HUMA Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

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

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Thursday, April 10, 2003

¹

1525

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

Ms. Ellen Long (Senior Researcher, Alpha Plus)

¹

1530

The Chair

Ms. Ellen Long

The Chair

Ms. Ellen Long

The Chair

Mr. Gerald Brown (President, Association of Canadian Community Colleges)

The Chair

Mr. Gerald Brown

¹

1535

¹

1540

The Chair

Mr. Doug Myers (Executive Director, Prior Learning Assessment Center)

The Chair

Mr. Doug Myers

¹

1545

The Chair

Ms. Madeleine Lefebvre (Vice-President, Canadian Library Association)

¹

1550

The Chair

Ms. Bernadette Beaupré (Co-Chair, National Coalition of Community Based Training)

¹

1555

º

1600

The Chair

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

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

Mr. Larry Spencer (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, Canadian Alliance)

Ms. Diane St-Jacques

The Chair

Ms. Diane St-Jacques

º

1605

Ms. Ellen Long

The Chair

Mr. Gerald Brown

º

1610

Ms. Diane St-Jacques

Mr. Gerald Brown

Ms. Diane St-Jacques

Mr. Gerald Brown

The Chair

Ms. Madeleine Lefebvre

The Chair

Mr. Doug Myers

The Chair

Ms. Bernadette Beaupré

º

1615

The Chair

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

Mr. Gerald Brown

Mr. Peter Goldring

Mr. Gerald Brown

Mr. Peter Goldring

Mr. Gerald Brown

Mr. Peter Goldring

Mr. Doug Myers

Mr. Peter Goldring

Mr. Doug Myers

Mr. Peter Goldring

Mr. Doug Myers

º

1620

Mr. Peter Goldring

Mr. Doug Myers

Mr. Peter Goldring

Mr. Doug Myers

The Chair

Ms. Ellen Long

Mr. Gerald Brown

The Chair

Ms. Madeleine Lefebvre

The Chair

Ms. Bernadette Beaupré

º

1625

The Chair

Mr. Raymond Simard (Saint Boniface, Lib.)

Ms. Ellen Long

Mr. Raymond Simard

Mr. Gerald Brown

Mr. Raymond Simard

Mr. Gerald Brown

º

1630

The Chair

Mr. Doug Myers

The Chair

Ms. Madeleine Lefebvre

The Chair

Ms. Ellen Long

Mr. Raymond Simard

The Chair

Mr. Raymond Simard

Ms. Madeleine Lefebvre

Mr. Raymond Simard

º

1635

Ms. Madeleine Lefebvre

Mr. Raymond Simard

Ms. Madeleine Lefebvre

The Chair

Ms. Monique Guay

The Chair

Ms. Monique Guay

The Chair

Mr. Doug Myers

Ms. Bernadette Beaupré

The Chair

Ms. Ellen Long

º

1640

The Chair

Mr. Gerald Brown

Ms. Monique Guay

The Chair

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

º

1645

Mr. Doug Myers

Ms. Ellen Long

º

1650

The Chair

Mr. Gerald Brown

Ms. Madeleine Lefebvre

The Chair

Ms. Madeleine Lefebvre

The Chair

Ms. Ellen Long

º

1655

Mr. Gerald Brown

The Chair

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

Ms. Bernadette Beaupré

The Chair

Mr. Peter Goldring

Ms. Madeleine Lefebvre

Mr. Peter Goldring

Ms. Madeleine Lefebvre

Mr. Peter Goldring

»

1700

Mr. Gerald Brown

Mr. Peter Goldring

The Chair

Mr. Don Butcher (Executive Director, Canadian Library Association)

Mr. Peter Goldring

Mr. Don Butcher

Mr. Peter Goldring

The Chair

Mr. Doug Myers

Ms. Bonnie Kennedy (A/Executive Director, Canadian Association for Prior Learning Assessment)

Mr. Peter Goldring

The Chair

Mr. Doug Myers

»

1705

The Chair

Ms. Bonnie Kennedy

The Chair

Ms. Bernadette Beaupré

The Chair

Ms. Madeleine Lefebvre

The Chair

Ms. Ellen Long

The Chair

Mr. Gerald Brown

»

1710

The Chair

Mr. Don Butcher

The Chair

---

CANADA

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

---

NUMBER 024

l

2nd SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Thursday, April 10, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¹  (1525)  

[English]

    The Chair (Mrs. Judi Longfield (Whitby—Ajax, Lib.)): I have quorum. I would welcome everyone to the 24th meeting of the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities. We are continuing our study of literacy.

    We are exceptionally blessed today to have five top-notch presenters. We look forward to hearing what you have to say. In the interest of moving on with your presentations, I'm going to leave the introductions to each of you as you begin your presentation.

    I'm going to call first on the representative from Alpha Plus.

    Ms. Ellen Long (Senior Researcher, Alpha Plus): My understanding is that I have five minutes.

¹  (1530)  

    The Chair: That's correct.

    Ms. Ellen Long: I'll try to keep to that.

    My name is Ellen Long. I'm currently working with Alpha Plus, which is a provincial library specializing in basic adult literacy.

    Before that, for seven years I was the director of research for ABC CANADA, which is an adult literacy foundation. In my work there I did a number of national studies, but two were particularly pivotal in terms of my own understanding of the literacy issues in the country. One is called Patterns of Participation in Canadian Literacy and Upgrading Programs. That documents what happens when somebody calls a literacy program and tries to access services. This was a large national representative sample of people who we were able to study. I'll talk briefly about that today.

    I did another study for ABC CANADA looking at people who have never tried to participate in a literacy or upgrading program but who may have literacy challenges. So we're looking at the people who don't participate and then the people who try to participate and what is happening there. The thing that I found very interesting in particular is that only about 5% to 10% of people with literacy challenges access the system. This means there is potentially a very large percentage of people with literacy challenges who we may be able to encourage to participate, perhaps not that full 90%. Even with 30% our system would be overrun. With regard to the people who do not access services, these are people going about their lives in whatever capacity who left school very early. Using IALS level measures, there is a very good chance that many of them would register as having some rather severe literacy challenges.

    This was a national sample, randomly dialed, using Ekos in Ottawa. We asked people if they had thought about returning to school to do upgrading since they had left high school. A large percentage said that they had thought about it. If they had thought about it, why didn't they act on that? What had stopped them? The answer was very surprising to me, which I'm not going to tell you right away. I'm going to ask you to imagine. What I assumed, and what many people in the literacy field assume and many of those who do not have an association with literacy will definitely assume, is that they would say, I'm afraid. Am I right? I see a few smiles and nods. There is a sense of stigma: I'm embarrassed, I wouldn't want my friends to know, this kind of thing. This is what we all know about.

    These things are true. However, they are not the main reason. They are the third of three reasons. There is a consistent hierarchy of reasons that people give. We gave people lots of time to speak. The number one most consistent concern people have is finances, socio-economic concerns--a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush, this kind of mentality. People who are living more closely to the edge financially are really concerned about making ends meet. Also, they are more likely to be doing shift work, part-time work, and seasonal work. They cannot predict their schedule. So even the logistics of accessing a program could be quite difficult.

    There's a constellation of what I call socio-economic and circumstantial factors. Circumstantial might be a problem with child care, which may or may not be related to socio-economic factors. There are a group of factors associated with non-participation that are largely financial and circumstantial, and these are the number one central barriers to participation according to this survey.

    The second group of factors are what we call program related. This may be a perception of programs or what the programs actually are. It might be that they simply lack awareness. They aren't aware that there's a program available in their community. That would be one example. Or they're aware of the program, but they know that it's taught in a school setting and they don't want to go back into a school setting. They may know that there's a program, and the program may cost money. This is increasingly the case in a number of provinces. So that's a barrier for them. We call that a program-related barrier. They need a one-on-one tutor, but they can only get a classroom. They need a classroom because they want credentialed education, but they can only get a one-on-one tutor. It's not that one is better than the other. It's that people have a broad diversity of needs. This is the second most important thing we find.

    The third thing is the attitudinal, psychological, fear-related factors, which we all know about. This came as a great surprise to me. I'm still trying to get my mind around that. If you ask people to check all that apply, they will check all that apply. They will select the program-related factors, some socio-economic factors, and the psychological factors. But when you ask them to rank them, you'll see primarily socio-economic and circumstantial factors.

    This leaves us with a tremendous opportunity to leverage participation in this country in terms of looking at something as simple as child care, something where the literacy groups partner in the community or where we offer some sort of tax credits. I don't know what it is. I'm not a policy-maker. But I can tell you that 40% of the women and 20% of the men who phone tell us that they would have phoned sooner had they known there would be on-site child care. So there are some very concrete things.

    I see the time ticking away. I want to move quickly to the people who try to access. These are people who have jumped through whatever hoops and who get on the phone and say, I'm interested. Less than half of those people who attempt to access are able to do so. Now we're looking at the system. Again, we wonder why. It must be fear or stigma. In fact, at that juncture for the majority of people it is program-related barriers. They are still dealing with socio-economic and circumstantial barriers, but they are prepared somehow to juggle. They get up to the gate, and what they find is that there isn't a program in their community. Perhaps they call the referral line in the next community, but they find that there is nothing in their own community. Again, they find that they need something with a teacher, but they find a tutor. They need a tutor, but they find a teacher.

    There are a variety of programs. It doesn't just vary province to province. What we find is that it varies county to county across the country. We have a scattered assortment of programs and services across the country. We do not have a standard system of any variety. Ontario tends to be better than other provinces in that we have a large population. Some things have started to stew here in terms of networking, but we do not have anything even approximating a system. Of the half that do enroll, one-third drop out after six months.

    I'd like to go back to socio-economic and circumstantial factors. We're going in a big circle here. This has left me with a lot of questions. I'm not a policy-maker, but I got to the point where I had to ask myself the question, how can we begin to address this complexity? I was left with questions. How can we begin to address the complexity of these three areas where we are seeing barriers? There is no quick fix here. There are some. If you want a 2% increase, deal with child care. Everything is going to matter. If you want to move the literacy rates in this country to the level we need them to be given the state of our industrial and knowledge society, we're going to have to step up to the plate and systematically look at the way literacy can be dealt with across a number of broad policy jurisdictions, including income support, EI, and education. Is there a way, for example, that adults who leave school early can re-enter when they are older and just carry on from where they left off in grade 8? Is there a way to have that in any way entrenched? What I'm left with is more questions than answers. I don't know how to deal with these things. But I do know that right now we have a population of people with literacy challenges.

    You can cut me off whenever you need to. I see the clerk raising an eyebrow. How much time do I have left?

    The Chair: You are at nine minutes and thirty seconds.

    Ms. Ellen Long: My goodness. My last name is Long for a reason. I'll wrap up.

    I'll just end, then, wth a personal anecdote. I began my education on the prairies in a town of 50 people. It took me several hours to get to school. I dropped out of high school four times. When I finally graduated, which was by correspondence, I had severe literacy challenges. I don't know whether it was luck or tenacity, but I ended up.... I always knew that if I had to leave high school, there would be a way I could access something. I knew that when I was an adult, I could finish it. Just knowing that there were programs kept me going. It was a heyday in Alberta, by the way. I don't know if you know that. I'm one of the recipients of that. There was a little boom in the opportunity for adults to do upgrading. I accessed that, and I graduated with a master's degree magna cum laude.

    I sit before you today saying that what you're doing makes a great deal of difference. You have a tremendous opportunity to affect the lives of people, who, with the assistance of these programs, will be able to be happy and to be full contributing members of society.

    Thank you for having me today.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Next is Mr. Brown from the Association of Canadian Community Colleges.

    Mr. Gerald Brown (President, Association of Canadian Community Colleges): Thank you.

    I think it was tenacity.

    The Chair: I think so.

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

[Translation]

    Mr. Gerald Brown: Good afternoon, Madam Chair, and thank you very much for this opportunity to be here with you today.

[English]

    We all know the scope and magnitude of the literacy issue. We're before you today to speak from a particular slant, which is in the area of workplace literacy.

    The Association of Canadian Community Colleges represents Canada's 150 colleges, CEGEPs, technical institutes, and university colleges. We welcome the opportunity to discuss with you and your committee ways in which the colleges and institutes could contribute to the development of a national literacy strategy.

    Colleges and institutes are the largest supplier of adult training and education in Canada, with 2.5 million full-time and part-time students on campuses in over 900 communities in all regions of Canada. They represent the primary national network mandated to support government, industry, and labour in the design and implementation of a national human resources strategy that provides Canadians, both employed and unemployed, with the tools required to become lifelong learners.

    Colleges and institutes have a long track record for providing flexible and adaptable community learning resources and are involved in community networks of employers, civic groups, and local and regional governments. They are often the catalyst for industry-education interaction, addressing the relationship between a skilled, employable workforce and a healthy community and local economic development.

    By reaching Canadians in over 900 communities across Canada, colleges and institutes are uniquely positioned to contribute to the federal government's priority in establishing a pan-Canadian literacy and essential skills system for improving the essential skills of our existing workforce as well as increasing the participation of those who have been excluded from the labour market.

    As community-based institutions, we are actively involved in developing programs that will assist individuals in acquiring the essential skills so that these individuals can aquire the broader spectrum of technical, management, and leadership skills. An example of a successful literacy program is at Bow Valley College in Calgary. Using its extensive experience with workplace literacy and essential employability skills training, it has developed a Canadian test instrument to evaluate a working person's level of literacy and numeracy using accurate workplace documents and examples. The Test of Workplace Essential Skills, known as TOWES, has been fully validated and is now used across Canada, with full HRDC support. However, additional resources are needed to further enhance the awareness of Canadians of the existence of this particular tool, which allows an evaluation of workplace literacy skills without affecting a person's self-confidence.

    On the national front the association, with the support of HRDC, is currently undertaking two important applied research projects related to literacy. These projects will enable us to determine what are the best practices for the delivery of literacy and essential skills across the entire network of our 150 colleges and institutes. We will look at how best to teach literacy and essential skills to young adults, adults in the workforce, those workers who have been displaced, the aboriginal population, and individuals with various disabilities. The results of this research will allow us to build upon these practices; share tools and resources; and, more importantly, enhance our own ability to be much more effective in meeting the varied needs of Canadians.

    We all know that SMEs, small to medium-sized enterprises, are the major creators of jobs in Canada today, and as such their success is essential to the well-being of Canada's economy. If these businesses are to survive and to increase productivity, employers must ensure that their employees have the necessary basic workplace skills to learn new technology and the high performance work processes of our modern society.

    Last February ACCC and the Alliance of Manufacturers and Exporters co-chaired an action-oriented round table with college and institute presidents, small and medium-sized enterprises, sector councils, national business associations, and relevant federal departments and agencies to identify potential initiatives that would enhance and strengthen college and institute support of small and medium-sized businesses in Canada. An important issue brought forward by business representatives was the need for a one-stop shopping point within the college system that would rapidly respond to the various training needs of employees. The creation of regional college/institute literacy and workplace essential skills access centres, which would provide ongoing and multifaceted services and tools to support the delivery and training of employees, is an initiative that we support strongly and continue to advocate to government. ACCC is also working very closely with the national sector councils and relevant organizations to explore what are the most effective and user friendly distance learning tools for reaching individuals at their workplace and in their homes to support their learning.

¹  (1535)  

    According to the federal government's Innovation Strategy 2002, nearly eight million Canadians, more than 40% of working age Canadians, lack the basic literacy skills required for successful participation in our rapidly changing economy. It is therefore clear that if we are to advance literacy in Canada, we must build on the expertise, structures, and partnerships that already exist between federal, provincial, and territorial governments; national and provincial literacy organizations; colleges/institutes; and businesses. Current programs and screening tools need to be further enhanced and new ones developed to address these literacy challenges.

    The association believes that there is an opportunity to further elevate the role that colleges and institutes play in developing human potential, to capitalize on the expertise of the system as a whole and to assist the federal government in developing programs that will assist individuals in acquiring the essential skills so that they can acquire the broader spectrum of technical, management, and leadership skills.

    We thank the committee for its continuing commitment to address workplace literacy issues, for convening today's panel, and for an invitation to participate.

    I'd be happy to respond to any questions you may have. Thank you.

¹  (1540)  

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Brown.

    Next is Doug Myers from the Canadian Association for Prior Learning Assessment.

    Mr. Doug Myers (Executive Director, Prior Learning Assessment Center): I'm actually appearing as the executive director of the Prior Learning Assessment Centre in Halifax, although I am a member of the capital board.

    I must say, Madam Chair, that I've approached this prospect with some trepidation after watching the transport committee and the vice-president of Air Canada last week. I just want to tell you that if you all start to shout at me, I'm going to burst into tears and go back to Halifax.

    The Chair: We are very kind and gentle in this committee. We have not had anyone leave in tears.

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

    Mr. Doug Myers: All right. Thank you.

    I want to speak to the notes I have provided but not read them.

    I was very struck by the comment Minister Stewart made at a literacy workshop last October about the importance of thinking horizontally about important issues. It resonated with me because I've had the good fortune over the last seven years to work in the field called “recognizing prior learning”. It is sometimes called prior learning assessment or prior learning assessment and recognition. At its heart it is all about thinking horizontally about learning. The basic principle of RPL is that it doesn't matter where or how you learn something, if you can identify that learning, articulate it, and present documentation or evidence for it, it's real and serious learning, and it should be recognized, respected, and celebrated.

    The reason this is so challenging in our present circumstances is that we spent about 200 years building a vertical learning system. The major divide is between those who are able to participate and benefit from the formal education and training system and those who are not. At the same time, there is a very serious vertical compartmentalization problem within the formal education and training system. Witness what happens with the people we recruit to this country for their credentials and admit on that basis. We then find it very difficult to quickly evaluate and recognize their credentials so that they can get on with their lives. It seems to me to be an increasingly embarrassing defence of that to say, we're not doing that to you because you're immigrants. We do it to ourselves, institution to institution, province to province, occupation to occupation. So that's one recognizing prior learning challenge that is very important.

    That's not the one we've been working on at the Halifax PLA Centre. What we've been working on is that other great divide between those who participate and those who are marginalized. David Livingstone, whose research on adult learning in this country is a must read for anyone who shares the concerns of this committee, likens the amount of experiential adult learning in this country to an iceberg. He uses that metaphor to give us some sense of the scale of it and the fact that it is mostly below the surface.

    We may know that it's there. All of us around this table may know that we have learned some of the most important things experientially and not in school, but the problem has been how to get at it and how to make it conscious. The answer is very simple and straightforward: you help people to systematically and comprehensively analyze, articulate, and present their learning. We've been doing this in Nova Scotia for seven years with several thousand Nova Scotians, where they end up with a learning portfolio with a complete description and array of their skills and learning, what they know and can do.

    We've done this with people with several degrees who've been dislocated due to institutional change, people on welfare, and many other client groups that have literacy challenges as well. Across that whole spectrum the result of proceeding through this process is surprise that they know and can do so much more than they initially thought they could, a tremendous increase in self-esteem, a significant increase in confidence in their capacity as learners, and a much higher motivation to take the steps necessary to get to where they want to go. The learning portfolio program has an impact evaluation study, which I've distributed to the committee and which may be of interest to it.

    As I said before, many of the groups we've dealt with have literacy problems. But we have not dealt with them specifically as literacy programs until the last two years. We are now engaged in the third year of a major PLAR project with five literacy networks in the Halifax region. We have provided professional development for facilitators and tutors, we've adapted the materials we use for prior learning and a learning portfolio, and we are now rolling that out through those literacy networks to a variety of participants. Already the tutors are noticing marked and dramatic improvements in the confidence of the participants and in their communication skills.

¹  (1545)  

    I think the implications of taking a horizontal view of learning are profound in public policy terms. Ray Ivany, the president of the Nova Scotia Community College, comments that formal education and training is a wonderful escalator for those who get onto the bottom step, but for many learners, and they are real learners, there's a great gulf between them and the first level of the escalator. Having at least one bridge across it is certainly the PLAR and learning portfolio approach, although I must say that it has all kinds of other spinoff benefits as well.

    Finally, I would just say that if we add to the recent initiatives in early childhood development, if we open up to a much greater extent and more quickly our formal education and training system to transferability and recognition of credentials, and if we provide on a much broader basis PLAR, RPL, and the learning portfolio process to adult learners in this country, we will be transforming the rhetoric of lifelong learning, which we have a lot of, to the reality, which we have much less of.

    The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Myers.

    Now we'll hear from the Canadian Library Association. We have at the table with us Madeleine Lefebvre. Madeleine, you might want to indicate that you have a backup sitting behind you.

    Ms. Madeleine Lefebvre (Vice-President, Canadian Library Association): I'm joined here today by our executive director, Don Butcher.

    Madam Chairman, committee members, the Canadian Library Association, CLA, is pleased to be participating in this panel on literacy.

    As you may know, this week is Information Rights Week. As it happens, our theme this year is literacy, so our discussion today is most timely.

    The CLA is Canada's national association of libraries and librarians. It has 2,700 personal and institutional members and represents 57,000 library workers across the country. It also speaks for the interests of the 21 million Canadians who are members of libraries. The committee may be interested to know that there are more libraries in Canada than there are Tim Horton's and McDonald's outlets. We like to provide food for the mind.

    I'd like to begin with a quote from Michael Gorman's book, Our Enduring Values: Librarianship in the 21st Century:

Literacy is best seen not as a state of being but as a process by which, once able to read, an individual becomes more and more literate throughout life; more and more able to interact with complex texts and, thereby, to acquire knowledge and understanding. It is a key element of the enterprise--learning--to which all libraries are dedicated.

    Our message today is an elaboration of this quote. We hope to show how libraries play a crucial role in the process of literacy, which forms an essential part of the larger enterprise of learning.

    CLA is encouraged that the Government of Canada has recognized that learning transcends the divides of federal-provincial jurisdiction. At the Innovation Strategy Summit, held last November, strengthening our learning culture was identified as one of the five major themes. Following up on that summit, the government in its February budget then proceeded to set aside $100 million for the establishment of the Canadian Institute of Learning. The objective of the institute will be to broaden and deepen what we know about education and learning.

    Learning can only begin if Canadians have physical access to learning materials. In this respect the government is to be commended for what it has done to facilitate that access, access in at least three different senses of the word. The first is access for those who are print disabled. In response to a task force that revealed that three million Canadians had disabilities--visual, perceptual, or physical--that prevented them from accessing ordinary printed materials, the National Library established a special council in 2001 to identify requirements and monitor progress. The second is access to new electronically formatted materials. For example, the government has committed an additional $30 million for the SchoolNet and community access programs in 2003-04. The third is access to government publications and information, through legislation and the depository services program.

    But the process cannot stop there. Once material has been collected, preserved, organized, and made readily accessible, work carried out by librarians, there must be assimilation of the information, and that is where one's literacy skills come in.

    Literacy involves more than the basic skills of reading and writing. Increasingly, it must also include an ability to question and to search for answers. In this regard, our National Librarian, Roch Carrier, has rendered an extraordinary service by making AMICUS freely available to all Canadians. This web-based information resource can search over 25 million records from 1,300 Canadian libraries.

    Taking advantage of such information resources is what we mean by higher level literacy. It is alarming to hear from the Minister of Human Resources Development that there are eight million Canadians between the ages of 16 and 65 who do not have the literacy skills to participate fully in our increasingly knowledge-based economy. That is the cue for dedicated librarians to play their person-to-person role, to step in to assist Canadians in all sorts of different life situations. Families are important, schools are important, workplaces are important, but the one institution that remains constant throughout the stages of one's life is the public library. It is the one institution that plays an ongoing, lifelong, critical role. It is the lead institution in the informal learning process.

    To strengthen the literacy process, CLA has three recommendations: first, we would recommend that the government expand its support to HRDC's National Literacy Secretariat, thereby enabling the secretariat to partner more effectively with the provinces and with national associations.

¹  (1550)  

    Second, as the government consults with all stakeholders on the structure of the new Canadian Learning Institute, CLA recommends that a better understanding of the process of becoming literate and the role of respective social institutions, such as libraries, become part of its mandate.

    Third, as the legislation creating the new merged library/archives entity comes forward, we recommend that its leadership role in promoting literacy be clearly recognized.

    Thank you for your attention. We look forward to answering your questions.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Our final presentation today will be from the National Coalition of Community-Based Training, Bernadette Beaupré.

    Ms. Bernadette Beaupré (Co-Chair, National Coalition of Community Based Training) Thank you.

    Madam Chairman, committee members, and guests, my name is Bernadette Beaupré. I'm the co-chair of the Canadian Coalition of Community-Based Training. Prior to working in the community-based training sector, I worked as a facilitator in community-based literacy. I also worked in a provincial association for literacy. In one position I held I taught literacy to deaf adults, many of whom were learning American sign language as a first language. So they came to our program without a language. They had a homemade kind of sign language. Then they would be learning English as a second language. So I think I have a pretty good understanding of the issues.

    I'm coming at this from a slightly different perspective because now I'm working in community-based training, which is part of the continuum of moving people from skills development into employment.

    The Canadian Coalition of Community-Based Training, CCCBT, is a national network of approximately 500 non-profit, community-based organizations across the country. It's actively involved in related national initiatives, such as the Voluntary Sector Initiative, the Canadian Alliance of Educators and Trainers Organization, and the Canadian Standards and Guidelines for Career Development Practitioners. The CCCBT has a board of directors, which is made up of representatives from across the country.

    CBTs, community-based trainers, are non-profit, and they're in the community. In Ottawa we have the Vanier Community Service Centre, the YWCA, and Line 1000 for people with disabilities. Our role is a powerful and important one. We offer a wide range of support services and training opportunities to unemployed and underemployed clients who are entering or re-entering the workforce. For over 125 years CBTs in Canada have been working with the most challenging clients in society, those with barriers, often multiple barriers, to employment. The majority of community-based trainers work directly with employers in placing job ready clients in positions. Success rates are generally quite high. Depending on the job readiness of the client, it can be anywhere from 45% for clients with multiple barriers to 80% for clients with low barriers to employment.

    Senior government staff and politicians talk of the need to have a skilled workforce to meet the ever-changing needs of the knowledge-based economy. The Knowledge Matters: Skills and Learning for Canadians document states that there is a sharp divide in the labour force participation rates for low-skilled Canadians and high-skilled Canadians. The document describes general barriers that people have to participating more fully in the labour market. Disabilities, inadequate literacy skills, and lack of recognition of international credentials are mentioned repeatedly. However, these are only a few of the barriers that Canadians have. There are many more reasons that Canadians cannot fully participate in the workforce.

    Other types of workers that may require support in entering or re-entering the labour force include people receiving social assistance, women, and displaced workers. In Canada we see a lot of experienced workers who have limited skill sets. They've been working in one sector for a long time. They get laid off and, bang, they can't easily get back into the labour force. It includes young people who are not in school and are not working, racial minorities, and newcomers to Canada who do not have foreign credentials. In Canada we have a huge number of these people, and they are relatively unskilled. It also includes people who have been incarcerated and people with alcohol or drug addictions.

    Later I'm going to propose some policy and program changes that would address problems individuals have in participating more fully in the knowledge economy.

    An increasing number of clients who come to community-based agencies do not have income supports. They can't collect EI; they're not reach-back, which means they haven't been in receipt of EI for the last three to five years; they're not on social assistance because they can't access it; and they don't have private insurance. With the tightening up of eligibility for both employment insurance and municipal or provincial social assistance, an increasing number of unemployed clients are no longer entitled to benefits.

    Non-EI or reach-back clients can access one of HRDC's support measures. Those are interventions provided under a program called EAS, employment assistance service. These interventions, however, are very short term. Many of them might be 10 weeks. For example, you could participate in a job-finding club for 10 weeks. In many cases they do not provide adequate support in assisting clients with barriers to employment. This group of clients will not be job-ready in four months. Some of them won't be ready in as many as six months or even a year and a half.

¹  (1555)  

    Something that this committee should be aware of is that clients with multiple barriers to employment may require a whole series of interventions. Some of those interventions might include English as a second language. They might require first language literacy. If they come from another country, for example Central America, they won't even have an understanding of their first language. You can't teach ESL without a first language. They might need literacy skills training, life skills training, personal counselling, some job-specific training, placement services, and then maybe on-the-job coaching so that they can stay in a job. Literacy is one of the barriers they might have. But in order to move into the workforce, four, five, or six interventions might be required to actually get a job and stay in a job for three months, six months, a year.

    EAS is an important program, but it must be more inclusive in accommodating non-EI clients. These are often people with literacy issues. In some communities across Canada a provider with a contract can serve a mix of maybe 65% EI-active or reach-back clients and 35% non-EI clients. What this means is that an organization has to see more clients who are on employment insurance, and that excludes the types of clients with multiple barriers to employment.

    HRDC's skills development program is currently only available to EI and reach-back clients. Clients with barriers to employment could also benefit from skills training, but as it stands now, they must purchase a skills development program on their own. We believe that HRDC's skills development program must be open to all clients regardless of income support.

    In general we believe that HRDC must review its employment benefits support measures program with a view to ensuring that programs are available to a wider range of clients and in particular to non-EI clients who require longer term interventions. Again, these are clients who are not going to be job ready in a short period of time and will not return to the workforce with these shorter term interventions. As it stands right now, the group of individuals that requires the most support has the least or the most limited access to employment or employability services in Canada.

    Finally, I'm just going to make a few comments about what's known as the Opportunities Fund. In general, the Opportunities Fund has been helpful to people with disabilities. However, there are a number of issues that I would like to point out to you. The funding is relatively small and hasn't been increased for as many as four years, while the cost for things such as workplace accommodations, training allowances, and specialized equipment has increased. We believe there is a need to increase the level of funding so that it will keep in step with the increasing costs that clients have to pay in order to consider going back into the workplace.

    Under the Opportunities Fund mechanism, in many cases and regions of the country it takes weeks, and in some cases months, to process training dollars. There is a great deal of administrative work to do between the agency, the funder, and the employer. An employer is interested in taking on a client with barriers, such as somebody with disabilities. Because the process takes so long and is too administrative for them, the employer drops it, and then the client doesn't get the job. We believe that HRDC has to streamline the process and make it more efficient and effective in order for it to help clients re-enter the workforce.

    Finally, we propose that HRDC consider having the Opportunities Fund used for placement services or job development. Right now clients with barriers, in particular disabilities, can access a training program, but they can't access funding that will help them get placed in a job. It's hard for people, especially those with disabilities, to sell themselves in order to get into the workplace. That's a very concrete change that we think would help immensely.

    In closing, I want to thank the committee for giving CCCBT the opportunity to make this presentation. We look forward to answering any of your questions.

º  (1600)  

    The Chair: Thank you.

    I am going to move to the committee members. I'm going to be very strict. I'm going to give you six-minute rounds. There will be an opportunity to have second rounds.

    Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Ottawa—Orléans, Lib.): I wonder if Mr. Goldring would permit Diane St-Jacques, who is the parliamentary secretary, to go before him. The reason is that she is meeting with the minister downtown on a specific problem.

    Ms. Diane St-Jacques (Shefford, Lib.): It has to do with an announcement.

    Mr. Larry Spencer (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, Canadian Alliance): Absolutely. We're far more cordial than the transport committee.

    Ms. Diane St-Jacques: Thank you, Mr. Goldring.

    The Chair: I am going to be tough today, with the committee members, not the witnesses. Six minutes.

    Ms. Diane St-Jacques: I will be short, Madam Chair.

[Translation]

    In addition to thanking Mr. Goldring, I would like to thank my colleague, Mr. Bellemare, for allowing me to ask my questions first. I am going to be making a good announcement on behalf of the minister and I will therefore have to leave in a few minutes.

    My question is further to the comments made by Ms. Long. You said that the people with literacy problems were not participating in a significant way in the programs. You also spoke about accessibility and how to keep people. When people begin, sometimes it is difficult to get them to continue.

    I would like to know what steps the federal government could take to promote the program. My question is for Ms. Long, but the other witnesses can also provide their comments. What could we do to encourage more people to participate and to continue? Can you recommend any concrete measures that we could take?

º  (1605)  

[English]

    Ms. Ellen Long: The retention issue is really key. When we look at the reasons people are not retained, in a way they're very similar to the reasons people don't participate in the first place. I think of the people who are able to enter as precarious participants, not full participants. They are precarious in that they are facing unique life constraints largely related to their economic circumstances and their circumstances in general.

    It's a very simple equation. When you don't have a lot of money, you can't buy time and services. For example, if you're working and you want to take a class, you need to get home and prepare dinner for your children. You have to take public transit, and it takes you a long time to get there.You're exhausted. Finally, you say, I just can't cope. If you're able to buy prepared foods and pay for a babysitter for your children and you're able to take a cab to your class, life is much easier. I'm being very concrete, but I want to really stress this issue of people's economic circumstances. It's the underpinning of people's ability to make choices that can benefit them.

    As to what you can do, the first thing is to somehow ensure that the system does not become a fee-for-service system. That's number one. This is something that is happening in a number of provinces. We need to keep our eye on that.

    Anything involving money is going to be very important, in terms of materials that are inexpensive or free, programs that are inexpensive or free, and child care on site or close by, where people are not having to negotiate the time element plus the financial element of that, these types of things. Someone mentioned EI. Any kind of income support that could be provided would make a tremendous difference. The financial part is one of the most pivotal aspects, additional financing of some kind, either directly or through the system itself.

    The proximity of the programming to people's homes is a really important thing. Having multiple points of access within communities is important for everyone, but especially for women. This is all related to the development of a system that looks at the accessibility factor.

    We need to somehow overcome the complex jurisdictional issues we have in the country, with education being a provincial jurisdiction. Is there a way to take a leadership role federally?

    I'm getting that look again.

    The Chair: Yes.

    Mr. Brown and then Madam Lefebvre.

[Translation]

    Mr. Gerald Brown: It's like a learning elevator. The challenge is to see how people can get off at the first floor. That is the challenge.

    In colleges and CEGEPs, particularly in those that are very well run, we note that they have a team, personnel, that does outreach work, that goes out and gets the people. Indeed, these people do not contact the colleges and the CEGEPs because they are really worried. They do not feel comfortable. So we need to have teams that can help these people put their feet in the door and who will be with them for the duration of their stay, to provide them with support and encourage them to continue. At one point, they get into the elevator and they start their journey.

    I think that this is a role that the federal government could easily play. Moreover, it has already played this role in the colleges and CEGEPs throughout our country. But because of budget cutbacks, the government has increasingly withdrawn this assistance. So it's really by funding the colleges and the links that are established in the communities and each of these places that we can have the resources. If the resources are there to allow us to go out and get these people and help them, that's when really have some success.

º  (1610)  

    Ms. Diane St-Jacques: But, as some people have mentioned, often there is fear and embarrassment involved. So how can we get these people to come? What about a promotional campaign?

    Mr. Gerald Brown: These people are very well equipped. I can give examples of colleges and CEGEPs in Quebec as well where there are teams that work with associations in their area, because the colleges are present in these sectors. They work with these groups, they identify the needs. This can be done with the Church.

    Ms. Diane St-Jacques: So this is being done on the ground.

    Mr. Gerald Brown: This is being done on the ground, outside of the building, but they [Editor's note: inaudible].

[English]

    The Chair: I'm trying to be mean. You're over your six minutes, and I want Madam Lefebvre to be able to answer. She had her hand up. It's very difficult. I appreciate the responses and I appreciate the questions, and I'm trying to move it along without cutting you off.

    Ms. Madeleine Lefebvre: I just wanted to say that there is such a role for the public library here, because it's a non-threatening role. We talk about remedial. People are afraid of the word “remedial”. The library is freely accessible and welcoming. A person can be going in to do any number of things, not necessarily getting tutoring for literacy issues. So it's a welcoming environment where they can have some privacy. There are some wonderful public library literacy programs going on, such as at the Regina Public Library, Lethbridge Public Library, and Hamilton Public Library, all over the country. I think that people who have literacy issues need to be more aware of what is available through the library.

    The Chair: Mr. Myers, briefly.

    Mr. Doug Myers: I'd agree with the comment about location and atmosphere. The learning centre I work at is in a shopping mall. At the end of about the first couple of months of our work, the advisers have said “We have the wrong clients here.” We said, “What do you mean?” They said, “They don't want courses, they want jobs.” We said, “Isn't learning about getting into the labour force? Would these people ever show up at your campus office?” The answer was no. So I think Gerry's point is well taken.

    When you get into a learning institution, there are a lot of supports. I'd agree also that there are places like the public libraries and other places people go, such as malls, where if you provided community-based learning centres that treat them like learners, that would be a tremendous first step.

    The Chair: Ms. Beaupré.

    Ms. Bernadette Beaupré: I just wanted to add to what Ellen suggested. I know that the government at one time was throwing around the idea of a guaranteed annual income. I can't imagine how the opposition parties would respond to that. As a literacy facilitator for years, I know that many people with literacy issues are struggling around just feeding themselves. Sometimes people have the challenge of saying, am I going to take transportation to my literacy program, or am I going to feed my kids? So if there was a way to help people with literacy issues by stabilizing their income, this would immensely support them around their learning. It could make a huge difference over a year or two or three in a literacy program if they were supported for a while during that process.

º  (1615)  

    The Chair: Mr. Goldring.

    Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton Centre-East, Canadian Alliance): Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

    Thank you, ladies and gentlemen, for your presentations.

    It's an interesting discussion and very complex. I'm sure you all realize that. This is one of the things we wrestle with, too.

    Ms. Long touched on workplace literacy. Then we seemed to trend down, basically, to the practically unemployable--in other words, the challenge of them even applying for a job and trying to work. So we have a broad spectrum here. I hope it's broken down into the various areas of it.

    Mr. Brown, you mentioned Bow Valley College and a literacy level workplace manual. Is that the one I have here, the Canadian Adult Reading Assessment Instructor's Manual, or is that a different literacy level and standard? We hear about the IALS level. I've asked for copies of that. It's confidential, so I can't get copies of that particular testing. I have this one. Is this the one you made reference to?

    Mr. Gerald Brown: I'm not familiar with what you have there.

    What I'm making reference to is a tool that actually was developed in the institution. They worked in a collaborative effort with HRDC. Then it was made available to all of our institutions. It's called TOWES.

    Mr. Peter Goldring: I'm wondering if we could receive a copy.

    Mr. Gerald Brown: I can make it available to you.

    Mr. Peter Goldring: We speak about improving the quality of our literacy wholesale across Canada. We hear the year 2015 as a target date to improve the level, according to that original IALS testing. What I'm finding out is that we're not really testing at specific standards. How are we going to judge the success of these various programs on the improvement of the literacy level across Canada if we do not have a basic metering level that we start with? Is this not a first step we should be looking at as a common denominator we can use as a measuring stick? Mr. Brown, maybe you have something like that.

    Mr. Gerald Brown: I would leave it to the folks with the expertise, who are probably in a better position than I am to respond to the actual standard you're talking about.

    The standard we're using here, though, is one that gives us an indication as to whether or not the person has the employability skills required to carry on a job. If you look, for instance, at the Conference Board of Canada material, you'll see that it talks about employability skills, and it lists a whole series of criteria that people would need to be employed. Included in that are some of the things we're talking about here.

    Mr. Peter Goldring: I have a question for Mr. Myers. In your PLA Centre report it mentions 1,600 individuals. How many have completed the portfolio program?

    Mr. Doug Myers: That was a group of 1,600. Given that we've trained a lot of people to do this, it would probably be around 3,000.

    Mr. Peter Goldring: Did you have any yardstick testing or notification of how to--

    Mr. Doug Myers: No, we did not. We start off with the assumption that people are learners, but they often don't think they are. So what we're doing as a next stage is tracking the people who do this, and we'll be comparing over the next three years whether this intervention and its outcomes, which appear so promising, in fact do result in higher participation rates. We have some initial data that suggest it does in either participation in employability or in further education and training.

    Mr. Peter Goldring: But do you have any factual improvements? We're all making this relative to our literacy levels according to the IALS. Do you have any proof that you're actually improving the numbering or improving the results? In other words, are we bringing our literacy level up? For the 1,600 individuals you've tested, what was the cost? What was your budget? How much money was expended to test and complete the formal indoctrination of those 1,600 individuals?

    Mr. Doug Myers: It's certainly a fraction of the millions we spend in our formal education and training system. We figure that it's about $500 per individual to complete a portfolio. But that's just a rough costing in terms of what it costs us to deliver that. It's nothing close to what we spend, without blinking, on a lot of formal education and training and workplace training, and we really don't have a very good handle on whether or not it works.

º  (1620)  

    Mr. Peter Goldring: We're talking about the various levels of how we can improve the overall literacy in this country. You're largely dealing with the people after the formal education system, other than secondary education. What are your individual comments on our primary school education? Is that not the place where we could have the real bang for the buck and make an improvement in our overall level of literacy? Would that not be one area that probably should receive intense attention?

    Mr. Doug Myers: Sure. But a large proportion of our workforce, which is going to be there for some time, is facing transformations and transitions. We have to support people in the workforce. We have growing problems of social exclusion, which we also have to deal with. So I don't think it's an either/or situation.

    Mr. Peter Goldring: But is that not a definite area that will have the greatest impact when we want to look at our assessments in 2015?

    Mr. Doug Myers: I can't argue in extensive quantitative terms. But what we find with many people who are unemployed or at low literacy levels is that they end up having their kids do learning portfolios, and they start to think about learning both in terms of what they're doing in school and what they're learning out of school and where that might go. That involves writing and analysis. I see these things as connected. Certainly, you have to pay attention to that at the primary level.

    But the notion that we're going to abandon everybody else and start.... That's too overstated. Here I'm behaving like it's the transport committee. I'm sorry.

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

    The Chair: If Mr. Myers is finished, I'm going to go to Ms. Long and then Mr. Brown.

    Ms. Ellen Long: I agree with the point that putting a lot of emphasis from kindergarten to 12 is critical. The ideal is to prevent.

    One of the challenges is that it used to be more the case that you would complete your education and then go into a job, and there you would be for life. You learned what you needed, and it was much more simple. Now when people leave school two things can happen: one is that the bar keeps going up and up and up, and the other is that if you don't use it, you lose it. Many jobs don't demand the literacy skills of the person, and after five or six years they're back to needing to brush up and this kind of thing. So those two things alone, I think, point to this need to inculcate in the country this sense of being a lifelong learner for every person leaving school so that people can adapt to the changing circumstances. So it's not an either/or situation, I would say.

    Mr. Gerald Brown: I'd like to echo that comment. The average age of the students in colleges is 27. We're finding that these people have left the workforce, and there are a whole host of reasons why they're back in learning again. But there's a growing gap between the workforce they were in and the workforce they have to return to.

    The Chair: Ms. Lefebvre.

    Ms. Madeleine Lefebvre: I was just going to say that we believe that literacy is a cradle-to-grave issue. An example in Halifax, which is working extremely well, is at the IWK hospital, the Read to Me! project, where books are given to any child who's in hospital for any reason. New mothers are given books to take home, so children are starting off with books. There's a whole socialization factor between parents and their children. I would point to the heartening Harry Potter phenomenon, which has very young children reading and reading and reading and turning off the computer games. Often their parents are reading with them or are saying, finish the book, I want to read it, too. So I think there's great hope for this for the future.

    The Chair: Ms. Beaupré.

    Ms. Bernadette Beaupré: I would also add that there are models of training. You're looking at people with lower literacy levels. It's called job specific training. I'll give you an example. In Toronto there's training to become a cashier. So eventually you could work at IKEA. You combine essential literacy skills and job specific training, and then the person can move to employment. HRDC and the province, depending on where you are, are currently funding some of those projects. They're successful because there's a job at the end. The employer actually works with the organization. They use the essential skill material that HRDC has developed with the Conference Board of Canada, which I think you mentioned. Those are good models. They increase their skill level, and they actually get them into the labour market. They're not earning a high wage, but they are working and moving forward.

º  (1625)  

    The Chair: We'll go to Mr. Simard.

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

    Welcome, witnesses.

    It's a very scary thought when you say that 5% to 10% of the people with literacy problems are accessing the system right now, when we've seen numerous groups before us that are working in literacy and are actually being overwhelmed by the problem. So that means there's another 90% out there that aren't being looked after. It gives us the magnitude of the problem.

    I'd like to go to Ms. Long. You indicated that a lot of people with literacy problems don't like a school setting, and I understand that. However, would you see the community college being an alternative to that? As Mr. Brown was saying, 27 years is the average age there. That seems to be a less intimidating place to be.

    Mr. Brown, if there were additional funding for literacy, given all that you already do in community colleges, do you think that you could take on the additional burden of literacy training?

    Ms. Ellen Long: I will start. I'm really glad you asked that question. In the literacy field there's a really common perception that people have been traumatized by negative early school experiences. That to a large extent is true. The assumption is that they don't want to go back into a school setting. That certainly was my belief. One of the things that we did in this study of people who have not participated before was to ask them a series of very specific questions about where they would feel comfortable and where they would not. I have to admit that I was incredibly surprised to find out that a very large number said they'd be fine with a school setting, a college setting, or a church basement.

    What they want to know is that they'll be treated as adults. So there's a PR thing there. They want to know that it's accessible to them financially, that it won't be a choice between the rent and the program. Once those big, heavy suitcases are moved aside, people are much more able to deal with the psychological factors.

    So I think the answer to the question is that we need multiple points of access--the community-based access points, the college access points, the district school board access points, and the library access points. However, we have a serious problem in terms of standardization and people not being able to move easily from one to the other. They don't know what level they're at. This is a big hodgepodge, which we have to deal with, while recognizing that we need the diversity of delivery systems.

    Mr. Raymond Simard: Thank you.

    Mr. Brown.

    Mr. Gerald Brown: I think the first thing you have to realize as far as the 150 colleges that we have are concerned is that there are 150 models out there on how they're addressing the literacy issue. In some cases it's within the environment, and in other cases it's working with a community centre. In other cases it's working in the actual work environment. It's not necessarily going to a college but that the college has reached out. I think that is where the resources are going to be needed more and more to give the colleges the tools.

    The last thing I thought I'd be talking about is funding, because I try to stay away from that. The reality is that as we went through funding issues during the 1990s, these are the areas that were cut back in the colleges. We tried to maintain the curriculum and the programming. If there is a way for the federal government to play a role, which it has in the past, in supporting these access centres and working in a collaborative effort with the communities and the volunteer groups at all the community access points, we would try to find a way to resolve that.

    Mr. Raymond Simard: Do you have any more information on these skills access centres that you were talking about?

    Mr. Gerald Brown: I would have to go back into my memory with regard to what they looked like. I was president of a college in Quebec. We had people who worked out in the community. They were connected in the community. They were the pipeline to the community. They identified areas where people were coming to churches, the YMCA, and a number of other areas and saying, we need help. Because they were connected to the college, they were able to identify programming and curriculum. We addressed those problems and got them onto that first step of what I called earlier the escalator of learning. It's resources, people who have the skills to reach out and work with them. In some colleges it's one person, depending on the size. In downtown Toronto you could be looking at four or five people out working in the community.

º  (1630)  

    The Chair: Time is moving on. I'm sorry, Mr. Brown.

    Mr. Doug Myers: I'd like to go back to my point about the verticalness problem that I think we face in learning. Part of it is always to think there is a schooling solution to every learning problem. What impresses me--and I'm speaking as someone who spent 25 years in university continuing and adult education--having escaped to the mall and seen these other adult learners, is that we have a huge range of learning places in our society, which we do not regard as learning places, and they don't regard themselves as learning places.

    I agree with everything about multiple points of access, one-stop shopping, and better bridges to the escalator. But I think that one of the characteristics of a lifelong learning society, which we are, is to pay attention to the fact that we are and to encourage that in the community groups. They're all learning groups, and not in some abstract way. They're all facing change. They're all facing the discontinuous economy and the breakdown of traditional job definitions and organizational structures. People are learning all the time in this society, and we need to support that. As well as supporting that in our traditional systems, we need to support it throughout the society. That, I think, fits with some of the things that have been said here today.

    The Chair: Ms. Lefebvre.

    Ms. Madeleine Lefebvre: You're talking about colleges and institutes. I think the common denominator is the library. They have libraries. We've heard about multiple access points. I think there's a role for partnership through the Canadian Learning Institute, in partnering libraries, institutions, and programs, to create a network right across the country so that everyone is aware of what's available. Wherever they go, they find out about what's available. I think the structures are there. They just need to be highlighted and put together. I mentioned earlier the work the National Library has done on their council for the print disabled. I think that a lot of work can be done to pull together the resources that are available. Perhaps the Canadian Learning Institute has a role in helping to engender those partnerships.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Ms. Long, very briefly.

    Ms. Ellen Long: We all agree on the need for multiple access points that address the needs of the learners.The underside is that with the way things are funded at the moment, it has created a very unhealthy, competitive environment where he won't give me one of his learners because he's funded to have that learner, and he's not motivated to refer that learner here. This is quite serious. People will come into the system who need some literacy stuff, but they also need credentials, and some other people may just be benefiting from some general learning. We have no way to sift people out or to get them into the right streams. It's quite a hodgepodge.

    Mr. Raymond Simard: That's a very good point.

    Is there any time left?

    The Chair: I'll give you a little bit longer.

    Mr. Raymond Simard: I agree with you that the library system is probably one of the key places we have to look at. I was a member of the board of the Winnipeg Library Foundation. We just raised $20 million for a huge expansion. It's funny that in my role there we discussed all kinds of things, such as programs for youth and multicultural programs, but we never talked about literacy. I'm thinking that if it wasn't in the forefront at our level, it obviously isn't for the people on the street. So I think we have some work to do there. I do agree that it is an institution that's probably downtown everywhere and is very visible. With everything that's going on in libraries, literacy is probably not at the top of the list. I'm not sure where it stands. Can you tell me how you think we can bring it to the forefront?

    Ms. Madeleine Lefebvre: I do agree with you. I think that perhaps there hasn't been adequate training of staff in all libraries to make themselves aware of what is available. We have multiple format materials, audiovisual, large print, a whole bunch of things that would be of benefit. Perhaps, as you say, there hasn't been a high enough profile for that.

    We do have the Action for Literacy Interest Group in the Canadian Library Association, a very active group. As I've said earlier, we can point to different libraries and the wonderful approaches they're taking, including an extensive program in Regina and Winnipeg. But we're just not getting the message out as much as we should be. So if there were a national approach through the Canadian Learning Institute, then perhaps that would be a way of highlighting for our own staff in libraries this--

    Mr. Raymond Simard: Can you send us information on what Regina is doing right now in terms of a literacy program? Is that possible?

º  (1635)  

    Ms. Madeleine Lefebvre: Certainly.

    Mr. Raymond Simard: That would be interesting.

    Ms. Madeleine Lefebvre: They have a website, which is a partnership project, www.readthis.ca. It's a website, using simple, clear language, that has news stories of the day. It also has questions and answers about the news, so it helps people to digest the information. In this day and age literacy includes the ability to understand and to express yourself, so it's communication literacy and information literacy as well.

    The Chair: Madam Guay.

[Translation]

    Ms. Monique Guay: Thank you, Madam Chair.

[English]

    The Chair: I'll be as mean with you as I have been with everyone else.

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

[Translation]

    Ms. Monique Guay: Thank you for coming today.

    We have heard a lot of witnesses and we are coming to the end. I think we have nearly finished hearing the various witnesses. We heard from people who gave literacy training courses in the workplace. Everyone knows that there has been huge technological advances in the past 30 years. Many people did not have the chance or were unable to learn all the technology required to continue working for those companies. That is very important.

    We also heard a lot about programs that were financed by the provinces. In Quebec, a lot of work is being done to improve literacy skills. Mr. Brown, you should know, you went to a Quebec CEGEP. The work is ongoing, and even if it is not yet finished, there will always be work to do. It will never end.

    Those people are not easy to reach. They are often withdrawn, embarrassed about not being able to be as good as the others. So it is difficult to find them, to reach them and try to give them the knowledge they need.

    I do have one concern. In Quebec, education is of provincial jurisdiction. We speak a different language than the rest of Canada. We also have a different approach to education. No one spoke about provincial programs. You are talking about federal programs. I want to know how you deal with the two jurisdictions and avoid overlap.

[English]

    The Chair: We'll start with Mr. Myers.

    Mr. Doug Myers: The PLA Centre in Halifax was initially funded by HRDC, but we have developed partnerships with the Department of Community Services in Nova Scotia. It's interesting that they see learning as helping to move their clients to self-sufficiency. They don't see it just in terms of schooling. We've had partnerships with the civilian and military employees of the Department of National Defence. Without that support and lead from the federal government, we wouldn't be there to have these partnerships. What we're talking about here is a society in which learning is at the centre of everything else, of transition, of economic development, and of social inclusion. It's a much broader definition than we had when we started with the BNA Act. I think we have to have partnership between both levels of governments.

    Ms. Bernadette Beaupré: There's a forum of labour market ministers, who meet regularly and talk about labour market issues. When you think about the skills and knowledge of Canadians, you need to think about literacy. But you need to bring together the education ministers from the provinces and territories and the labour market ministers, because it's a complex problem. I know that currently doesn't happen. There's this forum of labour market ministers, and then the education ministers meet separately. But I think they have to work together on the issues. It's a challenge, but I think it has to happen because of the jurisdictional problems.

    The Chair: Ms. Long.

    Ms. Ellen Long: It gets even more complex when you consider that the ministries responsible for adult basic education differ by province. So this idea of finding ways to bring those ministers together, whoever they are, would be a really big step forward. Obviously, education is a provincial matter, and anything will have to be within that kind of framework. But we have other provincially administered systems in Canada that have a very high degree of national standardization. So maybe we can learn from the ways those things unfolded.

º  (1640)  

    The Chair: Mr. Brown.

[Translation]

    Mr. Gerald Brown: I am not so sure that it is an obstacle. I think it is a barrier that people sometimes impose on themselves. We work very closely with the Council of Ministers of Education. I know that is one of their priorities and that they sometimes work with the federal government on those types of issues. So although it is true that education is indeed a matter of provincial jurisdiction, there are also areas we can work on together. I think the Council of Ministers of Education is very willing to work with the federal government on this.

    Ms. Monique Guay: I did not say they did not want to work together, not at all. But we were told, and correctly, that provincial programs do exist and that they vary tremendously from one province to the other, depending on the needs. In some provinces, there are aboriginal nations that benefit from a totally different literacy system, from programs to serve them, and who apply them quite differently from British Columbia or Quebec, for example. In Quebec, we are francophone, we work differently.

    In my view, the important thing is to ensure that there is no duplication of what is already being done in my province, and also, I do not want to see national standards that apply from one end of the country to the other. That will never work. It is important to respect what the provinces are already doing. I am not against improving things, but we must ensure that things are not forced on the provinces when things are already going well, or that things that are functional for us get changed. I think one has to respect that.

    Even the aboriginal people who came to see us told us to let them do things their way in some nations because they were doing a good job and did not need us. They did not want to be told what standards they had to enforce. They said they were capable of deciding themselves because they were in the best position to serve their people, since they know their needs.

    That is what I want to protect. I want people to realize that a one-size-fits-all approach will never work in this area.

    I spoke earlier about the school drop-out rate. We have a lot of work ahead of us and we recognize that. I think each province is aware of its own problems and has programs to try to bring the youngsters back to school.

    Even we, the members of Parliament, learn how to use technological tools everyday, be it portable computers or something else. Things change very quickly. Programs must be designed so that everyone can benefit.

    Thank you, Madam Chair.

[English]

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Mr. Bellemare.

[Translation]

    Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Thank you, Madam Chair.

[English]

    You have an idea of the problems the feds have. We feel that we're more than just moneybags. If we're just moneybags, then we get into the HRDC problem where you have to go to an accountability section. There are accusations, and 99.9% of them are false, because of misconceptions and so on.

    To be respectful to Monique Guay, whom I respect a great deal and like, I'm aware that education is the purview of the provinces, but their responsibility is their youth. If they're of a certain age, with the provinces dictating what an adult is, that's their domain. If you want to help them, you have to get into partnership with them. Partnership with some provinces means, give me money, as opposed to, assist me. That happens sometimes. It's not always like that. There are good partnerships with all of the provinces, including Quebec. That is a sensitive area.

    I see adult education as something after the fact, when they're through with it and the people are adults, and they haven't had a second or third chance. I'm talking about those born in Canada, first nations, refugees, and new Canadians. We, the federal people, can access them. It is difficult to access them through formal educational groups, with all due respect to Mr. Brown and his groups of community schools.

    We know that we can do funding. My perception is the more educated a community, the more your labour force is powerful and will have an advantage over other states, the United States and Mexico, for example, on free trade. We don't want our industries moving from our banana belt or the Quebec area to Mexico. So we need to educate people and help them out. I'm thinking in terms of adults.

    So how do we fund? Is it by providing more funds to the National Literacy Secretariat? Is it by assisting NGOs? Is it by assisting individuals through the employment insurance programs? Is it by assisting provinces through the welfare programs? How do we do it?

    We have to be accountable. I made some tongue-in-cheek remarks at the beginning of my presentation about accusations that some parties do realize. But that's the name of federal politics. We say yes, they say no. We say no, they say yes. We say two, they say four. It's always like that. That is all fun and games. Whether you're in government or in the opposition, the bottom line is to try to improve your community. The debating is a game. But the bottom line for anyone in any party is to help his or her own community and region. How do we do it federally?

º  (1645)  

    Mr. Doug Myers: I think your comments about adult education were going somewhat in the direction that I think is appropriate. I think there is a distinction between education and learning. As I said before, learning is going on in a lot of places, including the schools, but not necessarily exclusively there, and those agencies need to be strengthened. With regard to that list of options you read, I'd say yes because there isn't a single solution to this.

    There are NGOs in the field doing extraordinary work. We need to help them link with the formal systems and the workplace. In my own province one of the revelations to me was that our champion is the Department of Community Services. It sees this as learning toward self-sufficiency. But the Department of Education has been much slower to see how this would connect.

    If I can put on my CAPLA hat for a moment, Madam Chair, which is the national organization of people working in this field, this is where I think we don't need to have uniformity and standardization. This is a declaration for the recognition of prior learning, which was the result of a national conference in Halifax. I think we have to start treating adult learners in terms of expanding opportunities, but not in a single uniform way. I think there's a large federal role there, a large national leadership role. Yes, it's funding, but it's also thinking creatively about learning in our present discontinuous economy.

    Ms. Ellen Long: I have just a partial response, and it will reveal some ignorance, because I've really wrestled with this question. I started with this information, and then I was searching and searching and calling policy-makers across the country and asking them to explain education acts to me. What would it take? I think the answer is also all of the above.

    There's one thing I've really struggled with personally, because I really would like to see solutions to this. The National Literacy Secretariat has played an absolutely catalytic role in terms of the literacy field in the country. One of the challenges, however, is that their funding can only be one-offs, project-based. It helps, but it also acts to recreate some of the very problems we're speaking about. I came to think that unless we can somehow get this very deeply rooted within the provinces and self-perpetuating, whatever the federal government does, it will again be one-offs, which can come and go with the wind.

    Everything helps in the short term. My hope would be to find the answer. I don't know what the answer is. But we need to work with the provinces to make it more systematic and long-standing within those jurisdictions.

º  (1650)  

    The Chair: Mr. Brown.

    Mr. Gerald Brown: The national organizations are one vehicle you could probably look at. At ACCC we manage close to $50 million worth of federal money in one project or another, both nationally and internationally, on an annual basis. We help our institutions respond to those demands.

    If you go into a community college, you'll find that there are functions and responsibilities that do relate directly to the provincial government. That's what I call the supply portion of our mandate. But the fact that we are community colleges means that we're very much on the demand side of it as well. That demand can range from training for an industry or a community group to working with groups like this.

    I think there are vehicles. I think you can go into the institutions, whether it be the library or the colleges, as long as you're not going into a domain that is cherished by the provinces, in this particular case. I think there's a myth that when it comes to institutions that are provincially based, we can't touch them. I think there's a whole gamut of mandates that these institutions have that aren't necessarily strictly within the provincial domain.

    One area I would caution us not to go into, in my own personal opinion, would be the individual, partly because of the experience we've had with the decentralization of the manpower training programs. When we had those things controlled at the federal level, with the partnerships going on in the institutions, we were able to develop programs and in many cases address some of the literacy issues we had. But when we decentralized that into 13 jurisdictions and 13 different models, I think the individuals lost out.

    Ms. Madeleine Lefebvre: Let me just say that libraries by their very nature are collaborative. We all collaborate with each other. I mentioned earlier the AMICUS website. That benefits libraries right across the country. So the provincial issue doesn't seem to come into play there. I would just like to see a greater role for the National Library in promoting services across the country and working with the libraries in each province.

    The Chair: This won't be counted as part of your time, Mr. Bellemere.

    I spent a lot of time in a community college. I did a lot of work on upgrading and some post-secondary work there. I also was a member of my own library board. One of the things that fustrated me in working with people who were eager to learn was the lack of age-appropriate materials. It's very difficult to sit down with a 250-pound man who's eager to learn and find out that the only reading material he could read talked about Dick, Sally, and Puff. We've been working very hard to create an age-appropriate, high-interest section in our libraries. I'm wondering if that's something that libraries in general are doing, recognizing that we need those kinds of materials.

    Ms. Madeleine Lefebvre: I think some more than others, certainly.

    The Chair: Anything you could do to assist the NGOs that are out there to get those appropriate kinds of materials would be appreciated.

    Ms. Ellen Long: I always have these afterthoughts. This may be very naive, but I'm going to ask the question anyway, because that's how I got where I am. We have federal transfer payments for kindergarten to 12. If someone leaves school after grade 8, could the federal government continue to transfer money for four more years? They would say, that person is eventually going to be back, we hope. That money goes to the provinces, but it goes into a bank, and it's held there for that citizen who did not access it. No? So much for that. It's too bad, though.

º  (1655)  

    Mr. Gerald Brown: I think the transfer payments are predominately at the post-secondary level.

    The Chair: Exactly. That's the thing.

    Mr. Eugène Bellemare: I always told my students, there are no stupid questions, only stupid students who don't ask questions. So your question was a good one. It's a sign of intelligence in kids and adults.

    Ms. Bernadette Beaupré: There's a program that's being tested in sites across Canada called learn$ave It's funded by HRDC. You have to be a low-income person with barriers to employment. For every dollar a person earns, the federal government contributes $3. They use the money for two or three things. I've forgotten what they are. We're in our third year now. You still have to look at some outcomes. These are things that are being tested by HRDC. Also, the National Literacy Secretariat is doing good work at trying to understand what moves people in literacy programs into employment. You want to document that. I would agree with what Ellen said. The National Literacy Secretariat has some limits because it's always a very discreet kind of funding. You can't look at things over a longer period of time, which is regrettable because sometimes you need evidence over a longer time to know what is working.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Mr. Goldring.

    Mr. Peter Goldring: Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

    Ms. Lefebvre, I'd like to explore a little further the library programs. I just pulled out information on a program I am supporting locally in Edmonton, the Lois Hole library legacy program, I wanted to see if there was mention of literacy, and there is not.

    With regard to the statistic, which is pretty amazing to me, of 21 million cardholders in Canada, that obviously would include a great number of these people of lower literacy levels. Considering that there are 30 million people in Canada and that infants wouldn't be registered, it obviously has to include some of them. Recognizing that they are already there in-house, so to speak, and that the opportunity would present itself to directly affect their literacy levels, has your group made a proposal of a direct type of plan to approach this resource, including what you would do, how you would approach it, and what type of costing you would have on it? There are many solutions to this and ways to look at it. What type of direct proactive work has been done in this way, or is that something that's in the planning stages?

    Ms. Madeleine Lefebvre: I would say that to some degree it's in the planning stages. Edmonton is very fortunate, in that the province of Alberta has a network that is joining all kinds of libraries together and making their collections available to all Alberta citizens.

    I think that, as we were saying earlier, perhaps the literacy angle has not been promoted enough. It's there, but it's embedded. I have been working with the provincial library in Nova Scotia, because our lieutenant-governor is interested in that program. So I know that some early work has begun in looking at a similar kind of program for Nova Scotia. I think the timing is very good to talk about the literacy angle.

    Mr. Peter Goldring: I would think that would be one of possibly many types of approaches to take. A pilot project should be done, with a provincial aspect to it or city wide, where you can readily identify literacy improvement as your overall goal and actually put a hard number to it, because you have some control over developing it as a project. There would be some solid numbers for us to examine. Has some thought been given to this? Are you at that stage?

    Ms. Madeleine Lefebvre: I don't know what stage they're at with that, but I will certainly look into it.

    Mr. Peter Goldring: Following along with that, I would think that you could possibly do the same type of cost analysis and direct involvement with your industrial people, your work site training. You certainly could some up with a workable model that could give some hard numbers. Perhaps that same type of logic could flow into the area of your community colleges, where people are coming back for retraining in order to be able to access a workplace that would involve a higher level of literacy and possibly a higher level of income. Are these not the types of things that can be worked out sector by sector, including costs and what it would take to do this?

    Maybe Mr. Brown could address the question on the community colleges.

»  (1700)  

    Mr. Gerald Brown: We're actually doing it on a daily basis in our institutions right now. Our programs are all designed in that way.

    Mr. Peter Goldring: But we're talking about the financing under the National Literacy Secretariat as being a one-time thing. We're looking for ways overall to be able to write the cheque with some level of accountability and understanding of what the cheque is being written for. You're looking for long-term sustainability. You're not looking at a one-time issue. We really need to have a rule book on what it's being written for and some accountability at the end of the day. Are the various areas doing it in this way or having that involvement in it?

    The Chair: I would ask Mr. Butcher to join the panellists. I think he might want to respond in some way.

    Mr. Don Butcher (Executive Director, Canadian Library Association): If I may, Madam Chair, directly on that point, as Ms. Lefebvre mentioned, there is an Action for Literacy Interest Group in the Canadian Library Association, a very active group. They are mostly based in Vancouver, although their co-convenor is at the Toronto Public Library. I'll undertake to get more information on what is going on in the Canadian library system around literacy and forward it on to the committee via the clerk, if that would be useful.

    Mr. Peter Goldring: We need something that will help quantify things and will identify exactly what we're looking at in additional costing, because that's what it boils down to, additional costing to your regular programming, and then some way that this will be implemented on an understandable basis, which can be monitored.

    Mr. Don Butcher: On that specific point, you mentioned a few times the measurement of outcomes, and I personally happen to think that's extremely important. I know that the federal government in general is moving in that direction. We'll try to give you information on that as well.

    Mr. Peter Goldring: Getting away from the blue sky.

    The Chair: Mr. Myers, you have an associate with you.

    Mr. Doug Myers: Bonnie Kennedy is the executive director of the Canadian Association for Prior Learning Assessment.

    I do think that some of the tracking we're talking about to get a quantitative handle on the impacts and the costs is absolutely appropriate. Having done some initial tests, that's what we're following up on, and I think a number of programs across the country are.

    With regard to the previous point that was made about so much of this funding being short term so that it's simply not sustainable to build that in, that's exactly where we have to build in some sustainable supports, not just to get people into the formal system, but to support learning where it's happening.

    Bonnie, I don't know if you want to comment.

    Ms. Bonnie Kennedy (A/Executive Director, Canadian Association for Prior Learning Assessment): I was just going to mention to the committee the program in Manitoba, which has a structure around adult learning centres. The value of that kind of consistent, cohesive way of looking at providing services for adult learners is that it provides a place whereby some of those clients can be quantitatively tracked, if you like. They can go in and out, whether it's immigrants or adult learners. It's part of an adult learning strategy that the province has adopted. That may be something that the committee would like to look at. If there's an interest in looking at something in a coordinated fashion, that may be one province to have a look at.

    Mr. Peter Goldring: Thank you.

    The Chair: Bonnie, you don't have to leave. You can stay at the table.

    I'm going to leave the last word to my presenters. I'm going to give each of you an opportunity to make a few summary comments before I adjourn the meeting. We'll start with Mr. Myers and just go across. I'm sorry for not giving you a chance to prepare your thoughts.

    Mr. Doug Myers: I was very struck in the last budget with the early childhood development initiatives that were taken. I think we need to see initiatives on adult learning similar to that. One of the problems we have is that you can't look at the early childhood development field without knowing that all those kids are little learning machines. Something strange happens to our heads when we put people in school. Once they're finished with school or if they don't do very well in school, we seem to think that they stop learning. We need to think about adult learners, whether they're in formal schooling or in the community, as learning all the time and to begin to provide some more supports at that end of the spectrum, as well as in early childhood and through our system. That's what's going to make us a lifelong learning culture.

»  (1705)  

    The Chair: Bonnie.

    Ms. Bonnie Kennedy: I'd like to emphasize what Doug said. I think that kindergarten to 12 and the public post-secondary system have structures in place that meet the needs of learners who are linear, let's say. The minister, when talking about horizontal learning systems, provided for us a new image of what an adult learning system should look like. I would simply like to indicate that I think the hodgepodge issue can be dealt with if there is some kind of model of how adult learning can be delivered in the most effective way for the learner. We are very creative. We can find systems that work in communities for adult learners in Canada.

    The Chair: Bernadette.

    Ms. Bernadette Beaupré: I would just suggest that in terms of the jurisdictional stuff, some work has already been done by this government in terms of child care and public housing support to provinces. Those are the kinds of things that help support people on low incomes in provinces and territories across the country. Looking at projects in the individual provinces, I'm in a province without a labour market development agreement, and there are models of ESL literacy right through to employment and placement. So models already exist that are successful in working with other jurisdictions. So take that into consideration. I'd be happy to provide information on some of those that exist in provinces across the country.

    The Chair: We'd appreciate receiving any information you can provide. We're like little sponges here. We'll take everything and soak it all up.

    Madeleine.

    Ms. Madeleine Lefebvre: I'd just like to conclude by saying that the library is a fundamental part of our social fabric. It serves people from the cradle to the grave. It's open, available, and welcoming.

    In terms of this group, I'd like to stress that I think there's a role for the National Library in the Canadian Learning Institute. I don't want to say anymore. That's just where I think we're at.

    The Chair: Ellen.

    Ms. Ellen Long: I would like to end by saying that of the adults we spoke with who have never before participated, only one out of 827 used the word “literacy” unprompted. We use it. It should probably stay in-group. Anything you come out with probably should avoid that word. Adults who may benefit from what we call literacy upgrading might want to have it called a different thing. In fact, they're not really interested in upgrading their literacy. They're interested in being a nurse, for example. So figuring that out and having key messages that take those things into account will be very important.

    Good luck.

    The Chair: Mr. Brown.

    Mr. Gerald Brown: I'd like to leave with you the fact that our institutions are located in 900 communities. That's a pretty impressive network, and it's already yours. It's already there.

    We came about 35 years ago based on the idea of accessibility. I think those are still the fundamental foundations of our institutions. We're learning to focus. It's true that we're at the post-secondary level, but we're very focused on the learner and what they need. So we're community-based, accessible, and learner focused.

    The other thought I'll leave with you is that as an association, we have a long history with the literacy agenda. In fact, if my history is not mistaken, it was ACCC that actually advocated for the beginning of the National Literacy Secretariat. So we have a long-standing tradition there. We like to be as active as we possibly can.

    My last comment is that we have 2.5 million adult learners in our institutions.

    Thank you.

»  (1710)  

    The Chair: Mr. Butcher.

    Mr. Don Butcher: I'm going to take a bit of a minority opinion here and talk about literacy, the process of learning. The panel here has done a great job of giving examples of adult learners and the structural difficulties with that. But I think that at some point we need to go back to first principles, whether it's children or adults, and the necessity of giving people the tools to learn. That's reading and writing, those fundamental tools. You can't learn if you don't read, whether it's reading off a screen or from a book. We're book fans here in the library world, but there's Internet literacy and media literacy. Those skills are what all of us really should be talking about. Perhaps we don't use that language. Perhaps it is an intimidating word for those who don't have that. But I think that's really what we're talking about here.

    The Chair: I started off by saying that we were very fortunate to have so many experts in front of us. You've given us a great deal to absorb and think about.

    I mentioned that I was very involved with my own library, whose motto was that a library says a lot about a town. I think it says a lot about a community and a country. It was wonderful to hear that there are more libraries than there are coffee shops and donut shops, Tim Horton's in particular. At least in some way we have our priorities right.

    I would like to mention that we will be giving drafting instructions to our researchers the week of May 5, 6, and 7. If you have additional information for us, it needs to come before that.

    For members of my committee, those who are here and those who will be reading the transcript later on, I need you to give me your preference between a special meeting on Monday, the 5th, or Wednesday, the 7th, in terms of drafting instructions. If you know that now, you can give it to the researcher or the clerk. If not, perhaps you could call my office.

    Again, thank you, ladies and gentlemen. You are helping us greatly in our deliberations.

    The meeting is adjourned .