HUMA Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Tuesday, March 25, 2003

¹

1550

The Chair (Mrs. Judi Longfield (Whitby—Ajax, Lib.))

Mr. Ian Thorn (Coordinator, National Literacy Project, Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada, New Brunswick Coalition for Literacy)

¹

1555

The Chair

Ms. Cayla Chenier (Literacy Development Coordinator, Nunavut Literacy Council)

º

1600

The Chair

Ms. Sue Folinsbee (Acting Clerk, Co-Executive Director, Ontario Literacy Coalition)

º

1605

The Chair

Mr. Christian Pelletier (Coordinator, Regroupement des groupes populaires en alphabétisation du Québec)

º

1610

º

1615

The Chair

Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Canadian Alliance)

Ms. Cayla Chenier

Mr. Monte Solberg

Ms. Cayla Chenier

Mr. Monte Solberg

º

1620

Ms. Cayla Chenier

Mr. Monte Solberg

Mr. Ian Thorn

Mr. Monte Solberg

The Chair

Ms. Diane St-Jacques (Shefford, Lib.)

º

1625

Ms. Cayla Chenier

The Chair

Ms. Sue Folinsbee

The Chair

Mr. Ian Thorn

Ms. Sue Folinsbee

The Chair

Mr. Christian Pelletier

Ms. Diane St-Jacques

Mr. Christian Pelletier

Ms. Diane St-Jacques

Ms. Sue Folinsbee

º

1630

Ms. Diane St-Jacques

Mr. Christian Pelletier

Ms. Diane St-Jacques

Mr. Christian Pelletier

Ms. Diane St-Jacques

The Chair

Mr. Sébastien Gagnon (Lac-Saint-Jean—Saguenay, BQ)

Mr. Christian Pelletier

º

1635

Mr. Sébastien Gagnon

Mr. Christian Pelletier

Mr. Sébastien Gagnon

Mr. Christian Pelletier

º

1640

The Chair

Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Ottawa—Orléans, Lib.)

Ms. Sue Folinsbee

The Chair

Mr. Ian Thorn

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

Ms. Sue Folinsbee

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

º

1645

Mr. Ian Thorn

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

Mr. Ian Thorn

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

Mr. Christian Pelletier

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

º

1650

Mr. Christian Pelletier

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP)

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mr. Ian Thorn

º

1655

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mr. Ian Thorn

Ms. Sue Folinsbee

Mr. Yvon Godin

The Chair

»

1700

Mr. Christian Pelletier

The Chair

Ms. Sue Folinsbee

Mr. Ian Thorn

Ms. Cayla Chenier

Mr. Ian Thorn

The Chair

Mr. Raymond Simard (Saint Boniface, Lib.)

»

1705

Mr. Ian Thorn

Mr. Raymond Simard

Ms. Cayla Chenier

Mr. Raymond Simard

Mr. Ian Thorn

Ms. Sue Folinsbee

The Chair

Mr. Christian Pelletier

»

1710

Mr. Raymond Simard

Mr. Ian Thorn

The Chair

Mr. Ian Thorn

The Chair

Mr. Christian Pelletier

Mr. Raymond Simard

Mr. Christian Pelletier

Mr. Raymond Simard

M. Christian Pelletier

Mr. Raymond Simard

The Chair

Mr. Sébastien Gagnon

The Chair

Mr. Ian Thorn

»

1715

The Chair

Ms. Cayla Chenier

The Chair

Mr. Christian Pelletier

The Chair

Mr. Christian Pelletier

The Chair

Ms. Sue Folinsbee

The Chair

Ms. Cayla Chenier

»

1720

The Chair

Mr. Ian Thorn

The Chair

Mr. Ian Thorn

The Chair

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities

---

NUMBER 019

l

2nd SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Tuesday, March 25, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¹  (1550)  

[English]

    The Chair (Mrs. Judi Longfield (Whitby—Ajax, Lib.)): Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the 19th meeting of the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.

    Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), we are conducting a study of literacy. We've been meeting with a number of folks who have some pretty strongly held views about literacy and some great expertise, and so we're looking forward to the presentations of those who are here before us. I think you will have been given some instructions by the clerk prior to coming, so you'll adhere to the timeframe, so that we can give members of the committee as much time as possible to pose questions.

    I'm going to start with the New Brunswick Coalition for Literacy, Ian Thorn.

    Mr. Ian Thorn (Coordinator, National Literacy Project, Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada, New Brunswick Coalition for Literacy): Thank you very much.

    I'm the national representative with the Communications, Energy, and Paperworkers Union, and in that capacity, I'm the coordinator of the national literacy program of our union. I'm today here with the New Brunswick Coalition for Literacy.

    The New Brunswick Coalition for Literacy, NBCL, was formed in 1988, when funding for the promotion of literacy became available from the federal government. Since then, with a yearly project-based grant of $75,000 from the National Literacy Secretariat, the NBCL has been very successful in many areas. We have formed partnerships with provincial and federal governments, business, labour, community-based literacy groups, disability groups, volunteers, tutors, and practitioners. We carry out many activities to increase literacy partnerships. The “Learning Together” conference was the first time two distinct cultures and languages shared a literacy event. The learners' forum brought learners together to discuss issues and report to government. The NBCL took a lead role in bringing literacy groups together to advise the New Brunswick Minister of Education.

    Partnerships are crucial to advancing the literacy agenda. The NBCL recommends that the federal government expand the funding and the mandate of the National Literacy Secretariat to build on its excellent track record in developing partnerships at every level.

    The NBCL engages in many community capacity building activities. The early learning, language, and literacy conference brought professional development to child day care workers and family literacy groups. Day care workers had not received training in eight years prior to that. “Side by Side” was another collaborative effort between day care workers and family literacy practitioners. It's a document that shows parents how to carry out literacy activities at home, which is all important. A literacy tool kit is being designed to give literacy programs the supports they need in the areas of recruitment, marketing, and community capacity building. We are building a learners network to give a voice to the learners.

    The NBCL recommends that the federal government bolster community capacity building by supporting infrastructure and increased partnership at the community level. Successful family and intergenerational literacy models have been developed in New Brunswick. The NBCL recommends that the federal government provide ongoing support for successful literacy projects.

    The NBCL recently managed a study called “Comprehensive Training Needs Assessment for Literacy in New Brunswick”. The study looked at the province's literacy program, a model called the community academic services program, CASP. There is evidence in this report that literacy programs in New Brunswick are deteriorating, yet the provincial government is not funding adult literacy, family literacy, and especially workplace literacy programs in a substantial way. More research in this area is very much needed.

    The NBCL recommends that the federal government continue to support literacy research.

    Technological change has altered our work and the skills we need. Many need to develop their learning and literacy skills as a first step to new employment skills, in order to retain jobs or become re-employed. In the Province of New Brunswick's prosperity plan literacy is not a cornerstone for prosperity until eight years into the plan, and then it is connected only to work. As you know, literacy is connected to every social issue. Dollars must be made available for needs assessment and for the identified program delivery, which addresses the needs and wishes of the whole person, the whole person being the workplace and away from the workplace, family, community, and participating in democracy.

    At the foundation of today's discussion is the learner. So often their voices are not heard. One stated, “I work with a lot of pesticides and chemicals.... I would like to be able to read the labels, because sometimes they change, and I don't want to put the wrong thing in.” Many others, however, have said, there is so much change taking place in the workplace today, I need to update and upgrade my literacy skills and life skills.

    The NBCL recommends that EI part 2 funds be used to support adult basic education and workplace literacy in the same way as these funds are used to support other imperative workplace skills training programs. We recommend that you develop a pan-Canadian agreement on literacy and essential skills, so that all Canadians have access to the literacy services they need.

    Without the support of the National Literacy Secretariat, there would be no adult or intergenerational literacy programs in New Brunswick. The delivery system for literacy in our province has disintegrated significantly. Improving this requires collaboration between the federal and provincial governments, labour and employer literacy organizations, community literacy groups, and the public education system. There are many barriers to literacy programs, and the NBCL is working through its partners to address these. Some are systemic. All government programs need to be audited through a literacy lens, with a recognition of the need to invest in literacy.

¹  (1555)  

    The NBCL recommends a nationwide campaign to change societal attitudes about literacy.

    We do not expect the federal government to respond to literacy on its own. The provincial government must be an equal partner working in concert with existing literacy organizations.

    The NBCL recommends that a national accord on literacy be established that engages community stakeholders and is built on models of cooperation between federal and provincial governments and the community stakeholders.

    I thank you very much.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Next I call on Cayla Chenier from the Nunavut Literacy Council.

    Ms. Cayla Chenier (Literacy Development Coordinator, Nunavut Literacy Council): Hi.

    The Nunavut Literacy Council is a territorial non-profit organization that supports the residents of Nunavut in their efforts to increase their literacy levels in their desired language and culture. While the mandate of our organization is to support literacy development in all four of our official languages, our main priority is to build the capacity of families and communities to plan, deliver, manage, and sustain local community-based adult and family literacy projects.

    Literacy levels in Nunavut are among the lowest in Canada. Over 50% of Nunavummiut between the ages of 15 and 65 do not have the literacy skills they need to get an advanced education and adequate paying jobs. Fifty per cent of these individuals have less than a grade nine education.

    Inuit have faced extraordinary change. Many people my age--I'm 39--grew up on the land and came from homes where English was never spoken. The Inuit culture is rich in oral history, but it is only recently, historically speaking, that a formal education system was introduced. Books and reading materials are expensive, and most communities do not yet have public libraries.

    When we meet with people from across Nunavut, they express their concerns about poverty, the high drop-out rate at school, and the difficulties in developing a strong local workforce. Most people agree that low literacy levels in both Inuktitut and English are at the root of these problems. The working poor make up a significant portion of our population. These are people who do not have the literacy skills they need to advance in the workforce. Most often they are single-parent families headed by women. Without adequate support, they will continue to struggle, unable to provide their children with the tools they need to succeed. Until all levels of government, both territorial and federal, begin to address these needs, Nunavummiut will continue to struggle. In a country as rich and resourceful as Canada it is puzzling that we continue to place such a low priority on literacy. The Government of Canada spends huge sums of money on social welfare and economic transfer payments to the north. If we could find ways to redirect some of this funding towards supporting literacy, we could get at one of the root contributors to these problems.

    Through funding provided by the National Literacy Secretariat, HRDC, our organization works with communities to build the capacity to design, deliver, and manage literacy programs and services. The funding our literacy coalition receives from the NLS has been critical to the development of a literacy infrastructure, to the promotion of literacy, and to the development of literacy programs and services in communities across the territory. Without this support, there would be not literacy infrastructure in Nunavut.

    While the Government of Nunavut understands that literacy is a significant issue, it continues to underfund literacy programs. For the fiscal year 2003-2004 the Government of Nunavut's contribution to literacy will be a meagre $150,000 for the delivery of literacy programs through Nunavut Arctic College. A further $75,000 will support the development of community-based literacy programs across the territory. That works out to less than $3,000 per community. In a territory with such critically low literacy levels, this funding does little to improve literacy rates.

    Through funding provided by the NLS, our literacy coalition, in partnership with other organizations and agencies, has made significant inroads in the area of community literacy development. Unfortunately, the lack of resources, at both the federal and territorial level, has hampered progress. This threatens our ability to sustain the high degree of support communities require to build their capacity to develop solutions to literacy challenges in their own communities. They need support to do this in a way that respects their own language and culture and takes into account their local realities.

    The National Literacy Secretariat has assisted our organization to build partnerships that are crucial to advancing the literacy agenda in Nunavut. By fostering the development of relationships between our organization and other literacy and non-literacy organizations, inside and outside the territory, the NLS has enabled us to build our own capacity and expertise.Their support has also allowed us to leverage funding from other sources.

    This year we have delivered capacity building workshops in Arviat, Baker Lake, Rankin Inlet, and Cambridge Bay. We have developed Inuktitut and English literacy resources for adult educators, parents, teachers, early childhood educators, and other literacy practitioners. In the next few months we will deliver a workshop to youth from across Nunavut and another workshop to support adult educators who are working with adult learners with learning disabilities. We are proud of these accomplishments, but we cannot continue to work in isolation. Literacy is a complex issue and requires broad, cross-sectoral, and interdepartmental policy and programming solutions.

º  (1600)  

    The federal government must take the lead on this issue, but rather than look at new models and new ways of dealing with it, we should begin by building upon the strengths and successes of programs, organizations, government agencies, and departments currently in place. Communities across Nunavut are eager to address these issues, but they often lack the tools, resources, and flexibility to do so. So how can we begin to address this complicated issue?

    The committee should recommend that the federal government expand the mandate and increase the funding of the National Literacy Secretariat. The NLS currently supports a national infrastructure that allows organizations such as ours to assist communities to develop their capacity. The NLS has the expertise to ensure that literacy becomes a horizontal issue within the federal government. They also facilitate and support the development of partnerships at many different levels.

    We need to find new ways to use existing resources. By integrating literacy into other departments and programs, we could better support the needs of our communities. We must stop looking at literacy as an education issue and look at it as a community development issue that affects all government departments and agencies and all sectors of our society. If funding criteria for current federal programs were more flexible, we would have more of the resources needed to support learners in Nunavut. Support for all Canadians must be seamless from birth through to death.

    The committee should also recommend that the federal government take the lead in developing a pan-Canadian literacy and essential skills strategy. A pan-Canadian strategy is critical to ensuring that we work together to create a strong, integrated, and seamless approach to literacy, so that all Canadians, including Inuit and aboriginal people, will have access to the learning opportunities they deserve and desire.

    Thank you.

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    I would now call on Susan Folinsbee from the Ontario Literacy Coalition.

    Ms. Sue Folinsbee (Acting Clerk, Co-Executive Director, Ontario Literacy Coalition): Thank you.

    Madam Chair, members of the committee, thank you for this very important opportunity to speak to you today.

    The Ontario Literacy Coalition, OLC, is a provincial non-profit charitable organization representing literacy programs, networks, practitioners, and people who have literacy challenges, primarily in the anglophone stream. Since 1986 the OLC has worked to ensure that Ontarians with literacy challenges can participate fully in society at home, at work, and in their communities. There are three other streams in the literacy system in Ontario, native, deaf, and francophone, and they all need increased support for literacy too.

    In Ontario 1.2 million adults do not have basic literacy skills, and a further 1.4 million are not able to read well enough to carry out daily tasks or find and keep jobs. Out of these only 68,000 use some services from literacy programs, and only 44,000 attend more intensive, longer-term programs. This means that fewer than 10% of the people who need help are getting help. If we are going to meet these demands, support for literacy programs in Ontario must increase.

    We've come to the conclusion that part of the solution is the need for the federal government to show leadership in the development of a parent Canadian literacy strategy. In the short time I have I'd like to highlight five key recommendations and highlight their importance from an Ontario perspective.

    First, we urge the federal government to ensure that a broad vision of literacy is a guiding principle of a pan-Canadian literacy strategy. A broad vision is critical for developing a prosperous nation. We need a strategic approach to literacy that respects the goals people with literacy challenges have, not only for work, but for dealing with everyday practical considerations of life, helping their children, further education and training, effective citizenry, and participation in their communities. Responsible approaches to workplace literacy can yield excellent results for both workers and employers. However, we want to stress that the need for literacy goes beyond preparation for employment and the workplace. If the focus is employment-related literacy programs, adequate time and resources must be made available to participants in literacy programs, so they have the opportunity to get well-paid, quality jobs.

    Second, we urge the federal government to support an intergovernmental accord to establish priorities, protocols, and increased investments for sustainable core funding. In Ontario there is a need for increased financial investment to meet literacy demands. The provincial literacy money provided annually has been flatlined for several years, even though the demands on literacy programs are growing, infrastructure costs are going up, and there are new obligations. This points to the need for federal and provincial governments to work together to commit themselves to and invest more resources in literacy.

    Third, we strongly recommend that the federal government ensure that strategies and programs for immigrant and refugee integration take literacy and essential skills needs into consideration. Literacy programming is an access and equity issue. There is a need for immigrants and refugees to have access to high-quality literacy programming. Currently in Ontario, we are struggling with gaps in literacy service to these groups. For example, although immigrants and refugees have been identified as having needs for literacy upgrading, services to help them are often not available. Literacy and ESL are often treated quite distinctly, because of provincial and federal jurisdictions. Literacy programs may refer newcomers with literacy needs to LINC and ESL classes, but these classes may not meet the literacy needs of these individuals. Funding for first language bridging programs for newcomers who have literacy challenges in their first language have also been cut.

º  (1605)  

    Fourth, we strongly recommend that the federal government expand the funding and mandate of the NLS to strengthen the national literacy infrastructure, so we can intensify our capacity building and ability to develop critical partnerships on the ground. The National Literacy Secretariat has provided strong leadership and financial support for more than a decade. It has been a tremendous asset to the work of literacy in this country in building literacy infrastructure. In Ontario, for example, the NLS has been instrumental in providing financial support to help the family literacy field build its capacity. We have identified goals and are now developing a common provincial vision and strategy for family literacy, but in spite of the support of the NLS, the current resources are not nearly enough.

    Fifth, we recommend that the federal government apply a literacy lens to its key programs and policies. One way to do this is by ensuring access to information by having clear language policies and practices in communications, including the Internet. Another way is to fund literacy activities through other federal government departments and programs. The new Canadian Learning Institute that's been established by the federal government is a perfect example of where integration would work. Literacy should be a key focus of the institute.

    In closing, I really thank the committee for taking on this important task, and I encourage you to look to the federal recommendations developed by the Movement for Canadian Literacy. Along with other provincial and territorial literacy coalitions, the OLC has worked on these recommendations and we endorse them, and we urge you to do the same.

    Thank you.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Last, but certainly not least, I have Christian Pelletier from the Quebec Literacy Coalition.

[Translation]

    Mr. Christian Pelletier (Coordinator, Regroupement des groupes populaires en alphabétisation du Québec): Good afternoon and thank you.

    I am Christian Pelletier, Coordinator of the Regroupement des groupes populaires en alphabétisation du Québec.

    As you know, there are two officially recognized networks in Quebec: the network of school boards and the Réseau des groupes communautaires du Québec. The Réseau des groupes communautaires du Québec will soon be the subject of an amendment to the act to be recognized more officially, but our work has been recognized for a number of years now. There are 130 literacy groups in Quebec, and they are all accredited by the Quebec Department of Education. Roughly 10 Anglophone groups have joined forces. We reach 75 of the remaining 120.

    The mandate of the Regroupement des groupes populaires en alphabétisation du Québec is to develop teaching tools for popular literacy trainers, to defend and sensitize the public to the rights of illiterate persons and to make submissions regarding groups' funding.

    The money the Government of Canada invests in Quebec for literacy represents 80% of investments, that is approximately $4 million, under a federal-provincial agreement called the IFPCA. According to that agreement, the Quebec Department of Education decides on the administration of and terms and conditions for awarding subsidies to the two networks. The $4 million invested by Canada is divided among the school boards and the community groups and, for the groups, represents an average annual investment of approximately $10,000 per group. Of course, under the agreement, that money cannot be used to directly fund course hours for adults with low literacy skills. It must be used for research and the creation of teaching tools and for awareness and recruitment activities.

    The 132 popular literacy groups reach more than 6,500 persons, and the two networks unfortunately manage to reach only two percent of the Quebec population determined by Statistics Canada as having reading and writing difficulties, that is to say 1.2 million persons.

    Among the recommendations that we could make informally, there is of course the recommendation that the amounts of money allocated to literacy across Canada and in Quebec be increased. That's both a little and a lot because a great deal can be done with that. It would be important to increase the average amount of subsidies for that purpose.

    But there's something else that should go even before the subsidies. Sue referred to it earlier. The talk about literacy is very much focused on enabling these persons to return to the labour market. Returning to the labour market is of course important, but we should also not forget to value people who simply want to learn to read and write, and there are many more of them than we think. These people have often given up on the labour market for certain reasons, and we should work with them, to teach them to read and write for their own reasons, not necessarily to enable them to return to the labour market.

    People often come to see us, saying they would like to be able to read a story to their daughter in the evening before bed, but they can't, and so on. That's how the valuing starts and, after that, they often see a hope of returning to the labour market. So we should not value literacy solely for the labour market.

    I also think much more money should be allocated to research. How can we reach these people, which is difficult, since we only reach two percent? What relationship do these people have with the written word? How have they learned? Why do they drop out? How did they lose the ability to read? Some of them completed their grade 12 and can no longer read because they don't practise, and so on. I believe this research should be pushed much further.

º  (1610)  

    Before concluding, I would like to come back to a point mainly concerning Quebec. I believe the Government of Quebec is very concerned about the problem of illiteracy, and the first project it conducted, in 1998, focused very much on literacy at all levels, both the labour market and what people can do as citizens when they know how to read and write.

    Unfortunately, the second policy has been much more focused on the labour market. There's virtually no reference to literacy in the policy that has just been adopted, but rather to basic training to take people up to grade 12. That's good, except that we fear that excludes certain persons. Knowing how to read and write and taking one's place as a citizen is just as important, and it's often the first step that must be taken in order for someone to feel capable of holding a job.

    Thank you.

º  (1615)  

[English]

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    Mr. Solberg, a seven-minute round.

    Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Canadian Alliance): Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

    I apologize for showing up late, and I'm going to apologize ahead of time for not being able to stay for the entire meeting, but I do want to thank you for coming. We've received so many submissions on this subject, and the more I hear, the more difficult sometimes it is to understand where we should go from here.

    Ms Chenier, my question has to do with the unique challenges you have in Nunavut. To what degree is the problem with the initial schooling people receive? If the problem is so pronounced in Nunavut, should the money go into adult literacy, or should it go into a more concentrated effort in the schools to ensure that people who come out of the schools can read and write and have numeracy? What is the best focus for that money, as we have limited resources?

    Ms. Cayla Chenier: I'm not completely familiar with the public education system in Nunavut, because it's not my area, but I don't think you can choose just one. We defintely need more resources in adult literacy, and also in family literacy. How do we help parents to assist their children in bringing up literacy skills and perhaps better preparing them to be successful in school?

    Mr. Monte Solberg: I agree with you that we need to have adult literacy programs funded to an appropriate level, but if you've got a limited amount of money, the question is where you can do the most good. My sense is that there is a natural cut-off. There are going to be a certain percentage of people in any given population who, if schooling is properly funded, will get to a point where they can read and write adequately, but there will be other people who can't grasp it at that level, and maybe in their adulthood they'll realize that they've made some mistakes and they're better prepared to learn, and then you must have some kind of adult learning program to help them with these things. But there are limited resources, and I am wondering whether in the case of Nunavut--I won't speculate on what other regions would be like in this respect--because it sounds like the problem is so pronounced, the first focus should be on dealing with this as much as we can in the schools. If, for example, on average, 70% of people get through schools and have reached adequate literacy, and we're not doing that in Nunavut, maybe that's where the first focus should be. I'm not suggesting for a moment that we shouldn't fund adult literacy, but maybe that's where the first focus should be.

    Ms. Cayla Chenier: I don't think schools can do it alone, though. If you assist adults with lower literacy levels, you will assist them in assisting their children, and that's where family literacy comes in.

    Mr. Monte Solberg: That's a good point. I don't want to suggest we should condemn a generation to not being able to read and write and have numeracy, people who've already passed through school. What we don't want to do is repeat what has happened in the past. We can't just continue doing what we're doing, or you get the same results. So we have to figure out how we do this better, and it's not clear to me that if the preponderance of funding now goes into adult literacy, to the detriment of literacy for people just entering school, it will fix the problem. I'm thinking out loud here a little, so forgive me, but you have a particular problem that seems to be unique. We have a problem with adult literacy across the country, but it seems to be to a greater degree, based on what you've told us, in Nunavut.

º  (1620)  

    Ms. Cayla Chenier: Yes, and often people's second language in Nunavut is English, so there are not the resources that exist in Inuktitut. For example, there are very few books written in Inuktitut, so how do you build a culture of reading in a place where there's no access to resources in Inuktitut? That compounds it as well. But I don't think you can focus on just one area, I think you have to look at it holistically and provide families with what they need to assist their children.

    Mr. Monte Solberg: Let me just switch gears here. There was some mention made of business having an interest in literacy, and obviously, they do. I'm just wondering if any of our witnesses today has given thought to ways we might encourage business to pony up a little bit more funding when it comes to these things. They have a stake in it, they want an educated workforce, and sometimes they're asking people who maybe demonstrated some skills in the past in particular areas to take on some new responsibilities, so maybe they'll need to upgrade their skills and be more literate. Has the literacy community given any thought to ways through the tax system to encourage businesses to provide that kind of training in literacy upgrading? Could there be a tax credit or something like that to urge them to get involved and do a little more?

    Mr. Ian Thorn: I think it's a great question. First, I'd like to mention that there are employers who do put a lot of money into all phases of workforce development, from literacy through to job skills development. There are others who don't put in very much, and we also have to recognize that there are those corporations that are more able to spend that money than others. We have members in the Northwest Territories, in all the territories, and we see a difference there in the ability of employers. We've got one, Imperial Oil, that is just moving with a literacy project there, but that's quite a different situation again. I was just at the HRDC round table and came over for this, and one of the items that is coming up there very much is that there needs to be a very powerful collaboration between the employers, government, labour, and other community interest groups to really define how much money the government ought to be putting into this, how much money employers ought to be putting into this.

    On the tax initiative, I wish we could all follow the situation we saw in Quebec, with the tax incentive to spend money on all types of workforce development, including literacy. The other example of that is the forest industry in B.C., with the forest renewal program, which was a similar process: a percentage of their stumpage, if I have it all correct, went towards literacy and central skills development, went into a pot, and those who wanted to do the training drew from that pot. That money is now gone. My union was participating in that in the paper sector. In fact, many of those programs are still going on, because those employers, like Northwood Pulp and Paper, are saying, this is a great investment, we have to continue it. I hope that answers your question.

    Mr. Monte Solberg: Thank you. I appreciate that.

    The Chair: Mr. Solberg, I know you'll be happy to know that we've actually got some employers in the next round of witnesses. We'll be able to talk to them directly about the programs they're working on.

    Madame St-Jacques.

[Translation]

    Ms. Diane St-Jacques (Shefford, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair.

    I would like to pick up on one of Mr. Solberg's questions and on a comment you made, Ms. Chenier, to the effect that, before creating new programs, perhaps we should improve certain existing programs. I would like to know from the other witnesses—the question is for everyone—which programs we could improve. And also are there any programs that aren't working at all and should perhaps be eliminated?

º  (1625)  

[English]

    Ms. Cayla Chenier: There are funds that exist, but are difficult to get at. I'll give you an example. Last year the Nunavut Literacy Council applied for funding through the crime prevention program, Department of Justice. That program's criteria don't include literacy, although we feel literacy and crime prevention are very much connected. If departments broadened their vision of what could be included under the funding criteria, that would help us to secure funds. Sometimes it's not a matter of coming up with new money, but of creating broader criteria.

    The Chair: Ms. Folinsbee, would you like to answer?

    Ms. Sue Folinsbee: You were talking about which programs should be improved. I'd like to go back to what Christian said about research and the needs of different areas of the country. The funding shouldn't be taken away from one program at the expense of another program. In Ontario we find that there's a need for a whole variety of programs based on our needs. Some of them I mentioned in my presentation. On immigrants and refugees, we find that adults with developmental disabilities are not getting the service they need. This would be true of other groups. Definitely, there's a need for workplace literacy. They all have their place, we shouldn't focus on one at the expense of another.

    The Chair: Mr. Thorn.

    Mr. Ian Thorn: I think it fits with the question Mr. Solberg put as well. Which programs? All, to the extent that we can; it's really difficult to determine which. Early childhood education is so important, in my view, to ensure that we don't create another generation of people who get into the workplace, get into their life activities, and don't have the skills to cope with the tremendously changing world we're all in. The literacy skills we could get by with yesterday just won't do it tomorrow or the next day.

    Ms. Sue Folinsbee: I too really want to build on what my colleagues have said and emphasize the need to put resources into family literacy. By putting resources into family literacy, we can address the intergenerational nature of the issue, and we can get a double bang for the buck. By helping the parents, we're helping the children.

    The Chair: We've certainly heard the need to try to get the best use of resources possible. The double bang for the buck is something we've heard before.

    Mr. Pelletier.

[Translation]

    Mr. Christian Pelletier: In fact, I don't think we should abolish any. The real problem is the accessibility of those programs. I don't know them all by heart, but I know that we sometimes have difficulty.

    Let's suppose we want to conduct research which requires links with the universities, and certain programs require us to do so. The relationship is not always easy to establish. On the one hand, we have people who are in direct contact with illiterate persons, and, on the other, researchers who, I'm sorry, are a little cut off from the field. But at the same time, it's important for the entire theory that these people be brought together. Sometimes, as a result of the difficulty involved in presenting projects or establishing these relationships, people give up or don't try. However, that would be interesting. There's work to do on that, I believe.

    Ms. Diane St-Jacques : You spoke about research. I don't know whether the question I'm going to ask is related to illiteracy, but I think it is. We increasingly hear about students dropping out of school, and that's more frequent among boys than girls. Are any research projects or studies currently being done on that, in Quebec or elsewhere?

    Mr. Christian Pelletier: Not in the circle I move in. I know that the Department of Education is interested in that—I don't know to what extent—but that's definitely a problem we increasingly hear about. In the education reform in Quebec, an attempt will be made to smooth that out. All kinds of things are being tried in that area, but I couldn't tell you what state the research is in. But it wouldn't surprise me if things headed increasingly in that direction.

    Ms. Diane St-Jacques : Yes.

[English]

    Do you want to add something?

    Ms. Sue Folinsbee: The issue of youth and drop-outs is a real issue in Ontario. You've probably all heard of the grade 10 literacy test the provincial government has instituted, and in the past years 25% to 32% of students have failed that test. That figure is even higher for special needs and ESL students. Our literacy agencies are getting calls to help these youths. Although our eligibility requirements would allow us to do this, our programs are not really appropriate, they're geared to adults. So that's a real concern for us in Ontario.

º  (1630)  

[Translation]

    Ms. Diane St-Jacques : Mr. Pelletier and perhaps others, but my question mainly concerns Quebec. According to the data from the 1994 International Adult Literacy Survey, that's where you find the most adults 16 years of age and over with good literacy levels. At a committee meeting last week, I believe, witnesses told us that the education system in Quebec had improved and that that had allowed for fairly rapid progress. I wondered whether you had an explanation on the subject. Why were we the furthest behind, and why are we now ahead, in a way?

    Mr. Christian Pelletier: I admit I can't wait to see the figures on that because progress has been made in Quebec, in any case in 2002. But I don't know what figures and what study you're referring to. I learned that figures had been published on the job market, but if that's a more detailed study you're talking about, somewhat like the 1994 study, because Quebec has agreed to give a little more money for a slightly more comprehensive sampling, I haven't read it.

    The education system for young people has obviously changed, but it would surprise me that such beneficial effects had been achieved in so little time, because the changes have only been in place for three or four years. Everything's not even completed; they've just completed it at the primary level. That would surprise me, but I don't know the figures you're referring to.

    Ms. Diane St-Jacques : I don't remember what group mentioned that last week. I couldn't tell you.

    Mr. Christian Pelletier: I in fact heard things about the labour market, but it wasn't the figures that interested us the most. We're waiting for the Statistics Canada research project that was commissioned by Quebec and that will have a much broader sampling. This time, at least, we're going to see, because we couldn't do that in 1994. We were able to do it in 1989 with the Canadian survey on reading and writing skills used daily. But with the International Adult Literacy Survey, we couldn't get a clear idea of the data in Quebec. If illiteracy levels have fallen, so much the better, but that would surprise me.

    Ms. Diane St-Jacques : Thank you.

    Thank you, Madam Chair.

[English]

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Monsieur Gagnon.

[Translation]

    Mr. Sébastien Gagnon (Lac-Saint-Jean—Saguenay, BQ) : Thank you.

    My question is for Mr. Pelletier. I would also like to thank all the witnesses for coming today. I believe it's important for us to have a clear understanding of the work being done in the field and to analyze it in order to make recommendations.

    Currently, Mr. Pelletier, apart from financial needs, with the means being used and the efforts made, are results positive? That's my first question.

    Second, is there an action plan for reaching the part of the population which is afflicted by the problem and has not yet been reached? That's my second question.

    You also emphasized the need for additional resources. Could you give us an order of magnitude of those resources? But also, could we consider tools other than subsidies? For example—this is purely hypothetical—a measure such as abolishing the GST could give less well-off families access to other financial resources to meet their consumption needs.

    Mr. Christian Pelletier : Our efforts are producing results. I'm really speaking on behalf of the community groups because it's different for the school boards. To my knowledge, little attempts have been made in regions, but not at the national level. We see that in the field when we see people.

    People's learning objectives in literacy efforts are of course varied. As I said a moment ago, some people do not necessarily want to return to the labour market, but rather to be able to have a more satisfying relationship with children through reading and writing. In that area, we see that efforts are producing results.

    We also see that results are being achieved because people who have come to see us, who had really had a bad experience at school when they were young for whatever reason and who were not even thinking of going back, ultimately did so. Some were already thinking about going back to school; others were not, but did. Perhaps that should be the subject of more extensive research.

    We use the money we receive from the provincial government much more for training as such than for research. When we receive approximately $10,000 per group on average, we can't afford to do a lot of research.

    But I can tell you that good things have been done. Recently, I attended the launching of a large five-year research project on young people 16 to 24 years of age. It was conducted by a group of volunteers from Longueuil in cooperation with a professor at the Université du Québec à Montréal. Based on the youth reading and writing report, they examined their learning methods, the most beneficial contacts and what led them to go back to reading and writing. That's interesting, but it's a type of research that required a lot of investment.

    As for an action plan, I can tell you we're still waiting. In 1997, we proposed a national action plan to fight illiteracy in Quebec. We suggested 42 measures. I was rereading the plan recently, and I can tell you that a number of those measures have been put in place, among other things libraries : the stimulation of reading and writing at the library in terms of prevention, help with homework, awareness campaigns on the problem of illiteracy and the importance of learning to read and write and taking steps toward that end.

    Now a recent action plan has nevertheless been put in place in Quebec, with a new policy on continuing training in adult education. There is a component in this area, but, as I said a moment ago, it mainly concerned basic training. They mainly focused the plan on low education levels. They realized that there were twice as many under-educated persons in Quebec as in Ontario, for example, and they decided to put the emphasis on that, including literacy. What's that going to do? I don't know, but the plan is nevertheless relatively new; it was adopted less than a year ago. Measures have been put in place, but a lot of work remains to be done on that.

    With regard to other financial resources, the problem facing a person who would like to acquire literacy skills is often that he or she lives in a remote area or has young children. I believe there could in fact be measures to stimulate or help those persons. We can travel in the regions. We can have trainers if there is a small group, but that's not always easy. Sometimes we have to go to quite remote areas, and transportation is not always easy. There could be measures for that purpose.

º  (1635)  

    Mr. Sébastien Gagnon : Thank you.

    With regard to the measures for lowering the poverty rate, I spoke about perhaps abolishing the GST, which would enable families to have slightly better access to consumer products.

    Mr. Christian Pelletier : Yes, but there's also a kind of culture in poverty. You have to wonder what would make them choose literacy and make them want to return to the labour market rather than buy more consumer products. Perhaps I misunderstand your question, but I believe they should be guided, oriented with respect to that.

    Perhaps I misunderstood your question.

    Mr. Sébastien Gagnon : The idea is to find ways among existing mechanisms to gain better access to consumer products. We can consider the example of books and services offered which, for persons living in poverty, are not very accessible, in view of rates.

    Ultimately, the question is to find something else besides subsidies and programs to fight poverty. We have to find other mechanisms.

    Mr. Christian Pelletier : May I add something? We were saying earlier that employers could make a more significant investment. I'm pleased to learn that you are going to meet some of them. Some employers have previously told me that they were not sure they wanted us to know that illiterate persons were working in their businesses. It was as though that would undermine product guarantees. It would be interesting to determine the extent of certain prejudices of that kind in those persons.

    To come back to Ms. St-Jacques, I would like to clarify that, if the situation ever improved, I believe we would have to check the statistics to determine how the population is evaluated. Those who were 65 years of age in 1994—that's nearly eight years—are no longer in the statistics.

    Lastly, as regards poverty, I wanted to say that measures from the action plan—which I don't know by heart—could in fact be taken. We're going to think about it.

º  (1640)  

[English]

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Monsieur Bellemare.

[Translation]

    Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Ottawa—Orléans, Lib.) : Thank you, Madam Chair.

[English]

    We're bombarded every second day with groups that have terrific ideas. Of course, we're getting to be very sensitized to the problem of literacy. What about family literacy? Some people in other groups did mention that, but you haven't. What are we doing in Ontario?

    Ms. Sue Folinsbee: We think family literacy is extremely important. Unfortunately, we have very limited resources, but we have a grant from the NLS, and we've been working to develop a provincial vision and strategy with that money. The problem in Ontario is that the money that could be used for family literacy is siloed, so different parts of the family are dealt with by different provincial government departments. Unfortunately, the bulk of the money is for zero to six years old, so that leaves out the adult who needs upgrading and could help his or her family. This is a real issue right now in Ontario, and we're looking to build partnerships to address it, because family literacy is not as much of a priority as adult literacy right now.

    The Chair: I think Mr. Thorn has something he wants to add to that.

    Mr. Ian Thorn: In response to an earlier question, I talked about early childhood literacy, and that's extremely important. This is within family literacy. A lot of the workplace programs we have become to some extent family literacy, because we invite the participants to bring their family members in, spouses or children or parents. Employers are very cooperative in that as well. Family literacy is a big part of the activity of the New Brunswick Coalition for Literacy. It is different everywhere you go.

    Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Thank you.

    We've got the money federally--at least, all the provinces think that. We have this problem where all they want is for us to print money, but not to get involved. How do we work so that we can make sure the money is spent for the objectives we have and not misspent? In my province they cut taxes--I haven't noticed much of it, but it's supposed to have been a cut of 40%. Of course, that would mean some services have been cut. If we give more money, let's say to Ontario, Sue, what suggestion would you have for us to make sure the money is spent for the objectives we have after listening to groups like yourself?

    Ms. Sue Folinsbee: You've raised a really important question, and that speaks to the need for an intergovernmental accord that sets priorities, best practices, principles for the new money that's channeled to the provinces. I think, through an accord, you could assure that so much money is going to go to family literacy. We feel this is a really critical piece of the pan-Canadian strategy and where the federal government needs to take leadership.

    Mr. Eugène Bellemare: There are the delivery programs and there's funding for research. We can bypass provinces by funding directly to research, as in the NLS, and know everyone will get a piece of the pie, but when it comes to the delivery of programs, that's where I have concerns about certain provinces that are bent on cutting taxes rather than increasing deliveries. When we write our report, this is very important. Then there might be one or two provinces where they jealously guard their delivery rights, especially in education, and say, don't touch that, or we'll declare war, or we'll separate, or whatever they want to do. Given that we're thinking of adults, we don't want to forget about the children, so we have to find a formula, and I think you're getting close to it. Intergovernmental affairs Minister Dion probably should get involved in making sure there are agreements made.

    Would fiscal tax incentives be directed to private industry, or would they also be directed to individuals, and how would that be done? What would be the format for that?

º  (1645)  

    Mr. Ian Thorn: I'm not sure, but the funding that now comes to employers to assist with the development of literacy programming initially comes with assistance in doing needs assessments. I don't know, and I'm being very careful, as I don't want to give you information I don't know about.

    Mr. Eugène Bellemare: You may have struck it by saying needs assessment. Maybe that's where we need to support private industry, helping them on needs assessment.

    Mr. Ian Thorn: I think that's where we need collaboration between the partners across the country. In some areas there is money for funding to do needs assessments, and then funding for one or more paid instructors from the education system, in other areas that's not there.

[Translation]

    Mr. Eugène Bellemare : I would like to put my other question to Mr. Pelletier.

    As a Franco-Ontarian, I very much admire the Province of Quebec for its youth programs. In my view, you are ahead of all the provinces and territories in that area.

    With respect to the rehabilitation of young offenders, do you have any basic education programs in Quebec?

    Mr. Christian Pelletier : Your question concerns a very specific subject.

    I told you about a Longueuil organization dedicated to young people 16 to 24 years of age. The kind of progress those young people are making is not consistent with what you just said. However, I can tell you that they are being saved from crime. When I say crime, I mean to be careful with my words. Let's say that valuing them by teaching them to read and write, from things they feel like learning, either by developing a radio program or carrying out projects that are important to them, enables them to avoid taking another path. That's not included in the official statistics, but it carries just as much weight.

    As for the other programs, I'm not in a position to answer you.

    Mr. Eugène Bellemare : That's too bad because, as a former police commissioner, I have observed a lack of education and illiteracy in young offenders and gangs such as motorcycle gangs. That leads those people to stay in gangs and then to venture into criminal areas. I believe the provinces should take an interest in providing programs. I know there are some, that there are some, among others, in Ontario, but in the entire country, I wonder whether programs are specifically provided for offenders, for young offenders and for people who belong to gangs, such as the bikers who are currently in prison.

º  (1650)  

    Mr. Christian Pelletier : I know there are literacy programs for inmates, but I can't tell you about them because it's more the institutional network that does them. We don't touch that at the community groups level. As I was telling you, it's much more so as to... We can have young offenders in the groups, but they aren't labelled as such. They make the effort they want to make in that area, and that has an impact. But if you take the point regarding crime, that's not our responsibility, but we do touch on it.

[English]

    The Chair: The unfortunate part is that you're well over your time, but the good news is that we have invited folks from the John Howard Society and from Corrections Canada, and you're going to be able to put those specific questions to them.

    Monsieur Godin.

[Translation]

    Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP) : Thank you, Madam Chair.

    I would like to welcome you to the Human Resources Development Committee. I don't share Mr. Bellemare's view that they come here looking for money. I believe this is the place to come; the money is here, in Ottawa, and it's here to be distributed. The money is put into the coffers by Canadians who pay their taxes, the return on which should be put in the right place. I just want to be sure that you don't go away feeling bad because you come here to request programs. This is the right place to come knocking on the door. In any case, that's my opinion. The money doesn't belong to us parliamentarians, but to all Canadians. You are entitled to come and request money.

[English]

    The Chair: This is all part of your time.

[Translation]

    Mr. Yvon Godin : I know, Madam Chair, but I think it's important that the witnesses know it and that they feel comfortable coming looking for money in Ottawa.

    Just to provide a little background on the subject of work, I recall that, when I worked at the Brunswick mine, where I was president of the union, a literacy program was introduced for the workers. At the time, there were a lot of technological changes and we had the EST program, which was sponsored at the time by the CLC. I thought they did something really good. There were miners underground who did not even know how to read or write. Those people took literacy courses. Some took community college courses and even graduated. So that was a success throughout. I wanted to make that comment.

    Do you think that not enough is done, that the government, whether it's the federal government or the provincial government or jointly, won't come up with a program that's acceptable to everyone? I don't want to make too many comments so that my question remains clear. What I would like to see, when I talk about work, is solid coordination between the provinces, the federal government and even industry. That's the sense of my question. I'll talk about other things afterward, but on this point, don't you think there's somehow a lack of coordination with the various groups, the various provinces? Isn't everything too scattered, which would suit the government, since we're not focusing our efforts on a literacy program that everyone can take part in?

[English]

    Mr. Ian Thorn: I agree with you fully, and I don't come here with any qualms at all about asking the federal government to provide us with money, I'm a taxpayer and it comes from me, it comes from us. I would encourage everybody, and this goes to Mr. Solberg as well, to realize that when we talk about coming to the federal government or any government level looking for funds for programs such as this, we're looking at an investment. This is not a cost, this is an absolutely necessary investment. The counter to that is that if we don't make the investment in the literacy and essential skills, the workplace skills of the workforce in this country, we're going to lose. I provided you with a couple of documents that I prepared talking about the change, and I really encourage you to have a look at those. The workforce is changing so quickly and the whole of society is changing so quickly, and that rate of change is going to increase dramatically in the future, it's not something we're over with. The need for people to have the skills to respond to that change, whether it's in the workplace or outside the workplace, whether it's family members or in the workplace, is absolutely imperative. If we don't make that investment, we're going to lose tremendously.

    We've done a survey across the country, we've developed a video across the country, and we've talked to employers along with our members and along with our local union officers. One of the responses we got very clearly from many employers was that it is a superb investment to develop literacy projects within the workplace. They said it's a good investment, it's a solid investment in the future of their business. Many of them said the same thing: if we don't make that investment, we're going to lose. There is little doubt in my mind, and I don't think there should be any doubt in anybody's mind, that the company, the industry, the particular workplace, the country that has the most highly skilled workforce is the one that is going to succeed in this very competitive world.

º  (1655)  

    Mr. Yvon Godin: What investment should the government make? We're talking about investment, but I think it's kind of broad. What is your recommendation? Is it putting a program together in conjunction with provincial governments and industry, or putting a program together with groups? Is it that type of investment the government has to make?

    Mr. Ian Thorn: Very much. It's an investment government has to make. Where the money comes from I leave up to you, as the legislators, but it has to be the government making that investment in concert with and in collaboration with industry and other interested parties, like labour across the country. We have to not just do the research; we've done a mass of research already. That research has to continue, in order that we can look at the programs that have been put in place, respond to how well those programs are doing, and adjust those programs to make sure we're spending the money well. I think the major point to be made is that it has to be a pan-Canadian program and involve all the partners working together, with the federal government responding, with the provincial governments and the employers, to the need to finance it.

    Ms. Sue Folinsbee: I want to reinforce what Ian has said. I couldn't agree more. I think the investment comes back to the need for a national literacy strategy, and that's where the federal government can really provide bold leadership. There could be three parts to that. We've talked about the intergovernmental accord, which is really critical. We'd also like to talk to integration, having the federal government look at its own programs and departments and where money could be funnelled from those programs for literacy. There needs to be communication in clear language. Also, the role and mandate of the NLS need to be expanded. It could provide leadership in this national strategy, because this department has the expertise developed over a long period of time. We would see those as some starting points for investment.

[Translation]

    Mr. Yvon Godin : I would also like to know your opinion on another point. There's a surplus of nearly $45 billion in the employment insurance account. I believe the goal is still that someone can learn to read and write in order to be able to enter the labour market.

    I would like to know everyone's opinion. Do you believe the federal government could have a program related to the employment insurance program, not only for workers, but also for persons who do not work, regardless of where they're from? That program could help people take literacy courses and, at the same time—you stole my question earlier—pay them a salary. One of the witnesses spoke about that.

    If people travel, they want to be paid, and that's normal. That's what's going to encourage them. When you receive your pay on Friday and have a chance to spend it on the weekend, on Monday, you go back to work to earn more. I believe that's already an encouragement. What does pay mean? It means paying wages, the babysitter, car expenses. It's all well and good to have nice big programs, but, if people can't gain access to them because they're poor, they serve no purpose.

    Do you think the employment insurance program could benefit those people and that there could be a broader agreement between the federal government and the provinces than the current one?

[English]

    The Chair: And that's the end of your line of questioning.

    Mr. Pelletier.

»  (1700)  

[Translation]

    Mr. Christian Pelletier : I think that's a path to explore. That may be promising. But let's be careful with the number of weeks granted to people because it does not necessarily take the same time for every individual to achieve literacy. So if you take the employment insurance program and say that a person is entitled to 40 weeks, I believe it could even take years in certain cases.

    And from the moment that program is established, it must be ensured that it continues. For example, it must not be said that there are no funds for this year and that we're going to start over next year, as may be seen in certain cases. In any case, in Quebec, that sometimes happens with Emploi-Québec, in the case of programs for workers. So we should watch out for that.

    In my opinion, people should also have an opportunity in that program to choose their place of training, either within a school board or through a popular group. I believe it shouldn't just be the people who are accredited, for example, for Quebec, at Emploi-Québec or the Société québécoise de développement de la main-d'oeuvre. That may be a promising avenue to consider.

    I would just like to discuss the strategy for 30 seconds. That may be one of the means of the strategy.

[English]

    The Chair: You'll have to save it until your wrap-up, because we're way over the time, and I want to let the other three speak.

    Sue.

    Ms. Sue Folinsbee: I would echo many of the things Christian said. What we don't want to see happen is that people aren't allowed enough time and are left hanging or have to move into low-paying, minimum wage jobs. It's very critical that the support is there for the long term.

    Mr. Ian Thorn: I'll bring you back to the recommendation of the New Brunswick Coalition for Literacy, also the recommendation of the Canadian Labour Congress, that EI funds be used to support literacy and essential skills programming in the workplace, indeed, that they be used in the same way as for other essential skills training programs. That is the workers' money. The employers say it's partly their money, and I won't argue about that in this forum, but that's the ideal place. There's a tremendous resource there that can be brought to bear to make sure the programming is really centred on the workplace and life skills, paid for by EI funding.

    Ms. Cayla Chenier: Many people in Nunavut don't meet the criteria to get EI funding, so it's certainly attractive for us to get things changed. The other thing is that the process is very intimidating. If your second language is English and these documents are not written in plain language, it's very hard to go through the process. I worked as an upgrading instructor at Nunavut Arctic College for four years, and students who would have been eligible to have their program paid for under EI couldn't secure it, because even when they were eligible, they didn't go through the process. There are many more people who are not at all eligible to secure that funding.

    Mr. Ian Thorn: If I may make a quick response to my colleague Cayla, the position that's taken by the Canadian Labour Congress, the labour movement, is that this funding be available not just to those who are off work and entitled to EI, but to anybody, because you can be at work and still get that EI funding if it's another kind of workplace training, and it should be available to anybody.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Mr. Simard.

    Mr. Raymond Simard (Saint Boniface, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair.

    I think every group that's come here has talked about a pan-Canadian strategy. In order for us to have that, we must have our partners involved as well, the provinces, labour, businesses. When one of the witnesses here today tells me that one of out four people tested is not passing the literacy test, there's obviously a huge problem at the provincial level. I'd like to know what you've done in meeting with your provincial representatives. Have they admitted there's a problem, if there's this problem at the base that we haven't resolved yet and we're trying to fix? I'd just like to know if you guys have been able to convince the provinces that there is a problem with literacy, because if you haven't been able to, how are we going to convince them to get on board in a pan-Canadian partnership?

»  (1705)  

    Mr. Ian Thorn: The New Brunswick Coalition for Literacy is constantly trying to make that point with the provincial government, and in fact, the provincial government has cut funding, rather than increasing it. I coordinate a national literacy program, and in that capacity, I'm able to work with others who are presenting to their provincial governments. It's a constant goal to present to the provincial governments, along with the federal government.

    Mr. Raymond Simard: Somebody was telling me this morning that at a huge conference, when they mentioned this one out of four, the educational people there were very insulted, as if that can't be. So there's a huge difficulty in admitting that we have a problem at the provincial level. If we want to get these on board in a national strategy, they have to be there and they have to admit there's a problem. That's number one, I think.

    We have seen so many groups here with differing problems, different needs. Nunavut and the Northwest Territories have totally different challenges. So although you have a national strategy, we have to make sure whatever we design is flexible enough and streamlined enough to look after the local content, if you will. I don't know if you've thought about that structure. How do you see this working? Do you see provincial representation, or even local representation? How do you see this happening?

    Ms. Cayla Chenier: I think the National Literacy Secretariat is in a position to facilitate a process like that, but I agree with you, it has to be our territorial government and people in communities right at the grassroots. Our government is definitely aware that literacy is an issue that must be addressed, but I think part of the attractiveness of developing a strategy is the process people will have to go through to answer the questions, so you'll get more buy-in and more people on board and more people talking about the issue and more ideas and more connections and more partnerships being built to address the issue.

    Mr. Raymond Simard: How do you think we're going to succeed in getting the provinces on board? When you throw money at things, often the provinces will hop in on a matching basis. Do you think that'll be adequate to get them on board, admitting that there's a problem and wanting to partner with us in a national strategy?

    Mr. Ian Thorn: We've gone a long way. I've been working with literacy for almost a decade now, and first we need to develop the awareness, then we need to develop some acceptance of this as an issue, then we need to develop some commitment that we take on the issue. I think we're well past the awareness and the acceptance, we're well towards that commitment, and I think, when we have all the partners together, with the provincial and the federal governments, that commitment will come. From there the plans, the processes, and the funding will follow, and the successes.

    Ms. Sue Folinsbee: I want to address the question of how you get the provincial governments on board. In Ontario we have a really well established system for literacy delivery and a substantial investment, but when you look at the numbers of people coming to programs, it's a drop in the bucket. I think another concern, and this is a real need for an accord, is that there's a tremendous focus on workplace and workforce literacy, and we'd like to see a broader vision for literacy. This is something the federal government could provide through development of an accord and a literacy strategy.

    The Chair: Mr. Pelletier.

[Translation]

    Mr. Christian Pelletier : Talk about national strategy in Quebec always raises questions. You mentioned flexibility of the national strategy. At a minimum, both the provinces and the federal government should recognize that there is a problem and that they are considering the statistics on the situation. In this area, Quebec has taken initiatives, and believe me, it wasn't easy. It didn't go smoothly at first, but a lot of sensitization was done and they believed in it. We should also acknowledge a willingness to act that is consistent with the opportunities for action by the partners of the federal government, the provincial government, etc.

    Mr. Bellemare, earlier you asked how it could be ensured that funds intended for literacy were not diverted from their objective. There are 1.2 million illiterate persons in Quebec. I can tell you that, if our 132 groups learned that the federal government had invested $10 million or $15 million in literacy in Quebec, they would ensure that those funds went to literacy. We would be there to remind them.

    This is a need. I don't know the situation in the other provinces, but, Quebec has been hitting the nail on the head for a long time. Twenty years ago, however, no one talked about literacy, but not because the phenomenon was less widespread. In my view, it's very much a question of an awareness strategy, and, if there is any question of doing something at the national level, it should be to increase awareness of the problem.

»  (1710)  

[English]

    Mr. Raymond Simard: It's the first time I've had the privilege of having someone from the labour movement here. As a labour movement, have you identified literacy as a problem, and are you now negotiating programs in your deals?

[Translation]

    Mr. Pelletier, you said earlier that you were developing teaching tools. We on the committee have heard nothing about them. We haven't heard that standards had been established for those providing training.

    Is it possible to train those people in 15 or 20 hours? Where does your work stand on this matter? If it is sufficiently advanced, it would be very helpful for us to use that information elsewhere in Canada.

[English]

    Mr. Ian Thorn: We are definitely negotiating provisions for the development of literacy and central skills in the workplaces. We have a set of guidelines for developing that. I'll provide you with a copy of it, if you like.

    The Chair: Mr. Thorn, we're going to move on to Mr. Pelletier, because we're going to have one whole meeting with folks from the labour movement who can answer that. I don't mean to cut you off, Mr. Thorn.

    Mr. Ian Thorn: That's fine. Thank you.

    The Chair: Okay.

    Mr. Pelletier.

[Translation]

    Mr. Christian Pelletier : No, we don't have standards on the subject, and I would tell you that it's very variable. It's important to draw a distinction. When you do literacy in a community setting, you teach reading, writing and arithmetic, but the objective is also, and especially, having citizens speak out and take action, that is to say take their place and learn to express their thoughts. That's important for us. As for the time it takes to learn the code, I would say it varies from one person to another.

    Mr. Raymond Simard : I was talking about the time required to train educators.

    Mr. Christian Pelletier : We provide a training program which is paid for, in large part, by the National Literacy Secretariat.

    Mr. Raymond Simard : What are the standards?

    M. Christian Pelletier : The important thing for us is the contact that people establish with others. A host of tools are available in Quebec for this purpose. We have an obligation to forward all those produced by the 132 groups to a documentation centre in Montreal. Anyone in any province can do this type of thing.

    Mr. Raymond Simard : Thank you.

[English]

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Mr. Gagnon, you were the only one who didn't go way over their time, so I'm going to give you a couple of minutes at the end, right now.

[Translation]

    Mr. Sébastien Gagnon : Thank you, Madam Chair.

    I would just like to make a comment. You have to be careful when you talk about a national action plan. The Statistics Canada report last week attested to Quebec's group performance compared to the other provinces. There are already two established channels which work. All we need are resources; I believe you would agree with that, Mr. Pelletier. Here we're talking about an allocation of resources that would enable us to be more skilled and to develop.

    I'm not in favour of a national action plan. Instead we should reallocate resources and work with the existing authorities in the field. Thank you.

[English]

    The Chair: Before I ask each of you to make closing remarks, there was one question that kept coming up. I heard you talking about federal-provincial accords and the need for intergovernmental action, but I also have heard every group that came before stress that the NLS was an excellent delivery mechanism, and so I'm trying to square the circle, as it were. Is it a federal-provincial accord you're looking for, or do you want funds given to NLS to work with the various groups and organizations, and are those two mutually exclusive?

    Mr. Ian Thorn: We need the federal-provincial accord, and the NLS would be the federal government's contribution. We want to see the process the NLS has used. It's been a very successful process, and the funding has been excellent. I fear now that the funding is going to decrease, and this is going to be very disheartening for those who've worked for years and years towards getting the literacy programs going in the classrooms.

»  (1715)  

    The Chair: I think, if this committee has anything to say about it, it won't decrease.

    Ms. Chenier.

    Ms. Cayla Chenier: I agree with Ian.

    The Chair: Mr. Pelletier.

[Translation]

    Mr. Christian Pelletier : We have a federal-provincial agreement, but it doesn't cover everything. It's important to know that. The federal-provincial agreement concerns the 132 groups and the 70 school boards. However, there is $1 million which is given by the federal government, without necessarily going through the provincial government, and which is given to unions and community groups which are not accredited for literacy. That's also important.

    We also receive money from the national level for our training program. I believe that, when you talk about increasing, it's at all those levels. I don't think a federal-provincial agreement would solve all the problems either. If the Quebec government agrees to $1 million being provided without going through it, and we are able to obtain money for trainers from the federal government, it's because that's different.

    Some jurisdictions are provincial, of course, but there is a way to agree on this. Sometimes the money doesn't go directly to the person, but there may be a way to give it to organizations, which, indirectly, are then able to benefit others in the field.

[English]

    The Chair: Okay.

    To go in reverse order of presentation, Mr. Pelletier, you have two minutes to make any closing comments you wish.

[Translation]

    Mr. Christian Pelletier : I repeat, in light of the discussions we have had, that more money should indeed be invested and that the NLS is necessary. I also think that more money should be allocated to the National Literacy Secretariat. I would briefly sum up the national strategy in terms of awareness and willingness to act.

    Will we go further? I think you have to allow the provinces the flexibility to decide on the means they will take to solve the problem, from the moment they recognize it. But we should be careful because there are also particular regional characteristics.

    I also want to hammer once again on the issue of research. I think it can be very useful, and school boards and groups can't do it. Let's just ensure that research is not cut off from what's going on in the field. There are people directly in the field.

[English]

    The Chair: Good.

    Ms. Folinsbee.

    Ms. Sue Folinsbee: I'd like to address a point that hasn't received discussion today, this whole idea of statistics. We hear a lot of talk about having to take so many people from level 1 to level 3 or whatever. I would say to you, as a committee, that raising literacy levels is a really complex process, it's not just a matter of taking people from level A to level B. The statistics give us a broad view of the nature of the problem across populations, and that's very important, but we don't know what those numbers mean for people on the ground. They don't tell us why certain policies are working or not or why you are or are not achieving targets, nor do they show us how literacy issues are entangled with other social issues, like racism and poverty, the availability of learning opportunities or not. Alone, statistics only tell part of the story.

    We would really urge you, as a committee, to look at a qualitative research analysis, as well as the quantitative figures. I think we need a more textured response, and we can get that from the literacy community. Just as you've been talking to witnesses, there is more research needed from the ground up to figure out what the story is underneath the numbers.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Ms. Chenier.

    Ms. Cayla Chenier: Low levels of literacy affect so many different areas of people's lives, their employability, their ability to make a living for themselves and their families, their health, their ability to assist their children. That is why we feel every department of the government needs to look through a literacy lens at how they do things.

    We encourage you to increase the funding and the mandate of the NLS. They have been hugely supportive of us. We wouldn't exist without them, we couldn't help communities to build capacity to address their own literacy issues.

»  (1720)  

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Mr. Thorn.

    Mr. Ian Thorn: It's been a real privilege to be here, and I want to make the point that I come here wearing two hats. I'm a paid, full-time literacy coordinator working with my union and partly funded by the National Literacy Secretariat, but I'm also a volunteer in two areas, school-based literacy and family literacy. I want to emphasize that there's a whole host of volunteers out there that are too often not recognized. These volunteers are doing tremendous jobs. They're not out there making a noise and being heard, but they have to be recognized.

    Our union, because we've had NLS funding, has done some research, and I want to urge you to look at the summary of well over 100 pages of surveys we did with our membership, their local union officers, and their employers across the country. I mentioned the video as well. That's where we've had literacy programs, and that's people talking about the successes and the feelings they have from having gone through the literacy programs. The way I like to approach this--and I use this as a tool when I'm talking to employers and workers--is that this is literally hundreds of CEP members talking to other CEP members and employers talking to other employers about this issue of literacy, and it's being taken very seriously.

    I'll take you back to the two documents I've prepared; one is called “Reflections on Workplace Education”, the other “Changing Literacy Needs in the Changing Workplace”. I want to stress so much that where we are today, we are in great difficulty in being able to move forward and develop the literacy programs that are needed right now, needed yesterday, in fact. The accelerated change that's going on is going to make this problem even more difficult. We are not even keeping pace. We need to raise that curve, start to keep pace, and make sure people have the skills they need, not only for the workplace, but for all elements within the workplace. It's a democracy issue, it's an access issue.

    Thank you very much.

    The Chair: And you're going to remind us that this is a key investment in our future.

    Mr. Ian Thorn: A great investment.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Meeting adjourned.