What is really being discussed here is an investment which includes guarantees of a satisfactory return on that investment; this is the only form of investment which makes economic sense, aside from social concerns.

9. Sub-sections 26(2) and 26(5) of the Act permit the benefit period of a claimant undergoing a course or program of instruction or training to extend up to a period of one hundred and fifty-six weeks, in the case of courses or programs to which the claimant has been referred by the Commission.

10. The training which Mr. Chisholm requires, be it through "ON-SITE" or other, has not commenced and he is not on the waiting list for "ON-SITE". The reasons for this should now be clear and are the result of misinterpretation of the Act.

The normal duration of an "ON-SITE" placement is now 26 weeks.

10. Therefore, Mr. Chisholm requests that the Umpire add the clauses (a) to (h) noted in the covering letter attached to this document, dated December 11th 1995, to CUB 28929.

11. CLOSING REMARKS.

The present request for additional clauses to CUB 28929 is a result not only of the circumstances referred to above, but also the following:-

11.1. Previous efforts to obtain re-training through "ON-SITE" in 1992/93, immediately following about 34 weeks of insurable employment (mostly painting, which was unsuitable employment), were frustrated initially (in July 1992) by lack of places on the program. When places next became available, in about May 1993, Mr. Chisholm's U.I. benefits had expired so that he was no longer eligible under the usual rules. During this period - July 1992 to May 1993 - the funding year for "ON-SITE" was changed from January 1st / December 31st to April 1st / March 31st - without any funding provision being made for the interim period of January lst 1993 to March 31st 1993 and without notice to prospective "ON-SITE" participants such as Mr. Chisholm.

This took place near the end of the Conservative government under former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, whilst Minister of Immigration and Employment Bernard Valcourt was in charge of administering the federal Unemployment Insurance system. In addition, two federal M.P.'s and Nepean City Cuoncillor David Pratt intervened with Bernard Valcourt on Mr. Chisholm's behalf, in attempts to get the situation corrected. In his letter to Councillor David Pratt dated March 4th 1993, Bernard Valcourt is on record as alleging to have not received a previous letter from him and to have failed to give a satisfactory explanation for not correcting the situation; this is documented in EXHIBIT No. 15-13 of the Docket of Appeal to the Umpire dated May 25th