Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I agree with Mr. Liepert. I think last year's process worked well in finding that balance between starting the prestudy and actually getting the bill. The rationale for that, as Ron pointed out, is that there is certain witness testimony that we know we're going to have. We know we're going to have officials. We know we're going to have the minister. As to how that timing sorts out, the subcommittee can certainly look at it as well.
I think the risk we run into is that if we don't start on some of that work, knowing that the bill will get to us and looking at the calendar, it could mean extended sittings and cramming lots of witnesses in at once. I think we can all agree that's not always the most productive, although we have done it when we've had to. If we can start with some of this prestudy work, it would probably allow us to get better testimony and for all of us to be better prepared for the bill without having to sit all hours of the evening to get through it, given our calendar.
I do not think this is a repeat of the pre-budget hearings, to Mr. Albas' point, but I do think we can really focus and figure out how best to schedule this. Thinking about it now, it does allow us that opportunity as well for us to put out notice to the witnesses who might want to appear. Then we can determine whether to break it down into four areas or more, whatever the case may be, and we can start planning that now.
As Ron also pointed out, we have the time available in the calendar. We should put it to good use and get started, because it is quite comprehensive. We saw that last year. This is a bill that will require a lot of our time and work, and I think we should get started as soon as we can.