Mr. Komarnicki's question is important because it goes to the heart of the matter. Remember this is an exceptional circumstance. It is very rare that a company would shut down after a long dispute and that the workers would be entitled to EI benefits. Usually, the company shuts down before the dispute goes on for 52 weeks. The only case we found was this one, but you are right, it could apply to others.
It is a dispute that lasted three years. The order to shut down the company came after a three-year lock out. In January 2008, the employer decided to shut down. As a result, what both levels of government considered a lock out officially turned into a shutdown, and all the workers were laid off. So everyone wanted to collect EI, but the government would not let them because it had been more than 52 weeks since they had worked. It had been three years.
Normally, these people who had worked for 20, 30 or 40 years would have been entitled to EI if the company had shut down during the first 52 weeks of the dispute. They were denied benefits because the dispute went on so long. Now we are saying they should be entitled to receive EI. Witnesses wanted to know who would be entitled to EI.
Those who, for example, were absent, who were hired in the meantime or whatever the case may be, are they entitled to EI? These witnesses felt that clarification was necessary. They suggested that the bill indicate that these people must have been employed by the company in question during the last year preceding the beginning of the dispute. That is what the amendment says. These people must have been employed during the last year preceding the dispute, they must have worked during that period. In that case, they would be entitled to receive EI.
