|
TABLE OF
CORRESPONDENCES BETWEEN POINTS
MADE TO AUTHORITIES
BY MR. CHISHOLM AND
SUBSEQUENT EVENTS
Links to References 1 to 6 in the table
below are at the bottom of this page.
Problem
area indicated -or
– Recommendation
made |
Where
|
Subsequent events
|
True size and
character of the unemployment problem - about 5 million people unemployed in
real terms |
Reference
1 |
For Ottawa, R.M.O.C.
Chair Bob Chiarelli and others commissioned a study to define it more
accurately. Report, Ottawa s Hidden Workforce, released by The
Ottawa Partnership (TOP) in Fall 1998. The report found that there were about
145,0000 real-term unemployed within the Ottawa C.M.A. which had a population
of about 1.0 million. Of these 145,000 only 38,800 were officially Unemployed
according to the standard Labour Force Survey classification. |
Need to create new
jobs in numbers to match actual size of problem; need to emphasise
export-related jobs. About 1 in every 5 such jobs would need to be
export-related. |
Reference
1 |
Following release of
Ottawa s Hidden Workforce, Bob Chiarelli issued challenge to
local business to create 145,000 jobs. In addition, he and others
commissioned ICF Consulting to study
Ottawa’s economy and make recommendations for how to make it grow and how to
manage that growth. Report, Choosing a Future: a New Economic Vision
for Ottawa, released in Fall 2000. One of the findings was that about
26% of all jobs were with Economic Generators - companies whose products and services
were export-related |
Better access to
re-training for people unemployed but not eligible for federal U.I.
benefits |
Reference
1 |
Creation of Partners
for Jobs program in the R.M.O.C. / City of Ottawa to get social
assistance recipients off welfare and into paid work |
Non-coordination or
poor coordination of federal and provincial social programs in Ontario and
throughout Canada |
Reference
1 |
Bob Chiarelli
commissioned the Caledon Institute to report in more depth. Their report, Survival
of the Fittest Employment Policy, was released in April 2000.
Solutions for the problems that it reported - and as seen by the author - depend, among other things, on
fundamental changes in the organisation of social program delivery at all
levels of government and on actual availability of jobs in the numbers
required to match the numbers of real-term unemployed. |
Ineligibility of
most real-term unemployed people for U.I. benefits – in particular, people
never able to get insurable employment of any kind |
Reference
1 |
This is a federal
government responsibility. Some reduction in overall benefits as of July 1,
1996. However, Reach-Back program, introduced at the same time,
extended by 3 years (beyond normal expiration of U.I. benefits)
the period in which U.I. exhaustees could still access federal re-training
programs such as ON-SITE. This change, whilst positive, does
not benefit the self-employed or people never able to get insurable
employment. |
Ditto |
Reference
2 |
Introduction of Reach-Back program (see
above) as of July 1, 1996. This was accompanied by re-naming the former Unemployment
Insurance Act to theEmployment Insurance Act”. There
were many other changes in addition. |
Ditto plus some
other issues |
Reference
3 |
Reference 4. – Reply
from The Honourable Lloyd Axworthy who was federal Minister of Human
Resources Development at the time( March 1994). Since then there have been
certain improvements but much remains to be done. |
A company can go
bankrupt and throw someone out of work before they have the minimum number
of weeks of insurable
employment before being entitled to U.I. benefits. Benefits will
still not be allowed. |
Reference
1 |
This is a federal
government responsibility. Still no change in the rules to account for this
scenario. |
No means for
self-employed people to contribute voluntarily to U.I. fund / establish
eligibility for benefits. Same problem for individuals forced to work as sub-contractors,
for employers wanting nothing to do with government paperwork. |
Reference
1 |
This is a federal
government responsibility. Still no change in the rules to account for this
scenario. |
Non-availability of provincially-funded
re-training programs to U.I. beneficiaries, or vice-versa; non-availability
of provincially-funded re-training programs to persons categorised as ineligible
for provincial social benefits. |
Reference
1 |
This is a provincial
government responsibility. Still no change in the rules to account for this
scenario. |
Failure by the media
to report the true numbers of real-term unemployed. |
Reference
1 |
The responsibility
is split between the federal government and the media. Government statistics,
on the one hand, only explicitly show the number of official unemployed.
On the other hand, media reports often deal at length with social problems, relating to the homeless
and social assistance recipients (for example), but without any admission
concerning the possibility that they got into that position as a result of
real-term unemployment and without any admission that they might have been
categorised as Not in the Labour Force as a means of obscuring the
cause of their problem. Therefore there has been and still is persistent
failure by the media to report and analyse the situation correctly. One of
the few exceptions to this has been the reference to Ottawa s idden
Workforce at the time of its release, by the Ottawa Citizen,
in fall 1998. |
Mis-leading reports
in the media about people who are categorised by Stats Can etc. as ..given
up looking for work, ..dropped out of the labour force..,..discouraged
workers |
Reference
1 |
No improvement in the
situation, with the sole exception of the reference to Ottawa’s Hidden
Workforce, at the time of its release, by the Ottawa Citizen,
in fall 1998. This was the first and so far only admission in the media
concerning the true numbers of jobs required to cure real-term unemployment
(145,000 more jobs needed in the
Ottawa C.M.A. which has population of about 1.0 million). |
Difficulties faced
by immigrants in getting work |
Reference
1 |
In Ottawa,
Talentworks program set up in 2001. The Partners for Jobs
program in Ottawa has been part of this since about December 2001. Other than
this, no material improvement in the country generally. |
Non-recognition of
placements by Ottawa’s Partners for Jobs of people in paid
employment, as counting towards the Ontario workfare placement numbers |
Reference
5 |
See also Reference 6. The Ontario government changed the
rules, as if in response to the author’s advice to Ottawa s
Partners for Jobs team; as a result, the Ontario government
recognised that the rules change was in fact protecting their own interests -
i.e. that paid employment meant more tax revenue for them, as well as being
in the interests of people trying to get off social assistance. Simultaneously, the
Ontario government offered the City of Ottawa a bonus cheque which eventually
turned out to be $4.1 million – for exceeding the workfare placement target.
See Reference 7 |
Reference 1: Written presentation to Bob Chiarelli in July 1995 when
he was still an Ontario M.P.P., in
Ottawa
Reference 2: Presentation to the federal Standing Committee on Human Resources
Development, during the Phase 1 Public Consultations in March 1994. (by
Robert T. Chisholm)
Reference 3: Written presentation to the Honourable Lloyd Axworthy,
who was Minister of Human Resources Development, at about the same time. (by
Robert T. Chisholm)
Reference 4: Reply from Mr. Axworthy
Reference 5: E-mail to Partners for Jobs team July 13th 2000
Reference 6: Ottawa Citizen article, March 30th 2001
Reference 7: Ottawa Citizen
article, December 11, 2002
ß----Back to Text Document, Page 3