Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The purpose of the amendment is to add the following clarification to the 1% tax on vacant housing:
(3.1) The tax under subsection (3) may only be applied in a province with the agreement of that province.
Constitutional expert Patrick Taillon came to remind us that there were two possible scenarios.
First, there's reasonable doubt that the courts will see the tax as a regulation. If we look at the records of the debates, we can see that the government is proposing this tax to change behaviour. If the courts view this tax as a regulation, they may very well strike down this section, since regulations fall under provincial jurisdiction.
If this tax weren't seen as a regulation, then it would constitute a problematic practice under co‑operative federalism. The constitutional expert made this point. If we think of it as a tax, even though Ottawa has the power to impose a property tax, it's the last tax field not handled by Ottawa. This tax field is basically handled by the municipalities and school boards, which fall under provincial jurisdiction. As the Parliamentary Budget Officer reminded us, according to the studies conducted, which are updated each year, the funding issue lies with the provinces rather than with Ottawa. This may compound the issue.
Another issue is interference with existing or future taxes. For example, the City of Vancouver and the Government of British Columbia have this type of tax.
Since cities fall under provincial jurisdiction, the amendment simply suggests that the agreement of the province be obtained before proceeding. This will save us a great deal of trouble.