Thank you very much.
As is often the case, I agree wholeheartedly with what Madame Vignola has stated. She is the voice of reason, oftentimes, on this committee.
I agree wholeheartedly. We have a slew of studies that we've begun. We keep adding to those studies. We have hardly finalized a single one. That's the challenge. Our average is quite low in terms of the ones we've completed. Canada Post comes to mind, and there is shipbuilding, McKinsey, ArriveCAN, outsourcing, red tape, diversity in procurement outsourcing. There are probably a dozen more that we've started and haven't finished.
I would focus our efforts on the tasks at hand. Let's complete those studies before we open up a completely new front. I think it's important.
Picking up on what my colleague also stated, on the issue of housing and the issue of looking at office holdings and converting them into housing, for example, the HUMA committee has already done two studies. I think they're on their third housing study in the last year. The HUMA committee completed a study on the financialization of housing, in which they looked at housing from a number of different perspectives. They had 29 witnesses and 41 briefs studying the housing issue. They're conducting right now, as we speak, a federal housing investment study, looking at all the ways the federal government can make investments and change policy to maximize housing. If you're talking about housing, HUMA is the place to talk about federal surplus lands and converting that into housing. It really belongs in the HUMA committee. It doesn't belong here.
In terms of the work of PSPC, as I understand it, PSPC and Treasury Board are working on looking at inventory of public land holdings and working on a management plan or a strategic plan.
With regard to moving this motion today, again, I wholeheartedly agree with what Madame Vignola has stated: It is premature. For that reason, I move that we adjourn debate.