Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Social Affairs, Science and Technology
Issue 17 - Evidence - February 7, 2007
OTTAWA, Wednesday, February 7, 2007
The Senate Standing Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology met this day at 4:15 p.m. to examine the future of literacy programs in Canada, the consolidation of federal funding and the role of literacy organizations in promoting education and employment skills in Canada.
Senator Art Eggleton (Chairman) presiding.
[Translation]
The Chairman: Welcome to the committee's first meeting on literacy. Today, we will be hearing from representatives of the federal government and national literacy groups.
[English]
I have changed the order of witnesses on the agenda so that we can hear first from two of the national literacy organizations here today. That might help to precipitate some questions afterward to government officials, who will be here at five o'clock.
Unfortunately, representatives of one organization, Frontier College, had to cancel their presentation. I am most familiar with Frontier College from my days as Mayor of Toronto. Mr. John O'Leary, President of Frontier College, was to appear, but instead he has sent a written submission, which senators should have before them. Mr. O'Leary supports the Canada-wide National Literacy Action Plan, a document from October 2005, which senators should have as well.
The purpose of these two, or possibly three, meetings is to examine the future of literacy programs in Canada, the consolidation of federal funding — which became a concern in the fall — and the role of literacy organizations in promoting education and employment skills in Canada. First, we will hear testimony from Ms. Priscillia George (Ningwakwe) of the National Indigenous Literacy Association, NILA. The NILA was founded in February 2002. It is a national, non-profit corporation that provides Aboriginal cultural-based services and developmental gaps in Aboriginal literacy. It is the only national organization that addresses this unique area of need and, as such, provides leadership in the area of Aboriginal literacy development.
Second, we will hear from Ms. Gay Hamilton of Laubach Literacy of Canada. This organization is part of an international movement begun by literacy pioneer, Mr. Frank C. Laubach. As an American living in the Philippines, Mr. Laubach developed a method of teaching adults to read and write in their own language. Since the 1930s, the Laubach way to read has used the slogan ``each one, teach one'' because their way of teaching literacy skills is direct and personal. It was first launched in Canada in Lunenburg County, Nova Scotia, in 1981 and has a national office located in Ottawa. It has the New Readers' Bookstore based in Saint John, New Brunswick.
Ms. George, please proceed with your presentation.
Priscillia George (Ningwakwe), National Speaker, National Indigenous Literacy Association: I will give pronunciation lessons on my name because I believe that I am the only Ojibwa in the room. My name, Ningwakwe, is pronounced much like ``jingle bells'' and means ``rainbow woman.''
Honourable senators, thank you for doing this study and for inviting us to participate by sharing our views. You have my written submission, so I will speak to some of my main points. Some documents came out recently, related to literacy, most notably from the Canadian Council on Learning, Friday January 27. I will read quotes that pertain to the National Indigenous Literacy Association. They said, ``. . . Aboriginal people see learning as a way to attain collective and community goals.'' In other words, it is not just about jobs and it is not just about going on to education. That is an important part of it, but that is not the whole piece. They also suggested that we need to broaden our definition for measures of success in Aboriginal learning, and I have spoken over and over again, over the years that we take a holistic approach to learning. We see literacy as being more than cognitive outcomes.
Ben Brunnen, who produced a couple of good Great West reports on achieving excellence and working toward parity, made a couple of interesting recommendations — or noted some very interesting points. He said that education is not the sole determinant in Aboriginal people's success in the workforce. We also have to consider economic and employment opportunities. I have heard this over and over again, as I visited literacy programs across the country, that we cannot guarantee people a job because they have gone through a program. Often the job is not there in the community. These are serious issues we must consider.
He went on to say that Aboriginal students are most likely to withdraw from school between Grades 9 and 10. It is the institutional educational system that seems to be failing our people in many ways, and these are the casualties who come to literacy programs. I want to make some key points here. There seems to be a cultural divide in the workforce, and that appears to be one of the key determinants that leads toward a high turnover rate of Aboriginal people in the workplace and workforce. Brunnen found that Aboriginal people have similar labour force participation rates to the non-Aboriginal community, however unemployment rates are higher.
There is an interesting contradiction as the problem seems to be in our ability to secure and retain employment in our communities. There are many ``make work'' projects with periods of unemployment in between those projects. He found that Saskatchewan and Manitoba had the most positive Aboriginal education results, but yet have the highest unemployment index values. The fact of the matter is that education does not guarantee jobs.
Brunnen states that we have to consider other factors. There is a network of circumstances including social conditions, family and community influences and transition from on reserve life to off reserve life. I have been finding that is the case. I came from the Chippewas of Saugeen First Nation and was hired by the Toronto Board of Education. I was lost when I first arrived in the city. However, I had a good support system that helped me navigate through the system.
Aboriginal identity also seems to be the most important factor that comes up in literacy programs. People need to feel good about themselves as Aboriginal people, and when they do not, that creates a block to learning. We have to work with that first, get them to believe in themselves and then they can believe they are able to learn.
I would suggest that NILA with their community well-being index, start to look at something called the network of circumstances, although they do not call it that. Labour, education — Grade 9 plus — and literacy contribute to a community's well-being. Literacy is accorded two thirds of the weight under that factor. Also labour force, income and housing should be included. These are all part of the network of circumstances that literacy practitioners deal with when a learner walks through our doors.
NILA has been doing research and has many aspirations on how we contribute to workplace and workforce literacy. We just completed a report a year ago where we sent out questionnaires to 20 workforce literacy programs. These were Aboriginal peoples' literacy programs that are preparing people for the workforce. They are also literacy programs in the workplace and included such places as BHP Billiton Diamonds and the Ekati Diamond Mine in the North. We took all of their answers and put them into seven key points that constitute success in the literacy program. You will see that in the report that I put up.
We want to do a follow-up to this study. We do have a proposal in and we are waiting to hear about funding. We are proposing to establish national standards for workforce and workplace literacy. We are also considering ethical and appropriate standards in the intake and assessment process, and we are proposing something like an essential skills passport. We are taking a broad approach to basic literacy and workplace literacy.
Right now, the Ningwakwe Learning Press is in the final stages of producing the booklet Making Work Work, which is about the successful blending of Aboriginal, non-Aboriginal and workplace cultures. I wrote that booklet, so that is how I know. I interviewed learners, who were cycling through make-work projects and literacy programs. I also interviewed workplace trainers and employers. I asked them to identify the three main issues that come up with learners. Aboriginal employees need to have a better understanding of themselves and the skills and strengths that they can offer in the workplace. They need to know and be clear on why they are taking the job. They also need some clear communication skills about any of the factors that might impact on their ability to perform in the workplace. These are all areas we are taking into consideration in the literacy programs that we support.
A few years ago we produced a position paper on Aboriginal literacy and undertook a comprehensive review of all the documents produced by national Aboriginal organizations during International Literacy Year, as well as documents that pertained to indigenous or Aboriginal literacy around the world. We do have some scholars here in Canada pursuing their degrees in Aboriginal literacy. Therefore, we put together a series of recommendations in that position paper. We recommended a comprehensive whole-of-government approach toward literacy. We also recommended a separate Aboriginal literacy strategy. It would, of course, work in concert with the pan-Canadian literacy strategy, which we have been developing with the other national organizations.
In addition, we need to assess the definition of literacy because the one in place now that focuses on cognitive outcomes meets only a part of what we are doing. We suggest that, because of the depth of the issues we are dealing with in Aboriginal communities, we need stable, ongoing funding.
I annexed those recommendations to the study you are doing here and have made some suggestions that I would like to see go forward. I ran this by my board and got their endorsement. We are saying literacy is an all-party issue. Those 42 per cent of Canadians, who performed at levels 1 and 2 in prose and document literacy, are potential voters for any party. The people who support them — families, literacy practitioners — are from all parties as well. We would like to see a joint committee developed. I want to say that a few years ago an all-party committee made recommendations on how to handle literacy, including pan-Canadian strategies. NILA recommends that a committee is developed to oversee the implementation of the recommendations of that report.
Literacy is the responsibility of all levels of government, as well as all sectors of society. I would like to see us develop a coordinated, multi-levelled government approach to literacy with clear goals for the involvement of all sectors of societies. We have a lot of knowledge and experience, and we would be very happy to work with you on that.
Literacy affects all areas of life, including social and health. We see a lot of people with low literacy levels in the institutional education system, so we feel it is important to take a whole-of-government approach to literacy rather than have practitioners try to find where to apply for funding and then have to gear their projects to the lingo that a particular funder wants. They are overburdened.
When I did research for the position paper, I found that, on average, literacy programs were getting $40,000 to $60,000 a year, and yet they are dealing with the casualties of the institutional education system. I used to teach there, so I know the salaries they make. The salary of one person in the institutional education system is equal to the amount a whole literacy program has to make stretch for a year for the delivery and administration aspects of programming.
The last point I want to make is that investment in literacy has a dramatic impact. I would like to suggest that the government provides adequate, ongoing funding to literacy and that it not be geared just to the short-term, measurable impacts that are usually adapted to government cycles, which has been happening.
Literacy is a field characterized by low funding, low salaries and funding gaps; yet we are still able to make positive impacts. We have learners who are now coordinating literacy programs and who are touring the country to teach other people how to come to believe in themselves, so they too can learn how to read and write.
I will mention one very important initiative in which NILA is involved; I am the vice-president of the National Aboriginal Literacy Foundation, which is just in its initial stages. We hope to get enough funding from non- government sources so we can invite people to submit proposals to us. Not only are there just funding gaps, but also important activities and literacy programs that are not eligible for the funding we get currently from government. The foundation would look at these issues.
The Chairman: Before I go to Gay Hamilton, I mentioned at the beginning of the session that we had two meetings on literacy and possibly a third one. I can now confirm that we have a third one. We have permission from both whips to have a round-table session a week from Friday. This would be February 16, from 9 a.m. to 1 p.m. The different provincial coordinating bodies will be invited from each of the provinces and territories. They include: Literacy Alberta, Literacy British Columbia, Literacy Coalition of New Brunswick, Literacy Nova Scotia, Literacy Partners of Manitoba, Northwest Territories Literacy Council, Nunavut Literacy Council, Ontario Literacy Coalition, Toronto, Ontario, Prince Edward Island Literacy Alliance, the Regroupement des groupes populaires en alphabétisation du Québec and the Saskatchewan Literacy Network. They will all be invited, but we do not know which ones will be here yet. Senator Fairbairn will make sure a good number of them will get here.
Senator Cook: You did not mention anyone from my province. Is there no one there?
The Chairman: I am sorry; I just read off the list. How did I miss Newfoundland and Labrador? We will make sure they are invited.
Gay Hamilton, Executive Director, Laubach Literacy of Canada: Honourable senators, all the volunteers and staff at Laubach Literacy of Canada, LLC, and especially the learners, appreciate this opportunity for us to present to you today. I especially want to thank you, Senator Eggleton, for introducing Laubach. Some day I will tell you the story of how ``each one, teach one'' happened; it is quite a funny story.
Laubach is very much concerned in what we do with training and learning. We have a certification system for our trainers and our tutor manuals. We strive to incorporate not only Dr. Laubach's methods, but also we incorporate, and many of our affiliates across the country have incorporated, best practices from a number of highly regarded adult teaching methodologies. Our niche is training the practitioners and getting input from the learners on how that should look.
Right now, the organization is striving to offer a more comprehensive program and to reach out to the literacy community to deliver better training programs. You will see some big changes from us in the next few months, including our name. You will not have to ask us how to pronounce it any more.
First, in addressing the three issues the committee wished us to speak on today, I kept coming across one issue and was having difficulty fitting it in under any one subject. I want to address it first as an overarching issue in literacy from the point of view of organizations with which Laubach works. We work with grassroots and regional literacy delivery programs. That is our niche. Today, I am going to present that perspective.
Groups and individuals have been participating in studies and focus groups. They have been consulted, we have reacted to reports and over and over again there is a consistent and persistent call for a pan-Canadian strategy. I was happy to hear it referred to today.
Laubach Literacy recognizes that literacy is the foundation of lifelong learning and must be regarded as an investment. The returns are economic for sure, but also social and human. A pan-Canadian strategy would likely fall under the auspices of an education and skills development mandate; however, it is not — and cannot be — limited to those sectors. A strategy that makes an economic argument, but which also transcends a broad range of societal issues can form the very heart of social policy in this country; and that is certainly my request today.
We want to look at a literacy-focused environment. With that, and also something that I am sure you have heard referred to in the past and a little earlier today, is the whole issue of a network of circumstances. That literacy-focused environment that we look to with a pan-Canadian strategy really is cross sectoral and addresses a number of areas, such as building research into practice and promoting the reasons why literacy matters. It balances all the human and political benefits.
One of the important issues in the pan-Canadian strategy is talking to provincial and territorial governments and the ongoing dialogue that has gone on in the past with those areas, as well as the agreements that have existed. We hope this will continue in the future and increase to bring the streams of funding not only from the federal government, but also down through to the local levels. That is the way it streams at the moment, through provincial ministries with those kinds of agreements. In speaking of the pan-Canadian strategy, we cannot talk about it without talking about those agreements.
As to the future of literacy programs in Canada, they came to us from a very collective effort of Canadians who saw needs and stepped in, as with many issues, to help Canadians who needed a particular skill — in this case, literacy.
The National Literacy Secretariat, founded some 20 years ago, has been an essential partner in laying the foundation with local organizations and volunteers — organizations that grew, as I call it, from the inside out, from people's hearts in communities.
The National Literacy Secretariat has been there not only for national, regional and local organizations but, as well, for bringing together literacy and non-literacy partners; non-literacy being institutions that can jump in and help us with delivering literacy in this country.
We have had two international surveys from 1994 to 2004. We have had many reports. I will refer to the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities in 2003, which was an all- party report. Much anecdotal evidence suggests that literacy levels in this country are still unacceptably low. It would be easy to say that given the investment by the government over the past two decades, we have failed, as the markers have not moved. I do not believe that is entirely true.
Laubach organizations work at the very basic level — level 1 and level 2 — for people who cannot read or write or who have low skills. That is the intention of our individual or student-focused system of teaching people to read and write.
I was able to attend a presentation in 2005 on the results of the 2004 International Adult Literacy and Skills Survey, IALSS report. There were some markers. They were not all that evident, but in that very lowest level, level 1, some people moved up into level 2. That is where community organizations or literacy organizations have a real impact; that is where they work; that is where many of them can be found..
The grassroots organizations struggle. They struggle with efficiency, with all the functions of administering their organizations and certainly with their capacity to deliver their programs.
Since 2003, the trend by funders — and I am not just referring to government, but to corporate funders and foundations as well — has been to move away from sustaining funding or core funding to project-based funding. This has resulted in what some of the writings have indicated — and I feel this characterizes it well — as boom and bust funding and operation.
The organizations wind up doing pilot projects for which there is no continuity, such as short-term projects and one- time initiatives. These fail to achieve sustainability. Groups that must operate this way have to fit the funding, and it causes them to divert some of their activities, funding and energy to sustainability activities and, unfortunately, more and more to simply surviving.
There is also an increased demand on organizations to fulfil their obligations and to live up to a higher standard of public expectations and accountability. No one denies that this is important. Organizations have a great interest in achieving better accountability. The funders want it to justify the spending of their funds, but organizations can do a much better job if they can better plan and if they can measure whether or not their programs are effective. There is a real cost associated with this. Results cannot be measured unless someone is doing it or unless there is a mechanism to take measurements, which does not come for free. Again, organizations are deferring their very narrow budgets. Ningwakwe referred to a small budget of a literacy organization in Aboriginal communities, but it is pretty much the same in many communities across Canada.
If we want accountability to be meaningful and useful, we have to build a system. We need help building a system. Such a system must have some kind of uniformity; it needs mechanisms. In addition to the cost of building it, we then need to know how to use it and must train people. Again, let us not force organizations to shift important budget sums and workforce hours to activities that reduce their focus on the business of literacy delivery. We hear often that non- profit organizations spend too much money on administration, and we are then asked to divert our attention to just that. We do not object to doing it, but we need help. Our supporters often perceive that we are losing ground and not doing a very good job.
The federal cuts announced in September certainly exacerbate this situation, not only in terms of how much money people will get and what they can use it for, but when. An uncertainty has crept into the literacy community as people submit proposals and then wait long periods of time, sometimes causing gaps between the funding times and the funding projects. Personnel leave, volunteers move elsewhere and learners get discouraged. Again, this is the result of initiative funding and project funding.
I will speak now to the consolidation of federal funding. This is one of my pet peeves. We are very much a volunteer- driven organization. We have staff where we can have staff. Many literacy organizations across the country are volunteer driven. Volunteer work does not appear in financial statements; the volunteer hours or the in-kind contributions are not seen in those statements. When statements are made about an organization's ability to administer cheaply or that they spend too much money on administration, do not forget the edifying efforts of volunteers across this country, who spend innumerable hours to teach people to read and write.
Our volunteers at Laubach are trained. They go through an initial 15 hours of training and then have to do a certain number of trainings. These are the people who train the tutors. It is an incredible amount of work. It affects our bottom line. In a way, one might even say it affects it negatively because it does not show. We have to do a better job of reporting the volunteer hours and being accountable for them. Again, the issue is sustainability and the corresponding cost. We need increased funding, not reductions and not wait times. We do need changing guidelines, but they should not change all the time; we need them to change so they can better fit what we do to the funding that is available. The uncertainty factor is a huge issue in the organizations that are subjected to project funding.
The federal, provincial and territorial stream has long been associated not only with support to individual organizations and initiatives, but also with partnerships. We need to continue to have those partnerships between literacy community organizations and non-literacy entities that have a stake in literacy. The regional organizations, such as provincial literacy coalitions, have brought important information together. I am very glad to hear today that you will be meeting with them next week. They are the ones who pull together those local literacy organizations, give them a network, share best practices and enable them to do their job better. If we want to have an innovative and continuous learning philosophy throughout the organizations that work in this field, then we need to support that kind of network.
Finally, I turn to the role of literacy organizations in promoting education and employment skills in Canada. LLC works primarily with level 1 and level 2 learners and community-based organizations. We are very aware of the important role of these organizations in the lives of learners. We feel that literacy is part of a large number of societal issues. Literacy works with communities and with the formal education system, not only as a remedial program, but as a complementary program. Literacy programs focus on individuals in need of basic skills and training, high-needs groups, workforce literacy — and I say workforce to include everyone who has a job and those who do not, yet want one — family literacy and a number of other areas. It underscores the basic premise that all people have the potential to learn, and we need to help them.
Literacy is part of an equation. It does not work alone; it works with community, for community, and it reaches learners in the places they are found. Literacy organizations in communities respond to local needs and are sometimes organized by the learners themselves.
Finally, we need to link all these organizations, provide to them and their communities and consider them an integral and imperative piece of our social fabric. I have four recommendations in that regard.
I suggest implementing pan-Canadian strategies on literacy as a focus of social policy marked by cross-sectoral involvement and agreements with provincial and territorial governments. Please encourage cabinet to reinstate the literacy funding that was targeted in the September funding cuts, and please encourage them to widen the funding priorities and include monies for the important infrastructure to build sustainability.
On the issue of accountability, support accountability activities by assisting the literacy community in building a system of literacy outcome measurement and supporting the training for its efficient use.
The Chairman: Before I go to questions, I have distributed a piece of paper that contains important information. It consists of terminology for level 1, level 2, et cetera of prose literacy, document literacy, numeracy and problem- solving. This is for your familiarization or refamiliarization, as the case may be, on those terms, because they will be used frequently by our witnesses.
You also have the statistics referred to that lead to 42 per cent of Canadians' prose and document literacy performance not reaching level 3. An even higher percentage of Canadians' performance in numeracy and problem- solving skills, as you can see, is below level 3.
I might add that our researchers have used the number of 48 per cent of Canadians. The difference is a result of including people above the age of 65. This set of figures, the 42 per cent of Canadians, does not include seniors.
Senator Fairbairn: I feel as though I am surrounded by family, both in the back and here at the front. We have worked together for a very long time. I am glad you are all present.
It is very true that this not a political issue. This is an issue that surrounds all of us, and all of us around this table have worked together on it for a very long time. There have been concerns in the past year; we will see what is happening in that regard.
The final step in all of this is to actually be on the ground with people who need to learn and need help getting there. I am wondering from both of you, what is the situation within your groups presently? Are you able to do that? Has much been shut down?
There is still hope that in a couple of months there may be news. At this point, from September on, have your organizations had difficulty in the ability to reach out to people? I know both of you extensively rely on volunteers, but have you been able to keep the soul alive?
Ms. George: We have been able to keep the soul alive as a result of people attracted to literacy. It is interesting that there is quite a high turnover rate because of the low salaries and the funding gap. However, the people who stay carry the issue of literacy in their hearts.
I believe you and I had conversations where NILA was in a four-month funding gap, and we volunteered and worked for those four months because we had started a momentum that we had to maintain. We had people that had come to count on us for support and we continued to work with them.
I spoke with different literacy programs across the country, and they were able to stretch out their budgets and get by on bare bones and a lot of volunteer hours. There are a number of organizations that are saying they cannot last much longer, they must hear something soon, otherwise they will end up belly-up.
Ms. Hamilton: Some of our provincial organizations — two that I can think of — have closed their offices and are still operating out of somebody's kitchen.
Senator Fairbairn: That is going back to the beginning for Laubach as well.
Ms. Hamilton: Yes. I am talking about their administrative side.
In many cases, there were organizations that were very small to begin with. They have closed, and a few tutors are still working with their students. However, the link with them is difficult. After a few months or years, they wind up being out of touch with the literacy community and upgrades.
We have had situations with personnel who feel uncomfortable with the lack of information about upcoming funding, so if another position is offered to them, they take it. The organizations, who are in waiting patterns for the time being, do not hire anybody to replace them. They are certainly in holding patterns.
We are hearing that as organizations try to diversify their funds, which is difficult to do on a dime, their boards and their volunteers are spending all their time on that and not on delivering the program. Therefore, they are diverting their energies to survival.
The Chairman: Unfortunately, we are very short of time. I will ask that we keep the questions and answers short so we can move along.
Senator Munson: Do you receive federal funding?
Ms. Hamilton: Yes. The national organization receives federal funding.
Senator Munson: How much funding has been cut?
Ms. Hamilton: We do not know yet. Laubach is at the end of its last contract. We will be finished in June. As one of the changes, we have been told there will be a call for national proposals. In the past, when our funding ended, we could do a new proposal because we all finish at different times.
Senator Munson: How much do you receive in federal funding?
Ms. Hamilton: We receive $400,000.
Senator Munson: Does your organization receive federal funding, Ms. George?
Ms. George: Yes. Presently, we have funding until the end of March, but we are supposed to be negotiating a contribution agreement. We do not know how much it will be because the negotiation has not started. I do not know that I can personally survive another funding gap so soon.
Ms. Hamilton: We do not know what the priorities will be or what the guidelines for funding are, either.
Senator Munson: Have you been told that cuts are coming?
Ms. Hamilton: We have been told there will be a call for proposals. We do not know if what we need to do will fit the priorities of the funding guidelines.
Senator Munson: I want to address something Ms. George talked about: Groups must ``gear their projects to the lingo that a particular funder wants.'' I am curious what you mean by that. Do you have to keep rewriting proposals? What does that mean?
Ms. George: If we are applying to one funder, they have these priorities and we must use these words to get that funding. If we apply to another funder and they have other priorities, we must gear our proposal to use the words they want to hear. That is time away from the learners, and we may or may not get the money.
Ms. Hamilton: It also causes mission shift. An organization is created for a certain reason, and it has a certain mission. The mission can change according to changing needs. However, sometimes organizations wander off into other areas they probably should not be in just to access funds.
Senator Munson: Is there an overlap between federal and provincial governments in funding toward your two groups, or any groups, in that you go after provincial money and then you go after federal money?
Ms. Hamilton: We do not go after provincial money at all.
Senator Callbeck: I will be concise and brief. You mentioned, Ms. Hamilton, over the last number of years there has been little change in the literacy rate. Studies have shown this. How can we motivate more Canadians to become involved in literacy programs?
Ms. Hamilton: The recruitment of students at the local level is a huge issue. This involves partly the cross-sectoral issues I was talking about, if the employment offices and health offices and all the different sectors affected by literacy got on board. It has been difficult to get there. There is agreement that it is true, literacy sticks to everything; but a pan- Canadian strategy that would bring in all those other issues and serve as an example to the provincial-territorial streams would be one way of helping.
Ms. George: Even after all the years we have worked on literacy, it still has a stigma. People do not want to be seen as stupid if they are involved in a literacy program. We are teaching them that reading and writing are just two more skills added to a set of skills they already have. We are embarking on a literacy-awareness-raising tour. We are hiring Susan Aglukark, one of our Juno award winners, to conduct a series of workshops across the country to get people to understand that they already have many skills. We will teach them to add to their skills bank and that literacy is okay.
Senator Callbeck: The stigma is not as large as it used to be, is it?
Ms. Hamilton: Yes, it is.
Senator Callbeck: Ms. Hamilton, you mentioned federal and provincial agreements and the need to get them renewed. You said something about widening agreements.
Ms. Hamilton: I would like to see all funding streams broadened to include sustainability in organizations. As it stands, the project funding base is detrimental to continuous delivery of programs and the kind of continuity we have been talking about with learners.
Senator Callbeck: That is what you meant by broadening agreements?
Ms. Hamilton: Yes. Not necessarily the idea of renewing, but in a pan-Canadian strategy we cannot leave out the provincial-territorial stream. That has traditionally been how local and regional organizations access the funding from the federal government.
Ms. George: On the list of groups that you are inviting on Friday, February 16, there are two provincial Aboriginal literacy organizations. I did not hear them included, so I wondered if there was provision being made to include them.
The Chairman: I will look into that. The list I have here is just a preliminary list. We just got the okay for the meeting today, so we are putting it together quickly now.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: Along with my colleagues, I have asked several questions in the Senate chamber on this issue. The missing link seems to be the value placed on the coalitions, if you will, or the organizations, perhaps your national organizations. We have been told that projects and programs will continue, but when we ask about the organizations or coalitions themselves, it is a different story, a story referred to as bureaucracy or as another level that perhaps is not relevant.
I would like you to speak about the value of these organizations that bring people together. For instance, in my province, the coalition brings all of you together, probably twice a year, to share, to grow together and to learn from each other. To what extent do you see this as valuable and perhaps even essential?
Ms. Hamilton: Laubach has about 121 affiliates across the country that deliver specifically Laubach programs and others as well. In some provinces, we also have provisional groups. However, the coalitions are really the glue and they bring together the information from national organizations that do research and share it out to the groups. In a province, all the literacy organizations are members of the coalition. The coalition is really the touchstone for information sharing with each other within a province and for the special needs that might exist.
In New Brunswick, for instance, there were a couple of round-table sessions on literacy where Laubach Literacy New Brunswick was there as a member of the coalition.
The groups really speak to each other and to different levels of organizations. The coalition is also the touchstone for the very smallest organizations, which may not be incorporated non-profits; they may be a group of volunteers, with no staff, who use various methodologies in teaching literacy and have students in their small community, often in the rural areas. The coalition is the place where they go to find out what is new, what they should bring into their community, what is happening, whether they need the viewpoint of a student and those kinds of issues. It is a network.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: I want to ask you about hope. I am very hopeful that this problem will be diminished maybe 10 years from now or perhaps sooner. Our provincial departments of education have zeroed in on this. I am speaking for my own province, but I believe it must be the same across the country. The first few years of school are now receiving an enormous amount of attention on reading and writing. Your organizations are dealing with the sickness, if you will, and the provincial governments are considering prevention more and more. Do you share this hope?
Ms. Hamilton: I share the hope, but I absolutely feel that literacy organizations are part of that equation and work with educational systems in communities. However, they need to work on solid ground, and part of that equation is financial.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: If people do not have parents who can do their part with the early development of their children in terms of literacy, then it does not work. It is always possible to find those people who have somehow slipped through the cracks, and it will probably continue.
Ms. Hamilton: People slip through the cracks and Laubach teaches adult literacy. Many literacy organizations are dealing with family literacy and early-years literacy to prepare children. They are working with the cycle of poverty and its connection with literacy, as well as a number of societal issues.
Ms. George: I wanted to add something, which I alluded to in my brief. We need a two-pronged approach. We need what you are talking about to prevent further casualties, but we also need the other prong to deal with the casualties who have come through the system and for whom the system was not a positive experience.
I would like to share a story with you. I was at a conference that addressed literacy, among other issues, in B.C. We were using the 42 per cent figure of Canadians that performed at level 1 and level 2 in prose and document literacy. At lunchtime, we took a picture of a huge crowd sitting on the steps in front of a building on their lunch hour. We said 42 per cent of these people, according to the statistics, have difficulty with the literacy-related skills of everyday activities. Who are the 42 per cent of people here? One of them might be your brother, your sister, or your boss, who just has not admitted it yet. We have stories about people who admit, after years of learning to work around it and hide it, that they have been illiterate. I would strongly suggest a two-pronged approach.
Senator Keon: There was an announcement a week or so ago by Mr. Solberg about funding for literacy. Does that relate to your organizations?
Ms. Hamilton: No. If I recall correctly, it was for literacy programs in municipalities. Municipalities might want to conduct programs in the region and might go to a literacy organization to do that. That is entirely possible.
Senator Keon: You are not eligible for any of the funding?
Ms. Hamilton: I would not think we are eligible for that money. The national organizations are not eligible for anything that is localized or provincial.
Senator Chaput: How many volunteers are there across Canada and how many hours of volunteer work would they be doing in a year? Do you have an idea?
Ms. Hamilton: I will speak for Laubach. We just cleaned up our database in the last year, so my figures are better than usual. We have 5,000 volunteers, who are trained tutors in our database. At any given time, there are about 3,000 volunteers who are actively tutoring, and many who work for boards or do fundraising. We have not done this year's statistics yet, but when we last picked up statistics about a year ago, there was about 192,000 hours of tutoring. I have spoken about this with people from Frontier College, and they expect their figures are higher. If we double those figures, that represent only two organizations across the country that has local affiliates. There are many literacy programs across the country not affiliated with us. It is exponential.
Ms. George: Some of our programs use volunteers and for others, the coordinator must do the whole show. Of the $40,000 to $60,000 in funding, some is hived off for administration and for delivery. The coordinator makes about $30,000 to $40,000. They are making poverty wages to do this.
Senator Cochrane: I have been involved in the organizations. We have seen a lot of work, but, for some reason, it is not being made public. I am appalled when I hear 42 per cent of Canadians have no literacy skills. That raises a flag and says we do have a problem in the country if that is the case.
I do not know how we will do it, but we must find another way to show that we are making progress. I am looking to you people who are the experts in this, but should we look at other models? Are there others that we can look at?
Ms. Hamilton: One must look at the international community that has been addressing literacy, such as the United Kingdom. Furthermore, some of the Scandinavian countries have high rates of literacy and win the prize after every survey. They have made conscious decisions to invest in literacy across the board, to make it a multipartner affair. They realize that the economic investment yields tremendous economic results in human social benefits as well. We need to consider some of those models and encourage the government to view literacy as part of our social policy and the investment that goes with that policy.
The models vary, but those concerned all put money into them. I really cannot say it any other way.
Senator Cochrane: Within your work, have you seen particular communities that are progressing more than others? Maybe they are using a different method.
Ms. George: Conn River First Nation took control of their own education dollars a number of years ago. They decided how to split up that money and where it should be invested. The director of education tells us they have reduced their unemployment rate significantly.
To answer your first question, we need to change what it is that we measure. In New Zealand, they did a social impact survey of one of the models that has been discussed, and they are hoping to bring it here, to Canada. That social impact evaluation showed many of the changes in the lives of the families who participated in this delivery of literacy by television. Let us change what we measure.
Senator Cochrane: I believe one of the areas that would work is role models. You mentioned earlier that we have people who are hiding because they are not literate, but they have performed in this country and performed well. It would be helpful if we could get those sorts of people out for the cause.
Ms. Hamilton: Certainly, Mr. Demers would be a good role model. I spoke to him several days after his story appeared in the news, and he had no idea what impact his story would have on the literacy community. He was completely nonplussed by the impact of his story. I do believe he is willing to speak on it though.
Senator Cochrane: We should latch on to him. There are others, I am sure. That could change the perspective of the whole country and make people realize that we should do something about this.
The Chairman: We will hear from some individuals tomorrow who have done just that.
Senator Champagne: I cannot believe that in this day and age we still have this problem to such a degree that the Canadian Council on Learning and Statistics Canada have stated that we have done nothing and the situation is no better. Since 1994 to 2005, there has been no real change. There has been some change, but not what we should be able to show.
This is why the government now says, ``Let us try something else.'' It does not mean putting less money toward this; it means working with the people who need the skills to see how we can spend the money better to get some results. This is the way I view the changes that we are experiencing right now. I am hoping that, with what we are doing and with the help of people like you, we will be able to help our people bring the money where it is most needed, so that in 10 years we will not be at the same place.
The money should be going where? Should it be going to the people who give the reading lessons or who teach in libraries? In the Atwater Library in Montreal, volunteers teach people how to read and then they have the books there for them to read. Where will that money be best spent?
Ms. Hamilton: I beg to disagree. I do not feel it is redirecting the money. I do not believe there was ever enough to begin with. I cannot emphasize that enough. We have told you today about programs across this country that are necessary because they are in communities, and they are going where people need the skills. They are meeting those local needs, whether they are in Aboriginal groups or in a small village in rural Quebec. Those needs are being expressed, and volunteers are stepping in and being trained and teaching people. Volunteers bear a cost. They work for nothing, but there is a management function and materials that they need.
Laubach Literacy of Canada operates the New Readers Bookstore. We did not talk about that. We sell literacy materials to help with our own sustainability. However, it is still a service. We carry 500 titles for literacy practitioners and learners, especially for this field, and we are augmenting our Canadian content every year. It is a barometer of what is going on in the community. The bookstore helps us support ourselves, but in the last six months the delivery of books to literacy organizations in this country has gone down 30 per cent.
Senator Champagne: Human Resources and Social Development Canada, HRSDC, had $81 million for literacy in the 2006 budget. Hopefully, there will be more. We must do something immediately to change the course of this and help you to continue your work and be able to do it better.
[Translation]
Senator Pépin: To follow up on Senator Champagne's comments, it is likely that they want to be better organized. However, were you consulted on how to restructure your operations? You were told that your funding would be cut, but did anyone ask you if there was a better way of running your operations?
Ms. Hamilton: In my view, Canadian adults needing literacy services are well served. By the way, in French, the words ``alphabétisation'' and ``littératie'' are now interchangeable.
Mention was made of the difficulty in getting people to understand that literacy is a very honourable field of endeavour. Perhaps more funding is needed to seek out learners in the community. Right now, we can train teachers and run a small agency on an annual budget of $50,000 or $60,000. However, there is no additional funding for seeking out other potential learners. We often hear the expression ``Be careful what you wish for.'' If we were suddenly to have a hundred new students, would we be able to help them with our current level of funding? That could present quite a problem.
[English]
Andrew Treusch, Assistant Deputy Minister, Strategic Policy and Planning, Human Resources and Skills Development Canada: Honourable senators, it is a great honour to appear before the committee today with my colleague, Marie- Josée Thivierge, Assistant Deputy Minister of the Learning Branch.
[Translation]
I understand that the committee is interested in examining the future of literacy programs in Canada, the consolidation of federal funding and the role of literacy organizations in promoting education and employment skills in Canada.
[English]
To put our comments in perspective, I thought it would be useful to briefly reprise the department's mandate. The mandate of Human Resources and Social Development Canada is to build a stronger and more competitive Canada by offering choices leading to a productive and satisfying life while improving the quality of life for all Canadians.
Through HRSDC, Canadians know better how to access training and apprenticeship opportunities, protect themselves, be productive in the workplace and have effective union-management relations.
[Translation]
They can also count on our programs and our support at every important stage in their lives, from childhood to retirement. They receive the services they need through our department, including Service Canada.
[English]
The department is responsible for implementing many new programs and initiatives arising from Budget 2006, including the launch of the new universal child care benefit, the implementation of the new apprenticeship incentive grant and the launch of federal-provincial programs supporting older workers.
Two recent developments affect our strategic priorities in the areas of literacy and essential skills. Honourable senators are well aware of the Budget 2006 announcement where the government launched a review of its expenditure management system. As part of that, the President of the Treasury Board was tasked to identify savings of $1 billion for 2006-07 and 2007-08. On September 25, 2006, the Honourable Jim Flaherty, Minister of Finance, and the Honourable John Baird, President of the Treasury Board, announced a strategy to secure $1 billion in savings this year and next as set out in the spring budget. The decisions taken were set out in a press release of that date.
HRSDC was among the departments that were part of the review. The total impact on HRSDC was a reduction in spending of $32 million in 2006-07 and $75.5 million in 2007-08 out of a total departmental annual budget of approximately $80 billion.
The Adult Learning, Literacy and Essential Skills Program, ALLESP, was reduced by $17.7 million over two years, leaving $81 million in adult learning, literacy and essential skills under this program this year and next year, 2007-08.
References have been made several times to the International Adult Literacy Skills Survey, IALSS, which was conducted in both 1993 and 2003. Our department is the funder for these surveys in Canada and continues to conduct very important research on the findings.
I will leave four fact sheets with you today. They show a few of the findings from the report, some of the dimensions of the literacy and essential skills challenges for working Canadians and how we benchmark ourselves against the world.
I mention three things, in particular, to wet your appetites. The first is immigration. Although recent immigrants have higher education levels than native-born Canadians, a larger proportion of them fall at level 1, prose literacy proficiency, compared to native-born Canadians.
The second is labour market. Among adults who experience unemployment, it is those with higher literacy who are more likely to regain entry into employment sooner than those with low literacy proficiencies.
The overall results, the third, have already been mentioned. In aggregate, the proportion of Canadian adults performing at the low literacy level remains largely unchanged between 1994 and 2003.
Close to concluding, I would draw the committee's attention to last fall's economic and fiscal update, which laid the ground for the Government of Canada's economic agenda, Advantage Canada. One of the key long-term objectives of Advantage Canada is to build a knowledge advantage, one that will create the best educated, the most skilled and the most flexible workforce in the world.
[Translation]
Three pillars have been identified for moving forward on improving Canada's human capital: quantity, quality and efficiency. Under these pillars, the Government of Canada has identified important actions for skills development.
[English]
Especially reviewing and eliminating barriers to workforce participation for under-represented groups such as Aboriginal Canadians, older workers and persons with disabilities; working with the provinces, territories and the private sector to make training and skills development more widely available to Canadians and better aligned to the needs of the country. Indeed, meeting these challenges involves the efforts of a range of actors: provinces and territories, employers, unions and the voluntary sector.
[Translation]
I will now turn to Ms. Thivierge to provide you with more information on the federal literacy and essential skills programming and the Adult Learning, Literacy and Essential Skills Program.
Ms. Marie-Josée Thivierge, Assistant Deputy Minister, Learning Branch, Human Resources and Skills Development Canada: Thank you, honourable senators. As my colleague noted, literacy initiatives involve a range of stakeholders who share the very important task of meeting literacy and essential skills challenges. These include community agencies, businesses, unions and all levels of government.
My focus today will be on literacy and essential skills programming, specifically on the programs offered by HRSDC.
[English]
A snapshot of federal activities conducted in 2005-06 reveals that several federal departments and agencies provide direct support to literacy and essential skills. Departments responsible for such investments include: Correctional Service Canada; Citizenship and Immigration Canada; Statistics Canada; Library and Archives Canada; and Human Resources and Social Development Canada to name but a few. These investments were directed at a range of federal target populations and included a span of activities, such as employability skills, reading clubs and enhanced language training.
In addition, the Government of Canada has provided an endowment to the Canadian Council on Learning, which was referenced here earlier, to support research and best practices in life-long learning, such as their recent State of Learning in Canada report.
[Translation]
HRSDC offers a range of programs and policy instruments that, directly or indirectly, meet the needs of Canadians with literacy and essential skills deficiencies.
Allow me to list a few of them for you. The Aboriginal Human Resources Development Strategy is aimed at helping aboriginal organizations develop and implement programs that focus on assisting Aboriginal people to find and maintain employment. This strategy also encourages programming that targets aboriginal youth, thus enabling them to move from the classroom to the labour market or assisting them in going back to school.
[English]
Part II of the Employment Insurance Act provides funding for skills development, including adult basic education. Adult basic education involves education below the postsecondary level and consists of elementary and secondary school courses, academic upgrading, as well as basic literacy and numeracy courses. The Government of Canada delivers this or others in Part II of its employment programming in five provinces and territories with responsibility for the delivery of similar programming transferred to provinces and territorial governments in the remaining eight jurisdictions.
The essential skills initiative, which focuses exclusively on the workplace, seeks to improve the skills of Canadians entering or already in the labour market. This is achieved by partnering with workplace stakeholders, including employers, unions and learning institutions to develop practical tools and supports to address essential skills of the Canadian workforce.
[Translation]
The Adult Learning, Literacy and Essential Skills Program administered by the National Office of Literacy and Learning is another tool in support of literacy. This program was launched on April 1, 2006 and came about as the result of the merger of three programs, namely the National Literacy Program, the Office of Learning Technologies and the Learning Initiatives Program.
[English]
The Adult Learning, Literacy and Essential Skills Program was developed taking into consideration program evaluation findings of the three former programs, which found that HRSDC support to literacy needed to be more strategic through focussed priorities, needed to establish better outcomes tracking, look to better target support to equity population and increase the measurability of results.
[Translation]
The merger of these three programs in accordance with a unique set of conditions is designed to ensure efficient use of resources, lower administrative costs and improved measurement of impacts and results. Furthermore, the merger was intended to enhance coordination efforts and the standardization of available support services.
[English]
The objectives of the ALLESP are to promote life-long learning by reducing non-financial barriers to adult learners and also facilitate the creation of opportunities for Canadians to acquire and develop the learning, literacy and essential skills they need to participate in a knowledge-based economy.
The government, in announcing last September on its decision to re-target the ALLESP future programming funding, spoke on a focus of national priorities and achieving concrete results for Canadians.
I have spoken about the literacy and essential skills programming at HRSDC, but it is important to underline that the department's programs are not the whole story. Addressing literacy challenges requires many partners and stakeholders, including, as noted earlier, other federal departments, the provinces and territories, business, labour, communities, families, volunteer organizations and learning institutions.
[Translation]
There are many opportunities for the Government of Canada and its partners to collaborate on literacy initiatives. Each stakeholder has an important role to play in the process.
[English]
In closing, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to speak here today and provide this overview of literacy programming in Canada. We would be pleased to respond to questions from the honourable senators.
[Translation]
Senator Champagne: First of all, may I say that I would like a copy of your presentations. I would like to go over some of the details. On listening to your comments, we almost get the impression that everything is going swimmingly. However, when we talk to the people on the front line, we sense that they are all currently operating in panic mode. They are worried about whether they will receive new funds to survive or to carry on their work. When will they get some answers? Do they have good reason to panic, in terms of the programs that you administer?
Ms. Thivierge: In my presentation I provided an overview of the different programs that contribute to the federal literacy initiative.
Regarding HRSDC and literacy in particular, when the government announced its decision last September, it was very clear about the program's future direction. At present, the program operates with a budget of $81 million over two years, that is for this year and for next year. At the same time, the government also announced that all calls for proposals received by mid-September would go forward, meaning that all proposals received by the government in September 2006 would be evaluated and reviewed. Currently the department is examining the various proposals submitted.
Senator Champagne: So then, a climate of uncertainty prevails. That is true for Metropolis Bleu in Montreal. They are wondering if they should throw everything out and go back to the drawing board. The department is not ready to tell us whether we can proceed, or whether we should look elsewhere for funding. That is where matters stand at the present time.
Ms. Thivierge: For starters, as government officials, we are implementing a very clear decision. The budget is $81 million over two years. That being said, proposals have been received and all of them must be reviewed by the department.
Senator Champagne: I am not blaming you as a government official. You were not the one who made this decision. Your job now is to review all of the proposals submitted to you. I realize that this cannot be done in a day. However, I simply wanted you to know that people are anxiously waiting to find out what their status is.
[English]
Mr. Treusch: As administrators of this program, we have, as of September, a certainty about the funds in the program base for the next two years — and as of the summer as well. We have in place new terms and conditions on which we can administer. Obviously, now our position is to be providing advice for a decision on the applications that we have in hand. We take as a representation the urgency of it, in light of the groups' status.
The Chairman: Can you tell us what the $17.7 million represents? How did you come to that number? What is it cutting?
Mr. Treusch: I gave, in my opening remarks, the base of the program. If you add the $17.7 million to the $81 million, you will have what the funds would have been before the change for the two years in total.
As to how the numbers were arrived at, this is part of looking across government, departments and programs to find a way to achieve the government's goal of $1 billion in savings.
The Chairman: There were not any specific programs or services in that. It is a calculation to try to reach a ballpark figure for across-government savings; is that what you are telling me?
Mr. Treusch: If I understand, there was no target for departments. This was a program review against the criteria set out by the government.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: I would like to ask this question in two parts. I do not believe I wrote it down correctly. What was the total cut that HRSDC had over two years?
Mr. Treusch: Let me repeat, if I may, the two sentences. Again, all of the figures are set out in the Government of Canada's September 25 press release — by the Minister of Finance and President of the Treasury Board — not only for this department, but for others as well. For HRSDC, the reduction in spending is $32 million in the year we are now in, 2006-07, and $75.5 million in the year to come, 2007-08. I reference this in the context of our budget, which, in the year that we are now in, is about $80 billion. The Adult Learning, Literacy and Essential Skills Program that is of clear interest to this committee today was reduced by $17.7 million. That is over two years, which was the base of the exercise, leaving $81 million in the program, again, on the same two-year basis.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: Am I correct that you had a cut of about $80 million in HRSDC? I have that wrong. It was $108 million.
Mr. Treusch: It was $107.5 million, yes, senator.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: It seems to me that close to 20 per cent, or a very large proportion of this cut, went to literacy. If you have $108 million cut for the whole department and you cut $17.7 million from literacy, that is 17 or 18 per cent of the total cut. The percentage cut for literacy is what percentage of your total cut in HRSDC?
Mr. Treusch: It would be the number produced by taking the $107.5 million and dividing it by 17.7. In my head, I am guessing that is about 17 per cent or so.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: I find that a huge cut and a huge percentage. In HRSDC, I would imagine you have hundreds of programs. Literacy is only one. Is it not a very large percentage of your total cut?
Mr. Treusch: That is an excellent question, senator. I did reference the $80-billion figure. For a department like HRSDC, approximately 90 per cent of our funds — in the year that we are now in — are statutory programs, such as employment insurance, the Canada Pension Plan, old age security, student loans, all of which have a statutory base. These program reviews largely involve a focus on voted grants and contributions, which takes us to a much smaller number. Drawing on memory, it is perhaps $1.2 billion for the department. Officials provide advice to ministers in making these very difficult reallocation decisions. Today, our topic is literacy and essential skills, but other programs are directed at Aboriginal peoples, persons with disabilities, et cetera, so all of these groups have their clientele. The focus here was not on the clientele, but on the effectiveness of the spending. It was on those bases.
One final point, if it helps you, is that the cut here is not the largest contribution of our department and it is not the smallest.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: I am not clear what you mean by that. Was any other program cut as much as literacy?
Mr. Treusch: Are you asking for nominal dollar amounts or a percentage amount?
Senator Trenholme Counsell: As a percentage.
Mr. Treusch: Yes.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: Can you tell us what other program was cut by 17 per cent?
Mr. Treusch: It was the summer career placement program.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: By what percentage were student jobs cut?
Mr. Treusch: I do not have the percentage figures, but I have the nominal figures.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: The student program was cut by more than 17 per cent and cuts to literacy were next. Is that right?
Mr. Treusch: In nominal figures, the largest contribution from HRSDC would be summer career placement in 2007- 08.
Senator Fairbairn: I am well aware of all the important activities of HRSDC. It is a conglomerate of many departments that have come together over the years. In the area of literacy, the National Literacy Secretariat was like ``the little engine that could.'' It has now been included in a larger part of that issue.
The money that we are talking about might not seem like much, but it is for the people on the ground, who work on this issue and who have been supported by the government directly for many years through the signing of federal- provincial agreements and the efforts of everybody working together. That seemed odd at times, but that cooperation allowed everyone to know exactly what the programs would be and which would be the most effective ones to be carried out. That was the foundation of our work across the country and there is no question about whether it does not resonate in Ottawa. However, out on the land and in the towns and villages, it is one of the most important programs that they have had. Senator Trenholme Counsell knows that well as do many other senators here today.
My concern is that it appeared there would be an expansion of assisting this issue, given the discussions on the cross- Canada accord with the provinces to try to do even better. In the Senate, we read about and listen to what we get. Then, the phone started ringing over the on-the-ground anxiety because it has been severe. I would like to believe that that level of anxiety is not necessary. Where do the coalitions stand — the ones with the organizations that train the individuals, whatever the age group and whatever the background — if we are not in a position to honour that part of our past agreements?
Ms. Thivierge: With the government's decision came the decision that all signed agreements would be honoured and that the government would proceed with the priorities that had been set jointly with the provinces and the territories to allow calls for proposals to carry out, and to review all of the proposals that had been received.
The program is project-based funding. Organizations, whether national, provincial or local, are eligible under the terms and conditions of the program. I do not know whether I fully understood your question, but, in terms of the program funding being available to organizations across the country, as I noted earlier, there is a budget in place. However, the government's decision was to refocus or retarget the program funding not only to areas of national priorities, but also to areas where there would be concrete and measurable results for the learners. That is the direction upon which we are implementing the government's decision.
Senator Fairbairn: I appreciate that. For the people on the ground, that does not give them much comfort. Whatever the view in Ottawa might be about what is important, all of these folks have been learning and now they are worried that their opportunity to learn more, so they can have a job and a decent life, will not continue. Their concern, and ours, is whether those agreements and partnerships drifted off in order to have a much closer use for the money? We both know that there is a great concern across the country. The sense is that a large chunk has been removed, and that chunk is the one that was at the heart and the soul of the literacy movement in Canada.
Mr. Treusch: I will highlight two points, senator. I will compare my involvement in this matter with you. Fundamentally, there are a couple of points that we are trying to bring to the government's testimony today. One point is with respect to the source of funding at hand. The terms and conditions are in place as are the funding parameters. We will be administering that program with a focus on effectiveness, taking into account the last evaluation and looking for tangible, concrete results, of course, with national priorities.
The other message that we have been sending is the way this issue, which arises from the survey, has been rightly defined in its dimensions. An issue that large and complex cannot be addressed by a department, government, single program or by these good people from organizations and all the work that they do. Rather, the issue needs to have government come at this problem through multiple points. That is why I made reference to Advantage Canada and some of the efforts that we make in respect to formal education, skills, efforts with Aboriginal peoples and immigrant integration. When the problem is large, we have to be as focussed as possible on the dimensions of the problem in order to have the strategies to tackle it. No one program or instrument can address this on its own.
Senator Fairbairn: I understand that, and some of your comments make me feel that there is a great deal of money and assistance to a certain level. However, there is another level, which is the subject of these discussions. We have been hearing from those who will be affected, and we are worried. We are not pointing fingers at HRSDC, but we are worried about the people on the ground, who are far off the beaten track, who have been trying and who cannot do this in schools. They need to learn on a one-to-one basis. In the end, they are the ones who will fall by the wayside to such a point that it will be even more difficult for us to lift up the lower part of our population, which we need desperately.
Mr. Treusch: These are important representations.
Senator Callbeck: I want to go back to this question of a cut, the $17.7 million. That means roughly $8.9 million came out this year. Now, what makes up that $8.9 million this year? What was cut?
Mr. Treusch: I will try to clarify a few areas. Nothing has been affected directly, yet. This is a fund that the program administrators administrate, so the size of the fund that they will be administering for the balance of this year and for next year will be reduced by those amounts. The announcement has the government administrators focusing on the efficiency of the projects. As in the past, proposals are put in, considered on their basis of merit, advice is rendered and decisions are made. My colleague made reference to the changes with respect to the findings of the 2002-03 evaluation. In that sense, nothing has been cut at this point.
Senator Callbeck: When will we know what will make up that $8.9 million?
Ms. Thivierge: First, the $17.7 million is divided at $5.8 million this fiscal year and $11.9 million next fiscal year. Those are the numbers for the record. In regard to what my colleague has mentioned, agreements that are in place remain in place and will be honoured. In future decisions under the program, the government has clearly said that it will look for tangible and measurable results to learners. It is in that focused way that, ultimately, with the remaining envelope, allocations or decisions will be made. However, signed agreements and legal commitments currently in place are being honoured. Funding has been reduced by $5.8 million for future decision making for this fiscal year.
Senator Callbeck: Let us talk about future decisions. Senator Fairbairn has spoken about the federal-provincial agreements, which worked well. Sometimes we hear of programs in federal-provincial relations that do not go well, but these are positive. It is fair to say that relationships between the provinces and the federal government under this program have been excellent. You have mentioned that there are new terms and conditions. You have asked for proposals. Prince Edward Island gets roughly $300,000 every year — I believe they are hoping to get $325,000 next year under a federal provincial grant. That proposal has been in for some time. We are looking at six weeks before the end of the year. In reviewing proposals under the new terms and conditions, when will, for example, the province of Prince Edward Island find out if they are getting that grant of $325,000?
Ms. Thivierge: I will first address the issue of provincial and territorial partnership. This year, 2006-07, priorities were established jointly between the federal government, provinces and territories. Calls for proposals were put up in every province and territory over the summer and closed mid-September. In regard to timing, we are now in the process of reviewing and assessing those proposals that we have received.
Senator Callbeck: In other words, you have no idea when you will get an answer. You are putting these people in a difficult situation. It is weeks before the end of their funding. You have nothing to say as to whether they might know in a week or not until next April?
Ms. Thivierge: We have external review panels that review all of the proposals. Of those, there are experts in the field, representatives from the provincial governments, as well as some technical experts available to answer questions for the expert review panels. Those panels have been carried out as far as into January. I understand your point, senator, but, as was the case in earlier years, there have been recognized values on the part of communities, the provinces and the federal government in pulling together those expert review panels. That work has been concluded, and we are into the next phase of bringing the expertise together and doing the final assessment.
Senator Callbeck: How long will that take?
Ms. Thivierge: We are reviewing all of the proposals as we speak. There were — I do not have the exact number with me — over 400 proposals that came in through the call process. Those have been going through the proper review process. As officials of the National Office of Literacy, we are reviewing the files in due process, as was the case in previous years.
Senator Callbeck: In other words, you are saying the funding may run out — well, it will run out at the end of March — and people will not know then if they are getting renewed or not.
Mr. Treusch: With respect to administering terms and conditions for grants and contribution programs and the accountability obligations expected of departmental officials, we have a certain process to follow. We ask for proposals, and we are expected, as you would expect, to review and assess them fairly against the criteria, and against each other. On that basis, we provide advice, and decisions are made on the funds made available to us. That is the way the process generally works in a grant and contribution program, whether ones budget is growing or whether it is small.
If you are an organization, such as the witnesses', and a grant or contribution from the program is a large part of your revenue stream, this is an important decision for you. We understand that and the anxiety about it, but as mentioned, the terms and conditions are in place, the funding decisions have been taken, the applications that Ms. Thivierge has in hand will be processed.
The Chairman: I will ask a supplementary on that because the National Indigenous Literacy Association has indicated their funding application is coming up at the end of the fiscal year, and they have an application beyond that, but she says negotiations have not even started.
Mr. Treusch: Without speaking to the group or its application, there are a lot of government-wide issues on the administration of grants and contributions arising from two compelling imperatives. One is what is expected of governments, ministers and civil servants, which is to strengthen accountabilities and controls, the reasons for which this committee is well aware.
At the same time, there have been growing concerns with the recipients of grants and contributions, particularly the voluntary sector and small organizations, such as the ones we heard from today.
This really takes us to the blue ribbon panel that was announced by the President of the Treasury Board, where experts are looking across government at the way we administer grants and contributions and whether, in trying to achieve the most stringent accountability, we have put undue administrative hardship on the recipients. Reference was made again to project funding, trying to meet the different terms and conditions between different programs or funding that goes from year to year. These are broad issues that are relevant to this program, but that run across grants and contributions generally.
Ms. Thivierge: When a decision is made with regard to a funding allocation, according to Treasury Board policy, we need to establish either a grant agreement or contribution agreement, depending on the nature of the funding that is being provided. I presume that the earlier reference about having negotiations or discussions with programs was in reference to the fact that, once a decision is made, the program will contact an applicant and will put in place the formalities consistent with Treasury Board policies on how funding will be provided and what the reporting and accountability conditions are tied to that funding.
The Chairman: Meanwhile, there is a lot of anxiety and uncertainty among organizations that have been doing marvellous work for a long period of time.
Senator Fairbairn: What has happened to the pan-Canadian strategy that came out of an education and business meeting a few years ago in Toronto? There was a major recommendation in the House of Commons social affairs committee, which, for the first time in history just a few years ago, did a very fulsome study on this issue.
I wonder whether this notion of a pan-Canadian strategy is still in the works somewhere as you move along. I do appreciate it is a difficult situation you are in, but is that still up for discussion? Certainly, the provinces were fairly responsive to it at the time.
Mr. Treusch: There were a couple of strands there, senator. Are you referring to the 2003 standing committee report and those recommendations?
Senator Fairbairn: Yes.
Mr. Treusch: There was a parliamentary committee report with its recommendations. The government at the time responded to the report. Many changes have taken place since 2003 to governments, ministers and our department.
We have made some progress on some aspects of that report. It is hard to suggest that we have done justice to all of the report, but reference was made by my colleague, Ms. Thivierge, to the inventory of federal programs. Therefore, with respect to having a broader Government of Canada approach, we have tried to strengthen our linkages there.
I made reference to the work we have done with the 2003 literacy data, and I am accompanied by one of my experts here. We have put a lot of time and effort into taking that data to each of the provinces and tailoring the data set for each province. We have a lot of time on the international side.
More tangibly, I spoke about one of the main findings being the high incidence of low literacy with recent immigrants. There have been government actions and announcements about enhanced language training. There have been investments in Aboriginal skills and employment, which is one area of acute attention where it is warranted. There are actions that I feel all represent steps consistent with the parliamentary report.
I should have mentioned, as well, the role of the Canada Council on Learning — which has been invoked by this committee and the witnesses already — and the important work it does on this front.
Senator Cochrane: I want to zero in on the survey of the 42 per cent of Canadians who have low literacy skills. Can you tell us how much your department spent on literacy programs between the years of 1994 and 2003 — the two IALSS years?
Have the survey results accurately reflected the literacy picture in Canada? If so, why was there no overall improvement in literacy skills despite all the cash invested in literacy programs? What is the problem here? What is wrong with this picture? It does not jive.
Mr. Treusch: That is a wonderful question, senator. I will disappoint you in the first part of the answer. I am not able to show the expenditure in total on literacy from 1994 to 2003. Again, we could give you a snapshot now. We could do a quick tally of that for this program we have been discussing, but the broader number would be complicated.
Senator Cochrane: You could send it to us later.
Mr. Treusch: We are happy to send you something, senator. Looking over 10 years of Government of Canada spending across government might be a bit of an effort, but we will try to send you something that would help you. I commit to that.
Senator Cochrane: Something concrete?
Mr. Treusch: I understand, senator — not numbers and a table.
On the second part, I listened with fascination to the question about what the numbers would show in the next 10 years. I do not know how it would be forecast.
We have the benefit of looking at what happened in the last decade. There are different factors at work here. We know, for example, that more Canadians are participating in education; and education correlates with numeracy and literacy, so that is a positive trend. We know that more people are completing high school and attending university; that helps to reduce the level. There are a number of changes such as that, which would suggest literacy has improved.
On the other hand, since a very acute incidence here is recent immigrants — and Canada is an immigrant country in a strong way, which differentiates us from some of the Scandinavian countries — that is one factor why progress is less than we might have expected.
Also, literacy strongly correlates with age. By that, I mean that as people grow older, these scores go down sharply. Why is that? It is partly because older cohorts, generally speaking, have lower levels of education attainment.
Here it is a bit more speculative, but it is also because it would seem that if people do not use literacy and numeracy in their work life or home life, skills not used rust and decline. That means that as the Canadian population ages, notwithstanding rising education attainment, there is this temptation.
I will add another factor — which is purely speculative, but something to think about — and that is whether there is something in contemporary society, with television, the Internet and all of these forces, that is detracting from numeracy and literacy.
If we have a calculator, perhaps we do not invest the same effort in mathematical calculations. If we have a word processor to proof our spelling, perhaps we do not invest as much time in learning how to spell a word in the first place.
Senator Cochrane: When the funding changes were announced in September, it was said that the federal government's new mandate in the area was to focus on programs that are national in nature. You said that we will have measurable results from the learners. Would you elaborate more on what this means? What are these national programs and how will the shift in mandate affect the status quo?
Ms. Thivierge: The program, which came into being on April 1, 2006, essentially supports four areas; research and knowledge; capacity-building; innovative tools and practices — you have heard from other witnesses about practitioner training and innovative tools that help the learner acquire skills in unique circumstances; and promotion and awareness, which was also mentioned.
The government has said that with that program structure and with those sets of activities being possible, to receive funding, it will look for concrete results for the learners. The federal government does not have a primary direct responsibility for training. Under the program, we have what we refer to as wrap-around services. We provide the opportunities for the learning to take place and provinces will support the direct training. The government has said, in its decision, that as future decisions on funding are made, organizations that apply for that funding will have to clearly demonstrate how their project proposals have a focus on the learner. That is essentially the direction that has been provided.
Senator Callbeck: I believe you said $81 million would be spent this year on literacy programs.
Mr. Treusch: That is for next year also.
Senator Callbeck: Once you decide how those funds will be allocated this year — and we are coming to the end of the fiscal year fast — could you forward that information to the committee, please?
Mr. Treusch: ``Yes'' is the right answer, senator, but also any funding decision that we make on grants and contributions on any program, once approved, are public knowledge. However, we will also undertake to ensure that that is provided to you.
The Chairman: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Treusch, on the IALSS with reference to immigration. If a person immigrates to Canada, they would be literate and reach a level 3, but their language skills would not be as good here. If they fall down in English or French to level 1 or 2, would they then be counted in the statistics of that 42 per cent with low literacy skills?
Mr. Treusch: That is an extraordinarily important question, and I do not want to go beyond my understanding of it. An immigrant to Canada must demonstrate a certain proficiency in one or the other official language. That goes by nature of our immigration system. We have been successful as a country in attracting higher and higher levels of immigrants with high educational attainments; in fact, higher than the Canadian norm. It is a paradox as to why at the same time I am suggesting from the data that the literacy and numeracy levels are much lower. The data suggest that it is a language issue or they may say something about standards or levels of quality and different expectations in different countries. However, I am probably not learned enough to go beyond that. That is something about which we can provide more information.
The Chairman: It is possible that a person in his or her home country could meet the literacy standards of level 3, then, upon arriving here, he or she does not meet them simply because of language?
Mr. Treusch: Yes, it is possible.
The Chairman: There could be many people in that category.
[Translation]
Senator Pépin: If I understood correctly, you want a program that is efficient. On listening to you speak, we sense that you want a well structured program. Will there be adequate guidelines in place so that people have a clear idea of where they are going and how to apply? My perception at this time is that there are many programs in place, that everyone is working, that your approach is somewhat scattered and that a decision has now been made to streamline things. Will specific guidelines be formulated so that people know what to expect and whether they will receive any funding?
Ms. Thivierge: When we put out a call for proposals under the program, we clearly identify priorities, requirements and objectives that agencies must meet. In the past — and even in the case of calls for proposals submitted last September — priorities were clearly identified in each province. The government added another element in September. Calls for proposals must satisfy some new review requirements.
Senator Pépin: It is no secret that funding will be reduced. This prospect has made people quite anxious. You stated that since September 2006, you have been reviewing calls for proposals. The announcement came a little later. Let us hope that everything works out well. However, the impression we have is that some restructuring has taken place following some budget cuts. Perhaps I am wrong, but that is my understanding of the situation.
Senator Chaput: I understand full well that you have received very clear instructions from the government as to the direction you should take and that you have a job to do. I do not have a problem with this. What I do have a problem with is the time spent on restructuring and improving operations in the name of quality, efficiency and quantity. You maintain that funding has not been cut, but groups have yet to receive any money and they do not know if ultimately they will. A few weeks ago, a woman told me that next month, she will not have the money to pay someone. That person has to pay rent and daycare and if she is not paid, she will quit. Well, that person did quit her job. That is the truth. I am not blaming you, but these are the facts.
You talk about a new focus and about calls for project proposals. I am concerned about the word ``project.'' Are you talking about a project with a clear beginning and end date, one that targets a specific group for a period of a year? If so, then our agencies and groups, whether national or local, will not longer be able to plan for the long term. They will be exhausted from having to develop proposals year after year on the basis of criteria that may not even be geared to their own specific needs. I am afraid of projects.
I come from a minority francophone community. I have 30 years' experience in Manitoba working with community groups and projects. Not only does this stifle initiatives, it kills people slowly.
If this is the direction that you wish to take, you will be unable to measure and evaluate outcomes, because the people will no longer be around. It is not your fault, but this situation does worry me.
Ms. Thivierge: Let me just briefly say that the three initial programs integrated into the current program did in fact operate on a project by project basis. Agencies are therefore accustomed to operating on a project by project basis, to having a clear project start and end date. Projects may be carried out over a period of several years. There is nothing in the program requirements stating that projects are for one year only. Under the program, initiatives or projects have been funded for periods ranging from 18 months to two or three years. The intent behind the decision was not to focus more on how literacy projects are carried out. These organizations are not dealing with anything new here.
Senator Chaput: I understand, but you are saying that the approach is likely to be the same as before, where projects are concerned. Projects could be carried out over more than 12 months. A group could apply for and receive funding for one, two or three years, as was the case in the past. Or, will that no longer be true?
Ms. Thivierge: At present, program terms and conditions do not specify how long a project may last. The organization determines the length of the project as well as concrete targets.
[English]
Senator Keon: I do not want to underestimate the magnitude of your problem, but I have not heard anything that comforts me. I feel what you are doing is badly flawed. You are placing too much emphasis on actions, with virtually no effort to measure results. I see no evidence in what you are doing of comparative cohorts, for example, of Aboriginals and first-generation immigrants, where you could set up experimental and control models to measure what you are achieving. You are not doing that, as far as I can tell.
I am deeply concerned that the program itself is moving in an anachronistic fashion. In other words, you are setting up a bureaucracy in which I do not see how any first-generation immigrant or native person could get through and move up to hold a job like yours. You are measuring their competence, but you have no evidence that you can improve their competence.
I am sorry, but it is déjà vu to me, similar to our health system, where we spend all our money on repair shops rather than designing a system. I hope that you will take time out and design a system where you measure what you are doing.
Mr. Treusch: It is an important challenge. There are two points, if I take the gravity of the issues that you are raising. One point is consistent with the evaluation findings to which we have alluded. This is a long document, which is on the public record. Notwithstanding these expenditures, this program and the good work of the movement, we have not been able to demonstrate measurable results for the investment and effort. That is notoriously difficult to do in this area. If that is what you are saying, that is what our own program evaluation says, and we have alluded to that.
Second, I hope I am not misunderstanding you, but I believe all the people who have looked at this issue know that the most effective strategy is one of early investment, if I may say, as opposed to remedial efforts, which is what many of the people here are trying to achieve with adult literacy. The kind of framework you are speaking of is that we have the appropriate investments in early childhood; that we have a primary and secondary school system that people complete, and that when they complete it, they have numeracy and literacy; and that we continue to increase participation in higher education. Beyond that, there is lifelong learning, which involves a workplace where literacy and numeracy skills are exercised, so that they stay active. That is the framework for the right way to do it, I would suggest. In closing, as I tried to say earlier, no one institution, government or program can advance that kind of ambitious lifelong learning approach.
The idea of having cohorts and experimental analysis is correct. As a department that does such analyses, they are extraordinarily costly ventures and do not produce results quickly. We are running a couple of experiments that are world-class. They are time-consuming and costly, and the findings take many years. Many people do not have the patience for those kinds of investments.
Senator Keon: I am very pleased to hear that. I do not feel you will get a quick fix. It will take time.
I would imagine that when someone applies to you for funding, part of that application should demonstrate to you how they will measure their outcomes. If applicants do not have the expertise to outline that in the application, you should set up an office that would help them. Then we would be getting somewhere.
Mr. Treusch: I take that as a commentary, senator.
The Chairman: We have run over time. Thanks very much to both of you.
The committee adjourned.