Back to "Some Things Canadians Had Better Know..."
Back to "ON-SITE:" - Introduction"
Difficulties with H.R.D.C. / ON-SITE
in 1998 / 1999
This particular story deals with just the latest of a series of instances, going back to 1989, in which I have applied for an ON-SITE job / re-training placement as a means to get back to work (which equates to, a means to get back to contributing to the tax base) - but being excluded every time, based on improperly-designed regulations aggravated by deliberate non-acknowledgement of my circumstances by H.R.D.C. officials
Supporting documentation is attached. In brief, the following occurred:-
1. On Tuesday, June 9th 1998, just after completing a computer programming course, I heard that I had been officially approved for an ON-SITE placement
2. Two weeks later, I found out - by accident - that H.R.D.C.officials had withdrawn their approval, without giving any reason (as well as deliberately concealing their change of mind from me personally).
See DOC 1 - CLICK HERE and DOC 2 - CLICK HERE
3. On account of the above, the late Senator Peter Bosa wrote to the Minister of Human Resources Development Canada on September 21st 1998, asking for an exception to be made.
Among other things, the letter from Senator Peter Bosa refers to a
previous instance in 1994 / 95 of my being barred from ON-SITE. This, in
turn, is described and documented elsewhere on this site.
The letter was actually composed - with great difficulty - by my wife, who was assistant to Senator Peter Bosa at the time.
Three weeks later - on December 10th 1998 - Senator Peter Bosa died after being ill with cancer for more than a year, so was unable to follow up.
Two months later, my wife - his assistant - lost her job, on expiry of the usual two months allowed to wind up the affairs of a Senator s office in this type of circumstance.
5. I had been working on a voluntary basis with a Task Force, Partners for Jobs, set up by R.M.O.C. Chair Bob Chiarelli. Their people also attempted to resolve it, but to no avail - based on the same non-acknowledgement of my circumstances by H.R.D.C.
This culminated in a letter to me dated January 4th 2000 from Dick Stewart, Commissioner of Social Services for the R.M.O.C., from which you will see that the Task Force is working to remove bureaucratic obstacles - such as the ones which I have run into repeatedly - to re-training and job placements using programs such as ON-SITE.
The following paragraph in Mr. Stewart s letter is particularly interesting – quote :-
HRDC recognizes a three-year period of
entitlement for Reach-Back programs (or five-year when parental benefits were
received) and normally authorizes one program per entitlement period. HRDC
interprets their rules consistently except in circumstances when a program is
already started. This happened in your situation since the program you attended
at Willis Business College ran to July 1998 even though your entitlement period
ended in April 1998 (as shown in correspondence to you from HRDC). The
other exception is if there has been a career planning process with an HRDC
counsellor and it is the recommendation of the counsellor that further program
or time needs to be made available to the client.
At no time did H.R.D.C. advise me of any such
option, concerning any career planning process with an H.R.D.C. counsellor.
If this had happened then the problems described
could have been prevented, not only in this case but also in other instances
where I have tried to obtain an ON-SITE placement, referred to elsewhere on
this site.
But no. They did not do things properly.
Then they produced all manner of weak excuses and
obfuscation when the situation was pointed out to them.
Further, they failed or refused to acknowledge how
this was stopping me from contributing to the tax base. Quite apart from
anything else, I had a student loan to pay back.
I was constantly being fobbed off by companies whom
I applied to for work, based on the no experience, no job and no job,
no experience stupidity trap. In Canada, you seem to like that sort of mess
- because, to you, it s a convenient way to cheapen labour by putting people
down, because you are in the habit of stigmatising people who are unemployed -
just like the habitual drunkard, who must always have one more drink. Or,
for that matter, habitual and compulsive liars
6. COMMENTS
6.1. It is obvious that the problems are the results of H.R.D.C s own dysfunctional rules and regulations at the time, which as far as I am concerned accounts for their refusal to acknowledge or apologize for my circumstances and their refusal to do anything to rectify them.
6.2. The whole discussion has also omitted all mention of the obvious result in terms of me being barred - in effect - from becoming a contributor to the tax base.
6.3. There was also no acknowledgement of my rights to life and security of the person under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Nobody with any knowledge at all of what underlies right to life and security of the person has any legitimate basis for denying that this depends on the right to get back to work (which also equates to - a right to contribute to the tax base).
Robert T. Chisholm.
Back to "ON-SITE:" - Introduction"
Back to "Some Things Canadians Had Better Know..."