HUMA Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

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

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Tuesday, February 4, 2003

¹

1530

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

Ms. Deborah Gordon-El-Bihbety (Director, National Programs, Canadian Public Health Association)

¹

1535

The Chair

Ms. Elizabeth Gayda (Past President, Learning Disabilities Association of Canada)

¹

1540

¹

1545

The Chair

Ms. Priscilla George (Coordinator, National Aboriginal Design Committee)

¹

1550

The Chair

Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Canadian Alliance)

¹

1555

Ms. Priscilla George

Mr. Monte Solberg

Ms. Priscilla George

Mr. Monte Solberg

º

1600

Ms. Elizabeth Gayda

Mr. Monte Solberg

The Chair

Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.)

Ms. Elizabeth Gayda

Mr. Peter Adams

Ms. Priscilla George

º

1605

Mr. Peter Adams

Ms. Priscilla George

Ms. Deborah Gordon-El-Bihbety

Mr. Peter Adams

The Chair

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Neigette-et-la Mitis, BQ)

º

1610

Ms. Elizabeth Gayda

Ms. Priscilla George

Ms. Deborah Gordon-El-Bihbety

º

1615

The Chair

Mr. Ovid Jackson (Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, Lib.)

Ms. Priscilla George

º

1620

Ms. Deborah Gordon-El-Bihbety

Mr. Ovid Jackson

Ms. Elizabeth Gayda

Mr. Ovid Jackson

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP)

º

1625

Ms. Elizabeth Gayda

Mr. Yvon Godin

Ms. Elizabeth Gayda

Mr. Yvon Godin

Ms. Elizabeth Gayda

º

1630

Mr. Yvon Godin

Ms. Elizabeth Gayda

The Chair

Ms. Priscilla George

The Chair

Mr. Monte Solberg

Ms. Deborah Gordon-El-Bihbety

Mr. Monte Solberg

Ms. Deborah Gordon-El-Bihbety

º

1635

Mr. Monte Solberg

Ms. Deborah Gordon-El-Bihbety

Ms. Priscilla George

Mr. Monte Solberg

The Chair

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

Ms. Deborah Gordon-El-Bihbety

Ms. Diane St-Jacques

Ms. Priscilla George

Ms. Diane St-Jacques

Ms. Deborah Gordon-El-Bihbety

º

1640

Ms. Diane St-Jacques

The Chair

Mr. Raymond Simard (Saint Boniface, Lib.)

Ms. Deborah Gordon-El-Bihbety

Mr. Raymond Simard

The Chair

Ms. Elizabeth Gayda

º

1645

The Chair

Ms. Priscilla George

Mr. Raymond Simard

Ms. Priscilla George

The Chair

Ms. Priscilla George

The Chair

º

1650

Mr. Yvon Godin

º

1655

The Chair

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay

The Chair

Mr. Monte Solberg

»

1700

Ms. Diane St-Jacques

The Chair

Mr. Joe Fontana (London North Centre, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Joe Fontana

The Chair

Mr. Joe Fontana

»

1705

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin

The Chair

Ms. Diane St-Jacques

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay

The Chair

»

1710

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay

The Chair

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay

The Chair

---

CANADA

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

---

NUMBER 010

l

2nd SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Tuesday, February 4, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¹  (1530)  

[English]

    The Chair (Mrs. Judi Longfield (Whitby—Ajax, Lib.)): I'd like to welcome everyone to the tenth meeting of the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development. We have quorum to proceed with our witnesses, with presentations of five minutes each.

    We'll hear presentations from all three groups, followed by a round of questions from our committee.

    We'll start with the Canadian Public Health Association, Deborah Gordon-El-Bihbety.

    You can begin your presentation. Thank you.

    Ms. Deborah Gordon-El-Bihbety (Director, National Programs, Canadian Public Health Association): Thank you.

    I am the director of national programs for the Canadian Public Health Association. On behalf of CPHA and its national literacy and health program, I am pleased to be with you today to speak about literacy and health in Canada.

    The national literacy and health program works in partnership with 27 national health associations to raise awareness about the links between literacy and health among health professionals and to promote plain language and clear verbal communication in clinical practice.

    We are in our twelfth year of operation, and over that period the program has established a plain language service that has provided plain language editing and training for over 150 clients, representing the government, health, private, and non- and not-for-profit sectors.

    The program has managed a diverse project portfolio based on a population health and determinants of health approach to issues such as seniors medication use and violence prevention among at-risk youth, and has integrated this perspective in the development of communication training tools for health professionals across the country.

    The program has recently made a very bold foray into the area of literacy and health research by undertaking a project in partnership with the University of Toronto, focused on developing a national agenda for literacy and health research in Canada.

    The program has also recently received funds from the National Literacy Secretariat to undertake a project focused on identifying evaluation criteria and best practices for anti-bullying programs. This work will be augmented by research that specifically looks at the relationship between literacy and bullying behaviours.

    The national literacy and health program is also exploring the feasibility of establishing a Canadian literacy and health foundation to support literacy and health research and programs in Canada. The foundation would be similar in nature to those literacy foundations already established through the endowment funding program established by Treasury Board and operating in partnership with the National Literacy Secretariat, building upon the broad focus of the program and its committed partnership of 27 national health organizations, its strong links to the literacy community in Canada, and notably, its experience of hosting the first Canadian conference on literacy and health, “Charting the Course for Literacy and Health in the New Millennium”, in May 2000.

    CPHA's national literacy and health program is well positioned to ensure that the health needs of people with low literacy skills are taken into account in the current debate on health system reform in Canada.

    In 1989 the Ontario Public Health Association released the report Literacy and Health Project - Phase 1 - Making The World Healthier and Safer For People Who Can't Read, which demonstrated a strong link between low literacy and poor health. The link between literacy and health was characterized in this groundbreaking report as being both direct and indirect.

    Direct impacts of low literacy on health stem from poor print and verbal communication. Improving health communication can significantly reduce the effects of these direct impacts on health consumers with low literacy skills. These direct impacts include incorrect use of medication, not following health instructions, and safety risks.

    Seniors in this country, who receive about 25% to 40% of prescription medication, may not be able to follow medication regimes because they can't read labels, open pill vials, or keep track of dosing intervals. This results in more visits to the doctor, more laboratory tests, more medication, repeat hospital admissions, and lengthened nursing home stays.

    The bill adds up to more than $9 billion per year for the Canadian economy. Human costs range from seniors' loss of personal autonomy to unnecessary morbidity and mortality.

    Home and workplace accidents are more likely to occur when people are unable to read and understand safety warnings and instructions. Many occupational injuries are due in part to the hazards of the job.

    In 1998, for instance, a Sudbury worker was killed as a direct result of his inability to read the labels on some chemical containers. Low literacy was cited in the inquest as the major factor in his unfortunate death.

    In terms of indirect impacts, the CPHA study also identified the indirect impacts of low literacy on health. These are deeply rooted in the economic and social conditions of people's lives and include poverty, unhealthy lifestyle practices, low self-esteem, dangerous work environments, and lack or inappropriate use of health services. The indirect impacts of literacy on health are far-reaching, requiring a very broad range of long-term social programs and supports to improve the quality of life of adults with low literacy skills.

    But what are the implications of these direct and indirect impacts of low literacy and poor health on areas such as health professional education, direct service, and health policy? I will just provide you with a very brief overview in the time I have remaining.

    In terms of health professional education, there is a common perception that communication is a matter of personality or attitude rather than an acquired skill. Students studying in the health disciplines at universities across Canada do not necessarily receive formal communication skills training during their course of study, yet research shows that effective health communication is a series of learned skills.

    The national literacy and health program works with its partners to promote clear verbal communication and plain language training in the course curriculum of many schools of health, including nursing, medicine, physiotherapy, occupational therapy, and pharmacy. We are also working very closely with organizations such as the Canadian Healthcare Association, for example, to deliver clear communication training within a continuing education model for hospital administrators.

    Breakdown in communication between patients and physicians is a critical factor leading to malpractice suits in Canada. Lawyers have identified physicians' communication and attitude as the primary reason for patients pursuing a malpractice suit in 70% of cases. From the perspective of professional liability alone, where there exists in Canada case law placing the burden on medical doctors to ensure that their patients understand the benefits, risks, and alternatives of medical treatment or procedure, clear-communication training for health professionals is certainly essential.

    With respect to direct service, points of entry into the health system can intimidate the literate health consumer, let alone someone who has low literacy skills. Consent forms can be written in easy-to-read format, and identifiable symbols or logos on buildings and non-print advertising of services often help those who may misuse emergency facilities because they have difficulty locating specialized services in a health facility or in a hospital.

    In matters of print, most patient education materials can be read and understood independently by only 20% of Canadian adults. Providing these materials at a grade 5 reading level will help an additional 60% to 70% of Canadian adults receive health information they can read and understand.

    Vis-à-vis health policy, in Canada it cannot be adequately formulated unless literacy as a social determinant of health is factored into the equation. Sound policy is based on research, thereby necessitating research that further draws the link between literacy and health outcomes.

    We in the health sector need to set high-quality communication guidelines for health care through these objectives: to simplify administrative procedures that oblige people to fill out complicated forms; to develop easy-to-read health information, consent forms, and treatment plans; to provide plain language nutrition and drug labelling on commercial products as well as plain language product inserts; and to support investments in literacy programs. Armed with literacy skills, health consumers have a better chance to navigate the health system.

    Each additional dollar spent on education reduces mortality more than each additional dollar spent on medical care in this county. In light of recent health care reports, including Mr. Romanow's Building on Values: The Future of Health Care in Canada, it is clear that the best way to heal our ailing health system is to keep Canadians healthy in the first place. To get there we will certainly need to sensitize health professionals to the impacts of low literacy on the health of Canadians and provide them with the plain language and clear verbal communication training they require to better serve low literacy health consumers. We will also need to continue to improve the social and economic conditions of Canadians' lives with comprehensive and collaborative policies and programs.

¹  (1535)  

    Most importantly, we must never lose sight of the importance of improving literacy skills among Canadians, for it is literacy that touches everything and can make the difference between being healthy or having poor health.

    Thank you.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    I will now call on Elizabeth Gayda, past president of the Learning Disabilities Association of Canada.

    Ms. Elizabeth Gayda (Past President, Learning Disabilities Association of Canada): I'm very happy to be here today to talk to you about the overlap between learning disabilities and literacy. For a long time our two organizations or approaches were different. Literacy is an issue that touches many segments of the population across Canada. It is not only an in-school issue or a workplace issue; it also influences the access or lack of access in the contexts of health, social services, and everyday practical activities.

    Learning disabilities have a similar effect in each of these contexts. 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.

    Literacy and learning disabilities have been identified as an educational issue for many years, and therefore not one in which the federal government should be involved. However, without a more national approach to literacy and its interaction with learning disabilities, Canadian communities will lack a common understanding of how literacy is defined. Research-supported best practices and effective interventions developed by community organizations will be lost. Thus the announcement by Minister Rock of the establishment of the Canadian language and literacy network provides a significant contribution to our future understanding of this field.

    Workplace literacy is constantly being redefined to include work in a wide range of contexts--taxi drivers, healthcare workers, coaches, oral storytellers, and those in more traditionally identified contexts.

    Researchers talk of lifelong learning and multi-literacies, but many questions remain. What are the relationships between literacy as defined by schools and as defined by the workplace? As a person who has worked in schools and in other workplaces, I think this is a critical question. At the moment there's real dissonance between how literacy is defined in schools, which means to read and write, and how literacy is defined in the workplace, which involves computer literacy, teamwork, and a variety of other areas. This is a crucial question for those with learning disabilities.

    How do we define learning and knowledge? What is the knowledge that counts? Where are we going to find the people to work in the knowledge economy that's coming along, and how can we support individuals in this ongoing and challenging knowledge acquisition process?

    What are the relationships between literacy, the economy, and work, and what new literacies will be required by the economy in the workplace, for which the population will need to develop competencies? Possible answers to some of these questions will come out of some of the research presently being undertaken.

¹  (1540)  

    It is important to underline that effective responses will happen only when results are also informed by practitioners. Knowledge translation into meaningful practices must include collaboration between the many research and front-line organizations addressing the literacy needs of Canadians.

    The Learning Disability Association of Canada's screening for success is just one example of the type of input such organizations can provide. The use of this tool that screens for learning disabilities leads to specific and appropriate interventions for those having either literacy issues or literacy and learning disability issues. This tool and the training associated with it was developed in partnership with a variety of literacy organizations. Such research-supported tools, practices, and knowledge can and must be communicated and shared if Canada as a nation wants each citizen to participate fully.

    Non-profit organizations are being sought to share expertise and to dialogue at the conference level. This is a step in the right direction, but they must be actively engaged in the ongoing work of research projects and the Canadian language and literacy network. This would permit practitioners to contribute directly to the consolidation of knowledge construction in this complex field.

    Thank you.

¹  (1545)  

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    I will now call on Priscilla George, who is the executive director of the National Aboriginal Design Committee.

    Welcome.

    Ms. Priscilla George (Coordinator, National Aboriginal Design Committee): Thank you very much.

    I'm with the National Aboriginal Design Committee, which has been in operation for four years. We formed as a direct result of a survey we did a number of years ago of aboriginal-controlled literacy programs across Canada. We found a little over 90 of them. Many people said that they felt isolated and that they needed ways to share information on resources, technologies, and methodologies that were found to be effective for aboriginal people.

    We hosted the first national aboriginal literacy gathering in Canada a few years ago. The group that was there, of 129 people, with representation from every province and territory in Canada, mandated us to go ahead with forming a national aboriginal literacy organization. We're in the process of incorporation right now.

    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.

    The aboriginal post-censal survey found some very poignant stats that impact on the ability of aboriginal people to learn, and those are the high incidence of suicide, poverty, and what my friend here refers to as unhealthy lifestyle practices.

    In my quest to educate people about what we call the holistic approach, I have found educational, medical, and scientific research that corroborates that approach. The institutional educational system has failed many of our people. It's not the other way around. They did not fail. It's the system that failed. When we talk about the holistic approach, we mean recognition and nurturing of spirit, heart, mind, and body, and I do have research that proves the efficacy of this approach.

    I have spoken at various literacy conferences. To date I have made 35 presentations to about 1,500 people all across Canada and in a number of other countries. I have people coming up to me afterwards and saying, we really believe what you are saying about the holistic approach, and we have been doing it, we just don't use the same terminology you use.

    There are currently six national non-aboriginal literacy organizations. We would be the one and only aboriginal literacy organization. We've been networking with the national organizations for quite some time now. I looked at the salaries and wages in the literacy programs. Currently, a single aboriginal literacy program gets anywhere from $40,000 to $60,000 a year. A teacher in the institutional educational system makes that much money, and yet we are correcting the mistakes of teachers in the institutional educational system. Our practitioners are making poverty-level wages. That $40,000 to $60,000 has to go for delivery and administration.

    And when I look at what we've been able to accomplish in the last four years.... It came to just a little over $500,000. Each of those six national literacy organizations get a budget of $400,000. It's taken us four years to get just slightly over that much money. But we have accomplished quite a lot.

    The National Literacy Secretariat tells us that we need to go to other ministries, need to go to other departments for the funding, and that we can't keep coming back to the same place. We've gone to those other departments, we've gone to those other ministries, and they steer us right back to the National Literacy Secretariat.

    So we're getting caught in this loop of always being referred elsewhere and always being told, here are our criteria, and you don't meet them.

¹  (1550)  

    I used to work in the Ontario government, and I made it my business to tell people, “Here are our criteria, here's how you might fit in, and here's the wording you could use to make this fly.” I'm suggesting we need a whole-of-government approach to literacy, because literacy impacts upon many areas of life.

    I find it interesting that I'm sitting here with Deborah, to my right, and the Learning Disabilities Association, to my left, because many of our aboriginal peoples have been labelled as learning-disabled. They may be, or they may not be, but we don't know for sure.

    What I am suggesting is that many of those socio-economic and political realities, such as residential schools or poverty, all impact on learning. When I speak at these conferences, many non-aboriginal literacy programs are working with aboriginal learners. We are also working with non-aboriginal learners, and it's not because it's the only show in town; it's because the non-aboriginal learners say they really like the holistic approach we're using. We make quantitative and qualitative differences in people's lives.

    I found when I was doing the research for a position paper I've written that in OECD countries a whole-of-government approach to literacy really makes a difference. I have to find the text here: “Evidence is emerging that the coordination of policies over a range of different policy domains can have a significant impact, directly and indirectly, over a nation's... adult literacy levels.”

    I'm suggesting that Canada take a very broad, a very bold approach to literacy, and not see it just as the purview of the National Literacy Secretariat but pull in different government departments such as justice or health and have everybody sit at the same table and see how they can all take a shared-responsibility approach towards literacy.

    That's about all I have to say for now. I have speaking notes that will be distributed.

    Thank you.

    The Chair: I think you'll have an opportunity to say a great deal more, because I suspect there will be questions coming from members of my committee.

    And we're going to start off the first round of questioning with Mr. Solberg, in a six-minute round.

    Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Canadian Alliance): Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and thank you to the witnesses for appearing before us today. There are many issues here, and you all have interesting problems that need to be dealt with.

    I want to ask some questions of Ms. George. There are a number of impediments to people being able to learn; I think you are correct in saying that. I think it's probably especially true for people who are on Indian reserves, for instance. You've suggested that your budget should be beefed up, and that probably makes some sense, but wouldn't it do a lot more good if we could take the approach you're taking—the holistic approach—and ensure that the schools were teaching this? Clearly it's a little easier to prevent the problem than it is to fix it after. Why can't we do that? Or maybe it is being done, and if it's being done, how widely is it being done? And if it's not being done, what are the impediments to having it occur?

¹  (1555)  

    Ms. Priscilla George: I would say that a two-pronged approach is probably best. Yes, it would be a very good thing to do professional development for people in institutional educational systems. I used to be a teacher. I taught for 14 years, both in special education and in the regular classroom. I really would have liked to know some of these things back when I was a regular classroom teacher.

    However, the people for whom the institutional educational system has failed do not want to go back through those doors, so we're going to have to deal with them. They increasingly fall between the cracks and do not meet people's criteria, and the educational divide just keeps getting bigger and bigger. We have government telling us, “We've spent this much money on welfare” and “We've spent this much money on aboriginal peoples.” I would suggest that money could probably be more qualitatively and better spent through support of alternative educational programs.

    Mr. Monte Solberg: With respect to your approach--namely, spirit, heart, mind, and body--I'm going to go back to the same sort of question I asked a minute ago. To me that makes sense, that you have to address all these things, and in a lot of families that of course occurs within the family. You don't always necessarily need some outside intervention, but obviously in some cases that's not true.

    I'm just wondering to what degree this can be taught within families, again, to ensure that we prevent these problems before people get to the point where they've already left school. Is that possible? I suppose because there are lots of problems on Indian reserves in Canada today--I think we all know that--are we just saying that really, at this point it's easier to deal with the problems as people come out of the education system than it is to deal with all those problems that occur within families today, in so many families, sadly, on many reserves today? It's to the point where it's a little bit overwhelming.

    Obviously, it would be easier and cheaper, frankly, to intervene early and get these things done. But sometimes that's impossible, I suppose.

    Ms. Priscilla George: I'm so glad you asked that question.

    We see literacy as intergenerational, and for this reason many literacy programs are doing family literacy. They are working with learners for whom the funders do not recognize the contact hours, because the people don't fall in that age range. Funders will tell us you can only work with people who, depending on the province or territory, start at 16 or 19 and then go up to a certain age, and they must be ready to go into the workforce.

    The reality in our communities is that the work isn't there. We can't guarantee them that they're going to have a job if they march them through a literacy program, so we work with the whole gamut. In many cases we can't count those contact hours.

    But certainly a family approach, a family literacy approach, would be very good.

    Mr. Monte Solberg: Okay.

    Finally, for Ms. Gayda, you had some statistics; unfortunately, we don't have a brief in front of us, so I didn't get them all. You had statistics about people who have learning disabilities, the number of people who have learning disabilities, the number of people on welfare with learning disabilities, and that kind of thing. I wonder if it would be possible to have you take the time now to sort of fill out those statistics for us and tell us where you got them, and if not, I'd love to get a copy of the tests and surveys that have been done, because I think that's interesting information.

º  (1600)  

    Ms. Elizabeth Gayda: I'm a volunteer president, so I don't have all that here with me, but I will ask the Learning Disabilities Association of Canada to make sure you get information about that, where those stats come from.

    All the stats on the whole come from the U.S., not from Canada, because the PALS was the first statistical census that began to gather information on learning disabilities. I would say that most of the statistics come from the United States, just to give you a broad indication.

    Mr. Monte Solberg: Thank you.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Solberg.

    Mr. Adams.

    Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair.

    Thank you all for your presentations. They were very interesting.

    I think the idea that if you can engage people in their own health and view health in both a narrow way and a holistic way, they will be better off, is the best way to get to healthy people. But if you take it a step further, if you can then engage them in the health system, again broadly defined, you end up with a better system.

    My question is a bit off track, but I thought it would be useful for the record.

    You may be aware of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, which have been set up in recent years as a way of organizing health research in Canada in its broadest sense. It went from having a medical research council with the word “medical” in it, to an organization that has the word “health” in it. You all would relate to that particular change.

    Then there are either 11 or 13 institutes, and they cover the different areas of health research in Canada. One of their purposes is to engage the public, public organizations like yours, in health research. For example, the Cancer Society has worked for many, many years, and raises money and does all sorts of things, but there's all sorts of valuable information it could feed into an institute.

    So these institutes exist, and you have all the specialists, and then they have the ties out to the local organizations. Going back to your point about engaging people in the system, that's the idea of it, how it works.

    It is an interesting thing that the institutes, in order to cover the areas of health research that they do, have all been given very complicated names. For example, there is a cancer institute, but there is one called the institute of metabolism, or something or other, and nutrition. If you understand those words, you can tell what they do, but its main work is kidney research. There are people in my riding who are on kidney dialysis, and so on, who are lobbying for plain language titles for the Canadian Institutes of Health Research.

    I wonder if you would comment on that and if the people in your organizations have any thoughts about that.

    Ms. Elizabeth Gayda: I come from Montreal, and I attended one of their conferences. Don't ask me what the name is, because it is one of these long, complicated ones. What was interesting about them was that they themselves realized that they were not communicating their purpose well to people like me, a practitioner--a knowledgeable practitioner, but a practitioner.

    So I think they are moving in that direction, and it's very important, because this is an institute that has possible effects in terms of neurological functioning. It was at the Montreal Neurological Hospital. I think they too are aware and are working on that, and certainly in the conference they gave, but it was at the conference level.

    I made that point, that they included the Learning Disabilities Association at a conference level, but at an integrative equal partner level, I have not seen it. It doesn't mean it doesn't exist; I'm just saying I haven't seen it.

    Mr. Peter Adams: Thank you.

    Ms. Priscilla George: I just want to comment that in my volunteer life I have been the president of Anishnawbe Health Toronto, and I served as the health manager for a short while.

    What we saw was that with those who came to us presenting what could be called health problems with great big fancy names, actually what it all boiled down to was that not only did the learners not really understand what their presenting problem was when they were given these great big fancy names, but they didn't know what their alternatives were. So we had to teach them, here's what this big fancy name means; here's how it affects you, and here are the kinds of questions you can ask, because we often get told, so do you have any questions about what we are about to do to you? If you don't know what the symptom is, if you don't know what the situation is, then you don't know the kinds of questions to ask.

    So, yes, medical practitioners do need to learn how to speak in plain language.

    My son is a dentist in Sioux Lookout, and he says that in northwestern Ontario, people do not understand what their options are, what questions they can ask, even on simple issues such as self-care.

º  (1605)  

    Mr. Peter Adams: Meegwetch.

    Ms. Priscilla George: Thank you for using that word.

    Ms. Deborah Gordon-El-Bihbety: The Canadian Public Health Association works very closely with the Canadian Institutes for Health Research, and that's an interesting example, because in terms of the Institute of Population and Public Health, I can tell you that the debate around the title of that institute took a long time.

    Language is power, and when we use formal, complicated language, it gives us a certain amount of power. We've had many discussions with health professionals across the country, and as I was saying earlier, communication is thought of as a matter of personality and attitude. It's not seen as an acquired skill. In health disciplines across the country, when people are studying to become a physician, a nurse, or an occupational therapist, they're not learning how to communicate with the people they will eventually serve and help to make healthy.

    This continues to be a problem, and I think prevention is the key, starting early. When people are at university and in school, they should learn a language that allows them to communicate more clearly. But what happens is the focus is more on the technical aspects of the profession, so that isn't the case. Then there is an attachment to that language because it defines your profession, it defines who you are.

    It's very important to say that plain language is a relative term; it depends on who you are speaking to. If I'm a medical doctor and I'm speaking to my colleagues about a salpingectomy, essentially my colleagues will understand what that is. Other gynecologists would understand what a salpingectomy is, and it's in plain language, but probably if I was speaking to a lot of engineers, they wouldn't understand what that meant.

    So it's really important to understand that it is a relative term; depending upon the audience you're speaking to, you need to refine and change your language. I do think it has to start earlier than it does, and I think you need a both-end strategy. You certainly need to do it at the level of university education, but beyond that, when health professionals are in practice, we still need to work through continuing education to retrain them vis-à-vis their language.

    Mr. Peter Adams: Thank you, all.

    Thank you, Madam Chair.

    The Chair: Madam Tremblay.

[Translation]

    Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Neigette-et-la Mitis, BQ): Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm sorry for being late, but I was held up in the House for longer than I expected. I did not hear the briefs but I will read them when the proceedings are sent to me.

    Personally, I am always somewhat sad when we're talking about illiteracy. We are a wealthy country and our children should be able to expect an education that will provide them with the tools they need to lead a decent life.

    I have often said to parents that they bring normal children to school and the school turns out ill-adapted and illiterate children. It is the schools that are not able to adapt to the children. We know perfectly well that less than one per cent of children who are born are not fully able to learn. When 20, 25 or 30 per cent of the population has not learned basic skills, we are responsible because we were not able to teach those skills to the children.

    I wonder about the requirements of the XXI^st century. Soon those who are not able to send a fax, not able to turn on a computer and use the Internet, will be illiterate.

    To what extent do you address those issues in your work?

º  (1610)  

[English]

    Ms. Elizabeth Gayda: I would agree with you that schools sometimes create problems, but some children really do have a learning disability that is different from a literacy issue in the sense that it's neurological and it's lifelong. So I do think there are some children—and therefore adults, if it's lifelong—who have tremendous difficulty learning.

    But I'd like to come back to your point about not being able to use the Internet, not being able to open a computer. I think—and I said it in my introduction—schools define literacy as reading and writing; the workplace defines it differently. We are not—I too have been a teacher—really focusing our educational institutions on what some of these children are going to need out there in the real world.

    Just briefly to give an example, I have a lawyer friend who dictates her briefs using the JAWS technology. I don't know how much you know about assisted technology, but she does. She's not learning-disabled; she's not blind. That's the kind of input and knowledge our learning-disabled persons, or persons having that issue, need in order to learn, and they're not learning it in schools.

    To what extent is the workplace responsible to train employees in this technology, which is pretty much accepted or known about throughout the world or throughout Canada? I don't have an answer for you. I think your concerns are correct. My only argument is that this issue of learning disabilities will prevent some people from being adequate learners their entire lives. It doesn't mean they can't work or can't learn to use a computer. In fact, computers are terrific for them.

    I'll stop there.

    Ms. Priscilla George: Thank you.

    Your question is very good. For me it actually raises two issues. The first issue is people coming out of schools without the basic skills. I started teaching adults—I guess it would have been 18 years ago—and it was really alarming to me when I saw the number of people who supposedly had a grade 12 certificate but were functioning nowhere near that level when we tested them; it would be, I would say, about a grade 6 level. I'm not sure how they got put through the system: if you sit quietly at the back of the room and don't cause a problem, then you can be pushed on. I would suggest that literacy programs can augment what they are doing in the institutional educational system.

    The second one has to do with technology. In many of our communities, the infrastructure just isn't there to support technology. For those who are able to access computers and use them, we've been finding creative ways to use computers to keep our culture alive and to get learners to see their use as a way of learning about themselves. In a way it brings people into literacy programs, because it's much easier to say, “I'm going to a computer class” than to say, “I'm going to a literacy class.”

    Ms. Deborah Gordon-El-Bihbety: At the Canadian Public Health Association we're working with health professionals across the country to raise awareness about the links between literacy and health. We're not working specifically with learners. So I think my colleagues are more adept at being able to answer your question.

    However, we do work very closely with the national literacy organizations across Canada, and I would concur with what Priscilla has just said; that by using computers as a drawing card—and certainly the skills that are learned in a computer literacy course are extremely useful—people are more likely to attend literacy programs, because there is still shame attached to not having literacy skills in Canada.

    So I think it is a draw, and something that should continue and be supported.

º  (1615)  

    The Chair: Mr. Jackson.

    Mr. Ovid Jackson (Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, Lib.): Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

    It's always interesting to hear various groups explain things from their own perspective.

    You were talking earlier on about the fact that different people use different languages, and one group could have a one-upmanship, if you like, on another group because they don't understand that particular jargon.

    I think you have this in departments. You get all these silos. There's money for education, but everybody always wants their own corner.

    Madam Chair...and I know I'm using up my time telling stories. During the civil war some bandits attacked a train. On the train there was gold bullion. It was in a safe, and you needed to know the combination of the lock in order to get into it. They tried several tricks to get the safe open. One way was to use dynamite, another was to throw it down the hill, and they also tried whacking at it with a hammer. Nothing succeeded. A few weeks later the cavalry arrived. One of the officers had the combination, and when he opened the safe, out came the gold.

    I think people are like that. I think each individual has a special gift. There are the magic teachers all of us knew in high school or university, who can get to people. Some of them are crazy; they'll jump up and down and blow things up and what have you. These teachers know where those combinations are. They're very special. As in other professions, most teachers are average.

    If you were to go into a classroom, you would probably find the same thing. You would find that the very bright and bushy-tailed kids usually sit in the front row. They have a photographic memory; it's actually disgusting how easily things come to them. Then you have the kids in the middle, and they just try to get a mark of 50% so that nobody bugs them. At the back of the room you have the entrepreneurs, who sometimes excel in a lot of different ways simply because nobody can reach them, or just because they challenge the system.

    I'm saying, Madam Chair, that we're looking at a gap here. Some eight million people fall into this category, and I think we need a holistic approach. I'm going to start again with prevention, which includes peer mentoring. People are having babies and are involved in bad practices, such as smoking and other types of addictions. But also in the environments that people grow up in, they need to see certain things. If they don't see some of these images very early on, it's very detrimental to them.

    I would say to our guests that in each of their cases, notwithstanding the fact that they are all separate and special, some money should be allocated. I don't think we should be giving a special fund to people with disabilities or what have you. It's all education. Eight million people in that component have a problem. Let's take that particular thing out, and let's use all of the best methods. It will never be perfect, because, as I say, people are very different, and it's not always easy to find the combination.

    What do you think about that idea?

    Ms. Priscilla George: Actually, you used one of the words we use in our own aboriginal traditional teachings, to recognize the gift that each and every person brings. When I made the decision to educate policy-makers within government as to why we need a holistic approach, I knew that I would have to go and find educational, scientific, and medical research that corroborated this. Having worked in the Ontario government, I knew I would probably be told, well, that's a nice teaching in an aboriginal community. So I found something by Howard Gardner, who has what he calls the theory of multiple intelligences. Well, guess what? When I went to the multiple intelligences institute, and really read up on this, I found that it is exactly what aboriginal literacy practitioners are doing. Those magic teachers you talked about are recognizing that there are many different ways in which people learn, many ways in which they process and retain the information that is given to them.

    So thank you very much for suggesting that, yes, we do need a holistic approach. This goes back to why I mentioned to you a multi-pronged approach.

º  (1620)  

    Ms. Deborah Gordon-El-Bihbety: Just as a point of clarification, that's not what I heard in the question. I heard something different, that you're looking at one system for all. But you're looking at an integrated system. Is that the difference?

    So can you give us an example of how that might work? Because I just want to make sure that we don't lose the particulars of special populations and special needs.

    Mr. Ovid Jackson: I'm just basically saying you shouldn't be fighting. One of the things that is so problematic in government is these silos. Somebody talked about using language--if you are a lawyer you use this language; if you are a medical doctor, or a mechanic, or whatever, you use language that people can't understand because of the vocabulary.

    Now, you've identified gaps in various ways, whether perceptual, or writing, or language skills, whatever skills there are. All I'm saying is that whatever approach we take during this study, we should recommend—because it gets into the provincial realm, whether it's native, whether it's province, all this kind of stuff—that in that fund called “funding for education”, the people who are affected should get their fair share of those moneys.

    I'm saying I'm not too sure we will ever find a perfect system for each individual, because it depends on so many factors, including the environment they have in their home. My suggestion was that you should be integrated into the system and that each area you identify for various reasons as needing resources should have it out of that total package.

    Ms. Elizabeth Gayda: I have to say, cynic that I am, that it sounds good. It's like inclusive education: it sounds good. But there are policy-makers and civil servants who make decisions about how that money is allocated, and they make mistakes, I have to say. Some children's needs are not met; some adults' needs are not met. Although in my head I would like to agree with you, in reality I say: “That doesn't exist.”

    If you look at the field of learning disabilities, in New Brunswick they don't have any, so move there if you have a learning-disabled kid. He won't have any services, because they don't exist, according to the Ministry of Education. In Quebec that's true also. In Ontario they do recognize learning disabilities.

    How is that situation going to be helped by saying, “We're going to give you a package”? These are kids. I want to serve kids. I want to reach those with whatever needs they have, with whatever strengths and weaknesses they have, but I think it's naive in a sense to think that civil servants in various ministries of education, who are not accountable particularly to the public they serve, are the ones who make a lot of decisions about how funds are spent. And from my point of view, with children with special needs they are not necessarily addressing either their special intelligences or their special needs.

    Mr. Ovid Jackson: Well, Madam Chairman—

    The Chair: You're way over your time. I'm sorry, I have to cut you off.

    Mr. Godin.

[Translation]

    Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Thank you, Madam Chair. I would like to welcome our guests.

    I don't know if you would agree with me but I think that there are actually two problems. As Ms. George stated, we have the problem of those who have finished school and do not have sufficient education—that is how they came out of their schools—and there is the problem of the next generations of young people, those still to come. As you were saying, it is sad to see someone who has finished their twelfth year of schooling, and, after testing, turns out to be at a sixth-grade level. In my area I have seen people who finished their grade twelve, and when they tried to find a job the following year, they were assessed and found to be at a grade nine level. They had to go back to school.

    The question is this. Is too much being required of young people? There are those who say that if they had classes of 10 students, they would all get a contract with the government. The question needs to be asked. Anyone could say that we are all illiterate. We could all have that problem, depending on the background we come from.

    If we know that many young people are illiterate when they leave school, why do we not have a system that addresses that problem? Let's look at the young people who are in school right now. Do you think that classes of 30 and 33 students make sense? One teacher for 30 children... There are parents who find it hard enough to raise two children, let alone teachers who have 30 children that aren't even their own. Thirty children with 30 different personalities coming from different families. Is that not the problem we should be dealing with? Is that not where help should be provided?

    I realize that there are young people who are coming out of school who need help and whom we should be focusing on. But the children have nothing better to look forward to. It's as if we're making them fail and then we're giving others the job of getting them back on their feet. Should we not be intervening directly in the classrooms, hiring more teachers, reducing the number of students in the classrooms and truly focusing on the children?

    I think young people can learn. I often go into high schools to listen in on classes and I wonder how these young people can learn. It just doesn't make sense. I would like to know what you think about that and also about the other questions that I'm going to ask.

    Is poverty also a contributing factor in our society? I think that a person who goes to school hungry will have a problem learning. There are 1.4 million hungry children in Canada. I am sure some of those children are not able to study much. I think our problem is a societal problem.

º  (1625)  

[English]

    Ms. Elizabeth Gayda: Education is a provincial issue and it has not been something the federal government has been involved in. I think as long as we lack some sort of national approach to education, whether it's through this centre or some other way, the kinds of problems you talked about and outlined will continue to exist.

    So I don't have an answer for you, but my feeling is that since it's provincial and not federal, the federal government at least needs to take some position in terms of making best practices available, bringing in researchers to make available some of this knowledge across Canada, and not leaving it up to educational ministries to decide what best practices are.

[Translation]

    Mr. Yvon Godin: I would like to ask another quick question. Why do you put so much trust in the federal government to do something? If the federal government were to give more money to the provinces so that they could better ensure young people's education... The provinces are closer to people. You can have any number of federal programs, unless we have misunderstood each other...

[English]

    Ms. Elizabeth Gayda: I don't want the federal government to get involved in education. What I would like the federal government to begin to do is make best practices available to various ministries. What are the best practices for teaching a child who has a learning disability and can't decode? They are out there.

    You're saying the ministry should know that. My experience is that the ministries don't always know that, and some of these best practices need to be built and shared so that there's a common--

[Translation]

    Mr. Yvon Godin: How can a teacher in a school teach 30 children at the same time?

[English]

    Ms. Elizabeth Gayda: Are you asking me? I think it's hard....

    Oh, can I answer?

    The Chair: You certainly may.

    Voices: Oh, oh!

º  (1630)  

    Mr. Yvon Godin: Sorry, what did you say?

    Ms. Elizabeth Gayda: That it's hard. It can be done, and we've all seen extraordinary teachers who have. But for the average teacher, it's hard.

    The Chair: I'm going let Ms. George have a brief response.

    Ms. Priscilla George: Having taught in the institutional educational system for 14 years, I can say that the way you get around that is you teach to the dominant learning style. So people who don't have that dominant learning style are going to fall between the cracks.

    So I believe we need to educate them in the teachers' colleges, and we need to educate the teachers who are already in the system, on the different learning styles.

    The Chair: That's bang on.

    Mr. Solberg.

    Mr. Monte Solberg: Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I have a few different questions, so I'm going to jump around a little bit.

    First of all, I want to comment on provincial responsibility for education. I want to point out that, although it's not perfect, Canada actually does achieve quite highly, compared to other countries, in terms of education. So I think you could argue that the provinces have done a reasonably good job with education, notwithstanding your comments. I'm not going to argue about best practices, but I want to make a bit of a defence against the idea of federalizing education, if that's what....

    No, I know you weren't saying that. You were saying best practices. But in case people were thinking along those lines, I wanted to point that out.

    I have a specific question, first of all, for Ms. Gordon-El-Bihbety with respect to the number of people who are actually injured and hurt because they don't have literacy skills.

    I came in late, which I apologize for, so I missed anything you might have said along these lines. But you made reference to an anecdote about somebody who had actually been killed on the job. But do you have actual numbers of people who are injured and/or killed because of their lack of ability to read properly?

    Ms. Deborah Gordon-El-Bihbety: I don't have them with me, but we do have statistics. However, I would also say there's a dearth of research in this area, and this is one of the reasons that we're involved now with the University of Toronto looking at the research gaps vis-à-vis this area called literacy and health, where we're looking at the relationship between poor literacy and health outcomes.

    We're doing that kind of research, looking at what it costs the health system vis-à-vis having 48% of Canadians who have low literacy skills using the health system, and when we get to our senior population of people who are 65 years and older, we are talking about 80%. So that's going to really put a burden on our health system, and not just the treatment sector, which is the most expensive part of our health system, but the other aspects of our health system, like public health, for example, palliative care, all the continuum of home care, pharmacare programs.

    So we do have some information; however, we need to develop a research agenda here in Canada. That's precisely what we're doing now, because good policy and practice, of course, are based upon research.

    Mr. Monte Solberg: Right. And that brings me to my next question, which has to do with federal spending on this.

    I used to know the numbers. Back in the old days, a few years ago, when I was involved with this, we spent about $30 million on adult education. I'm not sure what it is today, but I assume all of you, and I know some of you, are asking for more money. What I'd like to know is, where does Canada compare to other countries when it comes to spending on adult literacy, and how do they rank? How do these other countries do compared to Canada in terms of the ability to deal with this problem? I'm sure there have been all kinds of studies on that.

    Ms. Deborah Gordon-El-Bihbety: The international adult literacy survey is an excellent place to start, because it looks at seven countries. Essentially what it's doing is looking at the different systems within which people learn. And a very interesting fact it looks at is that in Canada and the U.S. we have more people who have low literacy skills and higher education than we have people in the middle, whereas in a country like Sweden you have more people in the middle, because the focus on learning is lifelong learning, apprenticeships, programs that help people to continue learning throughout their lifespan.

    So with that very different culture and foundation upon which the society is based, we find we have more literate people in the middle as opposed to at the two ends.

    It's very interesting; the study looks at different population groups and compares these seven OECD countries. So I think that's a good study to start to assist you in your thinking about this.

º  (1635)  

    Mr. Monte Solberg: That's an interesting example, but I would suggest, without looking at any of the research, that it's hard to draw too many conclusions, because Sweden is a country with a pretty homogeneous population. Canada is a multicultural country where English is a second language for a lot of people. So it's always hard to draw conclusions based on those studies. Nevertheless, that is helpful.

    I'm curious, what are people asking of the government in terms of funding levels? Is it still $30 million? Is that what we're spending?

    The Chair: It's $28.2 million.

    Mr. Monte Solberg: Okay, so we're not really going up very much, are we.

    So do people have a specific number in mind? We are coming up to a budget in the next little while. Is there some number that literacy groups in Canada have bandied around as the ideal target?

    Ms. Deborah Gordon-El-Bihbety: I can't speak to that, because we're not a literacy group; we work with literacy groups. I work in the health sector.

    My colleagues would probably be able to respond to that.

    Ms. Priscilla George: Boy, that's a really good question.

    I don't know; I can't answer that. I do know the other national organizations are getting $400,000 a year. We've been averaging about $100,000, and we're supporting 90-odd programs all across Canada whose practitioners get poverty-level wages.

    Mr. Monte Solberg: All right, I'll just leave it at that. Thank you.

[Translation]

    The Chair: Ms. St-Jacques.

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

    My question is about mental health. First, I'd like to know if there's a link between mental health and literacy and if the two influence each other. Have there been any studies on this? If so, have you identified ways of helping people who have both mental health and literacy problems?

    Ms. Deborah Gordon-El-Bihbety: There have been many studies done in the United States.

[English]

    I'll speak in English, because it's my language, and I'm more comfortable in it.

    In terms of mental health, I know in the United States, the University of New England has done research in this area, looking at the relationship between mental health and low literacy and health. I think it's a very critical area, and there is a dearth of research here in Canada in that area.

    The Canadian Public Health Association undertook a two-year project in mental health promotion, funded through Health Canada. It was an excellent program, and we do have the information, resources, and research from that project, but it didn't specifically draw a link with low literacy or illiteracy. But I think that needs to be done in Canada, so you raise a very good point.

    I should tell you as well that mental health promotion has really suffered in Health Canada as a unit, and as a division and department. Not a lot of funds are going to that in Canada right now, and it's a critical area.

    So you raise a good point, and I'd be happy to share with you the research and work we've done in the Canadian Public Health Association.

    Ms. Diane St-Jacques: Do the other witnesses have something to say?

    Ms. George.

    Ms. Priscilla George: I could just say a couple of things about that. We don't have firm statistics, but we do have empirical observations.

    When I was doing the research for the position paper, I asked people how many learners they felt were impacted by what we called a residential school syndrome. Practitioners were saying, all of them, because it is generational.

    As well, a lot of our learners have addiction issues. The number one issue with aboriginal learners is self-esteem, a positive cultural identity. So while I realize you had used the term “mental” health, I see that all of this is related.

[Translation]

    Ms. Diane St-Jacques: Ms. Gordon-El-Bihbety, you talked about intimidation in your presentation. Do you see a link between that and mental health, or could you expand on what you mean by intimidation and literacy?

[English]

    Ms. Deborah Gordon-El-Bihbety: I can't speak specifically on intimidation. In public health and the health sector we use a conceptual framework called a population health approach. We look at a specific population and the particular needs and characteristics of that population. For example, if we're looking at seniors there are very specific needs and issues that arise with that population, given their point in the life cycle, what they're doing, their relationship to work, and their relationship with their families. All of those things figure prominently. So we will sometimes look at the relationship between a particular population and their specific health needs.

    Populations like seniors certainly feel intimidated by the health system--points of entry and that kind of thing--and people with mental illnesses, people who are mentally challenged as well. You will see that across the board, looking at that special population.

    There hasn't been a lot of work done in this area. It is a neglected area vis-à-vis research and interventions. So I think it's an area we increasingly need to work in and identify.

º  (1640)  

[Translation]

    Ms. Diane St-Jacques: Thank you, Madam Chair.

[English]

    The Chair: Okay, thank you.

    One other member of the committee has a question, unless there are some on the opposition side.

    Mr. Simard.

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

    In my riding of Saint-Boniface, Manitoba, there's a women's group that was not involved in literacy, but through the huge demand there they got involved. I think they've now put in place something like 16 programs, and they've had to refuse another five or six communities that wanted to get in. So obviously the need is there. The need is pretty obvious.

    My concern is that we as the government are now talking about promoting an innovation strategy with new technologies and new ways of doing things, but it seems to me we're going to be widening the gap even more if we don't deal with the literacy problems we have now. Down the road our costs will probably be even more humungous if we don't deal with this fairly soon. That's perhaps part of the innovation strategy.

    I'd like to get your comments on whether you think literacy can be incorporated into our innovation strategy. On timing, if we don't deal with it now what kind of problems do you think it can cause down the road?

    Ms. Deborah Gordon-El-Bihbety: I'm sure we want to see this country move ahead and develop innovations into the future. At the same time, we have to deal with the problems we have. One of the things I increasingly see and speak about with many of my colleagues in the field is that there are a lot of good practices out there already. There are a lot of good programs, initiatives, and innovations for dealing with these issues. Some of the innovation can happen in dealing with these issues, so let's integrate the two rather than separate them in our minds.

    We tend to separate things rather than connect them. We have our epiphanies in life when we start connecting things, so let's try to connect those two. But more than that, let's look at what's already being done, build upon that, and evaluate it. Evaluation, not just research, needs to be done of existing practices in this country that are working.

    I draw an analogy to our public health system in Canada. We talk about all kinds of medical technology, innovations, and all of these incredible surgical procedures for heart attacks and heart problems, when we could prevent these problems by taking steps through our public health system; through health promotion programs that help people to be physically fit and have healthy eating habits.

    At either end, our innovation has to be connected to our beginning point, so I think you have to do both.

    Mr. Raymond Simard: Thanks.

    The Chair: Ms. Gayda.

    Ms. Elizabeth Gayda: I agree entirely with what Madam Gordon has said. However, I don't hear us identifying what's going to define literacy in the next 10 to 20 years. I'm not thinking about 100 years from now; I'm thinking about 10 or 20 years, when I still might be alive, hopefully.

    I don't want to throw out the baby with the bathwater for sure, but I would like us to be more specific about what will be required in terms of literacy. What literacies--I think they're multiple--are going to be required for the next two generations ahead of me, or rather behind me?

    I keep thinking I'm younger than I am.

º  (1645)  

    The Chair: Well, you're younger than I am.

    Ms. Priscilla George: I had the dubious honour of meeting with somebody just before Christmas who was quite involved in workplace literacy, which I understand is going to be quite a big part of the innovation strategy, or should be.

    He was telling me about the many, many dollars that were being pumped into these kind of programs by corporations who have agreements in place to hire a certain number of aboriginal people. As I listened to all this—and he was quite enthused about the work, and indeed he should be—I had the feeling inside that there was a piece missing. This question just popped out of my mouth before I realized where it came from. I asked, "What are your success and completion rates like?" and he said: "Well, that's true. You know, before long they are back on the reserve or they are...." I don't even want to repeat what he said. It bordered on racism.

    The connecting piece for me there was that literacy is the foundation that was missing, and all the skills that literacy entails. It's almost like building the third floor of a house when you ain't even solidified the foundation.

    Mr. Raymond Simard: Do I have time for one quick question?

    I guess I agree with Mr. Godin, in that I think this is a two-pronged problem. We have the people who have a problem right now that we have to deal with, but there is also the next generation coming up in the educational system, which is a provincial responsibility.

    I would like to know if you have had any success speaking to the provinces in terms of how they are dealing with this right now.

    There was a literacy lobby group that came to my office a couple of months ago, and one of the people they brought in was a grade 12 graduate who was illiterate. This guy graduated probably ten years ago. Obviously there is a problem in the system when somebody can graduate from grade 12 and not read and write.

    Have you been successful with the provinces? Have you been well received? Have you suggested things to them in terms of how they can change their way of doing things?

    Ms. Priscilla George: One of the things I have suggested is that.... First of all, many provinces come out with what they call learning outcomes, and they are mainly cognitive. Really, it's just replicating the system that has failed us in the first place.

    I believe the holistic approach, which encompasses cognitive, mental, spiritual, and emotional, will be a way of addressing that.

    The Chair: Are there any further questions?

    If not, to Ms. George, to what extent if any has the aboriginal head start program worked to help promote literacy?

    Ms. Priscilla George: I have some familiarity with the aboriginal head start program and I really applaud the work they are doing. I believe we need to work more closely together under the rubric of family literacy.

    The Chair: Do any of our three witnesses have any closing remarks before I thank you for your participation?

    Then I want to thank the three of you for coming. You certainly have given us a great deal of food for thought, and I know you will be watching the work of this committee as we proceed with workplace literacy.

    Now, colleagues, we have a 48 hours' notice of motion to deal with.

    Mr. Godin, I will give you three or four minutes to put your case forward. Then I will ask for some rebuttal or some support from at least one member of each party, and then we will put the matter to a vote.

º  (1650)  

[Translation]

    Mr. Yvon Godin: Thank you, Madam Chair.

    Here's why I've presented this motion. Given that the committee is quite busy, I think that we should free up some members to deal with this issue, because this is a particular case that needs to be considered. It is a problem that does not just affect the fishery.

    Last week, Human Resources Development Canada sent investigators into southeastern New Brunswick to investigate what is called the accumulation of hours or, the banking of hours, as they say in English. Now there are hundreds and hundreds of people who will not be eligible for employment insurance. Furthermore, they could be accused of having cheated the system, whereas it is the industry itself saying that they can no longer cope. Let's take the example of the fisheries industry. If you work in that industry, at the beginning of the season, when there is a lot of fish, you can count on 60 to 70 hours of work a week. At the end of the fishing season, there may only be 10 or 20 hours of work per week. If people are going to work, they will only be paid for 20 hours. That could affect their employment insurance benefits when they make their next application. The same problem occurred in Newfoundland. Employees had to give back $650,000 to Human Resources Development Canada because, according to the law, they had cheated the system.

    The reason I have put forward my motion is because the problem does not only exist in southeastern New Brunswick, it exists everywhere. The minister has now announced that she will strike a special committee to look at this problem in one region. I do not agree with that because the problem is more serious than that. We have to look at the whole industry. Furthermore, some rumours have it that there will be a pilot project in that region. Last year that was done in the Madawaska region. I do not think it is right if it is the government's intention to do one this year in the southeast. It's as if the government is trying to deal with problems only where there are Liberals.

    If the federal government has a different mandate, that of establishing programs for all Canadian men and women throughout the country. Besides the fishermen and women, there are also people making Christmas wreaths. Supposedly people who make Christmas wreaths are also banking their hours and these hours are not insurable, therefore investigators are sent to ask questions. They are being asked who paid for the string to tie the wreaths, if they rented out the employer's garage, all kinds of things. These people work from 7:30 in the morning until 9:30 at night and now they are being told that these hours are not insurable. I think it is shameful.

    Madam Chair, I want a special committee to look at these people's employment insurance eligibility because the system is supposed to encourage people to work. Otherwise, these people will decide that they're just as well off working under the table and being paid. That is why this is an important issue and I ask for the support of my colleagues so that we can study this and make recommendations to the minister. This is an urgent matter, not only for New Brunswick, but for all the Atlantic provinces, Quebec, British Columbia, wherever there is seasonal employment, even in the construction industry. Construction workers have the same problem if they only work 20 hours in their last week of work on construction sites. You have to look at these types of jobs and it is the committee that should do this. That is why I suggest a special committee be struck to specifically look at eligibility. Thank you, Madam Chair.

º  (1655)  

[English]

    The Chair: Okay.

    Madam Tremblay and Madam St-Jacques, and then I'll give you a minute to wrap up, as the mover of the motion.

[Translation]

    Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: Madam Chair, I absolutely agree on the urgency of this matter. I think it is an extremely important issue, especially given that since last January, I have become even more aware that our current system encourages cheating, with the complicity of both employers and employees.

    We are the ones who created the system and we passed the legislation. Just because of the famous divisor that we enforced—Eugène, you're looking at me with wide eyes—those who do small weeks are caught by the system.

    So rather than declare small weeks, for example, 20 hours, 10 hours, and 20 hours, which makes 50 hours, less weeks of work are declared. Ten 50-hour weeks are declared instead of 13 weeks, that is, 10 50-hour weeks, 2 20-hour weeks and 1 10-hour week.

    We are the ones encouraging this type of cheating, and then we send out investigators who catch people in the act, and they are given penalties plus interest. We need to find a way of acknowledging that this type of work is seasonal. In some cases it's not the workers who are seasonal, but rather the particular sector. Some industries are seasonal and we know that those who work in that industry cannot work all year long. We need to find appropriate mechanisms for these cases.

    Studies have been undertaken; the minister established four committees, including in Quebec. The Lower St. Lawrence Committee drafted its report in December and the minister has received it. She told me last week that she thought she could talk to me about it this week.

    There are recommendations in that document. My colleague has suggested that the committee suspend its work and deal with this issue—because it is urgent—or that a subcommittee look at the matter and inform the committee as quickly as possible. We can't do everything all the time. That is why I think the idea of a subcommittee is a very interesting one. A small group could get together and do the work for the committee and then submit it to the committee. I think this is a very important issue.

    That was the first point I wanted to make, Madam Chair. I would also like some information, but that is about another topic.

[English]

    The Chair: Mr. Solberg.

    Mr. Monte Solberg: My understanding is that the government has gone ahead and just appointed some government members to look into this sort of situation, and I think that really undermines the credibility of this committee, if it's in fact the case. We are charged with the responsibility for overseeing things like employment insurance and to just have government members on there, with some workers and fishermen in this case, I think is contrary to what we all believe is democratically correct. I think we should demand that we have some opposition members sitting on these committees, in fact that these committees should be born of this body.

    That's all I'm going to say on the issue. I'm sure I don't see eye to eye with Yvon on maybe the particulars, but it's ridiculous that there shouldn't be certainly some opposition members on that committee, and again, I think it should be born out of this group if we're going to look into this.

»  (1700)  

[Translation]

    Ms. Diane St-Jacques: Thank you, Madam Chair.

    I think the minister realizes how urgent the situation is. That is one of the reasons why she created the joint committee to examine the problems experienced by seasonal workers.

    I have been on the committee for two years and I agree that we are doing a rather good job. We are all very busy, and that is why there are often members absent from the Sub-Committee on Children and Youth at Risk and the Sub-Committee on the Status of Persons with Disabilities. Many members sit on two committees or on subcommittees. So I don't know whether we would have enough people available to examine this issue.

    I would like to remind my colleague from Acadie--Bathurst that we are also empowered to examine the acts relating to the Department of Human Resources Development and a third subcommittee would spread our work even further. Many members are aware of the seasonal work issue. This is a subject that could probably generate a lot of interest.

    If the chair and the committee are in agreement, we might consider inviting representatives from the Department of Human Resources Development to examine these matters over the coming weeks. They could give us an update on the situation, and we could then have a look at their recommendations.

    In short, I am opposed to Mr. Godin's motion. We should perhaps consider an approach that would not split the business of the committee any further; moreover, we could continue to work here, which would be an advantage for all members.

[English]

    The Chair: Mr. Fontana.

    Mr. Joe Fontana (London North Centre, Lib.): On a point of order, I think the parliamentary secretary raises an important issue. My point doesn't disagree at all with the urgency or seriousness of the questions that both Yvon and Suzanne have put forward.

    Could I just ask a question? I'm not a standing member of this committee, but I have been involved in EI reforms, and was a part of ministers' task forces when we moved to the new legislation.

    There is a review mechanism in the legislation already that allows this committee and the minister to monitor the effects and the changes on people on an ongoing basis. This is one point. I don't know when this committee or the minister...who I believe has to table an annual report with regard to EI.

    Second, I don't know whether or not within your own future work...as the parliamentary secretary suggested, it probably would be more appropriate for the whole committee to deal with this. So I'm just wondering whether or not this committee as a whole has dealt with the question of EI and its impacts, and the whole question of review.

    I'm wondering whether or not it might be redundant to vote on this review, based on what the committee has already decided to do in its future business, or in the review mandated under the legislation.

    The Chair: My understanding is that the minister has to report back on a yearly basis. We haven't received the 2002 report, but we expect it at any time. I think you make a valid point that we should probably see that report.

    In terms of the mandatory review, I don't think we have yet reached the point requiring us to do that review.

    Mr. Joe Fontana: And about the future work of this committee, was it envisioned that—

    The Chair: Not at the moment.

    Now, we're about three weeks on, and we've just begun a rather in-depth study on literacy in the workplace. This doesn't mean there's not an opportunity for the committee to call in officials and to get an update on this issue.

    I mean, the committee is its own master; if it decides it's important to have someone come in, then obviously we can do it.

    Mr. Joe Fontana: Well, it seems to me, based on what the parliamentary secretary said, that, yes, it would be appropriate to call in human resources people...and for the whole committee to deal with, this motion of Yvon's is probably redundant, and the parliamentary secretary's suggestions are probably even stronger, and should be supported by Yvon, Suzanne, and even Monte.

»  (1705)  

    The Chair: Now, as a point of order or a point of privilege, it was his intervention on behalf...and I promised to give you the last word on the issue before the vote.

[Translation]

    Mr. Yvon Godin: Madam Chair, I would be delighted if the entire committee wanted to tackle this issue. This is something of great urgency, and that is why I suggested a subcommittee. But if the entire committee wants to deal with it, then we must move quickly. I would like to take a moment to explain the problem.

    An investigation is done, and if the fishers are accused of having accumulated their time, they must return the equivalent of three years' worth of employment insurance to the government. On top of that they will be assessed penalties equivalent to twice the amount that they had drawn. These are poor people who only work part of the year and who end up owing $30,000. That is what happens to those families.

    That is why, as I said, this is an important issue. I don't think that it would be right to travel to the region to only help a small group of people that we might be able to bring together. We might settle the problem in one part of the province, but there will be problems elsewhere. But if someone is suggesting that I tell these people to march in the street if they want to be listened to... I don't think that's what they really want to do. That is what I am trying to avoid. But if things aren't taken care of... This is not a threat, it's a promise. We have a problem.

[English]

    The Chair: All right.

    Madam St-Jacques, and then I will make a few comments.

[Translation]

    Mr. Yvon Godin: Pardon me, Madam Chair. I did not think that you had cut me off. Does some other member want to chair the meeting or what?

[English]

    The Chair: I heard you coming through loud and clear.

    Just as a point of clarification, we have scheduled meetings up until February 20. But I'm reluctant to schedule anyone for February 25, given that's the last Tuesday of February. We are looking at a budget. I think the chances of having the budget delivered that day... I don't want to announce on behalf of the finance minister that this will be the budget day, but I think realistically we shouldn't be planning very much.

    On the first Tuesday after we are back from the March break, we already have the Auditor General coming in to talk to us about EI reserves.

    In terms of future business, I suggest that we can perhaps have a steering committee meeting early next week. We can put this on the agenda for the steering committee, and see if there's some way we can accommodate your request to have the officials in.

    I wanted to lay this on the table before your vote, but I can't promise that I can schedule it in the next couple of weeks.

    Madam St-Jacques.

[Translation]

    Ms. Diane St-Jacques: Madam Chair, I don't think the department's representatives should be called to appear that soon because they still have to examine the issue. They are about to do so. It would be too soon to have them within the next few weeks. If we want a proper briefing, we will have to give them the time to prepare one.

    To come back to what was said by the member for Acadie--Bathurst, I believe the report will deal not only with a small group of people, but with all of those who are affected by seasonal work. The problem is widespread, whether it be in the fisheries or some other sector. As you yourself said, there are also those who make Christmas decorations, for example. So this problem is not particular to one small group; the work will apply to all of those who are experiencing this problem.

    The Chair: Mr. Godin.

    Mr. Yvon Godin: But we don't know who sits on the committee.

    Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: And we don't know what their mandate is.

    Mr. Yvon Godin: No, we don't know what the mandate is.

[English]

    The Chair: I'm going to put the question.

    (Motion negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

    The Chair: Mr. Godin, I will undertake to you to call a steering committee meeting early next week, and to make that the main topic of conversation, a steering committee to try to find a time to get officials in to talk about the issue. Okay?

    Yes, Suzanne.

»  (1710)  

[Translation]

    Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: Madam Chair, I am a little uncomfortable. This might be how your committee operates, but it does not feel right to me. I would like to know exactly what kind of study will be done here, in committee. You seem to be examining illiteracy, but what is our mandate, what is our objective, where are we heading and what aspects are we going to deal with? We need some type of parameters. If we invite witnesses to appear but we don't know quite why they are here or how we are going to tackle the issue... I get the feeling that we could hear witnesses all year long, without quite knowing what it is that we are supposed to be doing. What exactly should we be doing? What is our mandate?

[English]

    The Chair: You raise a very important question. Certainly, we have been asked by the minister to investigate and to look at literacy in the workplace. We believed we needed a broad or general overview before determining if we were going to do an in-depth study. What we scheduled for this meeting and the next two was to try to get an overview of who's out there working in the field, and what some of the problems are.

    My plan and hope, in talking with other members of the committee, was that we would then sit down as a committee and determine whether we were gong to proceed with an in-depth study, and give some definite parameters to it. But right now, we're really just looking and trying to get an overview.

    In a subject such as literacy, it's very difficult to determine where we're going to go unless we have some of the background before us. Just from the three people we had with us today, I think you can see that everybody comes with a different perspective. We're seeing that the problem is perhaps far greater than we suspected initially.

    So you raise a point. I think we need to have a focus, but I think we also need to have some basic information before us, before we proceed. This would be my intention then....We first have two more this week and next. Then we can sit down and ask if this is something worthy of in-depth study, and if so, what exactly we are going to focus on.

    Okay?

[Translation]

    Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: I have been quite fortunate in the time that I have spent in the House of Commons. I have sat on committees with clear mandates, and we managed to accomplish something. I apprised myself of what your committee had been doing, because I was not in attendance. The members adopted 17 unanimous recommendations, but not one of them was adopted by the department. I don't like to waste my time. If a committee is too vague, if I don't know what I am supposed to be doing and if nothing is accomplished, then I might start missing meetings. I never missed the meetings of the other committees on which I sat. I worked very, very hard on the other committees, but I don't like to waste my time. That is why I would like to know... I understand now how you operate, but I would like something to come of it. It must be rather disappointing to have a unanimous report simply ignored. That would be disappointing.

[English]

    The Chair: But I think we can argue both sides. I think you found out that this committee did work together and did put together a very forceful report. So we did have a focus, and we had a unanimous report.

    I can assure you, Madame Tremblay, that if you're disappointed on the opposition side that the recommendations weren't accepted, I think it's fair to assume that the government members who also supported that unanimous decision are equally upset about it. So, as a committee that has worked very well together in determining and coming up with unanimous and good reports, I think we need to proceed in this way.

    I'm too busy to be spinning my wheels, as you are.

    Good. Thank you.

    The meeting is adjourned.