Just to clarify, the member opposite is looking for an update and a sort of check-in to see where it's going. We are aware that having two meetings a week is critical, just because of estimates and the studies that we have forecast. I am in agreement on a check-in for a one-hour component of a meeting if we get those two meetings a week and if we have time to bring in the minister and CMHC officials to update the committee on where we stand heading into the new year. We hope to do that. We want to do that. I have no problem trying to get that done, but I am fully aware and respectful of the fact that the subcommittee and now the committee have chosen to stage the urban and rural northern study, the EI study and a thorough study of the rapid housing initiative.
We will make every effort, if there is time in the schedule, to bring the minister and CMHC forward to update the committee on where that program stands, how the dollars are being spent and who's being supported. We think that's consistent with the will of the committee. If it can't be worked out, I respect the decision of the subcommittee, but I also respect the good intentions that Mr. Vis has brought forward to have a check-in as soon as we have data. We will endeavour to do that.
I can come back to the committee when we have that. I certainly can come back to the committee and bring the minister if an hour can be made available in a very tight schedule. The real enemy here is the schedule. Our intent is to honour his request.