Madam Chair, I beg to differ.
The parliamentary secretary referred to Bill C‑356, a private member's bill that requires a royal recommendation from the outset, and it was never granted. That is completely different from what is before us today. Bill C‑4 is already covered by a notice of ways and means. I understand the officials' opinion, which is clearly at odds with that of the legislative clerks who studied the proposal in advance. Obviously, the officials are here to advise you, Madam Chair, but in my opinion, independent opinion should prevail.
It's not a question here of whether or not it involves an expense, but whether it involves an expense within the meaning of parliamentary jurisprudence. Every tax cut or tax exemption, on the fund or on the form, has an effect on the public treasury. In this case, it's clear that the rebate associated with these new homes is directly related to the amount of GST paid. It's a rebate on a tax that was paid, and consumers feel they're owed that. We're of the opinion that, within the meaning of existing parliamentary jurisprudence, this amendment doesn't require a royal recommendation and that the comparison with Bill C‑356, a private member's bill that was never supported by a notice of ways and means adopted by the House, isn't admissible in the case before us.