Thank you for the question.
Regarding the foreign buyers tax, that is an overly punitive policy measure. What we should be looking at, if we're interested in that type of a control, is what is often referred to as the Australia model. Australia has implemented a policy in which foreign purchasers can participate in buying new housing but not housing already existing in the market, so that they're helping stimulate the construction of that new housing.
This is not asking for rampant foreign speculation to participate in the market, but there are professionals, even in our office, who have moved here from another country to work—to try to build housing in Canada—and who cannot purchase housing in Canada or cannot do so without paying a supplementary tax on it. I think that's strictly uncompetitive for attracting talent to our country.
Moving on to the stress test, it could be phased in and out based on what market interest rates are doing. Other countries have done this as well. It was a very different environment when the stress test was put in place from the environment we're in today or 12 months ago. Having a flexible stress test that doesn't make people qualify at 7%, 8%, 9% interest rates would be quite a smart policy. It's something that other countries have done with their stress tests so that when interest rates rise, you're not shutting the market off entirely.
On amortization, that's something for buyers and banks to work out. We have a banking sector that has been the envy of the world for its ability to protect against downside risk. Rather than having a one-size-fits-all approach, it would be prudent to open up flexibility for the banks, who are really the ones underwriting these clients, underwriting these projects, to make more informed decisions on those key things. The housing market challenges in Canada vary greatly across the country. There may be more acute issues in your riding of Surrey than in other parts of the country.