No, that's not germane. The question is, the employer has made money by saving on employment insurance deductions at source qua employer. The employee is now being told that even though they were incorporated, you've determined--somehow you managed to put the Quebec Civil Code in there--there's not a link of subordination, so you're going to pay your taxes going back for many years and the employer's not even going to get banged out for his EI.
Now we're going to go to you, Madame Bergevin. CGI was receiving a subsidy of at least $10,000 per year per employee to install itself in certain sectors of the City of Montreal. To achieve those subsidies, CGI had to prove they were indeed employees, otherwise it would lose those subsidies. So they were getting it both ways, and the employees were taking it both ways.
The employees are now getting banged out because they created a corporate structure to allow them to do that work, but CGI, with all its resources and connections and contacts, was able to convince the government to maintain them as employees so that CGI could get its tens of millions of dollars a year of subsidies, and yet the people who just testified in this room and who are still sitting here, and their families, are getting banged out because they're no longer considered to be, properly speaking, independent contractors, and they are employees because of that.
The reality is, and that's why it comes up in the rest of Canada--how come we don't see this anywhere else? It's because of those subsidies that CGI put that many human beings in that position. How come you didn't investigate that? How come you only go after the employees and you never go after the employer?