Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of order. I would like to follow up on yesterday's government intervention. As my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton said, we reserved the right to respond to the arguments regarding the amendments to Bill C-4.
I would like to talk about what happened at the Standing Committee on Finance on Monday with regard to the amendments that the Bloc Québécois proposed to part 2 of Bill C‑4. It is clearly established that a ways and means notice must precede any bill that would result in a tax increase for at least one class of taxpayers. Similarly, any bill that generates or reallocates an expenditure, or a charge against the consolidated revenue fund, must be accompanied by a royal recommendation. Any amendment to a government bill that goes beyond the royal recommendation associated with that bill could also be deemed inadmissible in committee.
However, a tax credit does not require a notice of ways and means or a royal recommendation to move forward, as evidenced by the many private members' bills that include such action. Amendments that would lower or eliminate a tax are admissible in committee.
Part 2 of Bill C‑4, clauses 3 to 13, amends the Excise Tax Act to exempt new homes from the GST for first-time buyers. The news release issued by the Minister of Finance on May 27, 2025, when the notice of ways and means was tabled for the introduction of Bill C‑4, describes the measure as follows:
Eliminate the Goods and Services Tax (GST) for first-time home buyers on new homes valued up to $1 million, saving them up to $50,000, and lower the GST for first-time home buyers on new homes valued between $1 million and $1.5 million.
The government backgrounder accompanying this release uses the same language and refers to eliminating or lowering a tax. In short, that is precisely what part 2 of Bill C‑4 does. It eliminates the GST for first-time buyers of a property that sells for less than $1 million and lowers it for first-time buyers of a residence that sells for somewhere between $1 million and $1.5 million.
In concrete terms, under this bill, the homebuyer will pay GST to the seller when purchasing the home, and the seller will pay the GST to the government. The homebuyer will then apply for a GST rebate, which will be paid out once they have proven that they are eligible. The bill lays out a number of different formulas for different scenarios, including the purchase of a completed home, a pre-construction purchase for future delivery or an owner-built home.
However, there are no scenarios where the tax rebate can exceed the amount of GST paid at the time of purchase, resulting in a charge against the consolidated revenue fund. This part of the bill will lower the government's GST revenue, but there is no scenario where it will involve a charge against the consolidated revenue fund.
The member for Mirabel introduced a series of amendments that cover the various scenarios referred to earlier. They would all have the same effect: They would move the date on which the GST is eliminated or reduced for first-time buyers from May 27, 2025, to March 20, 2025. March 20, 2025, was the day the government originally announced the measure that would become Bill C‑4.
Witnesses told the committee that many people saw the government announcement and believed that the measure was effective immediately, as is often the case when it comes to taxation. An announcement typically coincides with the tabling of the notice of ways and means, on the assumption that it will be adopted, paving the way for it to come into effect immediately. That is why the member for Mirabel's amendments were introduced.
As is the case with the original version of Bill C‑4, there is no scenario where the member for Mirabel's amendments could result in a rebate that exceeds the amount of tax paid and result in a charge against the consolidated revenue fund. In that sense, they are different from refundable tax credits or the GST rebate, whose value can exceed the amount of tax that the taxpayer paid. The excess amount has to be paid out of the consolidated revenue fund, meaning a royal recommendation would be required.
Both part 2 of Bill C-4 and the member for Mirabel's amendment represent fairly classic cases of tax credits or exemptions that have never been viewed as charges on the consolidated revenue fund requiring a royal recommendation.
The example raised at committee by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance and National Revenue as grounds for the chair to rule the member for Mirabel's amendment inadmissible, specifically the Speaker's ruling of February 1, 2024, concerning Bill C-356, has nothing whatsoever to do with the case before us today. That bill provided for some $100 million to be drawn from the consolidated revenue fund, which we can all agree would require a royal recommendation. Furthermore, Bill C‑356 did not make it clear that the GST rebates provided could not under any circumstances exceed the amount paid, whereas this is clearly stated in Bill C‑4.
The fact that Bill C-4 was accompanied by a royal recommendation in no way means that it was necessary for the implementation of part 2 of the bill, which has the effect of reducing revenue rather than appropriating funds from the consolidated revenue fund, as the government itself explained in its news release on May 27, 2025.
In our view, if we start considering the elimination or reduction of a tax as an expense, it could set a precedent that might in future severely limit the ability that members currently have to bring forward bills or amendments to that effect, and this in turn would make it very hard for committees to work on any bills with fiscal or financial implications.
Instead of seeking advice from the legislative clerks who were present, the committee chair asked the Department of Finance officials whether the Bloc Québécois's amendments were admissible. However, House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, 2017, deals with financial procedures, and the royal recommendation specifically, in chapter 18, with the exceptions to the rule clearly stated on page 836.
Footnote 61 refers to an article by John Mark Keyes entitled “When Bills and Amendments Require the Royal Recommendation: A Discussion Paper and Guidelines”. Page 20 lists the cases where a royal recommendation is not required, and among them is the type of amendment proposed by the member for Mirabel.
In our opinion, the amendment proposed by the member for Mirabel, adopted by the Standing Committee on Finance at its meeting on October 27, 2025, and included in the committee's report was admissible and should be maintained in the committee's report.