HUMA Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

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

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Thursday, January 30, 2003

¹

1520

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

Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development)

¹

1535

The Chair

Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton Centre-East, Canadian Alliance)

Mrs. Jane Stewart

Mr. Peter Goldring

Mrs. Jane Stewart

¹

1540

Mr. Peter Goldring

Mrs. Jane Stewart

The Chair

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

Mrs. Jane Stewart

¹

1545

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

Mrs. Jane Stewart

The Chair

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

¹

1550

Mrs. Jane Stewart

¹

1555

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay

Mrs. Jane Stewart

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay

The Chair

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

Ms. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ)

Mr. Ovid Jackson

º

1600

Mrs. Jane Stewart

Mr. Ovid Jackson

Ms. Lenore Burton (Director General, Learning and Literacy Directorate, Department of Human Resources Development)

Mrs. Jane Stewart

Mr. Ovid Jackson

The Chair

Ms. Monique Guay

º

1605

Mrs. Jane Stewart

Ms. Monique Guay

Mrs. Jane Stewart

º

1610

Ms. Monique Guay

Ms. Jane Stewart

The Chair

Mr. Peter Goldring

Mrs. Jane Stewart

Mr. Peter Goldring

Mrs. Jane Stewart

Mr. Peter Goldring

Mrs. Jane Stewart

Mr. Peter Goldring

º

1615

Mrs. Jane Stewart

Mr. Peter Goldring

The Chair

Mr. Peter Goldring

The Chair

Mr. Peter Goldring

Mrs. Jane Stewart

The Chair

Mr. Gurbax Malhi (Bramalea—Gore—Malton—Springdale, Lib.)

Ms. Lenore Burton

Ms. Jane Stewart

Mr. Gurbax Malhi

Mrs. Jane Stewart

º

1620

Mr. Gurbax Malhi

Ms. Jane Stewart

Mr. Gurbax Malhi

Ms. Jane Stewart

Mr. Gurbax Malhi

The Chair

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

Mrs. Jane Stewart

Ms. Diane St-Jacques

Mrs. Jane Stewart

º

1625

Ms. Diane St-Jacques

The Chair

Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.)

Mrs. Jane Stewart

º

1630

Mr. John Finlay

The Chair

Ms. Lenore Burton

The Chair

Mr. Peter Goldring

Mrs. Jane Stewart

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP)

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mrs. Jane Stewart

º

1635

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mrs. Jane Stewart

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mrs. Jane Stewart

The Chair

Mrs. Jane Stewart

The Chair

---

CANADA

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

---

NUMBER 009

l

2nd SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Thursday, January 30, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¹  (1520)  

[English]

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

    Today we have with us the Minister of Human Resources Development, the Hon. Jane Stewart. The minister is here to give us some preliminary background work as we determine whether we're going to take on the study of workplace literacy.

    Many of you might know that back in November 2002 the National Summit on Innovation and Learning had a meeting to sort of recap the work that had been done throughout the country between April and September of that year. At that summit, 18 priority resolutions were developed in five main theme areas. The one theme area that is of particular concern to this committee is the one that deals with strengthening our learning culture.

    The first priority of the group we're looking at, in strengthening the learning culture, is to establish a pan-Canadian literacy development system supported by federal, provincial, and territorial governments, and to establish programs to improve literacy for adults and workers.

    With that as a background we've asked Minister Stewart to come. I look forward to your presentation, and I know some very interesting questions will flow as a result of your presentation.

    Minister.

[Translation]

    Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development): Thank you, Madam Chairperson. When I last appeared before you, I touched briefly on literacy, an issue I was pleased to discover resonated strongly with committee members.

    I noted how this issue was a fundamental challenge in our society and an overarching priority identified consistently during consultations and at the National Summit on Innovation and Learning.

[English]

    You'll remember that I requested the committee's support in identifying more effective ways to assist individuals with low literacy and essential skills, so we could continue building a stronger economy.

    Today I'd like to expand on some of those themes, outlining the magnitude of the challenge and its implications on the health and criminal justice systems, the economy, and society at large.

    To put my comments into context, it's important to understand that literacy has taken on a whole new meaning in the 21st century. Today, with the advent of new technologies, the information age, a knowledge-based economy, and a vastly diverse workforce, literacy has become a prerequisite to almost every aspect of our lives, no matter what our age or our occupation.

[Translation]

    Literacy is critically important to Canada, to all governments, and I know to all elected representatives from all parties.

¹  (1535)  

[English]

    The Chair: Thank you.

    We'll now turn it over to the members of the committee, and we'll start with six-minute rounds.

    We'll start with Mr. Goldring from the Alliance.

    Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton Centre-East, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Madam Chairman, and thank you, Madam Minister, for your presentation.

    I think we would all agree that a certain level of literacy skills is desirable for employment, and such skills certainly contribute to quality of life and the betterment of a person's ability to earn an income.

    I have a couple of points. There is a suggestion in here that Canadian adults 16 to 65 have such severely limited reading skills that they cannot complete their income tax form. Well, I assure you that I have difficulty with that too.

    That being said, my overall question relates to literacy, the need for it, and who should do it. There are some suggestions in here that even for those graduating from our established institutions, the literacy skills are not there or they're not up to par. Are there identifiable regional or provincial areas where this is more evident than others? Certainly, we understand the situation of the aboriginal areas and the remote areas, but what about the urban areas across the country? Are there regional disparities there that really stand out?

    Second, if this is handled in our normal education system now, why would we not be looking to them to do the refresher courses on it rather than calling on industry to do it? Would this not be a natural thing to do if people needed refresher courses, to recycle them back into the established system?

    Mrs. Jane Stewart: Thank you, Mr. Goldring.

    I think your opening comment on the issue of the complexity of tax forms is a very telling one. That is very much part of the ongoing reality of Canada: things are becoming more complex.

    When we talk about the 8 million Canadians who have low, weak literacy skills but who have to date been able to be part of the mainstream, as things continue to be more complex and we add new technologies and new strategies with increasing complexity, their ability to remain in the mainstream is undermined. That is fundamentally what makes this issue of literacy so important to us in the 21st century.

    With specific reference to the provinces and the existing educational system, indeed it's been very interesting to look at how provinces across this country have brought focus to the question of literacy. You can look at our own province of Ontario, for example, and their new foci on ensuring that young people graduate from secondary education with the literacy skills required, a positive and an important piece of the overall system.

    As I mentioned in my opening comments, we're finding that when people are out of the formal education period, the workplace is a logical place for them to continue their lifelong learning. Attaching the improvement of literacy skills to a job is showing great promise. The research there is indicating that when essential skills programs are developed in the workplace and attached to improving job success and capacities, there is an interest.

    Mr. Peter Goldring: But should not the emphasis be on ensuring first and foremost that those leaving our standard educational institutions have the best grounding, the best basis possible? Obviously, the retention of that knowledge should be fairly substantial, so maybe specialized workplace training could be important for re-indoctrination or refamiliarization. But should not the main emphasis remain on the mainstream educational system?

    Mrs. Jane Stewart: Absolutely. What we want to do is take a preventive approach, and that's where family literacy programs come in. The early years programs and reading to your children become so important, making sure that when our children enter the formal education system they're ready to learn and have the precursory skills, whether they be cognitive, social, or developmental, so they can learn from their teachers. Again, recognizing provinces, Quebec as well, bringing a focus to improving approaches to literacy for students....

    The fact remains that we have 8 million Canadians today between the ages of 16 and 65 who do not have the skills that are required for them to participate. While we would like to put all our focus on prevention--and we need to do that, and that will be, I would hope, something the committee would look at--we have to recognize that there are those today who are outside the formal learning system. That's not to say that's not a place where they could receive updated training, but again, when you're talking about the complex lives of our citizens, it is a question of time, money, availability, and awareness.

¹  (1540)  

    Mr. Peter Goldring: You stated the number. Here it says 3.1 million Canadians, and the 4.7 million Canadians sounds awfully specific. Are we sure of exactly what the individual requirements are? Certainly, on an employee basis, if we're going to have the employers handling part of this literacy training, that's quite a yardstick to measure. How much accuracy is there with that number?

    Mrs. Jane Stewart: In terms of the numbers, they result from the international study. They're comprehensive, they're good, and they're scientifically sound. It may be interesting for the committee to spend some time looking at that study and at how the different levels are articulated and described. It is hard for us to believe that in today's modern Canada there are this many Canadians without the capacity to fully participate, so I would ask you to look at that. But indeed, it's a scientifically sound piece of research.

    I should just respond to your first question about whether there are regional differences. Indeed, no.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Monsieur Bellemare.

[Translation]

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

    Madam Minister, I say bravo. This program goes straight to my heart, as I was once a continuing education school administrator. Basic education is a large part of the work. When I was in that position, we used to turn to the federal government, though we knew that the programs were provincial.

[English]

    There's a question of funding. Often funding was limited, and because funding was limited and attached specifically to attendance or enrollment, it was difficult to have outreach programs. Yes, we had the schools; yes, we had the teachers; yes, we had some students who would come in referral, but then if there were too few of them we cancelled classes. And what hurt me was the question, how do we go out there and get them in? If it's a question of being nervous to enter a school, how do we do the outreach programs outside?

    Given that education is a provincial matter before the university level, aside from providing funds, what can the federal government do to assist or even have its own programs?

    Mrs. Jane Stewart: The commentary and questions there were very interesting.

    I perhaps would start with that fundamental question of how we get to people. As I mentioned in my opening comments, really only about 5% of those with low levels of literacy recognize they have a problem and enter into a program. I would love for the committee to explore that very question, because in the context of the role of Canada, this being a national priority, those are some of the pieces of information and research that are valuable to us all, no matter what the provincial or territorial jurisdiction.

    My sense is, in the context of this issue, there are some overarching issues in which the Government of Canada can provide support and advice. Today, through the National Literacy Secretariat, of course, we provide some funds that are used to partner directly with the provinces to help them increase their literacy program; to partner with national organizations that themselves are focused solely on literacy; and to partner some non-literacy organizations, like the John Howard Society, for example, or those that are participating in prisons or in other areas. But these are fundamentally research projects looking for best practices.

    I can tell you that with all the work we have done, we don't yet--and I think our partners would agree with this--have a system of good exchange of information, sharing of best practices, systems where we come together in a continuous and planned fashion to build on our expertise and knowledge. These are the kinds of things, I believe, the Government of Canada can add to the partnership.

    But your point is a very important one. It builds on Mr. Goldring's point. When we're talking specifically about education, it is a provincial jurisdiction, but when we're talking about numbers this great, do we think we have a national issue here, one that requires a national positioning, where we can share and work together with our non-governmental partners, the private sector, unions, for example? I believe we do and we must.

¹  (1545)  

    Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Without providing me with figures and statistics now, does the secretariat have figures on the number of refugees who would be in great need? My suspicion, and my experience, tells me that perhaps as high as 95% of the refugees need basic education. Many counsellors in municipalities complain that a lot of the funds for social programs are eaten up by refugees, and of course they're upset because refugees don't necessarily pay residential taxes.

    Would it be unwise or uncharitable to tie moneys given for social programs or unemployment insurance to literacy? My example is if someone is on welfare, we could insist the provinces force them, for lack of a better term, to take basic education or life skills programs, and those who have language problems could be forced to take language courses.

    The word “force” is negative there. I would probably want to suggest “incentives”, a way of using incentives.

    I'll stop there so I can go on later.

    Mrs. Jane Stewart: In the context of the employment insurance system, as you made reference, and in some provinces in their new welfare redesigns there is an encouragement through active measures.

    In the case of employment insurance it's skills development programs, and we encourage individuals to take advantage of those programs to increase their capacities and capabilities. Many, indeed, do take literacy-based programming and essential skills programming that raises their capabilities and allows them opportunities in the broader context of the Canadian economy as they're looking for new jobs.

    You make reference to refugees particularly, and in that context I have made reference to new immigrants and making sure that Canadians do have a facility in one or both of our official languages. But what's been surprising to me is that Canadians tend to push off this issue of literacy, thinking it really is new Canadians who are the ones who are being counted here and the ones who need probably, not surprisingly in some cases, support and additional support to increase their facility in our official languages.

    Mr. Bellemare, it's fascinating how many Canadians who were born here and who have lived here all their life are part of this 8 million. You will find them in your neighbourhood; you will find them maybe even amongst your friends. But it comes back to your initial question of the stigma attached to being unable to read, write, or have basic capacities with computer technology, that sort of thing, and finding the strategies in an effective way to say to these Canadians, look, these are fundamental skills; we have a fundamental responsibility to make sure you have these skills. How do we do it in a way that is reflective of your needs? That, interestingly enough, very often takes us back to the workplace.

    The Chair: Madam Tremblay from the Bloc.

[Translation]

    Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Neigette-et-la Mitis, BQ): Thank you, Madam Chair. Good afternoon, Madam Minister.

    Minister, I wonder if you can clarify one thing for us.

    I spent 35 years of my life as a teacher of very young children, at the pre-school level. We used to prepare them for primary school. I'm always scandalized, after 35 years in such a career, to discover that... When I was young there were reasons to explain the number of illiterate people. Manual labour was needed for all sorts of tasks, such as forestry work, farm work, etc., and families used to educate one or two children only. That was the pattern. At a given point, education was opened up for everyone. But I find that we have failed lamentably, since we note that close to 30 p. 100 of our population does not finish high school.

    I find it interesting that we have a workplace program for adults, firstly because this does not touch the field of education as such, which is an area of provincial jurisdiction. I am pleased, to some extent. I have also met industry leaders who have told me they have trouble changing their machinery because their personnel is unable to understand the instructions and assemble things properly.

    Would it be possible to improve things at the preventive level so that we have less to invest later on because we will have considerably reduced the number of illiterate students coming out of our schools?

    Is that an objective to be worked on with the provinces? I know that the provinces are making efforts and I'm not saying that they do not, but there must be some way of achieving results.

¹  (1550)  

[English]

    Mrs. Jane Stewart: I couldn't agree more. The importance of this issue to me is that it's a fundamental one. Literacy is foundational. Without literacy, we can't go on.

    As you point out, Madame Tremblay, in the past we have relied on brawn. Whether it be in the pulp and paper industry or others, people could leave school and go and get reasonably well-paying, or sometimes very well-paying, jobs without having completed formal education, because of their brawn.

    Today, in the knowledge-based economy, it is not brawn. Even in our traditional industries, such as pulp and paper and the like, people have to be able to read manuals. They have to be able to operate equipment they've never operated before. They have to be able to read hazardous labels.

    I will reiterate an increasingly important point: by next year alone, 75% of all the new jobs created are going to require some form of post-secondary education—let alone high school. For us, the importance of this foundational learning cannot be understated. It just cannot be.

    As we were preparing for this presentation, it was interesting that my legislative assistant said, “Boy, why are you guys doing this? It's not sexy. Literacy is not sexy, so why would you...?” I believe this is maybe part of the problem here.

    First of all, it's been hard for us to appreciate how low literacy levels are in Canada. We haven't recognized that people have been in the mainstream and not had these skills, or we've not appreciated how important it is for us to deliver these skills. We can't go on like this.

    When you make reference to the private sector and the workforce, I would cite the example of Prince Edward Island. When I was there I went to a small employer and saw the program of workplace literacy that has been established there. It was very creative, because they included not only the workers at the plant but also their families. They had after-hours programming as well as programming during work hours. The employer, who was a woman, could not believe the savings to her bottom line once basic literacy skills had been improved. The work orders were understood by the employees. If there was a mistake, they actually could see the mistake and take it back before they manufactured the thing and found out it was incorrect.

    I'll never forget this little document from the working group, which also has the names of the employees who worked on the document. One of them, Scott Laney, said to me, “You know, when I came here, I couldn't read or write. I didn't realize how it was stopping me from making progress.” He helped prepare this document, which is the company's dictionary of terms. It helped him to understand what he was reading on the work orders and everything. The difference it made in his life, in his capacity to deliver for his children, as well as in the direct impact it had on him increasing the bottom line of his company, has made all the difference in the world to him.

    So this is a convoluted answer to a complex question. But I just don't believe that we cannot embrace this issue as a country with our partners, realize how foundational it is, and bring some increased public awareness to it, while absolutely recognizing jurisdictional responsibilities in doing a better job for our country.

¹  (1555)  

[Translation]

    Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: Does that mean, concretely speaking, in light of this beautiful report and the presentation you have made today that you have cabinet approval and that we may expect that there will be money in the next budget to make it possible to go forward with this? At least, do you hope that this will be the case?

[English]

    Mrs. Jane Stewart: Madame Tremblay, I sincerely hope that one thing the committee might be able to do is to convey to Canadians the importance of this. As you know, governments want to provide for Canadians. We want to deliver what Canadians need. Sometimes, just drawing attention to something as significant as this, which we walk by every day and don't really appreciate, can have a big and significant influence on the public policy we develop and implement. I just believe there is a role for this committee in bringing some significant attention to this issue.

    I spoke to Senator Fairbairn, who sends her regards and recognizes the contribution you have made to literacy in your career as an educator. She couldn't recall whether there had been a study of literacy done by a parliamentary committee here or in the Senate. I think there were some references to the importance of literacy in 1987, but it's not been a subject that we have engaged Canadians in, embraced, or understood in its foundational element.

[Translation]

    Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: I simply want to add something, briefly: I'm going to have to leave because I have to take the plane to return to my riding. I simply want to say to the minister that I'm not leaving because of a lack of interest, but because the plane will not wait for me.

[English]

    The Chair: Thank you, Madame Tremblay.

    Mr. Jackson.

    Mr. Ovid Jackson (Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, Lib.): I'm disappointed that you're leaving, Suzanne. Are you not going to listen to what I have to say?

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

[Translation]

    Ms. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): He is disappointed that you are leaving because you're not going to hear what he has to say.

[English]

    Mr. Ovid Jackson: Madam Chair and Madam Minister, this is a very interesting topic. This is my first time on this committee. As you know, I am a former educator.

    I don't want to appear harsh while looking at it from a financial perspective, but you're looking at 14% of your gross domestic product of $1 trillion here. That's very significant. The challenge is to identify the gaps in order to get your 25% in 10 years.

    While I was listening to Suzanne earlier on, I was reminded that it starts before the child is even born. If you do the right things for the family and the child and provide a support system between the ages of zero to five, we know from the outcomes that will make things better.

    I'd like to give a little blurb before I ask my question. As an educator, I was in the technical wing, and people always assume that is where you put people who just want to use their muscles. I can say categorically--I am a licensed mechanic--that there is a difference between a mechanic and a grease monkey.

    On a vehicle there are three types of things that could go wrong: mechanical, electrical, or fuel, and each one of those is extremely complex. Modern cars now have devices that tell you when your tire pressure is low. Modern cars have two, three, four computers in them that are talking to one another all the time. They call for complex diagnostic outcomes, knowing what happens with electricity, because nine out of ten times when your car doesn't function it's something electrical.

    That means you have to go back to the three Rs. You can't fix a car or do anything technical without some basic skills. You need math, you need to be able to write, and you need to do the sciences.

    You've heard about some of the tire problems they've had when they didn't have the correct tire pressure. They act according to Charles' law and Boyle's law, which are very complex when you put them in the formula, as to what happens to the tire pressure. Tires should only be inflated at room temperature, and you shouldn't fiddle with them after they've been running on the highway. That will cause your tire to blow out. Just changing the air from one service station to another could cause an imbalance and the car to perform differently. So it's very complex.

    If you want a job in today's world, you just can't do it because you think you can work with your hands. As a matter of fact, the machines will do a better job.

    So my question to you, Madam Minister, is, how are we going to identify the gaps in this study so that we can work at them? Part of it is going to be the transfer to those jurisdictions where we don't have jurisdiction. Obviously, learning has to be lifelong. That's for sure. I've witnessed this thing at the municipal level or even at the federal level when we've been giving out cheques to the various types of literacy activities that occur in our communities, and people are transformed once they're able to move on these files.

º  (1600)  

    Mrs. Jane Stewart: You make a good point when you're talking specifically about the skilled trades. It just confirms something we were saying earlier, that there really is no part of the Canadian economy that is not transforming and requiring increased educational levels and continuous learning, training, and development.

    The interesting relationship there is in fact work that unions are doing in identifying the workforce and providing workplace-based skills and training development for employees.

    But in terms of identifying who and what, certainly the international study gives us some sense of age groups and mother tongue. So there is information there.

    But, fundamentally, the questions you're asking, Mr. Jackson, are some that I would hope the committee would be able to advise us on. There is a considerable amount of information yet to be determined. There is information there that is not connected. There are opportunities, I think, for us as a country to be much more effective in terms of our partnerships in dealing with the improvement of literacy skills. For my mind, I do think we have to set ourselves a target and really challenge ourselves to meet that target, because it is fundamental to the lives of Canadians and to the success of our country.

    Mr. Ovid Jackson: How do we stack up against the rest? I haven't read the report, so it may well be that when I read it I'll see it in there, but how do we stack up? Are we low, high? Of all the countries, where do we sit?

    Ms. Lenore Burton (Director General, Learning and Literacy Directorate, Department of Human Resources Development): The Nordic countries tend to do much better than Canada. Sweden, notably, is the highest in the international adult literacy survey.

    Mrs. Jane Stewart: Those are some questions that we can bring in response.

    The details are available, and we can bring them back to the committee in terms of international positioning. But it is interesting to look at Sweden, for example, which ranks at the top these days on the UN index, as well as being one of the top countries for levels of literacy. There seems to be a connection to quality of life--standard of living--and positive literacy impacts.

    Mr. Ovid Jackson: That's something we might find out in their study.

    Okay, I'm finished, Madam Chair.

    The Chair: Madam Guay and then Mr. Goldring.

[Translation]

    Ms. Monique Guay: Thank you. I thought you were moving to the second turn.

    Good afternoon, Madam Minister. It is a pleasure to welcome you here today.

    The whole literacy issue is a very important matter which concerns us a great deal, both at the Canadian and Quebec levels. I know that in my region we are making important efforts to find solutions to this growing problem. We also have another problem, that of school dropouts. There was a time when young people went to school without any problem and finished their grade 12 because there was a dynamic context around all of it. Now, what we are seeing increasingly, especially among young men, is that they drop out when they are very young, in their second or third year of high school. At that point they have not yet learned how to read and write properly and they still have a long way to go.

    I will give you another example that is very striking, that of business people in their 50s whom I have known who have large businesses and who are unable even to write a letter because they have not had the opportunity to go to school. So there is a problem and we have to try and find solutions, and I'm happy to see that this topic is before us today.

    However, I have a few questions. I would like to know whether there are already federal government investments in literacy. You could provide us with some details, without going into all of them, but I wonder whether you could tell me generally speaking what is being done at this time. Will there be, this year or next year, in the next budget, funds devoted to literacy? Is the minister ready to conclude agreements with the provinces to support existing programs, where federal money would be welcome, so that the provinces might improve those programs, offer more services and allow young people to avoid becoming illiterate but rather stay in school and become people who will function well in the workplace?

º  (1605)  

[English]

    Mrs. Jane Stewart: It's interesting that the partnerships established through the National Literacy Secretariat include very close partnerships with the provinces. So in many circumstances, investments that come from that secretariat are building on provincial initiatives and provincial plans. It's one area where we have very good federal-provincial relationships.

    So in answer to your first question, and really your third one, the federal investments, by and large, are partnership programs. We do not intervene with unique strategies.

    The other level of investment, as I mentioned earlier, is with national organizations, which then also support community groups in terms of finding new approaches, trying to encourage new strategies for literacy.

    My view is that this is an important issue for us. With the advice of the committee and work that might come from you, we need to build an increasingly comprehensive strategy for the country to elevate our capacity in literacy.

    In terms of amounts and go-forward decisions, from a financial point of view, as always, they're predicated on the quality of the proposals. My sense is that there is an opportunity for us to really analyze the circumstance, look at where we should turn our attention, how we leverage the funds that we already have, identify where we have significant gaps, and then go forward with requests based on comprehensive review by the committee and others.

[Translation]

    Ms. Monique Guay: I will give you an example. Literacy programs are not necessarily the same in large urban centres and in rural areas, in small municipalities. One often has to adapt to different realities. In small villages, illiterate people of a certain age are often very intimidated by the idea of having to go out to learn, because everyone knows them, whereas in large centres, things are completely different. You have to take local reality into account. With this in mind we have adapted these programs for these people in order to allow them to learn while respecting their confidentiality. It would be important to continue in that vein.

    I have another concern, Madam Minister, and it involves Quebec. Quebec has another culture, another language. Those differences also have to be respected. We don't teach our young people in precisely the same way as in other provinces. I am convinced that in Ontario, teaching is not done in precisely the same way as in Yukon or British Columbia. These differences also have to be respected.

    I would like you to tell us what you expect from us here at the committee over the coming months and weeks. What work can we do to improve things and to help you to move this issue forward, as it is of crucial importance?

[English]

    Mrs. Jane Stewart: I've made some suggestions in my opening comments, but as fundamental as drawing to the attention of Canadians the importance of this issue, I think as we move into the 21st century, towards the knowledge-based economy, we must remember the importance of literacy and our requirement to effectively support those 8 million who need support, and do the preventive work so that we get out of the cycle we have created. This must be part of the work.

    I would think that listening to organizations, provincial strategies, whatever, and looking at what is going on and perhaps being able to identify some of the gaps that would be logically filled by the Government of Canada, perhaps logically filled by other partners if we see this as being a national priority, would be very useful. For me there is no end to opportunity here for a study such as this because it's an area that has not received the profile I think it requires and deserves today.

º  (1610)  

[Translation]

    Ms. Monique Guay: May we count on you, Madam Minister, to depoliticize agreements that might be concluded to the maximum? The topic is so important that we must avoid playing politics in this area, and rather cooperate to the greatest extent possible so that our programs benefit the population as much as possible.

[English]

    Ms. Jane Stewart: Madame Guay, if you agree to the same thing, absolutely. It's fascinating how in the context of knowledge matters and the innovation agenda there are so many who have said we'll make no progress because of the federal-provincial jurisdictional thing. I find all kinds of ways where we are partnering effectively on these priority areas. From my point of view, you're absolutely right, if we work together on these foundational issues, it's for the benefit of all Canadians. I can point to the work of the NLS today, where we have these extraordinarily sophisticated and supportive federal-provincial partnerships as an example of the kinds of relationships we would want to continue to encourage.

    The Chair: The 500 participants you had at the national summit certainly weren't working from a political agenda. These were people from all walks of life, and they identified this as something they wanted the Canadian government to take a lead role in. So I think we're on the same page on this particular issue.

    Next is Mr. Goldring, and then Mr. Malhi, and then Madame St. Jacques.

    Mr. Peter Goldring: Thank you, Madam Minister.

    The question I have is, first of all, relating to cost, the $28 million that was spent in the last fiscal year. To fully implement this and to have its full effectiveness to try to reach the majority of these 8 million people would involve a greatly expanded approach to it. How far and how much do you think this would cost on an annual basis? Then you're obviously saying we should partner with the provinces on it too, and maybe with industry. But what would the federal contribution be? That has a bearing and puts pressure on what the provincial contribution would be.

    Mrs. Jane Stewart: I would never hesitate to guess amounts. I can only--as you point out--indicate that to date we've been investing somewhere in the order of $25 million to $28 million from the Government of Canada, specifically on literacy. There are other associated programs in youth programming where we have youth at risk programs that talk about essential skills.

    Mr. Peter Goldring: How many people are we reaching with that $28 million at the present time? Could we have a number for those who have been reached, who have been assisted on an annual basis?

    Mrs. Jane Stewart: Ms. Burton says no, because we don't directly deliver; the provinces do that. But the question you raise is a question that is hugely pertinent. Do we have the databases? Do we--and this comes back to some questions that were asked by Mr. Bellemare and Mr. Jackson--have the data that we really need to...? And it's not unlikely that part of the solutions here do focus on information and building on the work of the international review.

    Mr. Peter Goldring: I would think that would be absolutely essential, looking into it to have, first of all, some type of an understanding of how we're progressing now and in human numbers. We are looking at human numbers of some 8 million Canadians on this one page, so in human numbers how many people are we presently able to assist with an expenditure of $28 million? We have to have a serious control on the situation.

    Mrs. Jane Stewart: And that $28 million leverages more money and touches people. Those are precisely the kinds of questions that I would hope, in an in-depth review, the committee could help us with and give us some advice as to where they see the holes and where we have to attend to information.

    Mr. Peter Goldring: The numbers are one issue, but I think you can see by my reaction earlier that a lot of this is using international statistics. We talked about the Swedish model. My understanding of the Swedish situation is not that great, but I'll just pose it as an example. It's my feeling that the Swedish model would be far less complex than a Canadian model, where we have two official languages and many unofficial languages, and very huge, widely dispersed territories and industries. So to look at an ideal of a Swedish model might be.... We should be looking at our own model. To try to emulate the Swedish model--we won't do it with $28 million. How many million will it take to do a Swedish model?

º  (1615)  

    Mrs. Jane Stewart: I think these are precisely the kinds of issues the committee could investigate. They can look at strategies and determine what kind of value you get for certain kinds of strategies, using international or existing Canadian experience. But these are precisely the things, Mr. Goldring, that if you agree as a committee, could form part of the analysis and the work.

    Mr. Peter Goldring: Just one--

    The Chair: Just before you do, I think you've asked some questions in response to which I'm certain the minister will have her department try to provide some information. I don't think she came prepared to address those specific issues.

    And in fairness, I think part of the reason the committee has said we want to undertake the study is to get to the bottom of some of these things and to do that kind of analysis so that we can determine whether this is something that needs to be greatly expanded or whether it's working or not working.

    Mr. Peter Goldring: Exactly, but these are all things that should be considered at least.

    The Chair: Yes, absolutely. I appreciate that.

    Mr. Peter Goldring: Has it also been considered that possibly one of the reasons for the high illiteracy levels we have in this country is not only due to technology but also due to our linguistic differences across the country?

    I would like to emphasize that showing what parts of the country and what areas of the country have the higher or lower levels is important to understanding what kinds of linguistic challenges there are in understanding the new technical world we have and whether there's a real correlation to that.

    Mrs. Jane Stewart: These may be issues you include in your review, but just while I have the opportunity to share some data with you, when we look at who's in level two--so these are Canadians who are not in the weakest literacy position but still not capable of participating fully--81% have English or French as a mother tongue. That's 81% of those who have English or French as a mother tongue; 75% are younger than 56 years old; 30% are aboriginal.

    So the NLS can bring information to respond to some of the questions formulated by the committee, should you choose to set out some parameters and review. But it really is interesting. There aren't regional differences, really, in terms of percentages, and as I said earlier, a significant number, if not born here, at least have English or French as a mother tongue.

    The Chair: If we continue with the study we may bring in the folks from StatsCan, who will have all kinds of that information available to them for us.

    Thank you, Mr. Goldring.

    Mr. Malhi.

    Mr. Gurbax Malhi (Bramalea—Gore—Malton—Springdale, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair.

    Thank you, Madam Minister. I have a question. I just heard you report that close to 8 million people have low literacy skills. That's close to 25% of the population. How many are citizens and how many are immigrants? Do you have any figures?

    Ms. Lenore Burton: Yes, we do.

    Ms. Jane Stewart: In level one, those with very weak literacy skills, 30% are aboriginal, 30% do not have French or English as their mother tongue, and 54% are older than 56 years of age. For level two, as I've pointed out, 81% have English or French as their mother tongue, 75% are younger than 56, and 30% are aboriginal.

    Mr. Gurbax Malhi: What do you think is the main cause behind this illiteracy?

    Mrs. Jane Stewart: I would not hazard to guess a main cause. The committee could endeavour to understand the root causes. But one thing I know to be true is we need to take a view that is at once preventive and also ameliorative. We've got to invest in strategies that ensure our youngest citizens come to school, are ready to learn, and are healthy. Mr. Jackson pointed out the importance of understanding the zero to six research and the importance of the early years. But we also must recognize there are things we need to do to support those Canadians who are of working age and don't have the capacity to fully participate.

º  (1620)  

    Mr. Gurbax Malhi: What proportion of funding is allocated for different programs for literacy planning, its promotion, and research?

    Ms. Jane Stewart: In terms of total amounts, those numbers can perhaps be brought back to the committee. On the Government of Canada's investment to date, the majority of the funds come from the National Literacy Secretariat, in the order of $20 million to $30 million a year. But I would also note that a number of our investments through EI programming and skills development also go to assist Canadians as they upgrade and improve their basic skills.

    Mr. Gurbax Malhi: You mentioned in your answer that 30% of aboriginal people and 30% of immigrants have weak literacy skills. What can the government do to raise the literacy skills among the aboriginal people and immigrants?

    Ms. Jane Stewart: There are a number of things we are doing today through the NLS and finding best practices. But again, this is an area I would love the committee to explore, in looking at different strategies. As Madam Guay said, there are and there must be flexibility in approaches and services. You find, depending on age and circumstances, that some techniques are more effective than others. Helping to advise on where additional money should go and where additional partnerships should be created or leveraged would be extremely useful.

    Mr. Gurbax Malhi: Thank you.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Malhi.

    Madam St-Jacques is next, and then Mr. Finlay.

[Translation]

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

    Madam Minister, I'm always very happy when you appear before the committee. Like several of my colleagues, I want to congratulate you for taking up the challenge of literacy. Indeed, I am convinced that several people around the table, from all areas, were surprised to learn that so many Canadian men and women have literacy problems. I think that in your comments you mentioned several challenges the committee will have to face. You referred to several of them.

    Several questions were posed, but I am going to ask you two others in an attempt to complete what has already been mentioned.

    We have guidelines at the committee to help us to do our work satisfactorily. You referred to Sweden as a country that had successfully met these challenges. Do we have information about that at our disposal? Has what has been done elsewhere been studied or analyzed? May we have access to that? How can we obtain studies from the outside, because this is often the way to go? We shouldn't reinvent the wheel; we can use studies that already exist. Would this type of thing be available to us to help us prepare our recommendations on literacy?

[English]

    Mrs. Jane Stewart: Yes, indeed, there are some comparative pieces of literature that can be analyzed. The committee may wish to expand on them and choose particular jurisdictions that you feel may be reflective of our circumstances, or at least--recognizing Mr. Goldring's intervention--more similar to the Canadian experience, and look at what they're doing. That comparative work would be a natural for the work of this committee.

[Translation]

    Ms. Diane St-Jacques: In the same vein, we know that there are sectoral tables. Do you think that the sectoral tables could be used in our attempts to promote literacy? They can really help to determine workplace needs, because there are labour shortages in certain sectors.

[English]

    Mrs. Jane Stewart: You're very astute to mention the sector councils. Indeed, as most of them are proceeding, one area of focus is on literacy, numeracy, and essential skills. Within those sector councils, some interesting partnerships are being developed with educational institutions, primarily colleges, to identify effective techniques, particularly in the workplace, since we're talking about it, that are very respectful of employees. They understand it's not an appropriate strategy to say, “Okay, we're going to point out your literacy deficiencies and focus on them.” Rather, they engage them in learning that is job-specific, job-related.

    We've had some great success stories in the construction industry, for example, and some other interesting developments in the oil and gas sector, particularly up in the oil sands.These are some examples the committee might like to explore and understand, as we really try to get at this question of how to encourage those with low literacy skills to move ahead.

    I would love to have those recommendations, because if we can find those techniques, then we'll know where best to make our investments and who to support in encouraging those people.

º  (1625)  

[Translation]

    Ms. Diane St-Jacques: That is all. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

[English]

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Mr. Finlay.

    Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair.

    Minister, it's a great pleasure to listen to you this afternoon and to be here. This is my first opportunity, since this is the new committee that I was appointed to. I'm pleased to be here--very much so.

    Like others around the table, and Madame Tremblay too, I've spent 36 years in education. So we've been wrestling with some of these questions for a long time. They're not all that new.

    The minister said, “You will find them”. I think that's one of the problems. We don't do a good job of finding them. I know of cases where you can work beside someone for years and through some little slip discover, my goodness, they really can't read. You would never know it by looking at them. They don't put on a sign saying “I don't understand you”. That's one of our big problems, obviously. It might be wise to try to find some ways of getting over that. You said, “We walk by them every day”, and that's what we do.

    I have a couple of other thoughts that you might be able to throw some light on right now. We did a literacy study in Tillsonburg. I guess it came from the NLS. There was an employee at the multi-service centre who was dealing with literacy and wanted to know why it was that certain students, certain clients, were all right with the program one on one and certain others were not. There was a little study. I don't think it cost us very much, but the government paid the bill.

    One of the things she found was that if you were going to do this in an atmosphere that reminded the young person--I'm dealing mostly with younger people--of a school, they weren't very receptive to learning, because of course, as we can imagine, when they cannot read adequately, their school experience is pretty scary business. They're not going to put up their hand to answer a question, so they're going to be overlooked. They simply exist in a milieu where they're not very happy. So that's a problem too.

    The other thing I wonder about is whether there's anything definitive about how much TV or the technology today has a bearing on this, or how do we maybe even harness computers and TV, technology, to make literacy important?

    We tell parents they should read to their children when they're young, and so on. That's an experience all of us with children have had, and it certainly works. But I have a couple of grandchildren who spend an awful lot of time in front of the TV. Now they're getting on in school, and I'm not sure whether they have the background, the basic interest in language, to deal with it.

    Mrs. Jane Stewart: Again I would highlight, Mr. Finlay, one of the points you have just made about the environment and how the environment of learning can be an influence on the success of a program.

    For some, as you point out, who didn't make it through the formal learning system, putting them back in the formal learning system is not going to be the right solution. But I think some of the other questions you raise, with regard to technology, television and computer, would very likely be the substance of other witnesses here at the table and may indeed be part of the overall study the committee might undertake.

º  (1630)  

    Mr. John Finlay: Thank you.

    The Chair: Just before I ask you to make any closing remarks you have, much of the data that is available to us is getting up there; it's eight or nine years old. Have there been any recent surveys? Are there any other current data available or studies under way?

    Ms. Lenore Burton: The next version of the international adult literacy survey is happening in 30 countries this year. In Canada, Statistics Canada will be in the field beginning in March, but it's going to take at least 18 months to two years before we get the results from that field work.

    The Chair: Okay, so it takes a while.

    Mr. Peter Goldring: Would it be possible to have any documentation? They must have something on paper on how they conduct this study. It must be in some format, a questionnaire, or whatever. It would be helpful for us to understand what they're reaching for or looking for. It would be very helpful to have a copy of this.

    Mrs. Jane Stewart: Absolutely. We would gladly have the NLS or Lenore come back and deal specifically with the survey as a piece of information for the committee, as well as with so many of the other things raised here.

    The Chair: We have noted this. I'm sure we'll be calling you back.

    Just before I conclude the meeting, Mr. Godin has asked to put a notice of motion forward, so I'll turn the floor over to him for a moment.

    Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): At the same time, Madam Chair, can I pose a question to the minister?

    The Chair: Yes, you can if it relates to the subject matter.

    Mr. Yvon Godin: Yes, it relates to literacy.

[Translation]

    It is my pleasure, Madam Chair, to table this 48-hour notice for a motion proposing the creation of a special Sub-Committee of the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development in order to recommend changes to the eligibility criteria for the employment insurance program in certain industries. I am thus giving my 48-hour notice to the committee so that we may discuss this next week.

[English]

    The Chair: Okay, it will be circulated.

[Translation]

    Mr. Yvon Godin: Firstly, I want to welcome you to the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development, Madam Minister.

    I would like to hear you opinion on literacy programs. In New Brunswick in 1996, in the context of phase 2 of employment insurance, agreements were concluded with the province. I'm using New Brunswick as an example but I think that agreements were concluded with all provinces except Ontario. At that time I thought the program was more open. I remember that people were encouraged, especially those who worked in the fishing industry, and plant workers, to retrain and look for other work. They were encouraged to return to school and I thought the program worked very well.

    All of a sudden, last year, things ground to a halt. The decision was made that to obtain money from phase 2 of employment insurance, you needed to have completed the 10th grade. This discouraged everyone, in my opinion. I think it was an unacceptable error, a terrible error, because everyone had worked to make this possible. You yourself, Madam Minister, told people to work together in their community, to accomplish things. This was often discussed. People worked together and created committees and classes, and some had begun to return to school. They were completing their grades 7 or 8 and they were entitled to employment insurance benefits while they took their classes. And all of a sudden, they were told that they needed to have completed grade 10.

    What could the minister recommend that we do to change this attitude? These people really need help, you know. They have been excluded from the system and I think that this is a fundamental mistake, one which is unacceptable. I would like to hear the minister's opinion on the issue.

[English]

    Mrs. Jane Stewart: We spoke earlier about the EI part II dollars and the fact that Canadians can develop, and are encouraged to take the opportunity to develop, their skills and capabilities through these active measures, and skills development, and other strategies—perhaps while they're on employment insurance—to make finding a job easier.

    Mr. Godin, I would encourage you to speak to the New Brunswick provincial government about the labour market development agreements, especially if you feel there is an important initiative there with the one we have with New Brunswick, which is where these EI part II dollars are funnelled and which is under their management. These kinds of skill development strategies are the ones that are there and available to help people obtain work, which is what people really want.

º  (1635)  

    Mr. Yvon Godin: Yes, but at the same time you are a partner. Why should I be trying to convince the premier of New Brunswick or the minister in New Brunswick when you are a partner in negotiating this agreement? It's the federal government giving the money. Employment insurance is federal and it's part II spending.

    Wouldn't it be a good idea for your department to work to bring it to the people who are in need, because they are the real people we want to give a chance to and an opportunity to go to work and receive a job?

    Mrs. Jane Stewart: Well, it's interesting; this is precisely one of the issues we were talking about in terms of flexibility of programming. In the context of part II funds, the Government of Canada sets out the priorities and the areas in which investments can be made, and the province makes the determination about the individual investments.

    So again, it certainly would be to the provincial government that New Brunswickers would make the appeal and say, these are the kinds of things we would like to see funded as part of the transfer of moneys from the Government of Canada, within the context of the labour market development agreement.

[Translation]

    Mr. Yvon Godin: Madam Minister, you say that because this is an area of provincial jurisdiction, the federal government has no role to play. According to me, the federal government is washing its hands of the issue of literacy completely. I think this is unacceptable. I say that the federal department does have a role to play; it must make recommendations to the province. That is what I am asking you to do.

    Is your department not in a better position than we are to make recommendations?

[English]

    Mrs. Jane Stewart: I again think we're speaking about the various regional differences, the interests that jurisdictions have, their capacities in certain existing programming, and filling in the blanks that make sense for the provincial jurisdiction.

    If people have a complaint about what a province's choices are, they should make these representations to the province that has been transferred the money and that has a labour market development agreement that sets out principles and priorities for investment that are acceptable to the Employment Insurance Act. But the details of these investments are now with the province.

    In this case, it's a devolved responsibility to the provincial jurisdiction. Again, I would encourage you to speak to the province that has this responsibility.

    The Chair: Your six minutes are up.

    Madam Minister, do you have any closing remarks before we adjourn?

    Mrs. Jane Stewart: Madam Chair, I only wish to thank the committee members for their attention and their enthusiasm for this question.

    I hope it's clear to you that, from my point of view, I do see this as a foundational issue. When we are talking about so many other issues of public policy, whether it be health, criminal justice, employment, the economy, getting to the root issues must be our challenge and our focus.

    My sense is that literacy keeps coming up in the work we have been doing within the department and in our conversations through the innovation and learning initiatives. It's an area that could do well by having the attention of this illustrious committee, in your review and in your recommendations to the government.

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    I say happy birthday to our clerk.

    The meeting is adjourned.