Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I want to thank the honourable member for suggesting this amendment. I also very much support the concept behind this. I think my hesitation is just that whenever we make these types of amendments in clause-by-clause, there isn't a chance for careful consideration or to ask officials what might be some of the unintended consequences.
A couple come to mind. We do know that there are American families who own property on the Canadian side and who have done so for years and years and years. They might even have a 100-year home within the family. Because the vacation home has been there for such a long time, and because we have urbanized, it might start to fall within the narrow definition that Mr. Fast talked about. Let's say there's the death of the owner, and the family wants to transfer the home directly to a child. They have to technically do some sort of sale and purchase. That could be one of the technicalities.
Again, if you look at it from a concept perspective in terms of non-citizen foreign residents purchasing residential property, you absolutely want to do that, but I'm worried about some of the unintended consequences. I also share the concern of my Bloc Québécois colleague. You know, I'd be worried, if we put in this type of a rule, about whether the U.S. would do correspondingly the same type of a rule over on their side, and about whether or not this is the best way of going about protecting the residential properties we have.
I just think it requires further discussion. I'd want to know what the unintended consequences might be. I think we should be a little cautious about adopting this.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.