Evidence of meeting #69 for Finance in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was employee.
A recording is available from Parliament.
2 p.m.
Director General, Audit Professional Services Directorate, Compliance Programs Branch, Canada Revenue Agency
But that's under a different jurisdiction.
2 p.m.
NDP
Thomas Mulcair NDP Outremont, QC
Of course it is, just as it's under a different jurisdiction for employment insurance, and we can say no, no, the employees will get hit retroactively, but the employer will never have to pay the employment insurance, even though they should have. Of course it was the Province of Quebec giving the subsidy, but what's pertinent here is that the initial revision of all their cases started with the Quebec revenue department. It was transferred to you, and you had to make the same determination, that contrary to their affirmation they're independent contractors and they should be subject to certain financial and fiscal and taxation rules. You're going after them now, saying no, all this while you were simple employees.
CGI had a strong corporate interest in convincing you and the Quebec department that they were employees because otherwise they lost those subsidies; that's what this is all about. That's why nobody from any of the other provinces has ever seen anything like this. That's why they are indeed the only ones who are in this case. It's because of that system.
So why is everything aligned against the employees? Why doesn't the employer ever take the hit? Why isn't there a level playing field? It's that way at EI; it's that way at Revenue. Have you made recommendations that this be changed or are we just going to continue hitting the individuals who are hard-working, who have done nothing wrong, who have done everything by the book--including your book? Are you at least going to change your interpretation bulletins? This is grossly unfair.
2 p.m.
Director General, Income Tax Rulings Directorate, Legislative Policy and Regulatory Affairs Branch, Canada Revenue Agency
They aren't Lucie's bulletins to change right now; they fall within the responsibility of the branch I'm involved in. We wouldn't be able to comment on your views of what the company engaged in, regardless of whether we knew or didn't know what happened, whether they were motivated for the reasons you have described. It may be an issue that will have to be resolved once your statements here before the House have been out in the public domain, but it's not really a tax issue.
2 p.m.
NDP
Thomas Mulcair NDP Outremont, QC
It's galling to hear you say it's not a tax issue.
For the people affected, it is a tax issue, because it affects their living standard. They have mortgaged their house, and they have lost several years' worth of income because of this tax decision. So yes it is a taxation for those men and women who have worked extremely hard and who have always fully complied with the rules. It is in the interest of big employers to ensure that these people continue to be treated as employees. That is way that it has been interpreted in Quebec, and you are following it slavishly.
These workers are being left to pick up the pieces. Everything is always stacked against the employee and in favour of the employer. That is what is grossly unfair here and that is what I find so reprehensible. I appreciate that you do not have the final say on this issue, but I hope that given what you now know, you will report back that this situation is unfair. Thank you.
2 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Merci, Monsieur Mulcair.
Unfortunately, the time is up. This is an issue that members, including me, have some questions on for clarification. So as a committee we may revisit this in the future.
I want to thank you for being here with us. If there's anything further you'd like distributed to members, please do so through the clerk. We will ensure they get it.
Clearly an issue has been raised, and the committee will likely want to address it in the future.
Thank you very much for being here.
Colleagues, the meeting is adjourned.