Thank you, Mr. Chair.
There are a couple of things I'd like to propose to improve the motion. I don't have the exact wording necessarily hammered out for an amendment, just couple of principles.
I think we should say “no less than twenty hours” because I think it's better if we're able to do more hours of study. I know we've hit around the 20-hour mark on budget implementation acts in this Parliament, but I think being able to exceed that is better given the size of those bills.
We should exclude from those 20 hours the appearance by the minister and departmental officials. I think we need to make as much room as possible for the voices of Canadian stakeholders in the course of this study. Of course, it's going to be up to the committee to decide. It will be the committee doing the work in this case. I won't be around for it.
Having one-hour panels with a witness from each party would be a good way to do it. With twenty hours, that would mean up to 80 witnesses who are not government officials, which I think gives the committee a lot of room to hear from a wide cross-section of Canadian voices.
Those are the three improvements I would suggest. As I said, I don't have that in writing, but I hope it's clear enough that it's sufficient for the deliberation of the committee.