I was just saying that sometimes you can't win in this business. I was simply trying to compliment colleagues across the way. I suppose that's how it is. That's fine. I have very thick skin.
I am keeping within the scope of what's been proposed. Again, just in case colleagues have forgotten what exactly the amendment is all about, Canada is in a housing crisis. Again, to Mr. Aitchison, who said that I didn't embrace that, no. What I just described and what the amendment looks at and recognizes is that the committee should undertake a study of co-op housing and affordable housing. Well, how could we actually have a serious study of housing if we didn't look at those things?
I opened it up to committee members to say whether they wanted to look at the importance of non-market housing or of rent-geared-to-income housing, to be more specific than what the original amendment on my side proposed. If committee members want to go down that path, then I would be open to a subamendment to that effect; that's quite fine with me.
I have a hard time understanding, Mr. Chair, how we could actually have a serious meeting when we would bring back the minister again to share with us the many actions that the government is taking to address the crisis at hand. I would like to hear them, of course, and I think opposition members should hear them, because oftentimes they overlook that aspect or are not aware of it. I'm not sure.
However, the meeting with the interim CEO is not something that.... I think Mr. Long has something to add on these points as well, so I won't belabour the point, but I don't see how bringing the interim CEO here will do very much.