In terms of qualifications, would that mean they have more rights? The answer is no, their rights would be equivalent to those of other workers in the following way.
There is a qualifying period that precedes the application for EI benefits. Let us take the example of a labour dispute that has ended. People are expecting to go back to work. Some lose their jobs, because there is a closure or positions are cut. When that happens, they apply for EI benefits. What does the Employment Insurance Commission do at that point? Well, it ascertains whether these individuals have worked in the course of the last year. If they were involved in a labour dispute during that last year, there are no hours of work, and therefore they are not eligible for employment insurance. And yet these people worked for many years prior to that. The Act does not include labour disputes as a reason for extending the infamous qualifying period. In Quebec, as I mentioned previously, the parental insurance plan does include that reason.
If a new paragraph (e) were to be added to subsection 8(2), to provide for labour disputes to be included as a reason for extending the qualifying period, those people could receive benefits after losing their jobs. We are not saying that everybody who is on strike or locked out should be able to claim Employment Insurance benefits. However, if workers lose their jobs following a labour dispute and apply for EI, the qualifying period would be extended by a number of weeks equal to the number of weeks they were involved in the labour dispute. If someone was affected by a labour dispute for nine months in the previous year, that person would therefore be entitled to a nine-month extension. The work time associated with the labour dispute would be included so that people who had lost their jobs could qualify for benefits. Subsection 8(2) of the Act also includes other reasons. It is highly technical, but it is important to understand that in order to see the rationale for the bill.