Thank you, Mr. Chair.
This debate has certainly been interesting. I gave two examples to illustrate why I may have reservations about the amendment. I really appreciate everyone who has contributed to this debate.
I understand that, if we were to adopt this kind of legislation, our partners and our neighbours would not immediately adopt reciprocal legislation. However, I feel that, by deciding to adopt this kind of a legislative measure, we must accept the possibility that our partners may pay us back in full.
Mr. Fast made it clear that this two–year period applied within the context defined by the legislation. So if our American neighbours were to adopt a similar piece of legislation, it would be a matter of four weeks for people who travel to warmer regions in winter. The arguments that have been put forward have convinced me as far as those people go. That was one of the concerns I expressed
However, I have still not been convinced on the issue of the parent–child connection, in a case where parents want to sell their residence to their children. Ms. Chatel actually brought up a good example of children who may want to study here. I don't think that problem has been resolved.
I would like to ask the legislative clerks what impact adopting such an amendment would have on international agreements. Unless I'm mistaken, Mrs. Chatel raised the possibility of this amendment contravening certain international agreements. I would like to ask the legislative clerks for their opinion on this.
I invite my colleagues to convince me on the issue of the parent–child connection when it comes to the sale of a residence.