Mr. Chair, I'm sensing that there is this general agreement that the idea of implementing a temporary prohibition is a good thing. My colleague Mr. Albas has noted that this is a two-year prohibition. Quite frankly, if one of our trade partners were to challenge, it would take well over two years to actually complete a challenge, and it's unlikely that a provision like this, which is intended to provide a temporary respite from foreign buyers, would actually be challenged.
I think I'm probably the only one around this table who has any trade experience. I'm not claiming to be an expert, but having an understanding of challenges at the World Trade Organization, I think I can safely say that the scope of this amendment is so narrow and so circumscribed that it would not generate any challenges. I think it would send just that clear message that we are placing Canadian buyers of residential real estate first. They come first. Anybody else who wants to join can come later, but right now we have to focus on Canadians themselves.
I would encourage you, colleagues, to support this. I note that this would go back at report stage. The government can actually take this from committee and review this with officials to make sure it passes muster and will do what it claims to do. If an amendment is required or if the government wants to take this out, it can do so at report stage with the Speaker's consent.
There is a mechanism for us to move this forward and then have the House address it. I would encourage you to allow that to happen.