Thank you. In this case, we are not talking about providing protection for a prior period, but it is a question of fairness. This issue only became apparent because of the way modern companies are run. Such a scenario was not envisaged by the legislator when the original legislation was tabled.
As legislators, our job is to correct possible inequities in legislation. This is a flagrant inequity, which became obvious when this labour dispute ended. Experiencing a labour dispute such as this does not protect anybody else. This dispute happened. The one at the Journal de Montréal has still not been resolved. It could take a long time. Supposing the labour dispute at the Journal de Montréal goes on for an additional 13 months. That would be longer than the period which entitles workers to EI, and we would be facing the same problem as what occurred at Lebel-sur-Quévillon. The whole idea is to avoid these kinds of issues surfacing in future.
Let us take the example of subsection 8(7) of the Employment Insurance Act which is being amended. It says that “despite subsection (7), the extension of a qualifying period may equal the duration of the period of unemployment due to a labour dispute”. So, we are talking about the period during which there was a labour dispute. It is by that length of time that the qualifying period must be extended.
Perhaps we could explain it this way. Once a labour dispute--