All right. We're starting out strong.
I want to make a few comments about this. First, the motion that was referred to in this motion did pass, through unanimous consent by all members around this table, after a wonderful 25-plus hours of a Conservative filibuster, where they were literally filibustering the desire to have the minister appear for two hours while we had a motion on the table to invite the minister to appear for two hours.
In the past, we've generally operated from a position that witness testimony is to be used for the study of the bill, particularly in our clause-by-clause review of the bill. We will note that in that motion, which was passed unanimously, the deadline for amendments was noon Friday. Thank you to all parties for submitting amendments.
In our UC motion as well, in response to questions from MP Ste-Marie, to ensure that we had some testimony on the BIA before we started the clause-by-clause review, we agreed to ensure that 10 hours of witness testimony would be heard that week. While I agree, I would have preferred to hear more witnesses. If Conservatives were in fact sincere in their desire to have more witnesses here on the BIA, the time to start that was in the first week referred to by the motion. Instead, we spent not one but two weeks on the Conservatives filibuster. We sent food banks, chambers of commerce and other important stakeholders home, while listening to something that decidedly, after having listened to it for 25 hours, had actually nothing to do with the BIA.
It strikes me as a bit insincere that our Conservative colleagues actually want to hear from witnesses. If that were the case, they would have let us hear from those witnesses over the last three weeks, as it is stated in the unanimous consent motion that we passed.
I am aware of part (d) of the motion, Mr. Chair, which calls for us to attempt to reach 20 hours of testimony. As you've already mentioned, we've had over 40.5 hours of committee meetings and unfortunately only 10 hours of witness testimony. The rest of the time was filled with a Conservative filibuster. Today we are here fulfilling the next step of that motion that was passed by everyone under unanimous consent, which is to examine it clause by clause. You can see all the binders that are laid out here on the table on this side and I think on all other sides. We were prepared to come here today to do clause-by-clause consideration.
Conservatives want us to believe that they were perhaps in the committee room hiding under the desks, waiting for this meeting to start on Saturday, Sunday, Monday and Tuesday, but of course, I think the fact that we first heard about this particular complaint on Twitter on Wednesday, four or five days after the fact, and the fact that they didn't call you or text you or use any of the normal means to place this objection, speaks to the insincerity of this particular concern.
I would suggest that all members—