Nepean,

January 30th, 1994.

Dear Sirs,

1. I received the refusal letter enclosed, dated December 22nd 1994, only on January 7th this year, on account of the usual postal delays over the Christmas and New Year holiday period.

2. This situation is totally unacceptable for the reasons set out in my letter to my M.P., Marlene Catterall, dated January 9th, which is also enclosed. The supporting documents will be produced later.

3. In addition to the points noted under item 2 above, the following are to be noted:-

3.1. If the problem with Dean' s Professional Painting Inc. not paying my wages had not occurred, I would have continued working for them.

3.2. My so-called "ineligibility" for benefits is excluding me from all federal government programs connected with re-training and job search. In particular, I am again being excluded from the "ON-SITE" program and my objective is to get back into my field i.e. mechanical engineering in some form, and get to work on environment-related project work which is partly what "ON-SITE" is about.

With respect to "ON-SITE", this is not the first time that I have been excluded by bureaucratic bungling and incompetence within H.R.L.C., the responsibility for which ultimately rests with incompetent lawyers within. your department.

3.3. I am being further prejudiced in terms of recovering money still owed to me by Dean's, in that I have now had to obtain social assistance from the R.M.O.C. and anything I now collect from Dean's is deducted from my social assistance cheque. The R.M.O.C. checks regularly with Dean's to see if they have paid me any of the money still owed to me.

3.4. The Unemployment Insurance Act 1971, and-subsequent amendments, do not contemplate the situation where someone is forced to quit a job on account of non-payment of wages. Considering the 6-month backlog of cases before the Ontario Ministry of Labour involving late payment or non-payment of wages, this cannot be a rare occurrence and could have and should have been foreseen by those who drafted the Act in its present form.

Therefore, any interpretation of the Act which denies U.I. benefits under these circumstances, where the person would have continued working if his/her wages had been paid, is totally inappropriate and hence in my case the use of the 20-week rule as a "reason" for denying me benefits is inappropriate.

3.5. Furthermore, my so-called "weak labour force attachment" and classification as a "new entrant" or "re-entrant" to the labour force, notwithstanding my efforts to get work, are partly products of the problems concerning "ON-SITE" noted under item 3.2. above.

3.6. When I appeared before the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development on March 9th 1994, I specifically mentioned "ON-SITE" as an example of a programme which requires radical improvement in terms of accessibility to people who might make use of it. The discussion paper released subsequently, "Improving Social Security in Canada", admitted the necessity to eliminate inappropriate rules preventing people who are unemployed or on social assistance from having access to assistance to get re-employed .and off the U.I. or social assistance rolls.

3.7. Therefore, I require a waiver of the 20-week rule in my case, payment of U.I. benefit as if this rule did not apply, and a place on the ON-SITE program without delay.

---------------------

ROBERT . CHISHOLM B.Sc.Hons.(Eng.), C.Eng.(U.K.), M.I.Mech.E.(U.K.), Jr.Eng.(Quebec).

Copy for information.

Mrs. Marlene Catterall, M.P. for Ottawa West.