In this case, I'll have to respectfully disagree. The amendment doesn't modify anything outside of the bill itself. As legislators, what are we here to do if not to perhaps propose some changes to the qualifying rules for the program?
The amendment doesn't go outside of the bill in order to establish this new criterion. It simply says that workers in sectors that are already outlined within the bill itself would be eligible for this. We all know that these are workers who don't qualify under the wage subsidy. If they did qualify under the wage subsidy, they wouldn't be able to access the worker lockdown benefit, because they would have employment income, and you can't do that. You can't access the worker lockdown benefit unless you've lost employment income.
I don't know what the role of a legislator is if we can't talk meaningfully about modifying the criteria of the program that the government is laying out in legislation. Of course, there may well be a financial consequence to this, but it's only as a consequence of better defining certain program criteria. I mean, that has to be what we're here to do. Otherwise, it's just rubber-stamping what the government has already decided; it doesn't admit any kind of amendment.
Because this is crafted in such a way as to only appeal to criteria within the act, I would dispute that it needs a royal recommendation. This is really just about modifying the criteria of access to the program within the considerations that are already within the bill. I would appeal to my colleagues on the committee to agree with me and overturn your ruling, Mr. Chair.