What we have with us here is some information that talks about some of the exemptions. We can make sure that we get it to you, but there are some exemptions that are based on who's using it, when they're using it, the type of occupant, etc. A place that's not being used year-round—it may not be winterized, for example—is not subject to the tax as it's currently contemplated. Secondly, a place that might not necessarily be used by the couple who owns it, but by their child who's studying in Canada, would also not be subject to it.
We had some discussion, just in the hour before you came on, Representative Higgins, about how you define this urban-rural divide. You put your finger on it when you said there are acute problems in places like Toronto and Vancouver. I'd say to you that it actually extends a bit beyond Toronto and Vancouver. It applies to many large urban centres like Calgary, Montreal and Halifax, etc.
It seems like Crystal Beach and other areas are caught up in what we'd define as “urban”. Is that the tension that you're identifying? Is it how we define what is urban versus what is rural?
We feel a strong necessity to target urban properties that are driving up the prices for rentals and for purchasing in urban centres. Can you give me your feedback on this urban-rural definition as it's contained in the regulation so far?