Finance Committee on May 8th, 2019

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

I'd like to call the meeting to order.

I apologize to the witnesses for the confusion. It looks like there will be more votes today, but we are where we are.

For the purposes of the record, we are dealing with the order of reference of April 30, 2019 for Bill C-97, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 19, 2019 and other measures.

We'll start with the witnesses, and please keep your remarks as close to five minutes as possible, beginning with the Canadian Alliance to End Homelessness and Mr. Richter, the president.

Go ahead.

[Tim Richter, President, Canadian Alliance to End Homelessness]

Good afternoon. Thank you for the opportunity to speak on Bill C-97.

This afternoon I'd like to speak briefly about the national housing strategy act contained within Bill C-97 and the right to housing.

For most Canadians, a home is something we take for granted. Unfortunately, for far too many Canadians, the lack of housing is a matter of life and death. Homelessness is experienced by 235,000 different Canadians every year, at an estimated cost of over $7 billion annually. Homelessness in Canada is on the same scale as our worst natural disasters, but unlike those disasters, homelessness is man-made.

Homelessness as we see it today has not always existed. Modern mass homelessness in Canada is a result of policy choices made largely by the federal government in the late 1980s and 1990s, specifically, decisions to eliminate affordable housing programs.

The national housing strategy begins to reverse those choices. Embedding the right to housing in the national housing strategy act as federal policy will ensure not only that Canada places in law important protections for vulnerable Canadians, but also that we can hardwire into the national housing strategy measures that will make it more effective.

The national housing strategy act makes a policy commitment to the progressive realization of the right to housing, consistent with the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights; creates an independent housing advocate supported by the Canadian Human Rights Commission; establishes a national housing council with explicit inclusion of people with lived experience of homelessness and inadequate housing; and commits to ensuring the participation of affected communities.

However, as it's written, the national housing strategy act lacks essential elements of a workable human rights accountability framework. Some additional elements need to be added for the legislation to implement an effective, rights-based approach, as promised when the national housing strategy was introduced in November 2017 and as required to bring Canada in line with international human rights standards.

We've been in ongoing conversations with the government and parliamentarians on a few simple amendments so that the national housing strategy act would establish a monitoring role for the housing council that does not simply provide advice, but tracks progress on implementing the progressive realization of the right to housing; that mandates the housing advocate to receive and investigate petitions identifying systemic housing rights issues and assess progress on the progressive implementation on the right to housing; that makes specific recommendations to the minister that the minister must respond to; and that establishes a procedure for the housing advocate to refer important systemic housing rights issues to public hearings before a three-person panel drawn from the housing council, ensuring that affected groups have a voice and that the panel's recommendations will be considered by the minister.

Legislation implementing a rights-based national housing strategy provides a historic opportunity for the federal government to address as a priority critical human rights issues at home and, at the same time, to provide leadership on human rights internationally.

This is the first time in Canada's history that legislation recognizing the right to housing has been introduced, and it's critical that we take the time to do it right. In the national housing strategy act, the government provides an historic policy commitment to the right to housing, but that commitment must include mechanisms to ensure that this historic policy commitment is meaningfully implemented.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Thank you very much, Tim.

Turning to the Canadian Art Museum Directors Organization, we have Ms. McCaffrey, executive director, and Mr. Le Moine, legal counsel.

Go ahead.

[Moira McCaffrey, Executive Director, Canadian Art Museum Directors Organization]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Chair and members of the Standing Committee on Finance, the Canadian Art Museum Directors Organization-Organisation des directeurs des musées d'art canadiens, or CAMDO-ODMAC, represents close to 85 art museum directors who lead a diversity of visual arts institutions situated across Canada. Our mission statement asserts that “CAMDO-ODMAC strengthens the ability of Canadian art museum and public art gallery directors to champion art and its significance in society.” It's in this spirit that we address the committee today.

CAMDO-ODMAC is a lean organization, with a volunteer board and one employee; that would be me. Today I'm joined by François Le Moine, a lawyer specializing in art law with the firm Sarrazin Plourde, who was mandated by our board to prepare the museum's intervention in the appeal case.

Last June a Federal Court decision by Justice Manson regarding the application of the Cultural Property Export and Import Act had a significant impact on art museums and galleries in Canada that have an international collecting mandate. The following discussion provides an overview of that discussion and its impact. That includes CAMDO-ODMAC's decision to coordinate an intervention in the appeal of the Manson decision and the April 16 decision of the Federal Court of Appeal in which the Manson decision was set aside.

The Canadian Cultural Property Export Review Board, known as CCPERB, is an independent administrative tribunal constituted by 10 cultural property experts. Under the act, CCPERB is mainly responsible for granting export licences and certifying cultural property for tax purposes. On July 13, 2017, CCPERB rendered a decision on an export licence for Iris bleus, jardin du Petit Gennevilliers, painted in 1892 by French Impressionist painter Gustave Caillebotte. The request for the permit was filed by Heffel Gallery Limited in order to export the work to the United Kingdom after it was acquired by a British commercial gallery during a public auction in Canada. CCPERB decided that the painting met the two criteria of “outstanding significance” and “national importance”, commonly referred to as the “OS/NI” framework, and thereby delayed the granting of the export licence by six months, a period during which a Canadian institution could offer to buy the artwork.

Heffel applied for judicial review of CCPERB's decision by the Federal Court. On June 12, 2018, Justice Manson of the Federal Court found that CCPERB's decision was not “reasonable”. In particular, Justice Manson wrote that the board had misinterpreted the second criteria of “national importance”, and preferred a much narrower definition requiring:

...a direct connection to Canada, such as having been recovered in Canada, made in Canada, made by a person who once resided in Canada, or otherwise having some relation to Canadian history or a Canadian theme or subject.

As a result, the Federal Court quashed CCPERB's decision and referred it back to the board for reconsideration.

Regarding the impact on cultural institutions, the Federal Court ruling placed serious restrictions on the ability of Canada's art museums and galleries, as well as libraries and archives, to have non-Canadian works of art certified by CCPERB as cultural property. Given the structure of the act, the OS/NI criteria are not merely used for export permits. They are also the criteria that govern the granting of tax benefits to those who give works deemed cultural property to a Canadian institution. In other words, following the Manson ruling, a Canadian museum, art gallery, library or archive was far less likely to be able to offer tax benefits to potential donors who wished to donate non-Canadian works. As a result, there was considerable risk that owners of such works would prefer to sell their property on the international market, which would trigger a decrease in gifts of such works to Canadian institutions.

For more than 40 years, and given the very restricted acquisition budgets of many museums, this system has been the main method by which Canadian institutions have acquired works of art. This is demonstrated by the number of major international art donations currently in public collections that have been certified for tax purposes under the act. In addition, donations made under the act contribute to creating educational programs aimed at all audiences; to advancing knowledge, including university research; and to facilitating the negotiation of loans for temporary exhibitions. The tax incentive system thus contributes to Parliament's objectives of preserving and enhancing cultural heritage in the interest of the Canadian public.

On July 11, 2018, the Attorney General of Canada filed an appeal before the Federal Court of Appeal. Responding to members' concerns, CAMDO-ODMAC coordinated the preparation of a motion for leave to intervene in the appeal.

On March 19, 2019, the Minister of Finance announced amendments in the 2019 budget to the Cultural Property Export and Import Act and corresponding provisions in the Income Tax Act. Overall, this is very good news for Canadian cultural institutions, as it would no longer be necessary to demonstrate that cultural property donations meet the criterion of national importance, specifically “such a degree of national importance that its loss to Canada would significantly diminish the national heritage”, in order to qualify for tax incentives.

On April 16, 2019, art museums and galleries received excellent news. The Federal Court of Appeal rendered its decision in Canada v. Heffel Gallery. The judgment set aside the Federal Court ruling and reinstated CCPERB's decision from July 13, 2017. This was the outcome we were hoping for, and it stands as a major victory for art museums and galleries across Canada.

In closing, Canadian art museums and galleries are mandated to collect work of national significance. Many are also mandated to collect and showcase global art and heritage for the Canadian public and for future generations. The Cultural Property Export and Import Act has made it possible, over the course of its 40 years of application, to acquire major artworks, artifacts, archives, books, etc., many of which are acknowledged masterpieces that would have been sold or otherwise given to non-Canadian institutions. We are both reassured and extremely pleased that the ability of art institutions to continue fulfilling their mandates is now protected by the amendment in the budget bill and the recent ruling of the Federal Court of Appeal, which reverses the Manson decision.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Thank you, Ms. McCaffrey.

Next we have Ms. Stephens, assistant general counsel at the Canadian Bankers Association.

Welcome. The floor is yours.

[Sandy Stephens, Assistant General Counsel, Canadian Bankers Association]

Thank you for the opportunity to speak with the committee today as part of your study of Bill C-97, specifically on the changes in division 2, part 4 of the legislation, which deal with anti-money laundering and anti-terrorist financing.

My name is Sandy Stephens and I'm an assistant general counsel with the Canadian Bankers Association. The CBA is the voice of more than 60 domestic and foreign banks that help drive Canada's economic growth and prosperity. The CBA advocates for public policies that contribute to a sound, thriving banking system to ensure Canadians can succeed in their financial goals.

The banking industry is fully committed to the fight against money laundering and terrorist financing. Banks in Canada take their responsibility under Canada's AML/ATF regime very seriously, working co-operatively with the Department of Finance, FINTRAC, law enforcement agencies and provincial regulators.

The banking industry is fully supportive of the government's recent actions and ongoing plans to strengthen Canada's AML/ATF regime. This includes measures announced in budget 2019 to increase funding to police and FINTRAC to expand operational and investigative capacity, to develop the anti-money laundering action, coordination and enforcement team, and to expand public-private partnership projects to improve the overall efficiency and effectiveness of the regime.

With respect to the AML/ATF provisions contained in Bill C-97, we are fully supportive of improving transparency and beneficial ownership, including the amendments to the CBCA that would allow law enforcement access to the beneficial ownership information that corporations will be required to maintain under this act. The banking industry looks forward to the second phase of this work, which will examine registry options. We believe that reporting entities should have access to any registry that is developed.

Also, the banking industry supports the amendments to section 462.31(a) of the Criminal Code to add an alternate requirement of recklessness to the offence of money laundering. Banks devote significant resources to their reporting obligations under the AML/ATF regime and we support provisions that would allow for more output in the form of investigations and prosecutions of money-laundering offences. This amendment to the Criminal Code will help to prevent professional money launderers, who purposely distance themselves from criminal organizations and their predicate offences, from avoiding prosecution.

Further to recommendations made by this committee, we look forward to working with the government going forward to explore mechanisms and models to enhance public-private information sharing as well as information sharing between private sector stakeholders. It is widely recognized that improved information sharing can facilitate more targeted disruption of illicit activities and improve the effectiveness of the regime.

In this regard, it is worth noting that we also strongly support the recent recommendation of the ETHI committee that PIPEDA be amended to allow for a broader range of instances where financial institutions can share information beyond financial fraud, including money laundering and terrorist financing, in order to strengthen the regime as a whole. At the same time, we recognize that any measures taken to enhance information sharing must be balanced with privacy considerations.

The changes in Bill C-97 are positive steps to improve Canada's AML/ATF regime. The banks' central role in implementing the regime gives them hands-on experience and insight into where the regime can continue to be improved over time to more effectively and efficiently fight against money laundering and terrorist financing. Through the strong dialogue that the industry maintains with government agencies and regulators, we look forward to using that first-hand experience to assist in additional areas to strengthen the regime even further.

For example, adopting a more risk-based approach to the regime to encourage reporting entities to focus on risk typologies and customers who demonstrate significant AML/ATF risk would allow banks and others to effectively dedicate resources where they can achieve the greatest benefit.

To conclude, banks remain committed to the global fight against money laundering and terrorist financing, and we will continue to work collaboratively with the federal government.

Thank you for your time today. I look forward to any questions you may have.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Thank you very much, Ms. Stephens.

The committee thanks the banks that allowed us to tour their facilities when we were doing the money-laundering study, to see first-hand how they handle their obligations under that act.

We now have Mr. Morrison, who has appeared before us a number of times and is now with the Canadian Housing and Renewal Association.

Mr. Morrison, go ahead.

[Jeff Morrison, Executive Director, Canadian Housing and Renewal Association]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, for inviting CHRA to appear today.

As you know, CHRA represents the social, non-profit and affordable housing sector in Canada.

Budget 2019 is another step in the government's efforts to deal with housing insecurity. The budget includes measures to increase access for first-time home buyers and it follows previous decisions seeking to consolidate and strengthen the community housing sector, decisions which were mainly contained in the National Housing Strategy of Canada of 2017.

Without seeking to minimize the importance of these measures, I would like to use most of my time to talk about two main issues. The first one is the proposed National Housing Strategy Act, contained in Bill C-97, and the second issue is the huge gap between the bill and the government's vision on housing, specifically the absence of a housing strategy for indigenous people living in urban and rural areas, as well as in the North.

The 2017 national housing strategy contained a commitment to “progressively implement the right of every Canadian to access adequate housing.” As discussed by my colleague Tim, this promise is being realized through the national housing strategy act, in clause 313 of C-97.

CHRA has long advocated for such legislation, as it would not only enshrine the progressive rights of people in Canada to housing, as recognized in several United Nations declarations that we've already signed, but would also legislatively require the relevant minister to “develop and maintain a national housing strategy”, which would have as a guiding principle, “(c) focus on improving housing outcomes for persons in greatest need”. Not only do we fully support these goals, but we wish to commend the government for taking what is truly a historic step in social policy development in Canada with this bill.

However, there are ways in which the bill can be improved. My colleague Tim has outlined a few proposals in that regard, and we support what Mr. Richter has said.

I'd like to add three additional proposed amendments. All of those amendments have been summarized in a letter that we've sent to the minister, which we have provided to the committee clerk.

First, we strongly feel that there needs to be explicit recognition of the progressive right to housing for indigenous peoples, including very importantly, indigenous peoples living in urban, rural and northern areas of Canada. An explicit reference to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples within the legislation would be useful in this regard. Although I recognize that Canada's ratification of UNDRIP is still not entirely complete—I understand we're still waiting for a royal assent—it would absolutely be a disservice not to include an explicit progressive right to housing for indigenous peoples simply based on a technicality.

Secondly, the legislation currently states:

18 (1) The Minister must, before March 31, 2021 and within every three years after that date, cause a report to be made on the effectiveness of the National Housing Strategy, with respect to the achievement of the desired outcomes, and the initiatives related to its implementation.

We'd suggest amending that reporting period to annually rather than every three years. Frankly, it will be very difficult to make changes to the strategy or to identify gaps or shortcomings based on a three-year report. An annual report would be a much more effective accountability period.

Lastly, we recommend that the legislation clearly spell out that the new housing advocate position—again, as Mr. Richter referred to—report directly to Parliament rather than potentially the minister. As it stands, the legislation is somewhat vague on this point. Such an amendment would remove any sort of political considerations and would really strengthen the non-partisan role of that advocate position.

Mr. Chair, there is a final point I wish to raise, and that, frankly, is what is not in Bill C-97.

As the committee knows, housing conditions for indigenous peoples, especially living in rural, urban and northern settings, are considerably worse than for non-indigenous peoples. In the national housing strategy, the Government of Canada committed to developing three distinction-based indigenous strategies, for first nations, Inuit, and Métis. Although this is welcome, these strategies do not directly address the housing inequality faced by indigenous peoples living in urban and rural settings, which is where approximately 87% of indigenous peoples live.

Until that fourth housing stream focusing on urban and rural and northern indigenous peoples is introduced, frankly, the government's overall housing policy will not be complete. In fact, this committee, the finance committee, recognized this inequality when, in your pre-budget report to the Minister of Finance released in December, one of your recommendations was to “Work with Indigenous governments and organizations to develop an urban, rural, and northern indigenous housing strategy.”

We would ask that you continue to advocate for that recommendation. Our own indigenous caucus has developed a proposed strategy for indigenous by indigenous, or FIBI, that provides a road map for how such a strategy could be enacted. It's on our website, and we encourage you all to please download a copy.

Bill C-97, the National Housing Strategy Act, is an important tool in the national strategy toolkit. By bringing a few improvements to the bill and incorporating a strategy based on the needs of indigenous peoples living in urban and rural areas as well as in the North, the federal government will establish a solid housing legacy. Moreover, these measures will help CMHC meet its objectives and enable all Canadians to have a place to live that meets their needs by 2030.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Thank you, Jeff.

We'll go to the Ontario Real Estate Association and Ms. Cox, the president, and Mr. Thornton, the vice-president of public affairs and communications.

Go ahead, Ms. Cox.

[Karen Cox, President, Ontario Real Estate Association]

Thank you.

Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Karen Cox and I'm the president of the Ontario Real Estate Association. With me today is Matthew Thornton, vice-president of communications and public affairs at OREA.

It is a pleasure to be here today to discuss Bill C-97, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 19, 2019 and other measures.

By way of introduction, OREA is the industry association that represents over 78,000 licensed realtors in communities across Ontario. Our members wake up each and every day looking to help our clients achieve the dream of home ownership because we believe that owning a home is something that should be attainable for families not just here in Ontario, but right across Canada as well.

For generations, Ontario has been a place where if you worked hard, got a good education and played by the rules you could own a home. This is increasingly difficult today.

According to the latest census, for the first time since John A. Macdonald, home ownership rates in Ontario are on the decline. One of the reasons for this decline is a lack of supply, which has driven up the price of housing to the point that families are finding it almost impossible to break into the market.

As a working realtor, I see this frustration on faces of Ontarians every day.

And I know this is not limited to Ontario. Families right across this country are finding it increasingly difficult to break into their local housing market.

Just last week, OREA's CEO, Tim Hudak, attended an announcement by the Ontario minister of housing, the honourable Steve Clark, where the province unveiled its housing supply action plan.

We were pleased that many of the province's initiatives were recommendations that OREA had made during the consultation period, including perhaps the boldest change in the plan, which was to fast-track development of new housing near transit stations. This change will result in smarter, more walkable and affordable communities near Ontario's major transit stations.

But it cannot be left to provincial governments to solve what is a national housing crisis. We need bold action from the federal government to help more middle-class Canadian families achieve the dream of ownership.

The government's budget included some very positive proposals to help more Canadian families afford a home. We were pleased to see the introduction of the first-time home buyers' incentive, the proposed increase to the home buyers' plan withdrawal limit, additional funding through the rental construction financing initiative and the housing supply challenge for municipalities.

These are only the first steps. The budget failed to fix the punishing impact on home buyers from the new mortgage stress test, which has reduced buying power by 20 cents on the dollar. Whether you're a millennial looking to buy your first home or a growing family who has saved and wants to upgrade, the stress test rules have compromised what you're able to finance.

In order to qualify for a mortgage, families must now demonstrate that they can afford interest rates of two percentage points higher than what they negotiate with their lender. These restrictive rules even apply to those who do not need mortgage insurance.

The harm caused by the stress test has been vast. Home sales in Canada in 2018 fell by 11% compared to 2017, and 15% compared to 2016.

The federally imposed stress test is a big part of the reason. Moreover, the rationale for the stress test is badly flawed. It protects against a far-fetched scenario by assuming that interest rates will rise 2% by the time a fixed-rate mortgage is due for renewal, but the homeowner's income won't rise at all.

Any party that wants to offer a serious plan for homeowners needs to start by making the stress test much more balanced.

Ontario realtors believe further action is needed beyond addressing the challenges brought about by the stress test. For example, the NDP is proposing a return to 30-year mortgages for those who have mortgage insurance.

This is a great idea. It means millennials and young families who don't yet have a big down payment will still be able to buy a home and begin building home equity earlier in their life. It also means their monthly or bi-weekly payments will be more manageable so that young parents can devote more of their income to their kids' music lessons and hockey equipment.

Poll after poll shows that housing affordability is a huge issue, and while the steps taken in Bill C-97 are a good first step, much more is needed in order to ensure middle-class families from right across Canada are able to achieve the dream of home ownership.

Thank you, and I would be happy to take any questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Okay, thank you.

The bells are ringing, but I expect we can get unanimous consent to go until a few minutes before the votes. I think we'll try for six questions, four-minute rounds, and hold them to questions and not speeches.

We'll start with Ms. Rudd.

[Kim Rudd, Liberal, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Oh dear, I have four minutes. Okay.

Ms. Stephens, I was reading your submission and I had a couple of questions. I'll give them to you quickly, and maybe you can roll them all into one.

You talk about Bill C-97 allowing for more investigations and prosecutions of laundering offences. And you talk about the professional money launderers being able to distance themselves. Can you maybe explain a little bit about what that means? That's my first question.

The second thing was that you talked about adopting a more risk-based approach to the regime, and reporting entities to focus on risk typologies and customers who demonstrate significant risks. What I think you mean is ability for you as banks to identify, based on risk criteria, who could be at risk.

Could you speak to those two issues?

[Sandy Stephens]

Yes, I would be happy to.

First, I think this committee is aware that banks provide millions of reports to FINTRAC every year. We're excited by seeing a provision that would have more output from all that input. I think what this provision is trying to address is the mens rea or the mental element to a criminal offence. It's lowering the bar from a knowledge base of the actual predicate offence to a recklessness. There are professional money launderers who try to blind themselves to what's going on underneath this, and this would allow for that mental element to be lowered so that they would still be caught. Again our view is that we're looking for more output from the system, given the amount of input that is put into the system.

The second question, I think, was about a risk-based approach. As I said, banks are fully committed to the MLTFA regime and are key partners, but they want to spend their time and resources for the highest impact for the biggest buck. And that's the highest risk customer.

There are provisions in the PCMLTFA currently that require a lot of administrative work with low-risk customers when it's ongoing monitoring, where you sort of have to refresh the ID of someone who has a term CDIC and is retired. It just feels as if there could be better ways to use that time and resources.

[Kim Rudd, Liberal, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Ms. Rudd, you're okay for a very quick one.

[Kim Rudd, Liberal, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Oh, wow. Okay.

Ms. McCaffrey, I wonder if you could maybe explain something to us quickly. I really liked your synopsis of what it would have meant had this not ended up in the way it had. What would be the ramifications to us as a country in terms of our culture, our arts and museums and such?

[Moira McCaffrey]

I can say with certitude that what we were seeing was a slowdown and a stopping of donations because the restrictive definition of the OS/NI meant that objects that were not specifically connected to Canadian history could not qualify for tax credits. It was really, I would have to say, quite disastrous, unless you happen to be the director of a museum where your mandate was specifically linked to Canadian history. But as we know, especially our large institutions, many of them have a universal mandate, and within this country we have always seen significant art as being from Canada but from around the world. So yes, the impact would have been very bad. We were very concerned.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Thank you both for keeping that tight.

Mr. Kmiec, and then Ms. Duncan.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

For the Ontario Real Estate Association, thank you for mentioning B-20 and the impact it's had on the market. Obviously, I've tried twice at this committee to get the other side to agree to a study and they said no. They've run away from looking at the issue.

Can you tell me whether any of the budget policies that have been introduced on housing will offset the impact of B-20 in Ontario and Toronto and smaller cities and towns?

[Matthew Thornton, Vice-President, Public Affairs and Communications, Ontario Real Estate Association]

The measures introduced in the budget around the home buyers' plan and the first-time home buyer incentive are a good first step, a step in the right direction. Definitely, our industry is in support. However, that doesn't mitigate completely the impact that B-20 is having on the market. We're seeing a lot of folks sitting on the sidelines because they just can't quite afford the type of mortgage they need.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Are they first-time home buyers, or are they people who are buying their second or third houses?

[Matthew Thornton]

I would say that they are both segments. We're seeing move-up buyers, as well as first-time buyers, sitting on the sidelines, yes.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Okay. So, the changes that they made are not offsetting the impact of the B-20 stress test.

[Matthew Thornton]

They are positive programs that are definitely going to help people, particularly first-time buyers, get into the market, but if we look at other segments, we see that there continue to be challenges there for sure.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

One of the proposals is these shared equity mortgages, that the government is going to play the market with people and buy a portion of their homes with them, but it's capped at $480,000. However, for the greater Toronto area, what's the average price of a home?