If I may, I think there's an easy and obvious answer to your question.
Certainly there's a way to distinguish it. Instead of completely removing the tax on the donation of real estate, reduce it. Instead of to zero, reduce it to something less than that.
This was the situation with public securities prior to the complete removal of it under Prime Minister Martin. I think there's an obvious parallel. Eventually it was completely removed, and I think that was partially, I would imagine, a result of some study behind the scenes that said that was the right way to go.