All right.
First, I want to thank Mr. King for his explanations in response to my previous questions. They were very instructive.
I'm still on part 2 of the bill, more specifically the amount of the tax, which is equal to 1% of the value of the residential property. I agree with Ms. Dzerowicz. The aim of a tax is indeed to collect revenue, but it's also to modify behaviour. That's what we understood from the Minister of Finance's remarks.
This is similar to the idea advanced by economist Arthur Pigou, after whom Pigovian taxes are named. Why are tobacco and alcohol taxed at higher rates? To encourage people to buy smaller quantities of those products, given their associated negative externalities. That's how this tax should be interpreted based on the analysis.
I have a question on that subject for Mr. King, Mr. Mercille, Mr. Ives or anyone else who can answer it.
Do you have projections, analyses and evaluations at the department to help you determine whether this tax, which would be equal to 1% of the value of the property, would help curb rising real estate prices in certain regions, the purchase of properties by foreign interests and rising rents?
I'd like to know if you've evaluated that and, if so, what results you've reached. What causal links have you established?