In the past, until 1990 I would say, coverage under the employment insurance program was very good.
Until 1990, over 80% to 85% of workers were covered by the employment insurance system. If they lost their jobs, they could expect to receive unemployment insurance benefits, as they were called at the time. All the cutbacks from 1990 to 1996 were designed to put up barriers to employment insurance. I feel that was the objective of those governments. Accounting calculations were certainly done as well, because we can recall the accumulated surpluses that, infamously, were diverted. But that's another story.
They put up barriers to the program and made it much harder to get benefits. In 1996, when unemployment insurance became employment insurance, they took advantage of that to require many more hours of work to qualify for. They knew perfectly well where they were heading.
People who work part-time, 20% of the workforce, two-thirds of them women, were literally kicked out of the program. The numbers prove it.
Today, nearly 40% of people who apply for employment insurance are covered. We have a real problem that needs to be thought through. We believe a single eligibility requirement could fit the bill. It would take into account all the realities, which are diverse in the working world—I'm thinking in particular of seasonal, part-time, gig or contract jobs. The 420-hour criterion is excellent. Instead of using it as a temporary measure, we should make it permanent.
I will finish by saying that Canada is the only country in the world, of all the countries with an employment insurance program, where the eligibility requirement is based on place of residence. The eligibility requirement changes depending on where you live. We need to stop that and simplify the program to ensure that it protects those who pay into it.