Employers do support EI being there to cover at least part of the income loss for employees who lose their jobs through no fault of their own. I think they are concerned about the way that finances have been handled in the past. They don't want to see a repeat of the monies being taken when they are needed for the rainy day of a recession and not being returned, because those monies are intermingled with general government revenues, and it's quite tempting.
Employers are also concerned about the level of the premiums they have to pay. It seems to be disproportionate to the other parts of the tripartite arrangement. It is counterproductive in some cases, because if smaller employers are paying payroll taxes, CPP, workers' compensation, and all those, it adds up to quite a tab on creating a job. It can work against job creation, which is what we're trying to promote in this system.
In terms of it protecting the fund in other ways, I think it's important to set the criteria and the parameters at a fair and reasonable level. Employers don't want to see the number of hours reduced to 360 or to 420. They think employees need to have a strong attachment to the work. I would argue it's probably immoral for governments to create a generous program that has easy access and long periods of benefits, because so many of us define ourselves by the work we do. You're creating a very difficult decision for people in deciding whether to go on EI and stay on it versus being a productive part of the workforce.
I think the design can help sideline people, and employers worry about that. They have a shortage of qualified labour now in many areas, and the demographics mean they are going to need more people in the future—