I am now prepared to rule on the point of order raised on October 29, 2025, by the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader concerning the admissibility of amendments made to Bill C-4, an act respecting certain affordability measures for Canadians and another measure, by the Standing Committee on Finance.
I would like to thank the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader and the whip of the Bloc Québécois for their interventions.
The parliamentary secretary argued that Bill C-4 was accompanied by a royal recommendation specifically to authorize the Canada Revenue Agency to draw from the consolidated revenue fund to make a payment for first-time homebuyers who meet the terms, conditions and qualifications in the bill. This payment would be for an amount equal to the GST that the buyer paid to the builder of the house.
The parliamentary secretary further argued that 11 amendments adopted by the committee required a royal recommendation since they seek to advance the start date of the rebates scheme from May 27, 2025, to March 20, 2025, which would result in additional charges to the consolidated revenue fund. He also drew the Chair's attention to a Speaker's ruling from February 1, 2024, about the need for a royal recommendation for Bill C-356, an act respecting payments by Canada and requirements in respect of housing and to amend certain other acts.
In his response, the whip of the Bloc Québécois said that, according to a departmental news release, Bill C‑4 would eliminate the GST for some first-time buyers of a property and reduce it for others. He added that buyers would apply to the government for a GST rebate, to be paid out once they prove they are eligible.
The whip of the Bloc Québécois argued that the legislative proposals to effect non-refundable tax credits or tax exemptions do not require a royal recommendation. He also cited a government backgrounder on Bill C‑4 that referred to the elimination or reduction of a tax, as opposed to a refund that could exceed the amount of GST originally paid. This point, the member suggested, is what separates this situation from one that would require a royal recommendation.
With respect to Bill C‑356, the member argued that the bill would have authorized the reallocation of roughly $100 million for purposes unrelated to the GST rebate also envisaged in the bill, something that clearly required a royal recommendation, and that it was unclear whether the GST refund set out in Bill C‑356 might exceed the amount of GST paid.
As the House knows, the Speaker does not normally intervene in matters upon which committees are competent to take decisions. However, concerns about the procedural admissibility of any amendments adopted by a committee may be brought to the attention of the Speaker once the bill is reported back to the House.
Accordingly, the Chair has reviewed the Standing Committee on Finance's clause-by-clause proceedings on Bill C-4. The 11 amendments modifying clauses 3 to 13, which are included in the committee's report and in the reprint of the bill, had been ruled inadmissible by the chair of the Standing Committee on Finance, as she determined that these amendments would impose a charge on the public treasury, which would affect government revenues and expenditures, and, as a result, would require a royal recommendation. The committee chair's rulings were challenged and overturned, and the amendments were ultimately adopted.
Fundamentally, the question before me is whether the rebating of a tax already collected constitutes an expenditure of the government or constitutes a reduction in taxation.
In its summary, Bill C-4 states that it is intended to “implement a temporary GST new housing rebate for first-time home buyers.” In other words, eligible buyers would be able to receive a refund of the GST they have paid. Furthermore, several clauses of Bill C-4 indicate that this is a GST rebate. This means that buyers who qualify would be reimbursed for the GST they have paid under this program.
As indicated in House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, at page 838, “a royal recommendation is not required for a bill whose effect is to reduce taxes otherwise payable.”
While this is a complicated and nuanced question, I am guided by a decision dated October 16, 1995, when Speaker Parent had to rule on whether the reimbursement of a tax constituted a levy on public funds that would require a royal recommendation. On page 15410 of the Debates, he stated:
...that the repayment of tax revenues already received was not an appropriation of public money.
The Chair can further add that while such measures may result in reducing the government's revenues, they are not, per se, charges on the consolidated revenue fund.
In this context, and after careful consideration of the specific measures contained in Bill C-4, the Chair finds that the amendments in question do not require a royal recommendation, and that the committee's report and the reprinted bill are properly before the House.
I thank all members for their attention.