What I would say is this. We know that typically you don't need a royal recommendation for the Crown to forgo revenue. For instance, if I wanted to present a private member's bill that would raise the corporate tax rate from 15% to 16%, that wouldn't be allowed. I'd need a royal recommendation for that, because that would be revenue coming in. If I wanted to propose a private member's bill reducing the corporate tax rate from 15% to 14%, I could do that, because that would be reducing the amount of revenue that the Crown brings in.
In this case, on a low-income CERB repayment amnesty, it's about forgoing revenue, in that people who would have to pay something back would no longer have to pay it back. The perversity is that because some people already paid some of that money back.... Again, we're talking about the destitute. I'm waiting for a conversation to happen like the one we had around dividends, where everyone rushed to defend the complexity and the hardships of companies. I'm looking forward to that conversation, which is no doubt about to happen.
These are folks who are already in dire straits, and because some of the most well-meaning people would stand to benefit under this by perhaps having a bit of a reimbursement.... However, that's not explicit in the amendment. It doesn't explicitly create a requirement to repay those folks. I agree that, as a matter of justice, this would be important, but it's not what the amendment does; it's only implied. It would be a government decision to reimburse those funds. They wouldn't be legally required, which is why I think the substance of this amendment is about forgoing revenue; it's not about repaying revenue. The last part of your ruling is an interpretation that says that the government would be obligated to repay those who have already repaid. I might think that's a good idea—I do think that's a good idea—but I don't think it's a legal obligation stemming from this amendment.
Now here we are, because some people have put themselves in an even worse financial position because they're honest and they're trying to repay some of that money. We're in a position where we're being told that we can't do what we can normally do, which is to have a proposal that would see the Crown forgo some revenue. That's why I think.... Well, I don't think you are perverse, Mr. Chair, and I don't think that perversity is the intention of your ruling, but there is something perverse about it. We're being told that we are denying help to people for a reason that I just think is rather convoluted and rests on the fact that people have been acting in good faith to try to meet what I take to be an unreasonable requirement of the government in the first place.
It's on that basis that I would challenge your ruling, Mr. Chair.