is just as troubling, or even more troubling than the transitory use of food banks, is that people who are locked into using them are employed right now. Usually, the solution to not having to rely on food banks and on charity is to obtain employment, but 30% of the people using food banks already have that employment. What is the solution for those people? Normally, the door or the escape hatch out of poverty is employment. Inflation and the cost of living are such that this no longer guarantees a ticket out.
Those issues are worsened by, as I was talking about in the report, the marginal effective tax rate, where we see that folks who are going to work will experience clawbacks and taxation equivalent to as much as 80¢ on the dollar.
If you're a person who's been side-swiped by one of the challenges of life, been pushed down by one of the terrible things that can happen in life—good people, bad events; bad things happen, as I said, every day to great people—your ladder back up economically is often employment, and now it's as if this government has cut that ladder. Nearly half—well, not nearly half but getting close to half—or at least a third of folks using food banks have that employment. They have gone up the first rung of that ladder, but they're still not out of poverty because this government's inflation agenda has driven the cost of living so high that even people with reasonable jobs or good employment are still in poverty. The math is out there. On clawbacks, you're giving up 50¢ per dollar.
As for rent, in my neck of the woods, in Cobourg and Port Hope, you can't find an apartment—if you can find any at all—for less than $2,000 a month. That means that if you're earning $50,000 a year—which used to be a good, solid wage in our country—already you have lost half of your income to housing.
We're then seeing food inflation creep up, and the cost of food is eroding that paycheque even further. Food inflation has been up 10% every month for the last eight or nine months. It's easy to spend $5,000 to $10,000 on food, especially if you're a family. Now you've gone from $24,000 to $34,000. The government has probably taken around $8,000 or $9,000—let's call it $10,000—so now we're up to $44,000 and all we have is a house and food, much less all of the other costs associated with life, such as clothing, transportation and other assorted fees.
Then the government decides—