This dates back to the seventies, when the program was redesigned with the notion that this being a big country, of course the situation is not the same all over and, in a sense, the generosity of the benefits should mirror the state of local labour markets. This is an eminently imprecise science when you try to draw boundaries. We use census data and census divisions to do that, but it's always extremely awkward and unsatisfactory.
There are two issues here. One is access, and the other is the quality of the benefit once you have access to it. I think the case for making access the same all across Canada is just overwhelming. It shouldn't matter whether you're in Calgary, Toronto or Yellowknife: If you lose your job and you have 420 hours, say, you should qualify for EI.
Perhaps the benefit can depend on the local labour market conditions, but at least when it comes to access, it should be the same. That would take care of at least half of the problem that FFAW members were referring to.
We can have a philosophical discussion about whether we should have the same old duration for the entire country or not. I think there are good arguments on both sides, but again, on access, it would simplify the life of everyone—including the administration of the program, incidentally—to have someone start with the same yard stick.
I don't know if that answers your question, but...