Further to whether we call it fairness or neutrality between the employer and the employee when we talk about employment insurance, I think it's pretty fair to say that after a lengthy work stoppage, whether it's in manufacturing, pulp and paper, foundries, mills, or what have you, either major capital improvements are going to have to be done to a facility to keep up with the changes in how the world works in business, or major repairs and maintenance work will be needed to get cylinders, valves, and everything working again.
It's pretty safe to say that the way this bill is written will guarantee that somebody who strikes will be paid employment insurance at some point in time. It seems to me that the risk is being shifted to the employer quite a bit and that no risk is being shifted to the employee. Is that how you would read this?