HUMA Committee Report

I.          RECOGNIZING THE VOLUNTARY SECTOR, EMPLOYERS, EMPLOYEE REPRESENTATIVES AND LEARNERS

Members of the Committee are extremely impressed by the dedication and commitment demonstrated by all the groups and individuals who appeared before us and shared their knowledge, views and insights on Canada’s literacy problems and solutions. We are also very appreciative of the vast volunteer network that exists across this country and whose sole purpose is to identify literacy needs and raise the literacy skills of Canadians. This literacy community has helped to bolster Canada’s economic and social fortunes for decades. However, we fear that this contribution is often taken for granted. We need to recognize in more tangible ways (in addition to increased funding) the valuable work performed by the voluntary sector to address Canada’s low literacy problem.

Our literacy program is almost entirely done with volunteers … [w]e use 800 volunteers across our agency, and we’re not alone; you folks are well aware of the leverage in the voluntary sector … situating things like a lifelong learning centre in high-risk, high-need areas attached to the voluntary sector does two things. It leverages the volunteers and it overcomes the problem raised earlier about outreach, something voluntary sector organizations are very good at. We have lots of human resources with our volunteers. We’re extremely good at going out and finding people. And if you have a successful voluntary sector organization, it’s an easier place to come for help with things like literacy. (Susan Pigott, Chief Executive Officer, St. Christoper House)³⁸

Today we [Frontier College] still work across Canada and we still fight isolation and poverty through the power of literacy and learning. We have 6,000 volunteers, most of whom are still university students. But we work in today’s frontiers, which are prisons, shelters for homeless people, and workplaces that include farms in rural Canada and factories in urban Canada. We do a lot of teaching of people with disabilities, which I know is a concern of this committee, and we do a lot of work with senior citizens. (John O’Leary, President, Frontier College)³⁹

There are thousands of Canadians volunteering in literacy work every day in this country … [f]or example, 74 volunteer tutor programs serve 80 communities in Alberta. (Eliane Cairns, Vice-President, Literacy Alberta)⁴⁰

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. (Ian Thorne, National Literacy Project, Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada, New Brunswick Coalition for Literacy)⁴¹

Employers and employee representatives who initiate workplace literacy initiatives must also be recognized for their contribution to improving literacy skills in the workplace. These initiatives, discussed in more detail later in our report, can have a positive impact in areas such as production, wages, workplace health and safety, and union participation. Furthermore, workplace literacy can have positive intergenerational literacy effects; as workers become more literate, they can become bigger contributors to literacy within their families.

In 1990, Canada Post adopted literacy as its main philanthropic cause. In 1993, it introduced a national awards program and with the help of many sponsors, including the National Literacy Secretariat, the awards program has grown. In 2002, Canada Post celebrated the tenth anniversary of the Canada Post Literacy Awards, recognizing 34 winners from all regions of the country for individual achievement, community leadership, education and business leadership. Winners in the individual achievement and educators categories received a personal computer, while winners in the community leadership category won $2,000.⁴² The Conference Board of Canada’s Awards for Excellence in Workplace Literacy, also sponsored by the National Literacy Secretariat, are intended to raise awareness of the value of workplace literacy and reward effective initiatives that raise the literacy skills of employees. An award is presented annually to a small business, a medium-sized business and a large business.⁴³

The Committee commends Canada Post and the Conference Board of Canada for the literacy awards programs that they and others have supported over the years. Nevertheless, the Committee maintains that more must be done to raise awareness of the issue of low literacy, and to encourage and support the valuable contribution of literacy advocates and providers. Learners too need encouragement and support to initiate and continue their learning.

Recommendation 3

The Committee recommends that the federal government allocate sufficient resources to provide literacy awards at various points in the year, especially International Literacy Day, to reward literacy providers (e.g., volunteers, employers and other literacy stakeholders) for their significant involvement and excellence in promoting and delivering literacy training, and to celebrate the successes of literacy learners.

II.         THE ROLE OF THE CANADIAN LEARNING INSTITUTE

At the National Summit on Innovation and Learning in November 2002, the government announced that it intended to establish a new organization, called the Canadian Learning Institute (CLI), to enhance our knowledge and information about learning. In January 2003, the Minister of Human Resources Development Canada asked Dr. Benjamin Levin of the University of Manitoba and Shirley Seward of the Canadian Labour and Business Centre to consult with the provinces and territories, national learning organizations, and business and labour organizations regarding the structure, mandate and governance of this organization. Apparently, these consultations are completed and the Minister was reviewing this matter while we were preparing our report. In the February 2003 budget, the federal government announced a one-time contribution of $100 million to the CLI in 2003-2004.

In the initial announcement, the CLI’s mandate was to ensure that Canadians have access to objective research on the effectiveness of investments in skills and learning. It was also envisaged that the CLI would support the testing and evaluation of innovative approaches to learning, and would coordinate this information so as not to duplicate or overlap any ongoing activities of governments or third-party organizations. Some members of the Committee are concerned about the role of this organization, and stress that its mandate must not interfere with the mandates of any similar entities supported by provincial and territorial governments. For example, care should be taken to ensure that the CLI’s research agenda does not overlap with that of the Canadian Education Statistics Council, a partnership between Statistics Canada and the Council of Ministers of Education, Canada. The same concern applies to federally sponsored research on literacy. For example, we do not envisage a mandate that would include literacy and young children, as this is already the focus of the Canadian Language and Literacy Research Network, one of the government’s networks of centres of excellence.

Many of our witnesses maintained that the CLI’s mandate should include research on literacy. Provided our concerns expressed above are addressed we support this view, given that literacy skills are critical to all learning. In terms of the CLI’s literacy-related mandate, consideration should be given to incorporating research on adult literacy issues that have a direct application to literacy programs, research that addresses literacy training for specific populations or sectors of the economy, and research that identifies ways to help prevent or minimize literacy problems or improve adult literacy. Several research areas were highlighted during the Committee’s hearings, such as establishing a better understanding of why adults have low literacy skills (especially those at Level 1); developing a better understanding of the process of becoming literate and the role of institutions such as libraries in this process; assessing the literacy needs of Aboriginal people, persons with disabilities and inmates; and establishing a better understanding of why the vast majority of adults with low literacy skills do not participate in learning.

In my presentation, I mentioned three methods or procedures that have been used with francophones [to improve literacy skills] … Currently, given the resources available to the stakeholders, we can experiment with these methods, but we can rarely make a systematic evaluation of them … we discussed the Canadian Learning Institute, whose mandate is to get an overview of various methods and see what can be done. I hope that an institute of this kind takes an interest in these practices, so as to yield practical results for the stakeholders. (Luce Lapierre, Executive Director, Fédération canadienne pour l’alphabétisation en français)⁴⁴

Let’s turn to the newly announced Canadian Institute of Learning. We’d like you to ensure that it dedicates at least 25% of its resources to analyzing proven successes in adult and family literacy … the institute should not narrow its focus on post-secondary education alone. (Marg Rose, Executive Director, Literacy Partners of Manitoba)⁴⁵

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. (Sue Folinsbee, Co-Executive Director, Ontario Literacy Coalition)⁴⁶

CLA recommends that a better understanding of the process of becoming literate and the role of respective social institutions such as libraries become part of its mandate. (Madeleine Lefebvre, Vice-President, Canadian Library Association)⁴⁷

In 2002-2003, the National Literacy Secretariat (NLS) devoted about 11% of its grants and contributions budget to research. With the advent of the CLI, the Committee believes that at least some (i.e., excluding research on needs assessment and innovative literacy programs) of the literacy research undertaken through the NLS could be redirected to the CLI. Moreover, this would permit some of the NLS’s research budget to be reallocated to building more strategic literacy partnerships, an area of NLS excellence as evidenced by testimony from literacy providers.

Recommendation 4

The Committee recommends that the federal government include literacy research in the mandate of the Canadian Learning Institute. It is the Committee’s view that the assignment of literacy research activities to the Canadian Learning Institute should not reduce the National Literacy Secretariat’s annual budget for grants and contribution programs.

III.        ASSESSING PRIOR LEARNING AND RESURRECTING THE CONCEPT OF A LEARNING PASSPORT

Several witnesses noted the need to recognize learners’ formal and informal knowledge and skills, and to develop a means of recording this human capital. In terms of the latter, one idea cited was a digital learning record.

Prior Learning Assessment (PLA) serves to identify skills, knowledge and abilities that have been acquired through formal recognized learning, the workplace, volunteer work and a myriad of other activities. PLA helps learners identify their strengths and abilities and recognize their learning accomplishments. Unfortunately, a great deal of prior learning goes unrecognized. According to a recent study, it is estimated that roughly 540,000 individuals in the Canadian labour market forego an average of some $8,000 to $12,000 each year because some portion of their formally and informally acquired human capital is not recognized. Such learning could be recognized and remunerated if we had a better system for doing so.⁴⁸ This problem is particularly serious in terms of unrecognized foreign credentials, a point that was often made during our review of the Employment Equity Act last year and that surfaced again during our study on literacy.

In October 2002, more than 100 individuals participated in the National Best Practices Workshop on Building Community Capacity to Recognize Learning. These participants maintained that the formal and informal learning opportunities of all Canadians must count if we are to create, sustain and support a knowledgeable and skilled workforce. A lack of affordable Prior Learning Assessment and Recognition (PLAR) practices, insufficient assessment tools and inadequate understanding of processes such as portfolio development were identified as some of the factors inhibiting the development of PLAR in this country.⁴⁹

During our hearings we were told about a PLAR literacy project, now in its third year, that involves five literacy networks in the Halifax region. This project has adapted PLAR to help develop learning portfolios for literacy learners. According to the evaluation results of the Learning Portfolio Program, a learning portfolio provides participants with greater confidence and self-esteem, and thus helps learners in their education, training and career prospects. Evidence also suggests that the Learning Portfolio Program motivates participants to engage in lifelong learning, especially in the case of those who have not previously participated in education and training.⁵⁰ Hence, a learning portfolio might help to overcome some of the stigma associated with low literacy and encourage more individuals to participate in literacy training.

So we talk in this country about a skills shortage, people who can’t read and write and people who don’t have skills for certain occupations, when we don’t even know what people can do. So it’s easy to switch gears here and say, let’s do an inventory of the skills and knowledge individuals and communities and whole industries have in them and build on that. The method by which to manage that is human capital accounting, using something like a digital learning record, the opportunity to first assess where we are at, plan for it, and manage it. A place to begin to create that learning record might be the IALS survey, because it does describe some of the categories of literacy. But then we have all sorts of other data at Human Resources Development Canada about various skills required for all sorts of occupations. We have the measures. (Kathryn Barker, President, FuturEd Consulting Education Futurists Inc.)⁵¹

The basic principle of RPL [recognizing prior learning] is that it doesn’t matter where or how you learn something. If you can identify that learning, articulate it, present it and present documentation or evidence for it, it’s real and serious learning. It should be recognized, respected and celebrated … We are now engaged in the third year of a major literacy PLAR project with five literacy networks in the Halifax region where we have provided professional development for facilitators and tutors, we’ve adapted the materials that we use for prior learning and a learning portfolio, and we are now rolling that out through those learning literacy networks to a variety of participants. Already the tutors are noticing marked and dramatic improvements in the confidence of the participants, and in their communication skills. (Doug Myers, Executive Director of the Prior Learning Assessment Centre in Halifax; and Director of Priority Assessment, Canadian Association for Prior Learning Assessment)⁵²

In 1994, the federal government proposed that a Learning Passport be developed, in partnership with the provinces and territories.⁵³ The intent of this document was to record individuals’ learning experiences and their academic and vocational credentials, and thereby facilitate smoother transitions in a learning environment and the workplace. This concept needs to be resurrected and acted on.

Recommendation 5

The Committee recommends that funds be allocated through the National Literacy Secretariat to encourage greater use of prior learning assessments for low literacy learners.

Recommendation 6

The Committee recommends that the federal government work with provincial and territorial governments and the learning community to develop a format for a learning portfolio that records individuals’ formal and informal learning, and that respects the privacy of individuals. It is hoped that this document would identify learners’ strengths and knowledge gaps, and provide a basis on which to build for those who engage in further learning. Although this recommendation is primarily intended to encourage and facilitate training among individuals with low literacy credentials, there is no reason to limit the use of this credential recognition document to low literacy learners. In fact, an obvious extension of this approach could include the learning accomplishments, including language instruction, of newcomers to Canada.

IV.       DESIGNING AN ABORIGINAL STRATEGY

1.      Aboriginal Communities — Education and Literacy

Aboriginal peoples⁵⁴ in Canada face numerous challenges in the areas of education and literacy that are unique to them as a population and as a culture. Statistics show that Aboriginal peoples are likely to have lower levels of educational participation and achievement than the average Canadian.⁵⁵ They also experience much lower rates of labour force participation and are more likely to be employed in low-skilled occupations or to be unemployed.

Aboriginal peoples, however, represent a critical potential labour force resource for meeting the needs of the Canadian economy in the next decade. A large cohort of Aboriginal youth will enter the workforce at almost the same time as a projected shortage of overall labour. By 2006, the Aboriginal working age population is projected to reach 920,000. According to the Conference Board of Canada, maximizing Aboriginal employment could help address future labour shortages while supporting the sustainability of pension and employment insurance programs.⁵⁶ The Committee believes that enhancing the literacy skills of Aboriginal learners of all ages is an essential step toward maximizing their employment.

Education is a key factor in the development of literacy skills and in ensuring that Aboriginal youth entering the workforce will have the necessary qualifications to meet labour market demands.⁵⁷ However, education is a particularly problematic issue in Aboriginal communities. In a 2002 survey of First Nations people living on reserves, “a lack of education was seen as the most important challenge facing Aboriginal children and youth by more than one in three First Nations residents.”⁵⁸ Indian and Northern Affairs Canada’s (INAC) data for 2001 reveal that 63% of First Nations people aged 15 and over living on reserves do not have a high school diploma. According to the 2001 Census, 39% of the working-age Aboriginal population did not have a high school diploma, down from 45% in 1996. The drop-out rate of First Nations people before grade 9 is six times higher than that of the Canadian population.⁵⁹ High drop-out rates contribute to the low proportion of on-reserve First Nations people with at least a high school diploma, resulting in fewer First Nations youth with the skills and attributes increasingly sought by employers. As noted previously in our report, each additional year of education raises annual earnings by about 8%, of which one-third is attributable to increased literacy skills.⁶⁰ This is all the more important when we consider that Aboriginal peoples overall have below-average household incomes. Furthermore, as the Canadian economy becomes more knowledge-intensive, Aboriginal peoples lacking the necessary education and literacy skills to compete in the labour market will be excluded from new economic opportunities and will be pushed even further to the margins of society. The Committee believes this is a situation that warrants immediate, appropriate and effective intervention. In addition, we think that Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, in consultation with First Nations, should initiate steps to ensure that First Nations children receive quality elementary and secondary education.

2.      Federal Programs — Aboriginal Education and Literacy

Fourteen federal departments and agencies⁶¹ offer programs for Aboriginal peoples, with total expenditures of approximately $8.3 billion in 2003-2004. Indian and Northern Affairs Canada is the principal department delivering services to Aboriginal peoples; its core responsibilities relate to First Nations people living on reserves. As well, in Canada’s North, INAC partners with “Inuit and other Aboriginal communities to develop governance structures and to finalize and implement land claims and self-government agreements.”⁶² The federal government also offers programs related to education, labour market development, cultural services, corrections and communications to on-reserve First Nations people.

With respect to programs aimed at enhancing the literacy skills of Aboriginal peoples, the main federal players are INAC, HRDC’s National Literacy Secretariat and Aboriginal Relations Office, and the Department of Canadian Heritage. INAC estimates that it will spend approximately $1.4 billion on education programs and services for First Nations people living on reserves in 2003-2004: a little over $1 billion on elementary/secondary education, $304 million on post-secondary education and $8.2 million on cultural education centres. Approximately 120,000 elementary/secondary and approximately 26,000 post-secondary First Nations students currently benefit from these services. Almost 60% of students living on reserves are enrolled in over 450 First Nations-managed elementary and secondary schools.⁶³ The National Literacy Secretariat (NLS) funds programs that directly support English and French literacy projects for Aboriginal adults. In 2002-2003, the NLS allocated $2,073,742 in support of 41 Aboriginal literacy projects currently operating across Canada. The Aboriginal Relations Office (ARO) administers the Aboriginal Human Resources Development Strategy (AHRDS), a five-year, $1.6 billion program designed to assist Aboriginal peoples prepare for, find and maintain employment. The AHRDS is a community-based partnership strategy that gives responsibility to the Aboriginal Human Resources Development Agreement (AHRDA) signatories for designing and delivering labour market programming, in exchange for strong accountability and results.⁶⁴ In fiscal year 2001-2002, the AHRDS provided assistance to 50,036 Aboriginal clients at a cost of $246.4 million. Of these, 5,653 individuals returned to school and 18,732 became employed or self-employed resulting in $13.8 million in savings to the EI Account.⁶⁵ Finally, the Department of Canadian Heritage funds a range of Aboriginal programs that contribute directly or indirectly to the enhancement of literacy in Aboriginal languages. For example, the Department allocated $20 million to fund a four-year (1998-2002) initiative to assist Aboriginal communities in revitalizing and maintaining Aboriginal languages. This initiative is currently under review and negotiations for renewal are under way.

3.      Aboriginal Literacy — What Do We Know?

The Committee heard from a number of representatives of Aboriginal organizations, service providers and teachers who raised many key issues related to literacy in Aboriginal communities. We learned that:

•

Very little research has looked specifically at literacy levels in Aboriginal communities. Nonetheless, based on the educational achievement of Aboriginal peoples and first-hand experience of service providers, it is estimated that a larger proportion of Aboriginal peoples have lower literacy skills than the average Canadian as per the results of the 1994 International Adult Literacy Survey.

•	Many Aboriginal people do not relate to current definitions of literacy. For example, oral language is highly valued in Aboriginal culture, as much as if not more than writing and reading. However, learning effective oral communication is not a component of most literacy initiatives.

•	Aboriginal local communities are in a better position to identify the needs of their residents and plan how a program should be delivered. Many Aboriginal people feel that literacy initiatives should be developed and controlled by Aboriginal peoples.

•	The approach to Aboriginal literacy should be holistic. It should recognize and nurture the spirit, heart, mind and body of Aboriginal learners.

•	Aboriginal literacy is an intergenerational matter best served by a community-based, family-focused approach.

•	In order for Aboriginal literacy programs to be relevant and useful to learners, the values and culture of Aboriginal peoples, their experiences and history, should be reflected in the material that is used in adult basic education and literacy programs.

•

Learning an Aboriginal language is just as important to Aboriginal learners as learning to read and write in English or French. Canada has 50 Aboriginal languages, but in 1996 only three of them (Cree, Ojibwa and Inuktitut) had enough mother tongue speakers to be considered safe from extinction over the long term.

•	Some Aboriginal people feel strongly that English should be taught as a second language after one’s mother tongue.

•	Long-term adequate funding is critical to the success of Aboriginal literacy initiatives, as building literacy skills takes time.

•	The time-consuming reporting requirements attached to funding agreements make it difficult for service providers to do what they do best: deliver literacy programming.

•	Current literacy guidelines and measures of success do not capture the real accomplishments and triumphs of Aboriginal learners.

•	Federal training programs focus solely on job preparation and not on building literacy skills that are essential to an individual’s success in a training program or employment.

We don’t have stats with which to work, because the first international adult literacy survey did not have enough representation of Aboriginal peoples to be able to extrapolate any meaningful data. For the second literacy survey, the results are just now being looked at, and that information will be ready shortly. So I have been using the stats from the aboriginal post-censal survey, which did not look at literacy specifically but rather at grade completion levels. In the Aboriginal community our completion levels are approximately half what they are in the non-aboriginal community. A number of things contribute to that — for example, teachers in the institutional educational system not understanding the learning styles or the political and socio-economic realities that affect aboriginal people. (Priscilla George, Coordinator, National Aboriginal Design Committee)⁶⁶

We are resourceful and culturally rich, but at the same time the NWT is home to some of the lowest literacy rates in the country. Of our Aboriginal residents, 50% do not have the literacy skills they need to meet the complex demands of today’s world. In Canada, this is unacceptable. (Cate Sills, Executive Director, Northwest Territories Literacy Council)⁶⁷

As an educator, I have constantly reinforced and taught, pushed and cried, begged and borrowed, and stole moments of time with parents to teach them the value of teaching a child in their own first language. … I’ve always believed, from my own teaching days, that when you teach a child in their first language, you don’t have to teach their values, you don’t have to teach them their traditions, you don’t have to teach them their history, because they’re involuntarily included in the language. …
I saw, through test and little studies that we did at the university, that children, when being taught English as a second language, fared better in terms of pride and volubility and all of the other things required for them to stand up and read out loud. (Murdena Marshall, Retired Associate Professor, Mi’kmaw Kina’matnewey)⁶⁸

You spoke of the atrocities, where one generation through the residential school system lost that ability to communicate in their own language. Now, they’re afraid to be involved in the schooling of their children, because they don’t know how. From our perspective, at the Chief Dan George Centre, we want to incorporate parent participation with the youngsters so that it works both ways, so that we become comfortable teaching our children literacy. These can be simple things — how to read prescriptions, the health and safety issues with that, the issues around nutrition, being able to read what’s on the back of a label. These are things that we take for granted. (Darrel Mounsey, Executive Director, Chief Dan George Centre for Advanced Education, Simon Fraser University)⁶⁹

They know that if they can learn to read, their child can learn to read, which means the generations down the road will learn to read. As soon as the light comes on, we hear, “Can I bring my daughter? Can I bring my son? … So for me to sit there at the door and say, I’m sorry, you can’t come in, I didn’t have enough money to hire another person … I saw this huge need, but I had to write it on paper and send it to somebody in an ivory tower who has no way of understanding who I’m working with … (Karen McClain, Instructor, Peterborough Native Learning Centre)⁷⁰

To address these issues, many witnesses recommended that the federal government:

•	support the development and implementation of an Aboriginal Literacy Strategy or Action Plan that would be managed and operated by Aboriginal peoples;

•	support the creation of a national Aboriginal organization for literacy that will provide networking, research and support for Aboriginal educators;

•	provide funding for Aboriginal communities to assess their needs and define their own solutions;

•	provide funding for literacy initiatives in Aboriginal languages;

•	integrate specific literacy programs and practices within the existing policies and programs for Aboriginal peoples;

•

make current federal training programs (i.e., the Aboriginal Human Resources Development Strategy and programs under Employment Insurance Part II) less centred on immediate employment results. Funding guidelines should be more flexible and recognize the need to teach literacy skills, as they are precursors to specific training and employment;

•	provide long-term sustainable funding and resources for Aboriginal literacy initiatives and the infrastructure needed to deliver programs (e.g., provide for a new funding stream of the National Literacy Secretariat to be dedicated to Aboriginal literacy projects).

As far as I understand, the LMDAs are currently being renegotiated, or will soon be. I think they are a really good example of how we can integrate literacy into government programs and services. LMDAs are one example, and Aboriginal human resources development agreements are another. Moreover, EI part two dollars could certainly be used to support literacy. While these agreements are being negotiated between the federal government, the provinces, and territories, there are a number of different ways in which literacy can be supported through a range of currently existing government programs and services. (Cate Sills, Executive Director, Northwest Territories Literacy Council)⁷¹

First of all, … I think programs need to be locally developed with regard to the different strategies. Yes, it could be one strategy, but every nation’s needs and every community’s needs are unique. I think it’s very important to take that into account. As well, it’s very difficult to separate pieces of literacy at different levels. You talk about Aboriginal literacy in the workplace. In order to get our people literate, we need to start with them even before they get to school. So it’s all interconnected, and I think it’s important to realize that. The more people who become literate, the more literate people you will have in the workplace ultimately. So, yes, we can focus on adult learners, and we can focus on preschool, and we can focus on youth and our elders, but you can’t just pick little pieces and work that way. I think it’s important to take a holistic approach to any strategy that’s part of a recommendation. (Irene La Pierre, Principal, Piitoayis Family School, Calgary Board of Education)⁷²

First, use the input from practitioners and programs before creating initiatives and guidelines. As people who are working on the front lines, who are working with these learners coming in the door, we know how long it takes and we know basically what their needs are before they can begin to learn. We need our voices heard. (Karen McClain, Instructor, Peterborough Native Learning Centre)⁷³

First, someone has to find a way to ensure there is long-term secure funding for aboriginal literacy, and literacy initiatives have to go where aboriginal people are, not the other way around. (Edwina Wetzel, Director of Education, St. Anne’s School, Conne River First Nation)⁷⁴

The above issues and recommendations are echoed in the documentation produced by Métis organizations and research pertaining to literacy for Métis and non-Status Indian peoples. However, these organizations also see a need for a national literacy needs assessment of the Métis and non-Status Indians and for the establishment of a national literacy coalition for these groups.

The Committee was told that some steps have been taken to deal with many of the issues related to Aboriginal literacy. Following a national Aboriginal literacy gathering in Canada a few years ago, 129 representatives from every province and territory mandated the Aboriginal Design Committee to form a national Aboriginal literacy organization, which now is in the process of incorporation.⁷⁵ A number of not-for-profit organizations have set up literacy councils that serve Aboriginal peoples (e.g., Ontario Native Literacy Coalition, Nunavut Literacy Council and the Northwest Territories Literacy Council). The National Literacy Secretariat also funds a number of projects related to Aboriginal literacy. The Committee recognizes that building literacy skills takes time, and that an immense amount of work will have to be done to raise the current low levels of literacy skills of many Aboriginal peoples across Canada. We believe the federal government has a critical role to play in ensuring that First Nations people residing on reserves have access to quality education and that Aboriginal peoples across Canada have access to culturally relevant resources to raise the language and literacy skills of both current and future generations.

Recommendation 7

The Committee recommends that the federal government immediately begin consultations with the Aboriginal communities, and provincial and territorial governments, to develop an Aboriginal Literacy Strategy that: incorporates a holistic approach; respects Aboriginal languages, traditions and values; and is funded at a level commensurate with the seriousness of the problem of low literacy among Aboriginal peoples.

Recommendation 8

The Committee anticipates that the implementation of an Aboriginal Literacy Strategy will take some time. In the interim, the Committee recommends that a new National Literacy Secretariat funding stream be created — the Aboriginal Funding Stream. In addition to the amount currently being spent (approximately $2 million) through the National Literacy Secretariat on Aboriginal literacy projects, the government should allocate $5 million to this new funding stream, of which one-half should be delivered through the national Aboriginal literacy
organization that is currently being established by the National Aboriginal Design Committee, while the remainder should be delivered via the existing funding streams, as is currently being done.

Recommendation 9

The Committee recommends that the federal government allocate $15 million to supplementary Aboriginal Human Resources Development Agreements to fund Aboriginal workplace literacy initiatives. ⁷⁶ In addition, some of the new funding (i.e., $25 million over the next two years) to be delivered under the Aboriginal Skills and Employment Partnership should be earmarked for literacy and numeracy skills development in major projects across the country. Furthermore, all federal programs aimed at increasing labour market participation of Aboriginal peoples in Canada should include basic education upgrading and literacy programs.

V.        BUILDING CAPACITY, STRENGTHENING PARTNERSHIPS AND
DEVELOPING NEW APPROACHES

1.      Expanding the Mandate and Capacity of the National Literacy Secretariat

The origin of the National Literacy Secretariat (NLS) is rooted in the 1986 Speech from the Throne, which committed the federal government to “work with the provinces, the private sector and voluntary organizations to develop measures to ensure that Canadians have access to the literacy skills that are prerequisite for participation in an advanced economy.” The NLS was established by authorization of Cabinet in 1987. Since 1988, it has, according to witnesses’ testimony, done an excellent job developing and nurturing partnerships to promote literacy in Canada.

The federal government plays an important role by funding the National Literacy Secretariat and other initiatives. The NLS does an excellent job, but it is constrained by its limited resources and mandate. (Wendy DesBrisay, Executive Director, Movement for Canadian Literacy)⁷⁷

I would like to begin by thanking … the National Literacy Secretariat for the excellent job they have done in providing coalitions like ours with the resources and guidance needed to accomplish our mandate. (Jean Rasmussen, Director, Family Literacy, British Columbia Literacy)⁷⁸

… the National Literacy Secretariat sounds like it’s the best-kept secret in government. They have been very effective in building the kinds of partnerships and capacity at the regional and local level, and provincial and territorial level, to move literacy out. So I think you already have the bones of a delivery system. Their mandate needs to be expanded, it needs to be better resourced, and I think they have the ability to move this forward. (Cate Sills, Executive Director, Northwest Territories Literacy Council)⁷⁹

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 no literacy infrastructure in Nunavut. (Cayla Chenier, Literacy Development Coordinator, Nunavut Literacy Council)⁸⁰

The NLS works through partnerships with the provinces, voluntary organizations, businesses, labour and other literacy stakeholders to promote interest in literacy and the value of literacy skills. This is accomplished by funding projects in five primary activities: (1) development of learning materials and tools; (2) research; (3) improved access and outreach; (4) coordination and information sharing; and (5) increasing public awareness. The NLS is not directly involved in delivering literacy programs to Canadians. This is done through the education system, voluntary groups, literacy organizations, labour and other groups that have an expertise in this area. In 2002-2003, about 16% of funded projects were designed to raise public awareness, an activity that all members of this Committee believe is very important and should be enhanced. About 27% of projects were related to developing learning materials, 33% pertained to coordination and information sharing, 11% were research-related, while 13% involved projects pertaining to access and outreach.

The role of the NLS is one of a facilitator, bringing together organizations that can benefit from each other’s experiences. Project funding is delivered via two funding streams: the Federal/Provincial/Territorial Funding Stream and the National Funding Stream. Under the Federal/Provincial/Territorial Funding Stream, the NLS sponsors projects designed to address regional or local needs; as a result, projects vary according to provincial/territorial priorities and demands.⁸¹ Under the initial funding arrangement, provincial and the territorial governments were encouraged to match NLS funding. Today, contributions by these governments often exceed NLS funding. For instance, we were told that Manitoba’s and Ontario’s contributions are now about 3 and 10 times larger, respectively, than the federal government’s share. Funding earmarked for Quebec is governed by a Ministerial Agreement that identifies, among other things, the groups to be funded and funding levels. Roughly one-half of the NLS’s grants and contributions budget is allocated to the Federal/Provincial/Territorial Funding Stream.

Under the National Funding Stream, the NLS supports literacy projects in partnership with national literacy organizations, provincial/territorial literacy coalitions, business, labour and non-governmental organizations with an interest in literacy. The NLS has fostered the sharing of expertise in best practices to prevent duplication and to increase effectiveness. As well, in its work with business and labour it has encouraged non-traditional learning opportunities and innovative ways of promoting learning, both inside and outside the workplace.

Funding provided through the NLS and the partnerships that are developed help to pool resources by leveraging financial commitments from a wide variety of governmental and non-governmental sources. The Committee was frequently told that the partnerships that have been developed with the support of the NLS are one of the keys to a successful literacy policy in this country. There is no doubt that these partnerships permit resources to be concentrated and ideas exchanged. They also inform the literacy community of what is being done, and in a world of limited resources this is crucial for not only minimizing duplication, but also replicating what works best.

In addition to noting that the NLS is under-funded, some witnesses criticized the NLS’s mandate on the grounds that it prevents the Secretariat from providing ongoing funding for successful literacy projects. We were told that funding cannot exceed three years, and this constraint limits the ability of the NLS to broaden substantially the application of successful projects.

… an initial NLS project of $80,000 for a social marketing campaign about literacy needs had a seven-to-one return on investment on your dollars. That seed grant helped us to solicit $40,000 from the province to join that campaign; collect $58,000 from the corporate sector at the next two PGI golf tournaments, which we put towards learner bursaries and new materials; secure a grant of $100,000 from the Manitoba Lotteries to produce a TV series, which reached thousands by satellite this winter; and finally, link to the Winnipeg Foundation through the campaign’s radio and billboard publicity. (Marg Rose, Executive Director, Literacy Partners of Manitoba)⁸²

Since its inception, the NLS has worked with more than 1,400 organizations including literacy organizations, school boards and community colleges, as well as national organizations for health, criminal justice, transportation and women’s issues. Since 1988, it has funded more than 5,000 projects.

Chart 4 provides a graphic illustration of NLS expenditures on grants and contributions since 1988-1989. As shown in the chart, the level of literacy spending, both in current and constant dollars, has increased slightly during this period. The level of spending in 2002-2003 was an anomaly in that it includes a one-time endowment of $5 million made in memory of Peter Gzowski. In 2003-2004, planned spending on the National Literacy Program is estimated to be $28.2 million.⁸³

Unfortunately, it can be said that francophones have a much lower literacy rate than anglophones. In the world we live in, we cannot afford to have a sub-population of francophones with this problem. So in terms of intervention, it may be appropriate to set priorities. (Luce Lapierre, Executive Director, Fédération canadienne pour l’alphabétisation en français)⁸⁴

Based on witnesses’ testimony, most members of the Committee regard the spending levels exhibited in Chart 4 to be woefully inadequate, given the magnitude of this country’s low literacy problem. However, some of us are concerned about allocating large sums of money to the NLS without really understanding the extent to which the demand for literacy training exceeds our capacity to provide it. In addition, members believe that it is critical for the NLS to gain a better understanding of the impact of its expenditures on literacy levels. We fully appreciate that the NLS is but one of several players in the production of higher literacy skills in Canada; nevertheless, a way must be found to better measure success and program effectiveness, a shortcoming that was identified in a recent evaluation of the program.

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 participants, the number of Canadians who are involved in our programs. That … was identified as one of the areas for improvement in our recent evaluation that was done at the NLS. We really have to find ways to capture this data. We now are beginning to have instruments where we can 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, how much improvement occurred. (Lenore Burton, Director General, Learning and Literacy Directorate, Human Resources Development Canada)⁸⁵

The Committee realizes, that despite some misgivings about capacity and program performance, we must begin to address what appears to be a significant under-investment in literacy skills. We must identify funding within the existing federal budget that can be used to increase markedly our investments in literacy projects funded through the NLS. In our view, this program should be one of the key recipients of the government’s commitment in its October 2002 Economic and Fiscal Update to reallocate funding from lower to higher priorities. In the February 2003 budget, the government indicated its intention to reallocate $1 billion per year from existing spending programs, beginning in 2003-2004.⁸⁶

With the support of the National Literacy Secretariat and community partners, including us, but many, many other groups, since 1988 we have set up an effective foundation across this country, but we’re simply reaching too few people. We’re reaching between 5% and 10% of the people we’ve been talking about and you’ve been hearing about in this committee. So an increase in funding. … I understand there are limits to that. That’s why we’re encouraging this committee to continue investigating it and to work out a funding level … that would enable us to make a significant impact and deal with significant numbers of people for the future. (John O’Leary, President, Frontier College)⁸⁷

… more money should indeed be invested and … I also think that more money should be allocated to the National Literacy Secretariat. (Christian Pelletier, Coordinator, Regroupement des groupes populaires en alphabétisation du Québec)⁸⁸

The National Literacy Secretariat, HRDC, I must be on the record to say they deserve praise and commendation. It’s been an important vehicle of financial and technical support to our Canadian Labour Congress, its affiliated unions and provincial and territorial federations of labour involved in literacy initiatives since 1988 and has provided critical support to building the capacity of unions to move
forward on literacy in the workplace and on the public policy front. However, it no longer has the resources to meet the current demand. (Kenneth Georgetti, President, Canadian Labour Congress)⁸⁹

Recommendation 10

The Committee recommends that:

•

The National Literacy Secretariat’s annual grants and contributions budget be increased from $28.2 million to $50 million. This increase does not include new funding for the proposed Aboriginal Funding Stream. New funding should continue to be delivered through the National Funding Stream and the Federal/ Provincial/Territorial Funding Stream, including the agreement with Quebec, and should respect any other conditions that may be specified following an agreement on a pan-Canadian accord on literacy and numeracy skills development. [Note: The reference to a pan-Canadian accord is intended to mean that the federal government should try to reach unanimous agreement with the provinces and territories to address this nation’s serious low literacy skills problem. If unanimous agreement is not possible, the Committee encourages the federal government to work with individual provinces and territories to achieve the same results. In either case, since this issue falls within the constitutional domain of the provinces and territories, an agreement is required to formalize federal support.];

•	One-third of the increase in funding be allocated to eligible projects for a multi-year period in order to assess the impact of stable funding on the acquisition of literacy and numeracy skills;

•	The National Literacy Secretariat use its extensive partnership network to examine the extent to which the demand for literacy training exceeds supply;

•	The National Literacy Secretariat be sensitive to the literacy needs of francophone adults in view of the findings of the International Adult Literacy Survey which found a higher incidence of low literacy among francophone adults compared to anglophone adults;

•

The National Literacy Secretariat develop, in conjunction with literacy providers, clear, measurable goals, objectives and performance indicators for assessing individual’s literacy and numeracy skills, to be reported on by recipients of NLS funding. Once these performance indicators are developed, Human Resources Development Canada should report on these each year in its Performance Report.

2.      Helping Communities and Families

Literacy policy must recognize the important role played by the family in developing and instilling the value of literacy skills in children, given that learning begins in the home. Research evidence suggests that the early years, from conception to age six, are the most important of any time in the life cycle of brain development and subsequent learning. According to one study, reading to and playing with children in the first 36 months after birth promotes the development of children’s verbal ability.⁹⁰ Unfortunately, parents with low literacy skills are unable to contribute a great deal to the literacy development of their children. Hence, the Committee believes that a coherent literacy policy must include family literacy as a critical component.

Family literacy programs treat the family as a learning unit. One of the goals of these programs is to promote reading and learning as a valued family activity. Family literacy programs also aim to break the intergenerational cycle of low literacy skills. While there is some evidence as to the effectiveness of such programs in achieving this crucial socio-economic outcome, the Committee believes that the National Literacy Secretariat should support demonstration projects that attempt to assess this aspect of family literacy initiatives. The Committee was told that research conducted by the National Center for Family Research in Kentucky found that 85% of children who attended a comprehensive family literacy program were at or above grade level 10 years after participation and that 66% of participating parents were gainfully employed or participating in higher education.⁹¹

I would like to share a couple of examples of the true results of literacy programs. Laubach’s volunteer president taught a young man named Daniel to read and write in northern Saskatchewan. Daniel is the first member of his family in five generations who is not on welfare, so a family cycle has been broken and a new family value has been established. (Robin Jones, Executive Director, Laubach Literacy of Canada)⁹²

… in 1994 my partner, Laureen MacKenzie, and I had a little idea that we brought to the federal-provincial partnership. Through a small grant we were able to research and refine our idea, and thus, Literacy and Parenting Skills, LAPS, a family literacy program, was born. It develops literacy skills while participants learn about parenting. Our program is now recognized nationally and has been adapted for use with first nations, francophones, and English as a second language low-literate parents. (Elaine Cairns, Vice-President, Alberta Literacy)⁹³

We have a family portion of our program, which makes us unique, where we involve the parents as partners in education with the focus once again being on family literacy, healthy families, families and culture, and developing healthy lifestyles. We … will develop programs, events, and cultural camps aimed at working with the families to strengthen their relationship to the school and the families’ own education. The family portion of the program was made possible through early childhood development funding dollars. So we were very fortunate in receiving some of that. (Irene La Pierre, Principal, Piitoayis Family School, Calgary Board of Education)⁹⁴

Using this program [“Tools For Community Building”], Holman, a small Inuit community on the Arctic coast, was able to develop its own comprehensive community family literacy plan based on partnerships among the local school, the day care, the language and culture program, and elders and parents. The result has been a range of programming that supports both English literacy and Inuinnaktun language and cultural activities, thereby meeting the twin goals of supporting literacy through language and cultural revitalization. (Cate Sills, Executive Director, Northwest Territories Literacy Council)⁹⁵

The federal budget made some mention of it in talking about improving aboriginal education outcomes and some mention of community and parental involvement. We know that’s key. If parents are taking more interest in their children and students’ work in the school, then it’s definitely going to encourage success among our young people and students. So we think that family literacy is an area that we would like to see more focus on, making parents and grandparents — who are quite often the caregivers — more comfortable with the English language and able to work with their young students in those areas. So community and parental involvement is key. (Danette Starr-Spaeth, Executive Director of the Education and Training Secretariat, Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations)⁹⁶

Learning-oriented communities undeniably support family literacy. The concept of a learning community extends well beyond the formal school system and captures the learning capacity that is widely available in the public and private sectors (e.g., voluntary sector, libraries, museums, health and social service agencies, workplaces, schools, etc.).
By building partnerships among all learning providers and by integrating learning resources, learning communities can better meet the human capital needs of individuals functioning in a society that is growing in knowledge intensity.⁹⁷

I think it would be good if childcare was provided … I also think more money should be given to literacy organizations to help them with all the work they do. That way they could hire more staff and have more learners.⁹⁸

Learning supports and easy access (tutors, scribes, adapted evaluations, technological special equipment, etc.) are essential for adults with learning disabilities.⁹⁹

The Committee learned about a community-wide literacy initiative in Birmingham, one of England’s most culturally diverse cities. This initiative emerged as a result of a prolonged decline in Birmingham’s traditional manufacturing base — the automotive industry. In 1995, initial steps were taken to transform Birmingham into a European tourist attraction. In doing so, it was decided that a significant investment in basic human capital was needed. Not only were the city’s secondary school completion rates below national average; a high proportion of adults had low literacy skills, and it was discovered that not enough children were entering school with the basic “kit” of skills. A decision was made to reallocate some of the funding earmarked for physical infrastructure to raise literacy and numeracy skills across all areas, ages and sectors of the city.¹⁰⁰ We were told that work has now begun in Vancouver to implement a decade of learning, modeled in part on Birmingham’s Core Skills Development Partnership, in support of the city’s bid for the 2010 Olympics.

We are now prepared to take our work to the next level and initiate learning community projects that could serve twin objectives, namely, fostering federal government objectives around the learning and skills agenda … and the role of family literacy in building social and human capital. The second objective would be to support Vancouver’s Olympics bid, through a proposed decade of literacy and learning, informed by successful models such as the Birmingham core skills partnership in the U.K. (Jean Rasmussen, Director, Family Literacy, Literacy British Columbia)¹⁰¹

As noted earlier in our report, we believe that community partnerships, such as those supported by the National Literacy Secretariat, are essential to raising low literacy levels in this country. They permit resources to be consolidated and ideas to be exchanged, and they inform the literacy community of what is being done so as to minimize duplication and replicate what works best. One community partnership that needs to be utilized more pertains to Canada’s public library system. Unfortunately, a number of successful library-based literacy programs have ceased due to a lack of funding. Some initiatives that are still operating include Vancouver’s parent-child Mother Goose initiative, which is designed to reach parents with young children who infrequently use the library. In Regina, the Albert Library is involved in two literacy projects. One of these, the Community Stories Program, brings firefighters and library assistants into the classroom to read to children in grades 1 to 3. The other, Herchmer Community School Family Literacy Project, develops and promotes family literacy. The Regina Public Library also delivers an on-line project called “Readthis.ca”, which provides plain language news stories with questions and answers to help individuals digest information. The Iqaluit Public Library offers a number of literacy-related initiatives, including an opportunity for inmates from the Young Offenders Facility and Baffin Correction Centre who demonstrate good behaviour to visit the library once a week and borrow up to three books.¹⁰²

We also believe that community learning is strengthened through increased initiatives such as those supported by Industry Canada’s Community Access Program (CAP) and HRDC’s Office of Learning Technologies (OLT). Originally initiated in rural communities in 1994 and extended to urban communities in 1999, CAP and OLT now give many Canadians public access to the Internet, supported by specialized computer technology to assist persons with disabilities. OLT promotes innovative lifelong learning opportunities for Canadians in a variety of ways, including the promotion and support of Community Learning Networks through the use of technology.

The Committee was told that technology’s impact on individuals with low literacy skills is double-edged: technology can be a barrier, as mentioned earlier in our report in the context of the digital divide; or it can provide an interest or an incentive to learn, as well as offer learning opportunities in remote regions of the country (i.e., distance learning).

That’s what the AlphaRoute study is showing. We wondered, can you really take a person functioning at a low skill level and expect them to function independently, and so on? But there are cyber-tutors, and there are other levels of support. We can’t keep expecting people to step forward into programs. There are so many bricks-and-mortar limits to what you can deliver, so I think we have to look more into this. (Marg Rose, Executive Director, Literacy Partners of Manitoba)¹⁰³

About three or four years ago we realized that many in our community were seriously in danger of being totally left behind in the Internet world. You’re probably aware of the work that’s been done by the Office of Learning Technology at HRDC, which started off looking at the digital divide and is now looking at the dual digital divide. The experience has been that in partnership with Industry Canada, when they put CAP sites across the country, a certain number of people, even people who’ve had difficulty getting into the Internet previously, have moved on and learned about the Internet and what it can do. But there are a persistent number, the bottom end of the dual digital divide, who have not. We were fortunate to be one of the first community-based agencies to get a CAP site, and we put it in beside our literacy program. Over time it’s become a component of what is becoming a lifelong learning centre at St. Christopher House. (Susan Pigott, Chief Executive Officer, St. Christopher House)¹⁰⁴

Recommendation 11

The Committee recommends that the National Literacy Secretariat:

•	Expand support for community learning and family literacy partnerships;

•	Develop distance learning educational material and facilitate projects that make access to literacy training more equitable for those who reside in remote parts of the country or prefer not to pursue literacy training in institutional settings;

•	Promote and support more literacy initiatives that involve the participation of public libraries, a key contributor to literacy promotion and development in our communities.

Recommendation 12

The Committee recommends that the federal government continue to promote and support the development and evolution of learning networks that enable communities to build learning capacity through the use of network technologies.

3.      Early School Leavers

We all recognize that one of the long-term solutions to Canada’s low literacy problem is a primary and secondary school system that ensures that all graduates leave school with the literacy skills required to participate fully in Canadian society. One way the federal government can help provincial and territorial governments meet this objective is to help fund student literacy assessments. Currently, the federal government supports literacy assessment of French- and English-speaking students across the country through the OECD’s Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA). PISA is a collaborative effort among OECD countries to uniformly assess the literacy skills of 15-year-old students in three literacy domains: reading literacy, mathematical literacy and scientific literacy. PISA cycles have been planned for each domain. In 2000, the major focus was reading literacy; mathematical literacy and scientific literacy will be the primary focus in 2003 and 2006 respectively. According to the results of PISA 2000, Canada ranked second in reading, fifth in science and sixth in mathematics out of 31 countries.¹⁰⁵

The next slide … looks at the literacy skills of 15-year-olds in provinces and countries that participated in the OECD PISA study. We see that Canada is second only to Finland in average reading skill … If Alberta were a country, it would be the best country in the world … All of the provinces are above the OECD mean. So relative to our trading partners, we’re doing very well with 15-year-olds, but there is a great deal of variability from province to province. (Scott Murray, Director General, Institutions and Social Statistics, Statistics Canada)¹⁰⁶

Another important area where the federal government can help youth raise their literacy skills is by encouraging early school leavers to return to school. We know that the number of years of education is one of the strongest predictors of literacy scores. Youth who dropped out of secondary school scored substantially lower on the IALS’s literacy test than those who completed high school.¹⁰⁷ Low literacy among early school leavers also translates into a serious unemployment problem. In 2002, for example, the average unemployment rates of youth 15 to 24 years of age with a grade 8 or some high school
education were 25.8% and 20.3% respectively.¹⁰⁸ This is close to double the rate for youth who graduated from high school, and almost triple that for the labour force as a whole.

According to HRDC’s 2003-2004 Main Estimates, the Youth Employment Strategy (YES) was realigned, in keeping with the announcement in the 30 September 2002 Speech from the Throne, to ensure that the government’s youth employment policy keeps pace with young people’s changing employment needs. Clearly, one of these needs, at least among early school leavers, is literacy skills training. However, as far as we can ascertain, the realignment of YES largely overlooked youth with low literacy skills. Ideally, the Committee would like to see a program that provides some incentive for early school leavers to return to school and complete at least a high school education. In this context, we recall the relatively successful Stay-in-School initiative that operated between 1989 and 1995. An evaluation of this program found that it generated an increase in student retention and school completion (e.g., more than 60% of students who participated in 1992-1993 completed their year because of the program), and was extremely cost effective.¹⁰⁹

The Committee argues that literacy investments in young adults offer taxpayers one the best returns on investments in literacy, since this age group is associated with the longest payback period. Moreover, there is the potential for realizing intergenerational benefits once these individuals begin to raise families. For these reasons, the Committee is extremely puzzled as to why the Literacy Corps¹¹⁰ budget in 2002-2003 was reduced by 50%. We are certainly opposed to this decision.

Recommendation 13

The Committee recommends that:

•

As part of a pan-Canadian accord on literacy and numeracy, the federal government, in agreement with the provinces and territories, consider redirecting some of the funds allocated to the Youth Employment Strategy to support further education among young early school leavers through a “learn and earn” initiative that results in at least high school completion [Note: The reference to a pan-Canadian accord is intended to mean that the federal government should try to reach unanimous agreement with the provinces and territories to address this nation’s serious low literacy skills problem. If unanimous agreement is not possible, the Committee encourages the federal government to work with individual provinces and territories to achieve the same results. In either case, since this issue falls within the constitutional domain of the provinces and territories, an agreement is required to formalize federal support.];

•	The National Literacy Secretariat restore its Literacy Corps budget to $1 million starting in 2004-2005;

•	The Government of Canada continue to provide sufficient financial support for the pan-Canadian assessment of students’ literacy skills.

4.      Literacy and Persons with Disabilities

Studies have shown that levels of education, literacy skills and employment are lower among persons with disabilities than the rest of the Canadian population. According to the 1994 International Adult Literacy Survey (IALS), 77% of people with learning disabilities¹¹¹ and 48% of those with physical disabilities had document literacy scores below Level 3, compared to 36% of those with no disability.¹¹² As well, results from the 2001 Participation and Activity Limitation Survey (PALS) show that approximately 13% of adults aged 15 years and over with some kind of disability reported learning disabilities, representing 1.9% of Canadians aged 15 years and over.¹¹³ Among children, the number is much higher. Learning disabilities were reported in an estimated 100,000 school-age children, accounting for almost two-thirds of all school-age children who report disabilities. Boys were more likely to have a learning disability than girls (68.9% and 58%, respectively).¹¹⁴ Other PALS data on education and employment among adults with disabilities are expected to be available in mid-summer 2003. The latest published data from the 1996 Census revealed that persons with disabilities were less likely to have completed high school than non-disabled Canadians (50% vs. 70%) or to have obtained a university degree (7% vs. 17%). These findings are particularly troubling as it has been demonstrated that some people with disabilities who have had the opportunity to develop higher literacy skills are more likely to be employed than other adults with disabilities. For adults with disabilities who have a university education, the employment rate is more than double that of those with only an elementary school education. The likelihood of participating in the paid labour force, however, varies depending on the nature of an individual’s disability. ^{115, 116}

One issue that is consistently reported by Centres taking part in the “Navigating the Waters” employment project is that lack of required skills, lack of education and low literacy skills create an additional barrier for many Canadians with disabilities who choose to pursue employment or employment related activities.¹¹⁷

Learning disabilities are now recognized as a lifelong neurological disorder that affects at least 10% of Canadians; of those, more than 80% experience difficulty learning to read. However, it is important to remember that different types of disabilities affect the development of literacy skills differently. Learning disabilities may interfere with the acquisition and use of one or more of the following:

•	Oral language (e.g., listening, speaking and understanding);

•	Reading (e.g., decoding, phonetic knowledge, word recognition, comprehension);

•	Written language (e.g., spelling and written expression); and

•	Mathematics (e.g., computation, problem solving).118

It is estimated that 30% to 80% of adult learners in literacy and basic education programs have learning disabilities, of which up to 50% are undiagnosed. This may be because, in the past, less was known about learning disabilities and very young children were not assessed for them. Studies have shown that if learning disabilities are not recognized at an early age and appropriate intervention is not provided before the age of 8, there is a high probability (75%) that the learner will continue to have reading difficulties in high school. At that point, 35% of students who are identified with learning disabilities
will drop out of high school. As adults, many of these individuals will join a literacy or basic skills program but the majority will drop out, as literacy and Adult Basic Education (ABE) programs are not able to meet their special needs.¹¹⁹

Learning disabilities are neurological and lifelong. They affect one or more processes related to learning. And when I talk about learning, I’m talking about learning in very many different — contexts in school, in the workplace, on the soccer field, in the family context, and in social situations. There is a strong overlap between literacy and learning disabilities. If we look at some of the statistics, 30% to 50% of all students in literacy and basic education have undiagnosed learning disabilities. Of all participants in job training programs, 15% to 30% have undiagnosed learning disabilities, and 25% to 40% of all adults on welfare also have learning disabilities. (Elizabeth Gayda, Past President, Learning Disabilities Association of Canada)¹²⁰

As discussed elsewhere in our report, learning disabilities are also present in individuals with Fetal Alcohol Syndrome (FAS) and Fetal Alcohol Effects (FAE). Current research into FAS/FAE indicates that these conditions may negatively affect an individual’s capacity to learn and may be a factor to consider when assessing the needs of adult learners with low literacy skills. FAS/FAE affects individuals throughout their lifetime. A school-age child with FAS/FAE may display primary disabilities such as hyperactivity, attention deficit, learning disabilities, arithmetic difficulties, cognitive deficits, language problems and poor impulse control. In adolescence and adulthood, the primary difficulties are memory impairment, problems with judgment and abstract reasoning, and poor adaptive functioning. There is considerable evidence linking FAS/FAE with attention deficit disorder with or without hyperactivity, conduct disorder, and delinquency and crime. It is estimated that in Canada at least one child is born with FAS each day. Initial studies also suggest that the rates of FAS/FAE in some Aboriginal communities may be significantly higher. The extra costs of health care, education and social services associated with the lifetime care of an individual with FAS are estimated at US $1.4 million. In January 2000, an $11 million federal FAS/FAE initiative was introduced to enhance activities in a number of areas including FAS/FAE public awareness and education, surveillance, early identification, diagnosis and intervention, training and capacity development, and support to community-based programs.¹²¹ The Committee is aware that FAS/FAE is a major source of concern for those involved in the delivery of health care, education, correctional and social services. We fully support the federal government’s efforts to prevent FAS/FAE, as well as other initiatives undertaken by federal and provincial/territorial governments and not-for-profit organizations aimed at improving the health of Canadian children and families affected by FAS/FAE.

A small number of literacy programs across the country are trying to address some of the issues mentioned above by ensuring that literacy skills development is accessible to adult learners with disabilities. A recent survey undertaken by the Canadian Association of Independent Living Centres (CAILC) showed that a majority of the literacy program providers surveyed (265 respondents) indicated that their facilities are physically accessible to people with disabilities. However, only a small number of programs could address the needs of learners who are visually impaired, blind, hearing impaired, or who have other more complex disabilities. Furthermore, public library services for Canadians who are print disabled are uncoordinated and provided only on a discretionary, non-standardized and therefore inconsistent basis.¹²² The Committee, in agreement with the submissions it received, believes that all Canadians should have the right and the choice to access literacy programs and library services in their communities. Alternative formats, such as Braille and the use of plain language documents, should be readily available to minimize barriers and maximize reading and understanding. It is essential that the literacy needs of Canadians with disabilities be fully included in literacy policy throughout the country.

Research data tells us that the literacy needs of people with disabilities have not been met. Despite the extraordinary efforts of some literacy practitioners and disability groups across the country, the literacy picture for people with disabilities has remained relatively unchanged over the past decade. There are hundreds, perhaps thousands of literacy programs in Canada. A literature review has revealed that there are too few which serve the needs of people with disabilities. The legacy of a segregated education system and few literacy program options for people with disabilities in Canada is lower educational attainment, poor literacy skills and high unemployment.¹²³

At the federal level, several policies and programs aim to remove barriers to participation and inclusion of people with disabilities in employment and learning opportunities. For example, the Opportunities Fund for Persons with Disabilities supports individuals in preparing for, finding and keeping employment or in becoming self-employed. However, the Committee was told that this fund is relatively small (i.e., $23.8 million in 2003-2004), and that its focus is on assisting people to obtain employment as soon as possible and not on enhancing the literacy skills they need to maintain substantially gainful employment. We were also told that the application process for funding was administratively complex and should be streamlined.

In general, the opportunities funding program has been helpful to people with disabilities; however, there are a number of issues regarding opportunities funding that I would like to point out to you: the funding is relatively small and hasn’t been increased for as many as four years, while costs of things such as workplace accommodations, training allowances and specialized services have all increased in cost. (Bernadette Beaupré, Co-Chair, National Coalition of Community Based Training) ¹²⁴

HRDC will undertake to renew the terms and conditions of the Opportunities Fund in the current fiscal year. The Committee anticipates that these terms and conditions will recognize the importance of literacy skills development and will facilitate access to literacy assessment services and development for persons with disabilities. As well, a joint federal/provincial initiative, Employability Assistance for People with Disabilities (EAPD) helps persons with disabilities prepare for, attain and retain employment. Agreements under the EAPD expired as of March 2003, and HRDC is working with its federal and provincial/territorial partners to develop and implement successor agreements.¹²⁵ The Committee fully expects these agreements to be part of a pan-Canadian accord on literacy and to include services and supports for persons with disabilities, as we believe that increasing levels of literacy among persons with disabilities will contribute to increasing their rate of labour force participation and their quality of life.

The Committee is pleased that the Minister of Labour plans to invest $5 million in 2003-2004 to develop workplace strategies for persons with disabilities and for Aboriginal peoples, as recommended in our report Promoting Equality in the Federal Jurisdiction: A Review of the Employment Equity Act. This is a good start; but this Act is limited in its coverage, and much more needs to be done. We fully expect the literacy needs of persons with disabilities to be reflected in the comprehensive agreement that is being negotiated with the provinces and territories to remove barriers to participation in work and learning for persons with disabilities.

Recommendation 14

The Committee recommends that some of the National Literacy Secretariat’s new resources for stable funding be allocated to literacy projects for persons with learning disabilities, in recognition of the fact that many individuals with learning disabilities need long-term literacy assistance for which multi-year funding would be appropriate.

Recommendation 15

The Committee recommends that the comprehensive agreement that is currently being negotiated with the provinces and territories to remove barriers to participation in work and learning for persons with disabilities include literacy and numeracy skills development as key components.

Recommendation 16

The Committee recommends that the federal government expand the budget (i.e., $23.8 million in 2003-2004) of the Opportunities Fund for Persons with Disabilities by $5 million and dedicate additional funding to literacy and numeracy skills development.

5.      Newcomers to Canada

For highly skilled immigrants whose educational and professional credentials are recognized in our labour market, the transition to life in Canada is relatively smooth. However, as noted earlier in our report, the IALS data suggest that this transition is probably problematic for many immigrants, as Canada’s foreign-born population had a relatively large share of individuals with low literacy skills. In 1994, some 59% of foreign-born individuals in Canada 16 years of age and over had low prose literacy skills, compared to 45% of similarly aged domestic-born individuals. In terms of low document literacy skills, the foreign- and domestic-born shares of the surveyed population were 57% and 45% respectively. Similarly, 52% of the foreign-born population 16 years of age and over had low quantitative literacy skills, compared to 47% of domestic-born individuals.¹²⁶

In order for newcomers to prosper and contribute fully to Canadian society, it is essential that they speak English and/or French fluently, and have basic literacy skills. The Committee was told that between 1999 and 2001, the number of newcomers who declared that they had the ability to speak English or French was roughly similar to those who had no ability to speak either language. In 2001, for example, 114,775 (46%) declared an ability to speak English, 11,315 (4.5%) could speak French and 13,027 (5%) were bilingual, compared to 111,229 (44%) who had no ability to speak either official language.¹²⁷

The federal government spends approximately 80% of its $333-million settlement budget on language-related programs for adult immigrants each year. Basic language instruction is delivered through a program called Language Instruction for Newcomers to Canada (LINC) in all parts of the country save Quebec, Manitoba and British Columbia.¹²⁸ A number of witnesses addressed the language and literacy needs of immigrants.

We make it a priority to provide the language training to the most recent arrivals over people who have been here for several years … If they have been here as an immigrant for over three years, they’ve applied for citizenship and become a citizen and they are still having difficulty with language, they cannot access the settlement language training programs. So our priorities are: recent immigrants, basic levels first and, as much as possible in partnerships, higher levels of language for those skilled people who need it. Also to combine the higher levels of language training where we can with bridging programs that are associated with the workplace so there’s a single window to go from learning the language at the same time that you’re getting some experience and employers are more apt to hire you. (Rosaline Frith, Director General, Integration Branch, Citizenship and Immigration Canada)¹²⁹

Our testimony indicates that current efforts to provide second-language instruction to recent immigrants lack coordination, focus on short-term interventions and are not oriented to immigrants’ labour market language needs. In 1990, Citizenship and Immigration Canada revised its language programs for immigrants, replacing employment-oriented programs with general language instruction under LINC. The lack of focus on the Canadian labour market may in part be due to the fact that labour market-oriented programs are the responsibility of HRDC.¹³⁰ We acknowledge the announcement in the February 2003 Budget that $10 million will be invested over two years to deliver labour market training on a pilot basis at more advanced levels than currently provided. However, we suspect that this measure may be directed primarily at highly skilled immigrants in need of specific occupational training.

Given the short-term nature of immigration language instruction today, we feel that the second-language needs of immigrants with literacy challenges are being overlooked. Considering that studies have demonstrated that it can take up to seven years to develop fluency in a second language, it is estimated that many immigrants with low literacy skills leave second-language programs well before achieving fluency in an official language, making it much more difficult for them to access other training or Adult Basic Education programs.¹³¹

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. (Sue Folinsbee, Acting Co-Executive Director, Ontario Literacy Coalition)¹³²

Turning to the specific issue of just labour market language training, we’re recommending also a reorientation and expansion of the … Language Instruction for Newcomers to Canada … Currently, the program provides instruction to level 3, which does not fully equip an individual with the language or literacy skills needed for the labour market, nor does it equip, for example, a parent to advocate effectively and articulately with the school system on behalf of their child. These are essential-based elements of inclusion — economic and social. We are, therefore, recommending higher benchmarks within LINC, labour market orientation within the program and the development of occupation-specific benchmarks in training. (Elizabeth McIsaac, Manager, The Maytree Foundation)¹³³

I think the time allotted to individuals for language training is likely not enough. There’s a big difference between a professional immigrant who needs to learn one of the official languages and a person who is both not literate and new to either language. We need approaches that teach both things together. The other even more challenging thing is that in some provinces there are policies about literacy delivery that don’t allow them to teach immigrants because the province wants to keep it in the federal domain. In other provinces, it’s not an issue. (Wendy DesBrisay, Executive Director, Movement for Canadian Literacy)¹³⁴

The shortcomings associated with LINC, especially in terms of immigrants in need of second-language literacy training, are of concern to members of the Committee, given that immigration is expected to account for all net labour force growth in this country by 2011. We must be better prepared to ensure that immigrants have access to second- language training programs that last long enough and provide adequate levels of instruction to accommodate their full economic integration in Canada. Moreover, although the issue is not directly related to the problem of low literacy, members of the Committee also believe strongly that we must begin to make significant gains in assessing and recognizing the academic and labour market credentials of immigrants.

Recommendation 17

The Committee recommends that:

•

Citizenship and Immigration Canada review its budget for Language Instruction for Newcomers to Canada to ensure that sufficient funding is available to help individuals, including those with second-language literacy needs, overcome difficulties entering the labour market because they lack official language skills. Any additional funding must also be reflected in funding under the settlement agreements with Quebec, Manitoba and British Columbia;

•	The level and duration of language instruction provided under Language Instruction for Newcomers to Canada be assessed to ensure that it is meeting the needs of immigrants and refugees;

•	Funding be made available to provide supplementary services, such as transportation and child care, to assist newcomers who are unable to access language instruction because they lack the necessary supports.

6.      Literacy, Justice and Corrections

A.     Literacy and the Criminal Justice System

The Committee was told that people with low literacy skills who come in contact with the criminal justice system are more likely to be victims of miscarriages of justice as a result of their inability to navigate and communicate in a system that takes for granted high levels of literacy skills. Low literacy can affect every step of the criminal justice process from understanding one’s rights upon an arrest, to testifying before a court, to the sentencing phase of a trial. Traditionally, laws, regulations, court materials, resources and supporting documentation are written in a language that assumes high literacy skills on the part of the reader.

The fact is that courts are environments which operate at a very high level of literacy, the language, the concepts, even common words with special meanings in this particular environment, for a person to function well and understand what was taking place it requires a high level of literacy. While at the same time the majority of people who appear in court, not just the accused but also witnesses and victims, are frequently operating at a very low level of literacy. In that kind of circumstance
it puts an enormous burden on the courts to ensure that the proceedings are in fact fair and that the person has a fair trial. (Graham Stewart, Executive Director, John Howard Society of Canada)¹³⁵

Committee members were informed that the Department of Justice has taken initial steps to ensure that laws and regulations are written in plain language and that public legal information and education programs are available across the country.¹³⁶ We are aware that revising laws and regulations is an extremely long and complicated process and we strongly support all measures taken by the Department of Justice to move in this direction. As previously noted in Chapter 2, section II, the Committee recommends that all programs and services (including those delivered by the Department of Justice) be assessed to ensure that the government’s literacy policy and goals are being met and that they are accessible to individuals with low literacy skills. In the case of the criminal justice system, this is an issue of fundamental justice.

B.     Literacy Skills of Offenders in Canada

Evidence before the Committee, as well as numerous studies, shows that a majority of offenders admitted into correctional institutions in Canada have significant literacy and educational deficits. As many as 75% of inmates have low literacy skills. Correctional Service Canada (CSC) uses standard “literacy” testing (e.g., the School and College Ability Test (SCAT) or the Canadian Adult Achievement Test (CAAT)) to assess the literacy and education needs of offenders admitted to correctional facilities.¹³⁷ These tests are designed specifically to measure the level of educational achievement, and not literacy skills as per the International Adult Literacy Survey (IALS). ¹³⁸ Based on these standardized school equivalency tests, 70% of offenders entering federal custody in fiscal year 1993-1994 scored below a grade 8 education level and 86% below a grade 10 level.¹³⁹

More recent studies based on the reported education level of inmates of correctional institutions show that they continue to have significant educational deficits compared to the Canadian average. According to a Snapshot Survey completed by the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics covering all inmates on-register in federal and provincial/territorial adult correctional facilities in Canada¹⁴⁰ on 5 October 5 1996, 34% of those inmates had completed a grade 9 education or less, compared to 19% of adults in Canada.¹⁴¹ An even larger proportion of those in federal institutions (46%) had a grade 9 education or less.¹⁴² Another 29% of offenders in federal facilities had a grade 10 or 11 education, and 25% had a grade 12 education or higher. High-risk offenders generally had less education than low- and medium-risk offenders.¹⁴³ Almost one-half (49%) of high-risk offenders in federal facilities had a grade 9 education or less, compared to 36% of low-risk offenders and 42% of medium-risk offenders.¹⁴⁴ In provincial/territorial facilities, 53% of high-risk offenders had a grade 9 education or less, compared to 39% of low-risk offenders and 40% of medium-risk offenders.¹⁴⁵

Recent data on the educational status of federal offenders provided by CSC show that a large proportion of offenders incarcerated in federal institutions as of January 2003 had less than a high school diploma. These data are presented in Charts 5 and 6.

The Committee was also told that inmates are likely to have learning disabilities, some of which are attributed to Fetal Alcohol Syndrome and Fetal Alcohol Effects (FAS/FAE). Undoubtedly, this is a contributing factor to the low literacy skills of a high proportion of offenders. However, the number of offenders with low literacy skills who have learning disabilities or FAS/FAE is not yet known, as CSC is not currently screening offenders for these factors. CSC is considering a screening process for learning disabilities at the intake assessment process in the very near future.¹⁴⁶

… we’re looking at implementing a screening process for learning disabilities at the intake process. When a new offender comes into the system, they go through an intake assessment process and there’s various things that are looked at including education and literacy levels. But we also have identified through the intake process that we need to refine our assessment tools to look for learning disabilities. We see more and more examples of individuals who are coming into the system who present as fetal alcohol syndrome or fetal alcohol effect and we need to take that into account before we have offenders participate in other education programs or some of our traditional correctional programs such as substance abuse, family violence abuse programming. (Don Head, Senior Deputy Commissioner, Correctional Service Canada) ¹⁴⁷

Members of the Committee support this initiative and suggest that CSC continue to improve its assessment tools to ensure that the literacy and education needs of every offender entering a correctional institution are appropriately assessed and that any learning disabilities or other challenges (e.g., FAS/FAE) to their participation in education programs are taken into account and immediately addressed. The Committee, in agreement with witnesses from CSC and the John Howard Society of Canada, also suggests that staff in federal correctional institutions be trained to recognize and assist offenders with low literacy skills.

C.     Adult Basic Education Programs in Correctional Service Canada’s Institutions

Adult Basic Education (ABE) is one of a number of education and vocational training opportunities that aim to assist offenders’ reintegration into the community and reduce the risk that they may re-offend. The Committee was pleased to hear that CSC has educational programs in all its correctional facilities and that approximately 30 to 35% of the offender population participated in these programs. Instruction is provided in a traditional classroom setting, in small groups, or through individual tutoring.¹⁴⁸ In a limited number of institutions, special ABE programs also address the needs of Aboriginal
offenders. At any given time, approximately 270 teachers are engaged in delivering education and literacy services to federal inmates across the country. The majority of those are under contract with CSC.¹⁴⁹

Members of the Committee are well aware that offenders who improve their literacy skills while in prison benefit in many ways. Inmates who voluntarily participate in prison-based education programs gain self-confidence, develop a desire to continue learning and are less likely to re-offend.¹⁵⁰ Data from a 1998 CSC study showed that “ABE participation provides significant benefits for offenders and contributes to their safe reintegration to the community.”¹⁵¹ The study compared a sample of male federal offenders who participated in ABE with a national sample of paroled offenders over a period of two years following their release from a correctional institution. Findings showed that 718 paroled offenders who completed ABE-grade 8 level had a 7.1% reduction in readmissions. The reduction in readmission rates increased with each higher-grade level of education completed. For example, 74 paroled offenders who completed ABE-grade 10 level had a 21.3% reduction in readmissions.¹⁵² However, the study cautions that “graduating from an ABE program provides basic literacy, but an ABE-8 or -10 level is not very competitive in the real job market. In the final analysis, education for basic literacy will continue to be a necessary but not a sufficient condition for the successful re-integration of offenders.”¹⁵³

The Committee believes that CSC should continue to facilitate offenders’ participation in education programming; it should look at ways to increase the number of offenders involved in such programming and expand the number of education and literacy programs offered in correctional institutions.

I guess the only parting message I would leave is that based on the work that we’ve done in federal corrections, the research that we know, the more time and energy and effort that we put into addressing the literacy and education issues of offenders, I think ultimately the safer we make our communities when these individuals return back home. (Don Head, Senior Deputy Commissioner, Correctional Service Canada) ¹⁵⁴

Recommendation 18

The Committee recommends that, as part of a pan-Canadian accord on literacy and numeracy skills development, the federal government work in partnership with provincial and territorial governments to ensure that enough resources are available to meet the literacy and numeracy skills development needs of inmates across the country. This should include funding to permit inmates to make the transition to community literacy programs once they are released. [Note: The reference to a pan-Canadian accord is intended to mean that the federal government should try to reach unanimous agreement with the provinces and territories to address this nation’s serious low literacy skills problem. If unanimous agreement is not possible, the Committee encourages the federal government to work with individual provinces and territories to achieve the same results. In either case, since this issue falls within the constitutional domain of the provinces and territories, an agreement is required to formalize federal support.]

VI.       LITERACY AND THE WORKPLACE

Over the years, changes in the composition of production and in production processes have had a profound impact on the type of work we do and the way it is done. As jobs change, so do the skills required to do them. As the relative importance of knowledge-intensive sectors continues to grow, the relative demand for more highly educated and skilled workers will rise. In 1971, 19.2% of all workers were employed in high-skilled occupations. In 1981 and 1986, high-skilled occupational employment accounted for 23.5% and 26% of total employment respectively.¹⁵⁵ As noted at the outset of our report, it is estimated that by 2004 more than 70% of all new jobs created in this country will require some form of post-secondary education.¹⁵⁶ This trend does not bode well for low-skilled/low literacy individuals in the labour market, as evidenced by the high proportion and rate of unemployment among the least educated segments of the labour force.

Chart 7 shows the distribution of low literacy skills by industry. Of all the industry categories listed, the financial and personal services industries had the smallest proportion of low literacy workers across all literacy domains (i.e., prose, document and quantitative) in 1994, the year in which the IALS was conducted. Although the construction and agriculture industries registered the highest proportions of low literacy workers in all three literacy domains, it should be noted that the manufacturing, trade and transport industries also exhibited very high proportions (39% to 50%, depending on the literacy domain) of low literacy workers.

… our own analysis in working with Statistics Canada shows basically that the average Canadian worker begins to lose prose literacy, which is the essential skill for the workplace in whatever occupation one might have, at the age of 20. One could argue, and certainly ministers of education would argue perhaps that the education systems are doing their job up until the end of formal schooling but perhaps the workplace is not responding in the way that it might … We find that not surprisingly Canadians with a post-secondary education lose their prose literacy skills relatively slowly. Canadians with no post-secondary education lose their literacy skills very quickly indeed, far more quickly than in most countries in the OECD … What that means is that Canadian workers, and therefore Canadian productivity appear to be at a significant disadvantage when compared with other developed countries in the OECD … (Dr. Paul Cappon, Director General, Council of Ministers of Education, Canada)¹⁵⁷

As Canada’s economy continues to shift toward knowledge-based growth, the skill content of jobs will continue to rise. And with the prospect of labour force aging and slower labour force growth in the years ahead, more and more emphasis will be placed on those currently in the labour market to supply these skills. Not only will the importance of continuous skill acquisition or lifelong learning continue to grow, so will the need to ensure that workers acquire and maintain the necessary literacy skills on which to build. If we fail to address Canada’s low literacy problem, this will only exacerbate potential labour shortages in the years to come, an issue that is weighing heavily on the minds of labour market observers across the country.¹⁵⁸

According to a study undertaken by the Conference Board of Canada, employers provide literacy and essential skills training for many reasons, including productivity improvements both in terms of quantity and quality of output, lower costs, improved labour-management relations, better teamwork and the ability to meet organizational objectives. Workers also benefit from investments in literacy. It is estimated that over an employee’s lifetime, a male worker with a high document literacy level can expect to earn $1,743,000 in pre-tax earnings, or $585,000 more than a male worker with a low document literacy level. A female worker with high document literacy can expect to earn $1,242,000 in her lifetime, or $559,000 above that estimated for women with a low document literacy level.¹⁵⁹

It is obvious to us that higher literacy skills enhance employers’ profitability, which in turn raises the earnings of workers. In fact, a more highly skilled and literate workforce is one of the keys to improving productivity and the economic well-being of Canadians. The Committee is thus somewhat mystified as to why the incidence of workplace-based training is so low in this country when, given the abundance of workers with low literacy skills across the country, the opportunity for economic gains is so great. Representatives from several companies that received the Conference Board’s Awards for Excellence in Workplace Literacy clearly identified some of the economic and social benefits arising from investments in workplace literacy, although we should mention that the majority of these firms received public support in one form or another to undertake them.

The province paid for the teacher; Avon provided space, curriculum, materials, and refreshments; the union provided the necessary textbooks; and the employees attended the class on their own time. It was truly a cooperative effort. Immediately we saw a team evolve … Within the factory peers were convincing each other to make the voluntary decision to participate in the learning process. Management was an active participant, expecting positive results … Avon has benefited from this in many ways and is becoming a leader in many aspects of the food industry. We have experienced a reduction in customer complaints. Our reputation for quality has grown, and our processing line has improved to become an extremely predictable operation. Our customer service has improved to an exceptionally high level, and the management and union enjoy a unique respect for each other. Now Avon has an adaptable, resourceful, and problem-solving workforce. All of the above … provide the Avon organization with a competitive advantage. (Albert Craswell, Plant Manager, Avon Foods Inc.)¹⁶⁰

The cycle of low literacy in … [Durabelt Inc.] has been broken. The manager is saying they have a social responsibility to the community, so now when younger people come from the high school — there’s a regional high school within walking distance of this company — looking for jobs at Durabelt, she simply says, “Don’t come looking for a job. Please tell your friends not to come here. Go back to school.” The employees who wrote their grade 12 GEDs and passed them now are saying, “I’m going to make sure my children finish school before they go to work. I don’t want them to have to do what I did.” Just being turned on to education again is extremely important. They’ve all taken ownership for their business success. They have just secured their largest contract ever, and they very much worked as a team to accomplish that. As I said, it’s been a win situation for absolutely everybody. (Ruth Rogerson, Field Officer, Durabelt Inc.)¹⁶¹

The benefits for National Silicates have just been amazing. We now have these transferrable skills, and the employees can work in any of the businesses as a chemical process operator … For the plant, we have reduced our overtime. We have reduced the cost of maintenance in our plants because all employees can work anywhere in the plant … the skills throughout the plant have been expanded … We are part of an American company, and we’re often under the gun to be closed. The productivity in this plant has assured us, every time I get our financial statements, of another spot. It is the diamond in the crown of the PQ Corporation, because we are known as the can-do plant. (Lynda Ryder, Director, Employee Relations, National Silicates)¹⁶²

Typically, classes take place the last hour of the shift, and they stay one extra hour after that. These are held twice a week throughout the year. This has been very successful, and we train approximately 400 employees a year through this kind of programming. But one of the things we wanted to address was the people who aren’t attending classes. Typically, the burden falls on women, because they are unable to stay after work because of child care responsibilities. So we started mini tutorials right on the plant floor. The instructor goes to the employees, either one on one, one on two, or one on three, depending on their language level, and gives them vocabulary that is specific to their job. (Valerie Unwin, Language Training Coordinator, Palliser Furniture)¹⁶³

The Committee was told on several occasions that employers fail to provide workplace literacy training because they face too many barriers. In addition to being unaware of the problem and the economic benefits associated with fixing it, we were told that employers tend to believe that the provision of adult basic education is the responsibility of the public education system. More importantly, many employers, especially small ones, maintain that they lack the necessary financial resources to finance workplace literacy.

I do deal with our closures and our layoff situations. That’s part of my job and I can tell you that very often as I go through almost mechanically the questions about what the workforce looks like, so that we have some sense of adjustment needs, more often than not I will ask the workplace committee if there are any literacy issues and very often I’ll be told no, there are no issues, only to find out two weeks later or a few weeks later we receive phone calls of panicked committee members saying they’ve got all these people who can’t fill out their EI report cards because they can’t comprehend a lot of this. (Laurell Ritchie, National Representative, Training & Work Organization Department, Canadian Auto Workers Union)¹⁶⁴

Generally, companies acknowledge very little responsibility as regards the literacy of their employees. Rather, they tend to view this as a societal and individual responsibility … In addition, literacy training for employees does not produce satisfactory results from the company’s point of view if it is not part of an effort to update the knowledge employees require in order to carry out their duties and responsibilities. (Françoise Grenon, Teaching Consultant, Business Services, Commission scolaire de Montréal)¹⁶⁵

We all know that … small-sized and medium-sized enterprises are the major creator of jobs in Canada today. As such their success is going to be essential to the well-being of Canada’s economy. If these businesses are to survive and to increase productivity, employers must ensure that their employees have the necessary basic workplace skills to learn new technology and the high performance work processes of our modern society. (Gerald Brown, President, Association of Canadian Community Colleges)¹⁶⁶

At the beginning literacy was a tool. … to train our one department of housekeeping for national certification. I soon learned that literacy is the avenue and the infrastructure. … What we need as a small business are programs, because we cannot afford human resources or training like large businesses and we often go without. I was lucky because of the things I mentioned — the partnerships we had — to be able to move ahead and show some success … I see a lot of my peers in other areas struggling as well because we do not have human resource departments, training budgets, or training. (Clarence Neault, General Manager, La Ronge Motor Hotel, Saskatchewan)¹⁶⁷

When firms do invest in training, these investments, more often than not, are undertaken by large firms and are usually directed at highly educated workers. According to the results of a recent study on the determinants of training in Canadian firms, 26% and 24% of employees in 1999 received classroom and on-the-job training respectively in companies with fewer than 20 employees. This compares unfavourably to the 48% and 32% of employees who received classroom and on-the-job training respectively in companies with 100 or more employees. Furthermore, the study found that 21% and 23% of employees without a high school diploma received classroom and on-the-job training respectively in 1999, compared to 49% and 33% respectively for employees with a university degree.¹⁶⁸ The study also found that workplaces covered by a collective agreement that provide for training have a higher incidence of employee training than firms covered by collective agreements that do not provide for training or firms that are not covered by collective agreements. The Committee was told that the collective agreements with Daimler-Chrysler, General Motors and Ford contain provisions for basic skills development. Modelled after the Ontario Federation of Labour’s BEST (Basic Education for Skills Training) program, these collective agreements provide employees with an opportunity to improve their reading, writing and math skills for a period of 37 weeks at four hours per week. One-half of an employee’s class-time is paid at the employee’s regular wage rate, while the remainder is unpaid.

There are various models of employer support for literacy that unions have wanted at the bargaining table including paid time for training — so many cents per hour worked into a fund — for employees, a percentage of payroll, paid leave programs, tuition advances, etc. Often union-initiated programming can demonstrate models and help raise the standard that will, in turn, have a positive impact on non-unionized workplaces as well. (Kenneth Georgetti, President, Canadian Labour Congress)¹⁶⁹

The Committee recognizes the important role played by labour representatives in establishing and promoting workplace literacy, and we encourage them to continue working with employers and employees to develop new avenues and approaches for ensuring that workers who need literacy training receive it. One model for developing stronger union-management relationships in workplace literacy training is the sector council. In fact, we were told that the development of essential skills training has been the top priority for the Textiles Human Resources Council since 1996.¹⁷⁰ We are pleased that HRDC intends to extend the reach of sector councils by doubling their labour force coverage from 25% to 50% in the next five years; however, more sector councils do not necessarily translate into more workplace literacy.¹⁷¹

While developing stronger workplace literacy partnerships is undeniably important, it is obvious to us that employers will generally under-invest in literacy training in the absence of incentives. Given society’s belief that these investments generate external benefits that are sufficiently large for taxpayers to pay for primary and secondary schooling, a similar policy rationale would suggest that public support should be provided to encourage firms and workers to invest more heavily in basic human capital. While some witnesses embraced the idea of a tax credit as an appropriate incentive for this purpose, others noted that this approach is limited in instances where companies, especially small ones, have a limited tax liability. In addition, the costs of workplace literacy are usually borne when the training occurs, while the proceeds of a tax credit are realized after the costs of training are incurred. This lag could entail cash flow problems for some employers; as a result, they might opt not to provide training. Despite these drawbacks, most members of the Committee recognize that tax credits may be an effective incentive in certain cases. Two other key proposals that were raised during our hearings to encourage employers to provide more workplace literacy initiatives included making greater use of Employment Insurance (EI) Part II funds and providing an EI premium repayment for employers who provide literacy training.

The Committee was also told that there are many unemployed individuals who do not qualify for EI Part II benefits, and that given the predominance of low literacy skills among the unemployed, consideration should also be given to expanding access to those benefits. The Committee acknowledges that this suggestion is in keeping with one of the strategies agreed to by the National Summit delegates who participated in the working group on Building an Inclusive and Skilled Work Force, which selected as its priority recommendation “increase the participation levels of under-employed groups (including women, youth, people with disabilities, visible minorities and Aboriginal people).”¹⁷²

HRDC skills development program is currently only available to EI and reach-back clients … We believe that HRDC’s skills development program must be open to all clients, regardless of income support. In general, we believe that HRDC must review its employment benefit support measures program, with a view to ensuring that programs are available to a wider range of clients and, in particular, to non-EI clients that require longer-term interventions. Again, these are clients who are not going to be job-ready in a short period of time and will not return to the workforce with these shorter-term interventions. So as it stands right now, the group of individuals who require the most support has the least or the most limited access to employment or employability services in Canada. (Bernadette Beaupré, Co-Chair, National Coalition of Community Based Training)¹⁷³

We have certainly given a thought to EI rebates and we’ve given thought to EI. In fact, it’s one of the issues that we want to discuss with the federal government is whether EI, the EI system can be used in relation to the kinds of incentives that need to be offered. Now that you’ve asked the question, let me just take it a step further and say that the provinces and territories can’t do this on their own because of the financial burden. This has to be in partnership with the federal government. But both with respect to taxation and with respect to EI, we need that kind of partnership. (Dr. Paul Cappon, Director General, Council of Ministers of Education, Canada)¹⁷⁴

The sector council community would welcome a more coordinated approach to literacy and essential skills programs. As you are fully aware, this becomes a major challenge in a country with split jurisdiction in areas like education and training and lacking a national approach or policy on education training or literacy … [we need] a national commitment to program and funding support on a long-term and sustainable basis to permit sector councils and others to design and implement more workplace literacy programs on a national and sectoral basis, including an ability to assess effectiveness and results. (Gary Grenman, Executive Director, The Alliance of Sector Councils)¹⁷⁵

With the introduction of the Employment Insurance Act in 1996, access to training (and other active measures designed to facilitate labour market adjustments) changed significantly. Access to training became more limited due to changes in eligibility, funding and delivery mechanisms. Eligibility for EI Part II benefits, collectively called Employment Benefits and Support Measures (EBSMs), requires individuals to be currently eligible for EI, to have received regular benefits in the past 36 months or to have received maternity/parental benefits in the past 60 months. Needless to say, many unemployed individuals are denied access to EBSMs.

EI Part II benefits are delivered under Labour Market Development Agreements (LMDAs). LMDAs are bilateral agreements between the federal and provincial/territorial governments, save Ontario. Under “devolved” agreements (signed by Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Quebec, New Brunswick, the Northwest Territories and Nunavut) EI Part II funds are transferred to signatory provinces and territories to design and deliver programs that are similar to EBSMs. In this case, HRDC cannot prescribe spending priorities or how funds are delivered. Under co-managed or non-devolved agreements (signed by British Columbia, Newfoundland and Labrador, Prince Edward Island and the Yukon), provincial/territorial signatories deliver EBSMs jointly with HRDC. Nova Scotia delivers EI Part II benefits via a “strategic partnership” agreement with HRDC.

The funding limit for EBSMs in any given year is determined by the Employment Insurance Act and is set at 0.8% of total estimated insurable earnings. In 2003-2004, planned spending on EBSMs is expected to be $2.2 billion, roughly $872 million less than that allowed under the Act.

The terms and conditions of EBSMs do not support literacy training per se, although it is thought that some jurisdictions with co-managed agreements and Ontario integrate some literacy training into their programming. In any event, it is safe to conclude that investments in literacy skills under LMDAs are extremely uncommon and sporadic. Given that these agreements are the only funding mechanism currently available, we believe that access to EBSMs, and in particular literacy training, must be greatly enhanced. Every year the budget for these measures is well below that permitted under the Act, despite the fact that unemployment remains high and the government is pursuing a learning agenda.

Most members of the Committee believe that EI is underutilized as a mechanism for addressing this country’s low literacy problem. We believe that access to EBSMs must be significantly enhanced, especially in terms of allowing access by unemployed people, irrespective of their current or historical attachment to EI benefits. While some Committee members maintain that frequent EI users with low literacy skills should be required to take literacy training as a condition of benefits, we are mindful of the resistance that this concept received during our review of Canada’s social security system back in the mid-1990s. Thus, most of us think that access to EBSMs should continue to be voluntary.

We fully appreciate that broader access to literacy-related initiatives financed through EI contributions represents a significant departure from the current situation, and that this might require a legislative change.¹⁷⁶ There is also a concern that if some of the provinces and territories do not agree to deliver literacy-related funding, this could produce irregularities in a supposedly pan-Canadian approach to addressing workplace literacy. We doubt that this would happen, since the provincial/territorial labour market ministers and ministers of education have already called on the federal government to invest more heavily in LMDAs by increasing Part II funding by $700 million and by increasing Consolidated Revenue Fund expenditures to broaden the range of individuals served.¹⁷⁷ As both levels of government recognize the existence of the problem, earmarking additional funding for workplace literacy would, in our view, be well received by the provinces and territories.

Recommendation 19

The Committee recommends that the National Literacy Secretariat continue to promote and develop partnerships that pool resources and utilize best practices for creating opportunities for workplace literacy.

Recommendation 20

The Committee recommends that the federal government increase spending under Part II of the Employment Insurance Act by $100 million. Subject to the terms of a pan-Canadian accord on literacy and numeracy skills development, the government should negotiate supplementary Labour Market Development Agreements and enact the necessary changes to the Employment Insurance Act to provide literacy and numeracy skills development assistance to all unemployed and employed individuals, irrespective of their historical attachment to Employment Insurance. These supplementary agreements should ensure that a certain proportion of funding is made available to address the literacy needs of members of designated groups. Seventy-five percent of the increase in Part II funding should be allocated to supplementary Labour Market Development Agreements, while the remaining 25% should be allocated to addressing workplace literacy needs as identified by sector councils. [Note: The reference to a pan-Canadian accord is intended to mean that the federal government should try to reach unanimous agreement with the provinces and territories to address this nation’s serious low literacy skills problem. If unanimous agreement is not possible, the Committee encourages the federal government to work with individual provinces and territories to achieve the same results. In either case, since this issue falls within the constitutional domain of the provinces and territories, an agreement is required to formalize federal support.]

Recommendation 21

Subject to an agreement with the provinces and territories, the Committee recommends that the federal government implement a two-year pilot project that offers small and medium-sized businesses an Employment Insurance premium rebate and other incentives such as tax credits to cover the costs of providing workplace literacy and numeracy skills development to employees. Following the completion of this pilot project, an evaluation should be conducted; if the pilot project is deemed successful, it should be extended to all employers, with a continuing emphasis on small and medium-sized businesses.