HUMA Committee Meeting
Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.
For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.
If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.
37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION
Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities
EVIDENCE
CONTENTS
Thursday, May 1st, 2003
| ¹ | 1530 |
 |
The Chair (Mrs. Judi Longfield (Whitby—Ajax, Lib.)) |
|
Ms. Lenore Burton (Director General, Learning and Literacy Directorate, Department of Human Resources Development) |
| ¹ | 1535 |
| ¹ | 1540 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance) |
|
Ms. Lenore Burton |
|
Mr. Ken Epp |
|
Ms. Lenore Burton |
| ¹ | 1545 |
|
Mr. Ken Epp |
|
Ms. Lenore Burton |
|
Mr. Ken Epp |
|
Ms. Lenore Burton |
|
Mr. Ken Epp |
|
Ms. Lenore Burton |
|
Mr. Ken Epp |
|
Ms. Lenore Burton |
|
Mr. Ken Epp |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Ottawa—Orléans, Lib.) |
| ¹ | 1550 |
|
Ms. Lenore Burton |
|
Mr. Eugène Bellemare |
|
Ms. Lenore Burton |
|
Mr. Eugène Bellemare |
|
Mr. Andy Burton |
|
Mr. Eugène Bellemare |
|
Ms. Lenore Burton |
|
Mr. Eugène Bellemare |
|
Ms. Lenore Burton |
|
Mr. Eugène Bellemare |
|
Ms. Lenore Burton |
|
Mr. Eugène Bellemare |
|
Ms. Lenore Burton |
| ¹ | 1555 |
|
Mr. Eugène Bellemare |
|
Ms. Lenore Burton |
|
Mr. Eugène Bellemare |
|
Ms. Lenore Burton |
|
Mr. Eugène Bellemare |
|
Ms. Lenore Burton |
|
Mr. Eugène Bellemare |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Eugène Bellemare |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP) |
| º | 1600 |
|
Ms. Lenore Burton |
|
Ms. Libby Davies |
|
Ms. Lenore Burton |
|
Ms. Libby Davies |
|
Ms. Lenore Burton |
| º | 1605 |
|
Ms. Libby Davies |
|
Ms. Lenore Burton |
|
Ms. Libby Davies |
|
Ms. Lenore Burton |
|
Ms. Libby Davies |
|
Ms. Lenore Burton |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Raymond Simard (Saint Boniface, Lib.) |
|
Ms. Lenore Burton |
|
Mr. Raymond Simard |
|
Ms. Lenore Burton |
|
Mr. Raymond Simard |
|
Ms. Lenore Burton |
|
Mr. Raymond Simard |
|
Ms. Lenore Burton |
|
Mr. Raymond Simard |
| º | 1610 |
|
Ms. Lenore Burton |
|
Mr. Raymond Simard |
|
Ms. Lenore Burton |
|
Mr. Raymond Simard |
|
Ms. Lenore Burton |
|
Mr. Raymond Simard |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Raymond Simard |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Raymond Simard |
|
Ms. Lenore Burton |
|
Mr. Raymond Simard |
|
Ms. Lenore Burton |
|
Mr. Raymond Simard |
|
Ms. Lenore Burton |
|
Mr. Raymond Simard |
|
The Chair |
| º | 1615 |
|
Ms. Lenore Burton |
|
Ms. Yvette Souque (Program Manager, National Literacy Secretariat, Department of Human Resources Development) |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Ken Epp |
|
Ms. Lenore Burton |
|
Mr. Ken Epp |
|
Ms. Lenore Burton |
|
Mr. Ken Epp |
|
Ms. Lenore Burton |
|
Mr. Ken Epp |
|
Ms. Lenore Burton |
| º | 1620 |
|
Mr. Ken Epp |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Lenore Burton |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Lenore Burton |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Ken Epp |
|
Ms. Lenore Burton |
|
Mr. Ken Epp |
|
Ms. Lenore Burton |
|
Mr. Ken Epp |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.) |
|
Ms. Lenore Burton |
|
Mr. John Finlay |
|
Ms. Lenore Burton |
|
Mr. John Finlay |
|
Ms. Lenore Burton |
| º | 1625 |
|
Mr. John Finlay |
|
Ms. Lenore Burton |
|
Mr. John Finlay |
|
Ms. Lenore Burton |
|
Mr. John Finlay |
|
Ms. Lenore Burton |
|
Mr. John Finlay |
|
Ms. Lenore Burton |
|
Mr. John Finlay |
|
Ms. Lenore Burton |
|
Mr. John Finlay |
|
Ms. Lenore Burton |
| º | 1630 |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Libby Davies |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Diane St-Jacques (Shefford, Lib.) |
|
Ms. Lenore Burton |
|
Ms. Diane St-Jacques |
|
Ms. Lenore Burton |
|
Ms. Diane St-Jacques |
|
The Chair |
| º | 1635 |
|
Ms. Lenore Burton |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Lenore Burton |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Lenore Burton |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Lenore Burton |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Lenore Burton |
| º | 1640 |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Lenore Burton |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Lenore Burton |
|
The Chair |
CANADA
Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities |
|
l |
|
l |
|
EVIDENCE
Thursday, May 1st, 2003
[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
¹ 
(1530)
[English]
The Chair (Mrs. Judi Longfield (Whitby—Ajax, Lib.)): Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.
I have reached quorum. I am delighted to have with us Lenore Burton, from the Department of Human Resources Development, who's no stranger to this committee. With her is Yvette Souque.
Without further ado I'm going to turn the floor over to you. You know the drill here. You have five or six minutes, and then we'll turn it over to questions.
Ms. Lenore Burton (Director General, Learning and Literacy Directorate, Department of Human Resources Development): Thank you, Madam Chair, for giving me the opportunity to appear before you on what I personally consider to be one of the most pressing issues facing our country: ensuring that all Canadians have adequate levels of literacy to function effectively in their daily lives.
I want to make it very clear at the outset that when I'm speaking about literacy I'm referring to the ability to read and comprehend written material; to navigate through documents, such as bus schedules or application forms; and to calculate.
[Translation]
I am going to share with you the work of the National Literacy Secretariat and our perspective on what we can do as a nation to help advance this goal.
[English]
But before I do, I want to thank you and all the committee members for your interest in this issue and your demonstrated desire to address Canada's literacy challenges. I am grateful that you responded to Minister Stewart's request for support in raising the profile of adult literacy and in identifying more effective ways to tackle this challenge in Canadian society. I very much look forward to your recommendations on ways we can work more effectively in the future.
As your committee has heard, almost every aspect of our lives is touched by literacy. It is indispensable for anyone living and working in today's information-based society. Whether we talk about reading our child's report card, accessing health services, using a computer, or taking job training, literacy is the key to Canadians' successful involvement in the community and the economy.
[Translation]
Literacy has a profound influence on our health as well as our social and economic well-being. And we know that the lack of literacy skills contributes directly to poverty, poor health and crime.
[English]
Literacy is particularly crucial in today's knowledge-based economy that requires workers to continually learn and upgrade their skills. It is quite literally the foundation of all learning--the velcro to which training sticks.
Technology has dramatically changed the speed with which information is communicated and new knowledge is generated. Literacy skills are more important than ever because the bar keeps rising.
I'm not here to reiterate what other witnesses have already said or to cite a lot of statistics, although I like to do that. I do want to underscore one important point that highlights why we need to make greater progress in raising literacy levels in this country: eight million working-age Canadians do not have the literacy skills the international community agrees are needed for a knowledge-based society. This is a serious problem for Canada, and it's also a serious problem for those individuals.
Research has shown that literacy has a large impact on earnings. Each additional year of education raises annual earnings by about 8%, and one-third of that raise is due to increased literacy skills. This tells us there are major dividends for both individuals and our entire country if we can take steps to improve our literacy levels. This is one of the many valuable lessons we've learned since the federal government assumed a leadership role in literacy when we set up the National Literacy Secretariat 15 years ago.
[Translation]
Committee members know that literacy is a shared responsibility in Canada. The Secretariat does not directly deliver the teaching of reading and writing skills to Canadians. This is done by the provinces through the education system and by the not-for-profit sector, literacy organizations, labour and business groups, and others with expertise in this area.
We recognize the crucial role played by our provincial and territorial colleagues and respect jurisdictional considerations. We also understand that each region of the country has unique needs and priorities, and that those close to the problems at the community level are also invariably closer to the solutions. That is why the Secretariat is a partnership program.
[English]
The mandate of the national literacy program is to encourage and facilitate the involvement of all sectors of society in creating a more literate Canada. One of the principal ways the secretariat does this is by providing financial assistance to help non-governmental organizations and communities across the country address their literacy challenges.
The National Literacy Secretariat has an annual budget of about $28 million, and funding allocation is divided roughly into two equal funding streams. The federal/provincial/territorial stream supports literacy projects that are directed to regional or local needs. We often refer to this as our community partnership stream. Provinces and territories match our funding, and in many cases spend significantly more.
The national funding stream supports projects in the non-governmental sector. This includes national literacy organizations, provincial and territorial literacy coalitions, business and labour organizations, and other NGOs with an interest in literacy. The NLS works directly with these organizations to support the national objectives of both the NLS and the organizations themselves.
Since 1988, the National Literacy Secretariat has funded over 5,000 innovative projects. I must point out that the secretariat's mandate expressly supports a broad-based approach to promote literacy across Canada. We concentrate our activities in five areas.
For example, we encourage the development of learning and training materials and tools based on Canadian life, which meet the needs of adult learners--practical tools that work. Likewise, we encourage research that can help us understand the impact of literacy on individuals' lives, and find new ways of improving adult literacy programs.
One of the greatest challenges facing us is to reach that part of the population that could benefit from literacy training. The secretariat is exploring ways to reach out to people in need and make the programs more accessible for those wishing to improve their literacy skills. Parallel with that activity is the need to improve coordination and information-sharing in the literacy field.
¹ (1535)
[Translation]
Finally the Secretariat works hard to increase understanding of literacy issues through promotion and public awareness and in finding new solutions. Canadians need to know that literacy is part of everyone challenge in today's knowledge-based economy.
[English]
In addition to funding those five activities, the secretariat also undertakes other functions to support literacy. We play a key role is forging partnerships across federal departments. Literacy is a horizontal issue that spans the mandates of many federal departments, such as Corrections, Health, Justice, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, and Citizenship and Immigration Canada, to mention a few.
For example, the secretariat, in partnership with Corrections Canada and the Learning Disabilities Association, has been doing a study to track inmates over a two-year post-release period. It has found that their recidivism rates are considerably lowered with increased skill levels. In fact, among those who completed the adult basic education program, there was a 12% decrease in readmission rates. These findings have led to a permanent change in the way the federal government uses learning to fight crime, especially when you consider that nearly 80% of new admissions to federal custody do not have high school diplomas.
Our involvement with Statistics Canada and the International Adult Literacy Survey, and our partnership with the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, have supported important research and significantly increased our knowledge about adult literacy. Of the eight million working-age Canadians I mentioned earlier, we know that 58% are under the age of 56, so they are part of our prime-age workforce, and the majority have either French or English as their mother tongue.
We need to reach out to these Canadians, whose literacy challenges leave them at even greater risk of exclusion in an information-driven knowledge-based society. But we also know there is no magic bullet, nor can the Government of Canada do all of this alone. It will take a long-term comprehensive approach that involves the provinces and territories, employers, labour unions, educators, the voluntary sector, and everybody else with a contribution to make, to address Canada's adult literacy challenge.
We also know we must look closely at our current programs and examine how we can integrate literacy programming into all training and literacy learning initiatives. What we are doing now is not nearly enough.
Canada's innovation strategy, “Knowledge Matters: Skills and Learning for Canadians”, has set a goal of reducing the number of adult Canadians with low literacy skills by 25% within the next 10 years, and ensuring that all students who graduate from high school achieve a level of literacy sufficient to participate in the knowledge-based economy. In the language of the International Adult Literacy Survey, this is known as level 3.
¹ (1540)
[Translation]
Madam Chair, if there is one final lesson we have learned over the years, it is that Canada cannot afford not to fix this problem because the social and economic stakes are too high. Anyone concerned about the welfare of our communities, our economy and social cohesion has a vested interest in resolving this problem.
We are realizing that a holistic, coordinated, more structured approach is necessary if we are going to reach that segment of the population who have literacy challenges but are not participating in the program.
[English]
As members of the standing committee, you will have heard from an array of witnesses. We know we will not achieve our goals until every Canadian child arrives at school ready to learn; every teenager graduates from high school with level 3 literacy; and all eight million adult Canadians with low literacy levels, the majority of whom are now in our workforce, are able to upgrade their skills to level 3 and remain employable, while helping their employers stay competitive.
Achieving these results will require a significant investment of time, effort, and resources. But be assured that the National Literacy Secretariat looks to you for guidance and advice on how to do even more with our existing resources, and how to tap into new ways to expand Canadian's access to literacy and learning opportunities.
Merci beaucoup. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you.
The first rounds will be seven minutes. We'll start with Mr. Epp, and then Monsieur Bellemare.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance): Thank you very much.
I'd like to begin by apologizing for being late. It shows no disrespect for you. This is a topic in which I have great interest. I was just waylaid by reporters on the way out. You can't ignore them; otherwise they'll write bad stuff about you.
I scanned your presentation. Thank you for giving us a written copy of it. I was caught up pretty well by the time you were finished. That's because I have the ability to speed read, which I guess is a mark of literacy. I appreciate so much the fact that I can read and write.
I saw a cartoon the other day where a father is saying to his kid it's interesting that two of the three elements of literacy--reading, writing, and arithmetic--are misspelled because only one of them starts with an r.
This is my first question. You talk about level 3 literacy. I wonder whether you could just give me a really quick definition of what that means.
Ms. Lenore Burton: It is important that we start using this language. It's based on the International Adult Literacy Survey. We talk about literacy as a continuum. We don't use the word illiteracy anymore because very few people have absolutely no literacy skills at all. It's a continuum. The lowest level is 1 and the highest level is 5. Level 3, which is roughly equivalent to high school graduation, is considered by the international community, by the OECD, as the level we need today in a knowledge-based information world.
Mr. Ken Epp: Okay. Is a definition of “vocabulary” included in that? For example, how many words are in a person's vocabulary? I know there are statistical ways of measuring that. Are arithmetic skills and other skills also involved in literacy?
Ms. Lenore Burton: The International Adult Literacy Survey is world-class. It was developed in Canada by Statistics Canada. It's a functional test. You actually have to do something when they're measuring your literacy skills. We measure across three domains: reading and the ability to understand what you're reading; calculation and numeracy; and what we call document use--the ability to navigate a bus schedule, a computer screen, an application form.
¹ (1545)
Mr. Ken Epp: I happen to be an educator. I did that for 31 years before I came to this place, and now I can't get anybody to learn anything--that's not true.
I have a question for you. I was in the instructional world at a post-secondary institute in the years when computers came into being. When I first went there we were still using slide rules. I was in the math department, and we progressed to eventually using pretty fancy laptop and desktop computers. I was involved during that whole transition.
One of the complaints we got was that there would be a lot more stimulus-response activity going on with a computer and less understanding and learning. Are you aware of anything like that? Nowadays the joke is that if I can't understand something on the computer I ask my kid, who's in grade 5 or 6, to help me.
Are you finding that modern technology is helping literacy? I am wont to believe that with all of this spoonfed stuff the brain isn't adequately stimulated, and learning is actually less.
Ms. Lenore Burton: At the end of the day, the Internet is a print-based medium. You're reading. There's the example of the very successful AlphaRoute project in Ontario that teaches literacy online. I would say that computers demand an increased level of reading skill, so the quid pro quo is they help us to increase our skills.
Mr. Ken Epp: You almost need a certain level to even get onto it.
I have a couple more questions, and I'm sure my time will be up by then.
You indicate here that you get about a $28-million funding allocation. I detect from your presentation that one of your frustrations is that it's not level. It gets rolled out on political occasions, but it's not a long-term, sustainable, guaranteed income. There's some fluctuation. Correct me if I'm wrong on that.
The other part of the question has to do with the innovative projects. You indicate here that you funded some 5,000 different innovative projects, yet you complain that there is no unified strategy or policy.
I see that you are supporting 5,000 projects, so is your group satisfied it is a unified and very specifically targeted initiative that you are doing? With all these different projects, are you all going in the same direction, or is your initiative itself somewhat disjointed?
Ms. Lenore Burton: On your first question about the funding, the National Literacy Secretariat funding is A-base funding, and it was $20 million in the beginning. There have been years when it has fluctuated a little bit, in the sense we had a bit more during the cod crisis and the TAGS program. We had an additional $7 million in 1997, but we can count on that $28 million.
Mr. Ken Epp: Is it fairly stable?
Ms. Lenore Burton: Yes. We can count on that.
Mr. Ken Epp: Okay. And on the second part...?
Ms. Lenore Burton: On your second question, there's always the frustration, when something very innovative or very good happens in one part of the country, that we really don't have the ability to roll that out across the country. But given the work we're doing with communities and local literacy groups in responding to local needs, some of it has to be different because regions and localities differ and we're trying to respond to their needs.
The literacy needs of Cape Breton, Nova Scotia are going to be very different from what the NWT or Nunavut face. So we need some of that. We also need to find better ways of taking the best we have and being able to apply it across the country.
Mr. Ken Epp: Thank you. That's been very useful. I think my time is up. I didn't start my watch.
The Chair: You have three seconds, and I'll add it to your next round.
Monsieur Bellemare.
[Translation]
Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Ottawa—Orléans, Lib.): Ms. Burton, I say well done for all the work you're doing.
[English]
On the $28 million, I don't want to sound like an Alliance member, but was it all just in innovation projects? Was there research, or did you have any projects that were really hands-on?
Let me rephrase this. Have you become a clearing house for federal funds for literacy programs?
¹ (1550)
Ms. Lenore Burton: I'm not sure I understand your question about a “clearing house”. The $28 million does fund projects.
Mr. Eugène Bellemare: The $28 million comes from the feds.
Ms. Lenore Burton: Yes, it comes from the federal government's budget.
Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Okay. So people across the country, organizations and NGOs especially--I assume not provincial governments--request funds from you for particular projects.
Mr. Andy Burton: That's right.
Mr. Eugène Bellemare: I assume these projects are innovative, or are they just hands-on, day-to-day projects, like setting up a school in the shopping mall and inviting people to come in and learn something.
Ms. Lenore Burton: There are five areas of activities that we fund. There's promotion and public awareness, and research. We help NGOs develop learning materials and tools. We use the money to improve coordination across literacy practitioners and programs; and we try to improve access to literacy programming. For example, we funded an NGO to develop AlphaRoute, literacy training online, so people in remote areas of Ontario could have access online to literacy programming.
Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Okay. What happened to basic skills and life skills? All of a sudden we're looking at the high school education level because we are in a knowledge industry world in Canada, but are we forgetting those who can't read, write, or count; or those who can't figure out how to read directions to take the bus?
Ms. Lenore Burton: Those people would be at level 1. There are approximately three million working-age Canadians at that level, and they are exactly the people who are in need of literacy programs.
Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Here's a problem I see: industry-specific language. Sometimes when I read a label on a pharmaceutical product or buy a toy for my grandchildren and try to put it together, I have a hell of a lot of difficulty trying to figure out how to put it together--or something scientific.
Ms. Lenore Burton: What about IKEA?
Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Yes, that's right. If you buy something at IKEA--whew. I don't have a language problem. I can speak and read in French and English, and I know a little Spanish. I have a master's degree, yet I feel like a fool sometimes trying to figure out these labels.
Have you ever addressed these industry-specific language people about the manner in which they write things out? Do you ever address them by saying, “Hey, you've written this out. Have you asked someone, a specific survey group, to actually put things together or to comprehend what you wrote”?
Ms. Lenore Burton: Yes. That was a part of the original mandate of the National Literacy Secretariat. We've worked very hard with Communications Canada on the whole plain language issue, and the Government of Canada communicating with less literate Canadians. We've done manuals on plain language. We have helped organizations that sincerely want to reach their clients better.
One good example of that is work we've done with justices and the legal system, because many of the people they see have very low literacy levels. Another good example is our involvement with the Canadian Public Health Association. In fact, we'll be helping them sponsor a conference on literacy and health in June. When pharmacists give instructions to their customers on using prescription drugs, they have to be able to communicate in a plain language way. So we have been involved in those kinds of projects.
¹ (1555)
Mr. Eugène Bellemare: That's through Communications Canada. Have you done anything directly with the industries?
Ms. Lenore Burton: We've done both.
Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Okay.
On immigration, refugees, and learning ability, you say 8 million people out of 31 million are illiterate, according to the international definitions.
Ms. Lenore Burton: Their levels of literacy are low.
Mr. Eugène Bellemare: When you say that, we think of a family and say, “Hey, eight million of them like that”. We forget that a lot of those eight million could be refugees, immigrants from countries where they don't write the language the same way, like Arabic, for example. So they have difficulties. They can speak very good English or very good French, but in comprehending industry-specific language, you could give them a test and they wouldn't know what you were talking about. So you put them all in this group of eight million where they really shouldn't be. That eight million should be divided into specific groups.
What about those who have difficulty learning? That's a group. When you say eight million, in my mind I say, “Gee whiz, that's awful. The departments of education should all be flogged for not doing their work.” But when you think of it, most of those eight million could be refugees, immigrants, and people with learning difficulties, as opposed to the normal people who should have learned how to read.
Ms. Lenore Burton: We know who is at level 1, the lowest level, and there are about 3.1 million Canadians there. There's always the debate for us, when we're working on policy issues, about whether we should be using the eight million number, because people seem to think it's incredible. We know who the three million Canadians are at the lowest level, but we don't know why they're there. That research has yet to be done. It'll be a very important piece of research for us, because we won't be able to design the best interventions if we don't do that research.
On the immigrant question, 36% of immigrants scored at level 1, but on the other side of the coin, 25% of them scored at the very highest levels of 4 and 5.
On our immigration policy, when we're trying to attract the best and the brightest and bring skills into the country, there are more post-secondary credentials among our immigrant group than there are among native-born Canadians. We have attracted some very skilled people, but there are also their family members. There are those who come in under refugee status who are maybe having more difficulties.
Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Can I ask a final question?
The Chair: No. You're a minute over.
Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Okay, thank you.
The Chair: Ms. Davies.
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Thank you very much.
I just want to start off by saying I'm not sure who the normal people are who were referred to, but we'll get into that later.
Thank you very much for coming here today. Based on some of the community representations we've heard and people I've spoken to, I think your secretariat has very high regard from people. People see it as a real place of advocacy and support, so I think you're doing very wonderful work.
º (1600)
Ms. Lenore Burton: That's good to hear.
Ms. Libby Davies: In terms of what you've said today, I have a couple of questions. First, you said in your presentation that it's important to look at how we integrate literacy programs. You particularly referenced training and learning initiatives and the fact we're not doing enough. I would certainly agree with that. But in terms of the levels 1 to 5 you identify, in every training and learning place and opportunity, literacy must be part of that. I also think it's really important that we find out where people are at.
We heard from some of the community folks that some of the programs that work the best aren't literacy programs, per se, but may be parenting programs, where literacy is part of the skill development taking place.
In terms of that, do you believe we're anywhere close to a sense of integration, where we're really finding the people in their own communities to make sure we're providing the resources for literacy that can be integrated with other kinds of resources that are needed?
My second question follows up on Mr. Bellemare's question. You can kind of flip to the other side of the coin and say there are people we can identify who need support and resources for literacy, but there are also governments, businesses, all of the stuff on the Internet, and instructions. Our language becomes more and more complicated and in some ways more and more obscure, so there's the whole issue of plain language and demystifying language.
You talked about looking at how it's directed at people with low literacy, but I think it's a universal thing, even for people who have “higher literacy”. It reminds me of the debate within the community where people have disabilities. It was often thought that we would change housing design, or even Parliament itself, to make places accessible to people with disabilities. But I think the debate went further and people actually started talking about universal design that was good for everybody, whether you had disabilities or not; whether you were able-bodied or not. It was the idea of universal design that was good for the whole community.
I really want to flip that question around as well, in terms of literacy. In some ways it's easy, and we should look at targets where there are particular problems. I don't know if I'm right or wrong in this, but if there were a broader understanding about literacy generally, whatever level your were at, and making language more accessible.... The federal government might be a prime example of that. The stuff we read sometimes is unbelievable. I consider myself to be a literate adult, but try to wade your way through the court system. Is there a way we can approach it from that end and make it more universal as well?
Ms. Lenore Burton: To answer your first question on integration, it does go back to Mr. Bellemare's question about the context. We know that literacy programs where the learning material is in the context of the adult's life are much more successful. If you're a parent and you want to be able to read your child's report card, or read how to give a prescription or make formula, then you have a real desire and the motivation. If the learning materials are in the context of your life, you'll be much more successful.
That's also true of the workplace. So when we're doing literacy courses in the workplace, the material we use is in the context of that workplace, whether it's a manufacturing firm or a service firm like the Chateau Laurier, which has had literacy programs in the past for their staff.
Where I was referring to integration in my speaking remarks, I was referring to all the programming across the Government of Canada where there would be an opportunity to really focus on literacy, whether it was our aboriginal programming or our pre-employment programming. We haven't had a specific focus on upgrading the literacy skills of unemployed people. We have been focusing on pre-employment training and getting them quickly back into jobs.
Ms. Libby Davies: Is there anything in EI? That's one major government program where there's a direct connection between ongoing training or unemployment and people who are facing difficulties.
Ms. Lenore Burton: That would be an ideal place for more integration to occur. Some literacy upgrading and training is probably going on, but it is not tracked and it is not specifically focused, so we have no way of measuring outcomes or how many people may be receiving it. Literacy upgrading may occur as a by-product of some of these programs, but it's not a specific focus. I think that's fair to say.
º (1605)
Ms. Libby Davies: On the second question, in terms of a broader approach around literacy as it applies to all people and dealing with plain language through government, business, and the private sector, is that an issue?
Ms. Lenore Burton: I think it behooves all organizations that want to talk to their customers, their clients, or their citizens to try to communicate as plainly as possible. But we're noticing that the bar for literacy is rising, and I suspect that's a part of this whole global information and knowledge generation world we're living in.
Ms. Libby Davies: Is it part of your mandate, though, to look at what federal departments, for example, are doing in terms of their general communications, and whether or not they are actually sliding into communications or language styles that are just ridiculous?
Ms. Lenore Burton: In the beginning, in the early cabinet document that set up the National Literacy Secretariat, that was certainly seen as a part of the mandate. But as the years have passed, the evolution of that has really gone to Communications Canada as part of their mandate.
Ms. Libby Davies: How do you work with them?
Ms. Lenore Burton: We've worked with them closely.
The Chair: Mr. Simard.
Mr. Raymond Simard (Saint Boniface, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair.
I'm going to have to repeat Ms. Davies' comment about the NLS. I don't know how many witnesses we've seen here over a period of time--it must be between 50 and 100--and we haven't heard one negative comment; everything has been extremely positive. So whatever you're doing, keep it up. I've never heard so many compliments in my life.
Ms. Lenore Burton: Thank you. May I just mention to the committee that some of the key people are here today?
Mr. Raymond Simard: It's meant for them to hear as well.
Ms. Lenore Burton: Good.
Mr. Raymond Simard: My first question is on educating the public and public awareness. I spoke a couple of weeks ago in Winnipeg and mentioned a few of the numbers on literacy, and the expression on people's faces was amazing. They couldn't believe the numbers--eight million people and all that. So obviously we haven't reached everybody. I'm not sure the public is aware of the real numbers, and if they were they would probably put more pressure on their governments to act on this because it is a huge issue. It was an eye-opener for me.
Can you tell me what you're doing to make the general public aware of this issue?
Ms. Lenore Burton: This is a part of our mandate. It's one of the five activities we fund and support. We have funded many of the provincial coalitions or organizations, like ABC CANADA, that have undertaken promotion campaigns. ABC CANADA have been enormously successful. There's a “learn” page in the yellow pages of every telephone book across the country, where you can look up “learn” and it will connect you with a number of learning literacy providers in your area.
Mr. Raymond Simard: But that's targeted to people with problems, right? What about the general public who may want to know about this? Am I missing something here?
Ms. Lenore Burton: No, that's a good question. I think it's fair to say we really haven't targeted or approached that yet.
It's interesting, further to your question, that people at level 1 know they have a problem, but it's people at level 2 who are particularly vulnerable. The majority of them are working and are fine until their employer introduces new technologies or new business processes, like ISO 9000, which is a very document-heavy process; or they lose their job and have to find a job in another sector. That's when their problems really come to the surface.
When we've asked them about their skills, 90% of them have rated their skills as good to excellent.
Mr. Raymond Simard: That's interesting.
Second, I know our government has been talking a lot lately about the innovation agenda. I'd like to know how you feel this can help the literacy problem, not only through the Department of Human Resources Development, but maybe in other departments.
Is there a fit there? We're talking about innovation, and as we do that we make the gap even wider for these people, so is there a role for this innovation agenda to play in improving the literacy problems in Canada?
º (1610)
Ms. Lenore Burton: Absolutely. First I want to say that my bias is that literate people innovate. We know that 25% of jobs that are going to be created by 2005 will require university education, but that 25% can't carry the rest of the country along. We all have to increase our literacy skills if we're going to innovate and be competitive.
There's a document you may be familiar with that the Conference Board of Canada puts out every year called “Performance and Potential: Assessing Canada's Social and Economic Performance”. It compares us to a key group of competitor countries. Every year Sweden comes out as number one on literacy levels, education, and training; and number one or two on innovation. I don't think that's a coincidence.
We've made a good start with “Knowledge Matters: Skills and Learning for Canadians”, what we call in Ottawa-speak the diagnostic that lays out the challenge before us and what we have to do to address that challenge. We're beginning that dialogue across the country. We had a year...a national engagement strategy. We had an excellent literacy event in Toronto, where a large community got to dialogue with the minister.
We're beginning to understand more and more what policies and program responses we're going to need to make a significant step to address this challenge.
Mr. Raymond Simard: Our government has also just lately introduced a $100-million learning institute. I'm not sure all the criteria have been established for that funding yet. Do you see a role for this learning institute, with regard to literacy?
Ms. Lenore Burton: I know the mandate and the structure of the institute are still under development. It is intended to support information--evidence-based learning material--and then be able to disseminate that to the Canadian public. Hopefully it will have an important role to play here, because the mandate that has been talked about sees it addressing all areas of learning and a lifelong learning approach, and literacy should be a part of that.
It's still a little too early for us to know what kinds of opportunities it might present, but literacy should be a part of it.
Mr. Raymond Simard: Should we be lobbying for part of this funding to be for literacy?
Ms. Lenore Burton: If part of the role of the institute is to undertake significant evidence-based research, I would absolutely encourage you to do so.
Mr. Raymond Simard: Am I out of time, Madam Chair?
The Chair: You have one more minute.
Mr. Raymond Simard: Are we going to have a second round?
The Chair: We might be able to squeeze one in.
Mr. Raymond Simard: If the government were to decide to increase its financial support of the NLS, should we invest it through the NLS directly to the communities? Do you think additional financial support would also leverage other dollars from the provincial levels and maybe the municipal levels?
Ms. Lenore Burton: I would hope so, on the leverage question. As I said in my opening remarks, part of the brilliance of setting up the NLS 15 years ago was that we were able to offer each province and territory a literacy fund for their communities if they matched the same amount of money. They did that, and then many of them did it in spades. They spend more on literacy--Ontario is a good example--than we do.
Mr. Raymond Simard: Are all your dollars conditional on them matching?
Ms. Lenore Burton: In our provincial-territorial stream?
Mr. Raymond Simard: Yes.
Ms. Lenore Burton: That $12 million stream is matched.
Mr. Raymond Simard: Okay, thank you very much.
The Chair: Just to follow up, would the provinces do it again if there were an increase?
º (1615)
Ms. Lenore Burton: I'm going to let Yvette Souque answer too, because she has a long history of working with the provinces.
I think we have to be cognizant that the ability of some provinces and territories to significantly increase their amount of funding is limited, unlike other provinces. The original formula for the allocation was on a per-capita basis, and based on what the provinces could come up with themselves and literacy levels. But we didn't have the research instruments in those days that we have now for measuring the literacy levels .
Yvette.
Ms. Yvette Souque (Program Manager, National Literacy Secretariat, Department of Human Resources Development): In terms of matching, as Lenore said, in most provinces the provincial contribution is way above ours. In Manitoba, for example, we started off with $500,000, and over the years at least $100,000 has been added each year...of course, we didn't. They now fund more than three times what we do. Ontario funds more than 10 times what we contribute.
A number of provinces have made it very clear that our being there enabled them to hold onto that money when cuts came, and also enabled them to secure more funds. So I think it's a very strong basis.
The Chair: Mr. Epp.
Mr. Ken Epp: Thank you, Madam Chair.
I would like to ask--you sort of touched on it--about the Northwest Territories. I don't know whether you have identified any of the provinces as being somewhat problematic, with respect to those matching funds. It seems to me a better model is to find out statistically what proportion of people need this help and then fund it per capita. That would probably come closer to distributing the money where it's needed. Do you agree with that?
Ms. Lenore Burton: Yes, in some ways I do. Statistics Canada is in the field right now with the next version of the International Adult Literacy Survey, only this time we are going to survey significantly more Canadians. We've bought over-samples in the aboriginal population and in the north because we know they have real challenges. But their population base is small, so if you do it on a per-capita basis it will be hard for them to get the funding they need.
Mr. Ken Epp: So you really almost need zero-based funding--just compute what it costs to do the job and then see if you can get the money.
Ms. Lenore Burton: The $13 million in our provincial-territorial stream is very precious, and the provinces count on us giving them at least that amount of money every year. In the case of Quebec, we have a formal protocole d'entente that governs that funding.
We have rationalized our roles over the years, so they know they can count on the NLS to do some things, and that their job is to do the things we can't do. So we really have rationalized the two sides of the program.
Mr. Ken Epp: On administration, do you let out contracts and hire individual groups or organizations to deliver the actual program, or are you involved in the delivery of the programs yourselves?
Ms. Lenore Burton: We do not directly deliver literacy training to any Canadian. As an example of what we do--and I'll use the provincial and territorial stream again--we put out an annual call for proposals. Community groups, local organizations, submit proposals of what they would like to do. We sit down at a review committee of NLS staff, provincial literacy staff, and representatives from the other stakeholder groups to review the proposals that come in. We rank them according to priorities, and then fund as many as we can afford.
Mr. Ken Epp: I would like to know how you actually measure your results. You mentioned before that you have this statistical survey, but do you measure the results from every individual who goes through the program, or do you do a sampling? How is that done?
Ms. Lenore Burton: We do not measure results from every individual. Because we fund third-party organizations to undertake this work, we don't count the number of Canadians who are involved in our programs. That was identified as one of the areas for improvement, in the recent evaluation that was done of the NLS. We really have to find ways to capture this data.
We are beginning to have instruments to assess a person's literacy skills when they go into a program. We should be assessing them when they come out of the program to see how much time it has taken and how much improvement has occurred.
º (1620)
Mr. Ken Epp: I would recommend even further that it should be done by some individual or organization outside of the program deliverers, so there's accountability there. It would be tragic if your money were being spent by people who were buying contracts to do the job and then not delivering what they were supposed to, on behalf of these people.
The Chair: Can we have a copy of the evaluation?
Ms. Lenore Burton: It's being finalized and hasn't been made public yet. We're hoping we can get a copy of the evaluation, but it won't be made public before the summer.
The Chair: It would be extremely helpful to the committee, as we're trying to draft our report.
Ms. Lenore Burton: I understand that.
The Chair: Sorry. That wasn't on your time.
Mr. Ken Epp: It's fine. I don't mind. It's a good question.
You mentioned that a lot of these people are at a low level of literacy but are employed. Have you done any studies on those--and this is not a tongue and cheek statement--who are employed by the federal government?
Ms. Lenore Burton: No, we have not.
Mr. Ken Epp: So you haven't differentiated, in terms of different employee groups.
Ms. Lenore Burton: No. We would know from our survey results of those in public administration, by broad category of occupation, and not particularly about those in the federal government.
A joint career transition committee has been formed between the Treasury Board Secretariat and the Public Service Commission. It's beginning to look at the whole question of literacy among federal employees, especially because there was a time when entry into the federal public service required grade 10. They are working at that with the Public Service Alliance of Canada.
Mr. Ken Epp: Good.
I think those are all my questions at this time.
The Chair: Thank you.
Mr. Finlay.
Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you very much for your presentation this afternoon.
I've been looking at the document we got from our Library of Parliament researchers. I'm just trying to get my head around this whole thing. So if I refer to that, bear with me.
Would I be right to say that the federal-provincial-territorial funding stream is basically a cooperative venture with the provinces and the territories--perhaps the Minister of Education, perhaps the Minister of Labour, whatever? The requirement is that the money be at least matched by the provinces and the territories--I think it could go higher--and $12 million of your $28 million is in there.
Ms. Lenore Burton: Yes.
Mr. John Finlay: So you're going to have at least $24 million, or whatever.
Does the other stream have $12 million, $16 million, or is it roughly the same?
Ms. Lenore Burton: The national stream has about $14 million.
Mr. John Finlay: Are sponsors' projects directed to regional or local needs?
Ms. Lenore Burton: The provincial-territorial stream sponsors projects for regional or local needs.
º (1625)
Mr. John Finlay: Right. But the national funding stream supports projects, in partnership with non-governmental and voluntary organizations.
Ms. Lenore Burton: That's the funding stream we use to fund the six national literacy organizations that appeared here as witnesses. We also fund our research out of that stream.
Mr. John Finlay: It's also intended that some of the money used in that stream will leverage financial commitments from others in the field.
Ms. Lenore Burton: Absolutely. One of the things the National Literacy Secretariat has done very well--it's a labour-intensive exercise--is knock on the doors of what we call non-literacy organizations, like the National Institute for the Blind and the Canadian Public Health Association, to encourage them to get involved in literacy projects. Typically, the experience has been that when they get involved in literacy projects we may provide the seed funding, but they keep the momentum going after that.
Mr. John Finlay: Then, of course, best practices are something you're working at.
Some of our witnesses, according to the researchers here, have criticized the secretariat's mandate that prevents it from providing ongoing core funding for successful projects. I take that to mean if something works very well that's fine, but it is only supposed to take our money for a year or two, or perhaps three. Is there a limit of one time only and then you're cut off?
Ms. Lenore Burton: It's up to three years. When I referred earlier to being limited in being able to take a very successful project from one locale or province and applying it across the country, I was referring to that.
Mr. John Finlay: So we have to keep those differences in mind.
Ms. Lenore Burton: One of the points I should clarify on the provincial-territorial funding stream is we do not transfer the money to the provinces. We sit down with the province and make our joint decision on which projects we're going to fund in a particular year. Then we come back to Ottawa and recommend them to the minister. She agrees, and the funding goes out of the National Literacy Secretariat.
Mr. John Finlay: That seems to get around the oft-stated objection by Quebec that we're into education.
Ms. Lenore Burton: Actually, Quebec is a very nice model. With all the provinces it's an informal agreement, but with Quebec it's a formal ministerial agreement, a protocole d'entente. It's signed by the Minister of Human Resources Development Canada, Quebec education, and intergovernmental affairs Quebec. It sets out our funding relationship with Quebec, what groups we fund, how much money will be coming into the province, and the protocol for what they do and what we do.
Mr. John Finlay: That's probably a unique initiative.
In your opinion, what's Canada's greatest need, in terms of addressing low literacy problems? Where does government spending on literacy offer the biggest economic and social benefit to taxpayers?
Ms. Lenore Burton: That's a difficult question. There are several needs. We have to be both preventative and remedial. We have to make sure children arrive at school ready to learn, and the Early Childhood Development Agreement and the work we've done with the Child Tax Benefit have been directed there. The child has to come ready to learn.
The provinces have primary responsibility for the K-12 system, and many of them have shown recently they're taking the problem seriously that 25% of our high school students graduate without having achieved level 3. They have all their prerequisite compulsory courses, etc., but they haven't passed the literacy tests at level 3. We're hoping the provinces will take this very seriously and have remedial programs in place.
On adult literacy, the federal government has primary responsibility for many of the groups that need help. I'm thinking of aboriginal Canadians, immigrants coming into the country, and the disability file. We also have an important role to play with Employment Insurance clients. So this effort has to be a comprehensive one. It has to include many federal government departments, the provinces, business, labour, and the other stakeholder groups.
I wish there were one silver magic bullet so I could say, “If we did this we'd fix it.” but there isn't.
º (1630)
The Chair: Ms. Davies is next with a very short question.
Ms. Libby Davies: If there are other members who haven't asked a question, I'd be happy to--
The Chair: Madam St-Jacques.
[Translation]
Ms. Diane St-Jacques (Shefford, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair.
As all my colleagues have done, I should like to congratulate you and your staff for the top-notch job you are doing.
We often hear people say that it is difficult to attract people or to keep them for various reasons. Have you done any research to find out what could be done to convince those people to attend classes or to keep them? We know that they often feel ashamed.
[English]
Ms. Lenore Burton: You're quite right. We know that only 5% to 10% of people who need literacy upgrading actually take the courses. We have done the research to find out why.
The most often-cited reasons include interference because they have to work, economic concerns, child care concerns, and family responsibilities. They have many of the problems of poverty and are in need of other social services. I have to say there's also a systemic problem in the programs.
When we did a survey and asked people why they didn't take the courses, 43% said they couldn't get to the courses and they weren't offered when times were convenient. Many of these programs are run by volunteers. A majority of these community literacy programs have one full-time staff or no full-time staff. Many of them close for more than four weeks a year, typically during the summer months. When you're depending on volunteers to do your adult literacy education, it's not a stable base.
[Translation]
Ms. Diane St-Jacques: Witnesses told us this week that there was a certain flexibility with regard to programs but that there could be even more in order to adjust to the regions or to some situations. We were given for instance the case of immigrant women who would like to attend classes but who do not want to leave their children in the care of others. It all depends on the needs of each region.
Would it be possible to make the programs even more flexible, without losing however the means of evaluation and the control of what is being offered in order to achieve the expected results?
[English]
Ms. Lenore Burton: Yes, we absolutely could. We do not fund any projects that are aimed at recruitment or retention. They aren't part of our mandated activities.
Interestingly, when we've talked to people with low literacy skills, they want to go to accredited institutions. They want to learn at our community colleges or with our school boards, as is the case in Quebec. Many of them have an aversion to having courses offered in social settings like coffee shops. One-third of them were concerned about taking literacy programs in the workplace; that somehow their employers would find out that their literacy levels were low and they would lose their jobs. Some of them spent a lot of time trying to hide it in the workplace.
But when we asked them about emotional reasons or whether they were ashamed, we thought many of them would say they didn't want to take literacy upgrading because they didn't want people generally to know, but that wasn't a factor. That turned out to be a myth.
[Translation]
Ms. Diane St-Jacques: Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair.
[English]
The Chair: I have just one final question for you. “Knowledge Matters” talks about a 25% reduction in the number of folks doing this over 10 years. Who established that goal?
º (1635)
Ms. Lenore Burton: That goal was established by the department as we were writing “Knowledge Matters”. It's a proposed goal. We wanted something to challenge debate and have people discuss during the national engagement process, but we also wanted to be realistic.
The Chair: Okay. Is that realistic, with the $28 million you currently have? You've set a goal of 10 years and you want it to be realistic, but how much money do you expect it's going to cost?
Ms. Lenore Burton: It's too early to talk about money, because in order to achieve that we're going to have to engage in significant discussions with the provinces and other stakeholder groups. We're going to have to work together to design or develop a national strategy. We're one of the few industrialized countries in the world that doesn't have a national literacy strategy.
The Chair: I believe we need a literacy strategy, but I guess I worry when you set a 25% target and say you're not really sure how much it's going to cost. How do you get government to buy into it? How do we prepare to fund it? How long is it going to take before you know how much it's going to cost?
Ms. Lenore Burton: We have to engage in concrete discussions. First we have to sit down and understand everything we are doing and everything the provinces are doing. Where are the gaps? We have to jointly discuss what the priorities should be for each of us, agree on roles and responsibilities, and determine how we're going to evaluate success and measure outcomes. Then we'll be able to begin to understand costs.
Some of it could be programming that already exists that can be redirected or refocused on literacy. Some of it will have to be new money, new resources.
The Chair: You indicated that one of your shortcomings was not being able to measure outcomes, so I'm concerned about that. You don't know if you're getting value for the dollar. We're hearing good reports; we're hearing back. You've set a 25% target within 10 years. When will you have some data to give us some idea what it's going to take to get there?
Ms. Lenore Burton: I'm not sure when I can give you some data on how much it will take to get there. The federal government can't do this alone; we have to engage the provinces and, quite frankly, business and labour in this effort, because the majority of people who need literacy upgrading are working today.
I said we can't measure outcomes, but we can measure how much funding the NLS program has leveraged. We know how many projects have been done. We know the amount of research. When the NLS started out, nobody was talking about adult literacy. There weren't adult literacy materials available. It was not a discussed issue. There was no infrastructure in place for people to actually deliver literacy programming.
If we look at the outcomes for individuals; the number of individuals who have been touched by our programs and how much their literacy skills have improved, in 1988 we didn't have even the tools and mechanisms to be able to do that. Technology has given us that. We are starting to work with our partners to put those pieces in place. It will certainly be an important part of any new initiative the federal government undertakes in literacy.
The Chair: Under the labour market development agreements, is there a literacy training component?
Ms. Lenore Burton: There isn't one, per se. There is pre-employment training, and individuals can get skills development under what we call the ESBMs, the employment skills and benefits measures, but it's not tracked. It would have to be identified as a part of their re-employment plan. The focus of outcomes for the Employment Insurance program has two measures. They measure how quickly a person returns to work and how much money is saved in the fund, so they're not tracking skills or literacy, per se.
º (1640)
The Chair: Would you recommend that the labour market development agreements be modified to provide that component?
Ms. Lenore Burton: I think we absolutely need to enter into that discussion with the provinces. The EI clients are important clients of the federal government. The labour market development agreements in some provinces are devolved; in others we co-manage them; and in some, like Ontario, we are still in the driver's seat.
In those instances where we're in the driver's seat--and I have no hard data on this other than the IALS results I've shared with you--many people are repeat users because they get into some sort of employment, but it could be short-term, they don't have the literacy skills they need, and they're back out six months or a year later.
It's important to measure their literacy skills and give them the kind of literacy upgrading they need to remain in the labour market, once they get into it.
The Chair: I want to thank you both for being here. You have helped us in our ongoing deliberations as we prepare to write our report.
I'm going to suspend for about a minute-and-a-half while we ask those with us to leave. We're going to consider, in camera, some ideas for our report.
Ms. Lenore Burton: Thank you for the opportunity.
The Chair: Thank you.