Official Languages committee  Mr. Chair, I would like to answer the question, but it's based on false assumptions. The provinces have limited capacity to amend the 1867 act. Quebec has the capacity to define itself but not to amend the rights that are guaranteed to the anglophone minority under section 133 and that are, in a way, intangible.

Official Languages committee  It's provided for under the Constitution Act, 1982, which states that authority to amend the Constitution is exercised through five types of procedures, each of which involves different actors. So as regards the part of the question concerning New Brunswick, my answer is that the bilingualism guarantees that, I believe, are provided under section 16.1 of the Constitution Act, 1982, and that have become applicable relatively recently, in the 1990s, were adopted with the consent of the federal government and can only be amended together with it, and the same is true of the guarantees afforded to Quebec anglophones under section 133.

Official Languages committee  We could do better.

Official Languages committee  No, we aren't sure of that. For example, the preamble to the Constitution Act, 1867, which states that we have a constitution based on the same principle as that of the United Kingdom, is a preamble to which the courts have attributed enormous effects and consequences.

Official Languages committee  The courts disregard the preamble in other cases.

Official Languages committee  Yes, regulations can readily be amended without any contribution from parliamentarians. That's why, when parliamentarians delegate powers to the government, they have to use specific words to frame those provisions. That's why I think this requires a little refinement. The preamble can be very useful but may also be serve no purpose.

Official Languages committee  We'll have to assess the impact of the act in a few years. First of all, putting names on things and acknowledging that French, which is in a majority position in Quebec, is nevertheless in decline is a first step. The fact that the federal government is now part of the solution and not the problem, which previously wasn't clear in the act, is a new shift in the bill.

Official Languages committee  Second, with regard to the integration and francization of immigrants, the federal government rightly requires, in another act, that a language knowledge test be administered to all new Canadians. By granting them a choice of language, it undermines Quebec's efforts and capacity to integrate newcomers.

Official Languages committee  Mr. Chair, I want to thank the committee for inviting me to appear. The federal government does much, indeed very much, to protect and promote French in its institutions. The thrust of my remarks today is not to criticize the extent of the efforts it has made. What I want to focus on is the importance of properly targeting those efforts.

Finance committee  It's a lot easier to do something beforehand. It bears repeating that, although federal tax authorities collect various types of taxes, they don't collect property tax. To do so, they would need to set up a new system, a new mechanism, one that will probably be here to stay once implemented.

Finance committee  Actually, it's one or the other. Either it's a hidden tax and, in reality, a bill that deals with housing law, which means the measure's pith and substance fall under provincial jurisdiction. Or it is fundamentally a tax, which means the primary objective is to collect tax revenue, and I highly doubt that.

Finance committee  Yes. Just because you call something a cat doesn't make it a cat, but the courts always have the last say. They will consider the purpose and true impact of the law. The government can make its intentions clear and say that, on the surface, it is fundamentally a tax. That may be true, but there is a risk.

Finance committee  I am mainly here to comment on the measure to tax underused dwellings. My sense is that the tax will not take a significant amount of money away from individuals and put it in the government's coffers. As I see it, this is more of a regulatory measure in disguise, aimed at penalizing certain harmful practices in the housing market.

Finance committee  Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would like to start by thanking the members of the committee for inviting me today. I will keep my remarks brief, focusing only on the underused housing tax. Let me be clear. I am not criticizing the appropriateness of the policy measure. In the midst of a housing crisis, with prices soaring, the measure is probably a good idea.