Thank you, Mr. Chair.
We did indeed debate this at the last meeting. I would remind you that I agree the committee should meet each minister for an hour. The initial motion proposed appearances of two hours for each minister. That's too long.
At the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, our work involves several departments, including the Minister of Labour and Seniors, the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Official Languages, the Minister of Housing, Infrastructure and Communities and the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development. It wouldn't be the first time that the committee received several ministers in order to question them. It has been done before. Having six ministers is a bit much, but it is part of our committee's terms of reference. I believe all these areas are important.
I therefore disagree with the amendment that has been moved. As I previously said, a period of one hour with three ministers would be too short to ask them about their mandate letters, which we haven't seen, and about expenditures for renewal. I therefore disagree with the proposal to have three ministers appear in a single hour. I believe we wouldn't have the required latitude to exercise our democratic mandate to question ministers.
Our committee has many responsibilities. We already received the Minister of Housing, Infrastructure and Communities. We know how important this is. However, there are other ministers who have to be met to talk about matters like work, employment and the family. I believe it's fair to suggest that each should come for an hour.
Accordingly, I will vote against the amendment.