I would propose a motion.
I don't want to lock you, as chair, into any specific dates at this point. I think we would trust you to determine, with the clerk, the availability on these different things. I think there's consensus with regard to the milk proteins discussion. Maybe if different members have different suggestions in terms of who would be good witnesses, we can all feed that in. If we had a panel of people for two hours, I think that would be sufficient, at least to get the understanding of what the issues are.
I think the supplementary estimates can be boring for members, but I think it's a responsibility to review the supplementary estimates of every department. We have a responsibility to do that before March 21, because they need to be reported back. If we don't do that, then they're deemed reported without our having looked at them, which we don't want to have happen. I think we could fit in those two different meetings between March 7 and March 9.
If there's a willingness, and I'm sensing there might be, we can start on a study with regard to the impacts and the benefits—we can wordsmith whatever the consensus of the committee will be—of the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the impact and benefits for Canadian agriculture. Different stakeholders in every part of this country have different views on the TPP. They have the text. The minister has said that we're going to have comprehensive hearings. I think we could play an important role in doing that.
We could maybe meet as a subcommittee. We might take half a meeting for supplementary estimates, and then for half a meeting we'd do an in camera subcommittee meeting and start to put some meat on the bones of what a study might look like.
That's what I would propose. I'm happy to consider any amendments or thoughts with regard to that idea, but I think that might be a constructive way to move forward.