Fundamentally, the issue is that employees are exercising their discretionary right to exercise a strike or lockout. They engage in a strike for a period of time, which is entirely of their own volition. When the strike is over, hopefully many employees will return to work, but it is not always the case.
When a strike ends, we find that in several instances employers have lost customers. They've lost part of their order book. In some very unfortunate cases, employers may end up going out of business. These are consequences of a strike. The parties that engage in strike activity must recognize that this is the case and go into a strike situation with their eyes open.
Fundamentally, if we continue to provide an open-ended arrangement whereby employees are entitled to extend the strike activity for a period of time, and not have any regard whatsoever to whether they'll be entitled to receive employment insurance benefits at the end of the strike, whereas other employees are not entitled to such extensions--that is, non-union employees in particular--then we face a situation where the companies themselves are prejudiced in situations where they're engaging in an unfortunate long work stoppage. They're getting toward the end of the long work stoppage, and there's no counterbalancing incentive for employees to fundamentally end the strike, knowing that as soon as the strike is over, they'll be entitled to full employment insurance benefits--