Mr. Chair, the reason why I'm suggesting reducing it to three is that I'm also looking at the variety of studies that we need to complete and at other things that will come up as well. Following this, there's another study, which we have already passed. That one calls for five meetings. I will have some suggestions to make to deal with that, so then you're looking at—if we go with four—nine meetings already.
There's another motion that I'd like to move to invite the minister to come to give the committee the minister's perspective on their priorities, along with four officials to come and give us an update on the fraud scam for international students, and that's going to take another meeting. We actually have another piece coming up that we can fully anticipate, which is that the minister, as well as officials, will need to come back for a discussion on the immigration levels numbers. That will be coming up this fall.
Then we have the fall economic statement, and then we're into the budget. Also, then, we still have a couple of outstanding items that we have to get through.
We just have a lot of items to get through, which is why I'm trying to save that one meeting. If we do three meetings, even with the minister—the minister and officials—that would take up one meeting, and then we'd have the UN rapporteur for one hour. You'd still have one and a half hours to complete. Then we have to write the report.
The closed work permit issue is very much related to the issue around regularization, so my subsequent suggestion to the committee on the motion that got passed on regularization and we will be studying is that we incorporate the evidence on closed work permits into that study as well. Then, through that study, if there are additional witnesses who want to speak specifically on the closed worker permit item, they would be able to do so under that new study. This is what I propose, just because I think that we don't have a lot of meetings.