Thank you for your question. As I said, the most important thing is not only that employers and employees pay. I also want to repeat that employers pay 40% more than employees. I completely agree with you; in the past, money was grabbed in a way that seemed to us to be inappropriate and unfair.
Employment insurance, as its name indicates, is an insurance program. In certain circumstances, benefits are paid out as a result of a program or a regulation. It is up to the government to determine the insurance program's terms and conditions. These terms and conditions must depend on various factors. Any insurance program must take a number of components into account. We have no objection to the employment insurance program being reformed. We agree that it should be simplified and be less complex, but there is one condition. It must financially neutral, which is to say that it must not make money from the contributions. That answers the first part of your question.
The second issue is the following. This is a temporary program intended to deal with a temporary situation, and the funding should come from general revenue and not from the program itself. In other words, there was a money grab in one particular situation, and we now find ourselves in another particular situation. So there should be a contribution from general revenue, which benefited from that grab. We agree with you in that regard.
Finally, various terms and conditions have been defined in the past, and for various reasons. We cannot take one single factor into account, the number of hours worked on one coast or the other, for example, without considering all the effects—we spoke about that during earlier conversations—in particular ensuring that we do not set up any disincentives to get back to work.