Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I have a couple of points before I ask my first question. First of all, I think what we've heard in summary from our officials about the vacancy tax is that it's really designed to achieve three things. One is to raise revenue to help provide funding to the government for some of its housing programs, which, as we've all heard at this committee, are so important in providing especially some of our most vulnerable the opportunity to own a home and have access to affordable housing.
Second, it will incent some of those folks who are non-residents who do own property and are keeping it vacant to no longer keep it vacant, as my colleague Ms. Dzerowicz cited from the Deputy Prime Minister's remarks. It also just holds common sense that if non-residents are forced to pay a 1% tax for keeping their home vacant, they're not going to want to keep it vacant; 1% on a property of $1 million or $2 million is a lot of money.
Third, one of our officials spoke to the fact that some investors, some non-resident owners of property, are more likely to part with the property. I think that's a third important concept. I would add to this that they may be less likely to buy those properties if they're going to plan to hold them just for investment purposes.
We heard at this committee in prior hearings that the primary reason that the price of housing continues to skyrocket in Canada is a shortage of supply. This is one of the measures—one of many, as we know—designed to make sure that we help increase that supply by making sure that vacant properties are no longer vacant.
I just wanted to summarize what we've heard thus far. I think it's really important to bring that all together based on that.
I have a question about something else.
Bill C‑8 would add a further $100 million to the safe return to class fund as part of the government's commitment to improving ventilation in the schools and supporting teachers, who have worked so hard during this period.