Madam Speaker, I have a point of order, and it is in regard to the need for a royal recommendation for the Bloc Québécois amendments to Bill C-4.
Bill C-4, an act respecting certain affordability measures for Canadians and another measure, was reported from the Standing Committee on Finance earlier today. I would like to draw to the Speaker's attention 11 Bloc Québécois amendments that were adopted in the committee and ruled out of order by the chair on the grounds that they were inadmissible due to the need for a royal recommendation. These include BQ-1, BQ-2, BQ-3, BQ-4, BQ-5, BQ-6, BQ-7, BQ-7.1, BQ-8, BQ-9 and BQ-10. I am referring to the Bloc Québécois.
On October 27, the chair ruled BQ-1 inadmissible, which also applied to the other 10 aforementioned Bloc amendments, since they were consequential to BQ-1. In relation to BQ-1, the chair stated:
House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states on page 772:
“Since an amendment may not infringe upon the financial initiative of the Crown, it is inadmissible if it imposes a charge on the public treasury, or if it extends the objects or purposes or relaxes the conditions and qualifications specified in the royal recommendation.”
In the opinion of the chair, the amendment proposes a new scheme that will affect government revenues and expenditures. It was clear that this is both a payment and would exceed the royal recommendation which accompanies Bill C-4. Therefore, I rule the amendment inadmissible.
The member for Mirabel moved a motion to challenge the ruling of the chair, and the motion to overrule the chair's decision was carried by the committee. On these grounds, and since Bill C-4, as amended by the committee, is now before the House, I would like to put forward the government's position that the chair's ruling was, in fact, correct. These amendments should be removed from the bill, and the bill should be reprinted without the offending amendments that infringe on the Crown's financial prerogative.
Part 2 of the proposed making life more affordable for Canadians act would amend the Excise Tax Act and other related regulations to implement a temporary GST rebate on new housing for first-time homebuyers. This measure was accompanied by a royal recommendation to authorize the GST rebate for first-time homebuyers in respect of the purchase of a new house. The royal recommendation authorizes the CRA to draw from the consolidated revenue fund to pay to buyers who meet the terms, conditions and qualifications under part 2 of Bill C-4, once the bill receives royal assent, an amount equal to the GST that the buyer paid to the builder of the house.
Let me explain how the scheme operates. First-time homebuyers who qualify under part 2 of Bill C-4 and who purchase a new house from a builder pay that builder the price of the house as well as the GST related to that purchase. The key condition in respect of BQ-1 and the other 10 related consequential amendments that govern the rebate is that the buyer must have entered into and signed a purchase agreement on or after May 27.
Provided that condition and the other qualifying conditions in part 2 of Bill C-4 are met and the bill receives royal assent, the qualifying buyer could file a claim with the CRA for the GST rebate portion of the purchase. CRA would process the claim, and, provided the conditions are met under part 2 of Bill C-4, would be authorized by royal recommendation to draw funds from the consolidated revenue fund to issue a rebate payment for the GST portion to the buyer.
BQ-1 amended the bill to move the start date of the scheme set out in part 2 of Bill C-4 from May 27 to March 20. This would allow first-time homebuyers who purchased a new house on or after March 20, 2025, to claim the GST rebate. This would represent an expansion of the scope of the rebate in a manner that is inconsistent with the terms and conditions of the rebate contained in the bill at first reading. It is not authorized by the bill and exceeds the maximal charge authorized by the royal recommendation. This amendment and the other consequential amendments require a new royal recommendation, which can be provided only at the report stage by a minister of the Crown.
This is not a novel matter for the House to consider in respect of the GST rebate for the purchase of housing. In a previous Parliament, on February 1, 2024, the Speaker ruled on the need for a royal recommendation for Bill C-356, respecting a GST rebate on housing, standing in the name of the then member for Carleton. The Speaker stated:
Following a careful review of Bill C‑356, the Chair is preoccupied with some elements that would cause a withdrawal from the public treasury for new and distinct purposes.
The bill [proposes], among other considerations...certain circumstances for which a 100% GST rebate on new residential rental property may be paid out.
[This] would cause new and distinct charges against the consolidated revenue fund, thus constituting an infringement on the financial initiative of the Crown.
Accordingly, Bill C-356 must be accompanied by a royal recommendation, and without one, the Chair will not put the question at the third reading stage of the bill in its present form.
This is the situation that is now before the House. BQ-1 and the 10 consequential amendments would alter the terms, conditions and qualification of the royal recommendation that is attached to part 2 of Bill C-4, specifically including individuals who entered into and signed a purchase agreement with a builder between March 20 and May 26, 2025, who would not otherwise be eligible for the GST rebate under the parameters of part 2 of Bill C-4. This expands the eligibility requirements and thus infringes upon the Crown's financial prerogative.
These amendments were inadmissible to be moved at committee because they require a royal recommendation. I therefore submit that the chair was correct in ruling that BQ-1 and the 10 related consequential amendments were inadmissible to be moved at the committee. For these reasons, these amendments should be removed from the bill, and the bill should be reprinted without the offending amendments that infringe on the Crown's financial prerogative.