MY MESSED-UP LIFE IN CANADA AFTER BEING ENTICED TO COME FROM THE U.K. BY SNC (NOW SNC-LAVALIN)
WHO IS ROBERT CHISHOLM?___________CLICK HERE
Questions? Comments? E-mail me at email@example.com
THE PROBLEMS WITH SNC AND SNC-LAVALIN DESCRIBED ON THIS SITE ALL OCCURRED DURING OR BEFORE 1995 WHEN THE COMPANY WAS BEING RUN BY PRESIDENT AND C.E.O. GUY SAINT-PIERRE AND HIS PREDECESSORS. FROM 1996 UNTIL HIS RETIREMENT IN MAY 2009 THE COMPANY WAS RUN BY JACQUES LAMARRE, WHEN HE HANDED IT OVER TO PIERRE DUHAIME.
EVERYBODY INVOLVED HAS BEEN COVERING EVERYTHING UP, THE WHOLE TIME FROM 1982 UNTIL NOW – INCLUDING CERTAIN MEDIA PEOPLE WHOM I APPROACHED AT VARIOUS TIMES WHO REFUSED TO REPORT ANYTHING.
THIS TYPE OF COVERUP ON THE PART OF THOSE INVOLVED HAS BEEN BASED ON NOTHING MORE THAN MONEY TO FEED TO LAWYERS, OBSESSION WITH LOOKING GOOD WITHIN A NARROW AND NARCISSITIC LITTLE SOCIAL AND PROFESSIONAL CLIQUE - AND WEAK-KNEED, PETTY AND UN-SUBSTANTIABLE NOTIONS INVOLVING CANADIAN-STYLE POLITICAL CORRECTNESS.
TIME TO SMARTEN UP AND PUT A STOP TO THIS.
Robert T. Chisholm, November 2009
If Canada says it wants working immigrants and actively entices them to come here, who should assume the responsibility for ensuring satisfactory conditions such that they can contribute to the tax base? The Nesa and Selladurai Premakumaran case (ca. 2005) and the Dr. Short / SNC case (1987): analysis of two flawed Court judgements.
The Premakumarans web site: http://www.immigationcanadascam.com
Note: June 08 2010: this web site, along with www.notcanada.com , was shut down in early March 2010 under suspicious circumstances.
1. WRONGFUL DISMISSAL BY SNC IN MONTREAL, QUEBEC FOLLOWED BY THE DISCOVERY OF CORRUPTION IN BUSINESS (SPECIFICALLY SNC AND THOSE ASSOCIATED WITH THEM), CORRUPTION IN THE LEGAL PROFESSION IN QUEBEC AND CORRUPTION IN QUEBEC GOVERNMENT UNDER LATE QUEBEC PREMIER ROBERT BOURASSA. SNC BANK ACCOUNT AT ROYAL BANK OF CANADA SEIZED IN 1991 FOR NON-PAYMENT OF COURT JUDGEMENT WHILE THEY WERE TAKING OVER LAVALIN INC.
NOT ONLY THIS, BUT AS AT MAY 2010 I HAD APPROACHED SOME M.P. s - AND SO FAR NONE OF THEM HAS EVEN AGREED TO ASK SNC AND THOSE ASSOCIATED WITH THEM FOR AN EXPLANATION. NOR WERE THEIR EFFORTS TO HELP ME GET WORK SUCCESSFUL. NOR HAVE MY EFFORTS TO INTEREST PEOPLE IN THE MEDIA GOT ANYWHERE. What kind of country is this, that allows its business leaders to perpetrate corruption and then cover it all up?
WARNING: IN THE PAST, PRIME MINISTER STEPHEN HARPER HAS LABELLED CANADA AS A NATION OF DEFEATISTS. CLICK HERE
OBVIOUSLY THIS DEFEATISM WILL NOT DO. THEREFORE:-
(A) NOBODY IS TO ATTEMPT TO TELL ME THAT “NOTHING CAN BE DONE BECAUSE OF THE LEGISLATION”, OR SOME SUCH
(B) ANYONE IN A POSITION OF POWER IS TO RECOGNIZE THAT A SOLUTION, TO EXPUNGE THE CORRUPTION INVOLVED, IS REQUIRED. PRETENCES TO THE CONTRARY COULD BE SEEN AS UN-PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT, AND WORSE BESIDES.
Sun August 12 2007: Chief justice objects -- lawyers are not – quote - rats
So, Mrs. McLachlin, according to you, Lawyers are not rats. And what would you have to day about THESE, and the people at SNC-Lavalin who fed them large sums of money to make a filthy mess and waste time? Think again, Mrs. McLachlin.
And what is more, Mrs. McLachlin, how would you justify the 1991 conduct of Michel Corbeil, assistant to late Quebec Premier Robert Bourassa when he supported the behaviours, just referred to, of SNC and their lawyers?
That too is documented on this site. Something more for you to analyze and think about.
NOT VERY GOOD, IS IT?
You will need Adobe Acrobat Reader version 4 or later to view some documents on this site.
Get Adobe Acrobat Reader HERE
This site should be viewed using a screen resolution of 600 x 800
3. PROBLEMS WITH GETTING RE-TRAINING SPECIFICALLY, REFUSAL OF ADMISSION TO ON-SITE PROGRAM IN 1995/1996 AND AT OTHER TIMES. INVOLVEMENT OF LAWYERS: LYING AND LEGALISTIC SOPHISTRY BY HRDC LEGAL SERVICES DEPT. LAWYER JONATHAN P. LANGSNER IN 1996. LEGALISTIC EXCUSES FOR NOT HELPING FROM CERTAIN MINISTERS OF IMMIGRATION AND EMPLOYMENT
4. PROBLEM NO. 3 LED TO A STILL-CURRENT (2009) LEGAL PROBLEM FOR ME WITH A SO-CALLED SOCIAL ASSISTANCE OVERPAYMENT. I WAS WRONGLY REFUSED UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS ON FEBRUARY 23, 1995, BY A FEDERAL BOARD OF REFEREES HEADED BY ROGER R. PRESSEAULT, WHO IS NOW A MEMBER OF THE ONTARIO COVERNMENTS SOCIAL BENEFITS TRIBUNAL, WITH WHICH I HAD A HEARING IN OTTAWA ON JANUARY 17TH 2007. (In other words, one of the Social Benefits Tribunals own current members was partly responsible for creating the problem in the first place)
Narrative and all supporting documents:
To cut a long story short, the Social Benefits Tribunal has refused to withdraw the “overpayment” assessment against me. They have been continually attempting to exploit the letter of the law as an excuse for refusal to apply reason and logic or even pay attention to the facts. As a result, in October 2008
I made a formal complaint to the Office of the Ombudsman in Ontario but they have been manipulated by certain Social Benefits Tribunal members into not fulfilling the Ombudsman Office mandate. Because of this perverse result,
today I have written personally to Ontario Ombudsman Andre Marin asking him to intervene and resolve the matter to my satisfaction. Here is my Open Letter to Andre Marin (dated December 19th 2009):-
ALL PERSONS FOUND TO BE PARTIES TO CORRUPTION AND UN-PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT AT MY EXPENSE ARE LIABLE TO EXPOSURE AND PUBLIC CENSURE. PENALTY COULD INCLUDE LOSS OF JOB AND CAREER. BE WARNED, OR PAY THE PRICE.
“Ottawa Told to Get Tougher on Fraud” – “Ottawa Citizen” article May 7th 2011.
If Ontario Court Justice Peter Wright and Crown prosecutor Julien Lalande, or anyone else connected with the Ontario justice system, attempt any action whatsoever against me, they will also be treated as parties to the corruption that has been directed against me, AND WILL BE DEALT WITH ACCORDINGLY. BE WARNED. YOU AND EVERYONE ELSE ARE BEING WATCHED.
Sun August 12 2007: Chief justice objects -- lawyers are not 'rats'
And what, Mrs. McLachlin, would you have to day about THIS LOT who were responsible for the mess described immediately above, and the people in the Government of Ontario who fed them large sums of money to make a filthy mess and waste time? Think again, Mrs. McLachlin.
Current member bios of Ontario government Social Benefits Tribunal
Reference URL for this as at December 15 2006: http://www.pas.gov.on.ca/scripts/en/bios.asp?minID=39&boardID=120959&persID=108231
Reference URL for this as at August 10th 2007:-
(Click the BACK button in your web browser after viewing these last four items)
5. OTTAWAS HIGH TECH UNEMPLOYMENT MESS :THE EXPERTS ARENT EVEN COUNTING THE PEOPLE AFFECTED PROPERLY. AND IM CAUGHT UP IN THIS SAME MESS. CONFUSION OVER THE NUMBERS OUT OF WORK AND WANTING TO WORK PROSPECTIVE TAXPAYERS, IN CASE YOU HADNT NOTICED. OFFICIAL UNEMPLOYMENT NUMBERS, GIVEN EACH MONTH TO THE MEDIA BY STATSCAN, ONLY ABOUT 25% OF THE PROBLEM, REST ARE IGNORED. ITS NEARLY THE SAME THROUGHOUT CANADA, NOT ONLY OTTAWA. BLOODY STUPID.
CANADIANS: IT DIRECTLY AFFECTS YOU AND THE AMOUNT OF INCOME TAX YOU HAVE TO PAY. WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO DEAL WITH IT.
(B) SOLVING THE PROBLEM: THE BUSINESS CASE; CREATE JOBS IN THE NUMBERS REQUIRED; STOP THE NONSENSE IN HIRING PRACTICES; STOP THE OBSESSION OVER APPEARANCES CONNECTED WITH RESUMES, INTERVIEW TECHNIQUE, CUT AND COLOUR OF BUSINESS SUIT, BODY LANGUAGE ETC.
7. AND WHAT ABOUT THE MATHEMATICS? HOW LONG MIGHT IT TAKE YOU TO GET A JOB IF THERE ARE BETWEEN 300 AND 5,000 OTHER PEOPLE COMPETING WITH YOU? HOW WOULD YOU OPTIMIZE THE TREND IN YOUR BANK BALANCE IF YOU WERE FACED WITH THIS? WHAT MIGHT THIS MEAN FOR THE TAX BASE? SO YOU DONT THINK THERE IS A PROBLEM?
1. IF, AFTER LOOKING AT THE MATHEMATICS, YOU AGREE THERE IS A PROBLEM WITH NO SIMPLE SOLUTION, THEN YOU CAN CONSIDER OFFERING ROOT-CAUSE BASED SOLUTIONS, WHICH INVOLVES MORE THAN JUST MATHEMATICS.
2. IF YOU THINK THIS REPRESENTS AN EASY MATHEMATICS PROBLEM WITH AN UN-AMBIGUOUS ANSWER , THEN TRY FINDING THE SOLUTION TO THE FOLLOWING (ITALICS):-
Derive a set of equations for optimizing the trend in the bank balance of someone who is out of work. Show how to apply them. State all assumptions made. State any and all limitations of your method. Give details of what to do under all conditions in which your method is limited by factors which are not knowable and outside the job seekers control. You are to assume that there are between 300 and 5,000 other competing for every job that you apply for.
Use a web site to display your answer if you wish, in which case all you need send to me is the URL.
The URL of your web site may also point to a .pdf file, if you prefer to do it that way.
Hint: you might want to consider a probability and statistics-based approach.
I reserve the right to display any or all answers received, or links to any web site(s) where they might be posted.
This is a serious matter which demands serious answers.
I will be reviewing answers from time to time and I reserve the right to forward them to other math teachers, University professors etc. for comment.
F.A.Q.s page, where I will post answers to your questions.
ROBERT T. CHISHOLM B.Sc. Hons. (Mechanical Engineering, Univ. of Bath, U.K., 1970)
Visual Software Developer (Willis College of Business and Technology, Ottawa, 1998)