I don't want to belabour the point either. I don't speak very often about this type of stuff. The only thing I will say is that in the time I've been here, when I think back to the period of time between 2015 and 2019, there were topics that were quite similar being studied by multiple committees. I think we can all remember those.
To think it's limited or that there are only a certain number of committees that can study a certain thing.... I think as long as there is an overlap or a component to it that it makes sense for you to study.... It's up to the members, obviously, on how they vote. You can study things that are being looked at in other committees, obviously, and it's not limited to two or three or four or 10, to be honest with you. I'll just make that point.
Going forward in our committees, I believe that as we work toward getting to a balanced budget and as we look at the mess that the United States is in, as well as Japan, and as we look at the financial crises in other countries, it could be that it is quite a good use of committees' time to look at the expenses and try to find out ways we can better utilize our funds. The U.S. deficit this year is almost the exact same size as the Canadian economy. Our economy is a bit bigger, but that's how critical it is in the U.S.
The last point I will make—and this is actually in your region, Mr. Chair—is that there was an apartment building approved for funding through CMHC financing, which is good, and it's to build about 300 units, which is good, but one of the criteria for the builder to acquire the lowest interest rate financed through CMHC was that the entire apartment building had to be electrical—the entire thing. There are to be no fossil fuels used at all.
Now, I'm not saying that's wrong; I'm saying that's the fact and that's how the builder obtains the lowest interest rate to build that apartment building.
Where is the problem? The building will be completed—