Thank you, Chair.
Thank you, colleagues.
My question is for Mr. Lee.
Mr. Lee, I really appreciate your making clear how very high-income earners do receive the most capital gains, so they obviously disproportionately benefit from the tax savings of partial tax inclusion. It's a big part of why I've supported this government's change to the capital gains inclusion rate. It's because it gets us closer to ensuring that the wealthiest in our country pay their fair share, so that we can then address the crises that communities like mine are facing, from the climate crisis to housing.
That said, I did hear questions from moderate-income earners in my community this summer. I'd like to share an example with you and get your take on it. Ken shared with me that he purchased a property decades ago that has grown significantly in value. He hopes to leave his property to his daughter when he passes, but as a result of the transfer, his daughter would be left with a significant capital gain tax liability without any increased cash flow. That's, of course, increased due to this change. Ken shared with me that he's not sure how his family would pay for that without being forced to sell a property that has significant sentimental value to them.
My question for Mr. Lee is this: Do you feel the government considered this impact on more moderate-income earners like Ken and his daughter? Do you recommend any supplemental measures that could avoid unintended impacts of this potential loss of a property that holds, like I said, some significant sentimental value for the family?