Thank you for the question.
Yes, the measures are very recent and they include a number of components. One of them is intended to close a tax loophole. That was primarily directed at foreign investors. It has been well received on the whole, because it had become clear that certain investors had an undue tax advantage. It heated up the market unnecessarily, as you said, and also exacerbates the whole problem of access to housing.
Other measures have been announced, such as a test to determine how much pressure buyers can withstand. This means evaluating their ability to pay a higher interest rate over five years.
As a result, we are seeing a slight cooling of the real estate market. There is a contradiction of sorts, though, since this measure also limits buyers' access.
There is quite a contradiction right now. Interest rates are so low that, unfortunately, good citizens, who are careful and save money, are penalized. For example, people who did not buy a property quickly enough, when interest rates were kept low, who thought they would eventually increase, have seen property values increase much more than any additional amount they could have saved for a down payment.
That is why the government is now addressing housing affordability. That is also why I said, on behalf of the Mouvement Desjardins, that I urge the government to be extremely careful with tightening measures. The tax loophole is an excellent measure. Protecting people against themselves by applying a test for a potential hike in interest rates is extremely important. Before any further measures are taken, however, I think the impact of the current measures must be assessed, over a few months or a certain period of time. The impact of the measures taken must be assessed, and then any further action must be in small increments. Otherwise, the aftermath, the potential drop in property values or in economic activity, could outweigh the benefits of additional measures.