I wanted to weigh in on this. I made a couple of notes as the conversation was happening.
To the Chair, you mentioned the idea of “subject to the ministers' availability”, which we hear fairly regularly in committee. I did a bit of math. Between now and the end of the week of the 19th, there are 336 hours. We're looking for one hour from each of these ministers. I would presume that the ministers' offices can find an hour for their ministers to appear before the committee. I'm glad to hear from them any time between the 19th and the 23rd. There's a whole week.
We should be able to resolve the availability issue, given that the Prime Minister has referred to this legislation as the “most consequential” legislation in decades. I'm sure he'll free up his ministers to appear before our committee to deal with this.
Ms. Desrochers brought up the 20 hours or whatever for the committee to study this. The point I would make is that ministers are pretty important to this conversation. If we're going to get the most out of witness testimony, hearing from the ministers who are directly involved in the legislation for an hour each will be pretty important. If we could extend it from 20 hours in total to 23 hours in total, it would ensure that we give enough time to each of the ministers to weigh in.
I think 104 of the clauses are related to Minister Dabrusin's portfolio. There are 300-plus clauses. I think 57 are related to Minister Hajdu's portfolio. To have each of them on their own for an hour before the committee, taking questions and having the chance to explain the portions of the legislation related to their portfolios, would be pretty important for Canadians, broadly, to have an understanding of this legislation, which the Prime Minister refers to as the “most consequential” legislation in decades.