Honourable senators, I thank the honourable Senator Bellemare for initiating this inquiry and for inviting us all to reflect on literacy and essential skills development in the 21^st century.

Senator Bellemare posed three questions in her speech. First, she asked what conclusions we can draw from statistics about Canadians’ literacy and essential skills. Her speech on this topic was clear and comprehensive. She suggests that Canada is far from remarkable on this issue, and we even lag behind many countries. She also demonstrated that there are inequalities within Canada, from one province to the other.

Today I want to elaborate on this topic, not to talk about the statistics about Canadians’ literacy and essential skills, but to talk about the services offered in Canada. We must look closely at the state of affairs in Canada, especially since the existence of inequalities from one province to the other indicates that the services and resources available are also unbalanced.

At this stage, I will limit my speech to the challenges faced by official language minority communities and newcomers within these communities. I am looking at literacy from this perspective so that I can represent the challenges facing the communities I know well and also to show that literacy is more than just an economic issue. Literacy is multi-faceted and has a major impact on people and communities. Some obstacles and realities are unique to these communities, while others are experienced elsewhere.

For the most part, the data I am presenting are taken from a recent report published on March 26 entitled Développement de l’alphabétisme et des compétences essentielles dans les communautés de langue officielle en situation minoritaire : Une analyse des besoins.

This report, written by Marc L. Johnson under the supervision of Linda Cardinal, is part of study by the Chaire de recherche sur la francophonie et les politiques publiques at the University of Ottawa. The study asked the following questions: (a) What is the gap between the availability of literacy and essential skills development in the majority language and that in the minority language? (b) How does the literacy and essential skills development problem affect the adult population of official language minority communities? (c) What is the nature of the demand for essential skills development in official language minority communities? (d) What are the specific needs for training and employability? (e) What are the overall literacy and essential skills development needs in official language minority communities in the provinces and territories?

The researchers used a number of data sources to beef up their research, and they also took a close look at the opinions and perceptions of stakeholders, including literacy and essential skills development service providers, adult learners, community leaders and employers.

This extensive research produced interesting results. It was especially important for communities because it coincided with what appeared to be the imminent closure of the Réseau pour le développement de l’alphabétisme et des compétences, or RESDAC, for want of core funding. I should note that RESDAC was saved at the 11^th hour.

What can we learn from this study? Here are the main findings that kept coming up for all provinces and territories.

First, communities’ needs relate not only to work, but also to personal life, family life and community life. Second, literacy rates in francophone communities overall are lower than in the general population. There is a need to improve not only skills and techniques related to employability, but also basic skills. Third, communities see essential skills development as an important aspect of their needs. Essential skills are defined as, and I quote:

. . . the foundation for learning all other skills, [enabling] people to better prepare for, get and keep a job, and adapt and succeed at work.

However, for communities, they are useful in other settings besides the workplace.

Fourth, language training is in high demand across the country, for a variety of reasons: francophones or spouses in exogamous families want to polish up their French skills so they can help their children with their school work or pass on the language to them; francophone immigrants want to improve their French and learn English; native anglophones or anglophone immigrants want to become bilingual.

Lastly, there are significant needs for the development of technical skills, which can be used directly at work. In most francophone communities, however, these skills will not be developed in French, and workplace training is not suitable for the minority context.

What barriers and challenges do people face today? Some barriers are personal. Low literacy among francophones who were often unable to receive French schooling in childhood becomes a self-perpetuating problem, because many adults’ lack of confidence in their own skills discourages them from taking training. A bad experience at school also discourages adults from returning to any type of training, even years later. Many also worry they will be stigmatized by those around them. In addition, low literacy is often linked to other life circumstances associated with mental health, such as psychological trauma, learning disabilities, anxiety, low self-esteem, and so on.

Other barriers are environmental. A lack of means is a recurring barrier. Financial aid is sometimes available, but it’s no substitute for wages and doesn’t cover incidental expenses like travel and child care. This barrier especially affects adult refugees and single mothers. A precarious socio-economic situation and lack of real job opportunities in people’s local areas are also barriers to literacy and training, since it can be hard to see the usefulness of literacy in those situations. Even in areas where skills development services do exist, the target clientele is often unaware of them.

That was an overview of the important research that was done recently.

Let’s now move on to Senator Bellemare’s second question: Should we be concerned about this?

Our colleague, the Honourable Senator Bellemare, very eloquently presented the economic benefits of literacy. It has been proven that higher rates of literacy usually translate into higher incomes and a lower risk of unemployment.

Literacy, however, is also, and perhaps even more so, a human issue and a community issue. Problems associated with low literacy hinder Canadians’ full participation in all aspects of our civic, economic, social and cultural life and, as a result, diminish their ability to contribute to the development of their respective communities.

Marc Johnson’s research is very useful in this area. In British Columbia, for example, where there is a considerable gap between what is offered in English and in French, stakeholders explained that, although job-related needs are important, this sector does not cover all the needs of francophones. They emphasized that adults with lower levels of literacy do not have the same opportunities as other individuals to contribute to the development of their community.

In short, the lack of sufficient and appropriate literacy resources in official language minority communities is preventing the federal government from fulfilling its responsibility in terms of the substantive equality of both official languages in many provinces.

In Alberta, several generations of the Franco-Albertan community were not educated in French, which creates specific challenges when it comes to literacy.

In my province, Manitoba, considering that French was banned from schools until the end of the 1960s, literacy in French was virtually non-existent for a large part of the francophone population, and a deep linguistic insecurity took root within the communities.

Today, there is a rather diverse range of training services focused on employability and training francophone adults, even though there is better selection in English than in French.

The same findings emerged. Among those taking training to improve their written and oral French skills, certain motivations came up more frequently, such as wanting to maintain their French skills or relearn their mother tongue, take part in the community, and enhance the value of French within the family context.

According to Marc Johnson, the weak link in the continuum of education in French seems to be literacy, which remains underfunded compared to the rest.

This finding points to a direct opposition between the reality on the ground and the restorative nature of the constitutional and quasi-constitutional linguistic rights of Canadians. Literacy, aside from economic issues, affects the very fabric of our personal identities and even our national identity.

That brings us to Senator Bellemare’s third and final question: can we do better than we have already?

In an article by Suzanne Smythe from Simon Fraser University, the following quote by Ireland’s National Adult Literacy Association touched a nerve:

[English]

Despite the country’s well-deserved reputation for research excellence in the field of adult literacy, Canada lacks anything that could be considered a cohesive, coherent or systematic policy approach to adult literacy.

[Translation]

In its conclusion, the article states the following:

[English]

Literacy policy is never just about literacy; its meanings and practices are formed and re-formed in a network of ever-shifting factors, texts and practices.

[Translation]

It’s clear that we need national-level coordination if we want to make literacy a priority in Canada. Research on Canada’s situation on the ground and the various issues is quite advanced. What is missing is a coherent and ambitious public policy.

(1810)

This public policy must be coherent because, at present, investments in literacy depend on the good will of each province or territory. There is little federal investment despite the importance of this issue for the country. The policy must also be ambitious because at this time we are focusing on one of the more restrictive approaches.

[English]

Canada has gone from a policy of workforce training to one of workplace training, meaning that we only give value to literacy programs if they can lead to a job, any job, regardless of its quality. We therefore prioritize employment and job creation above all else — and also above the citizen’s development and civic inclusion.

In her article — again this is Suzanne Smythe — Ten Years of Adult Literacy Policy and Practice in Canada, the “new precariat,” she illustrates this issue well. She explains that scientific research, such as the Adult Literacy and Lifeskills Survey — and it’s called the ALL Survey — an international comparative study designed to provide participating countries with information about the skills of their adult population, referred to three different levels of literacy, with Level 3 being associated with employability.

The goal of this study, however, was to inform policy about the role of access to education in employment and not to prioritize one class over the other. What public policy has done, rather, is to take a turn to place much greater focus on categorizing individuals, such as Levels 1, 2 or 3.

So what has public policy focused on? Identifying the almost Level 3s to bring them to the level of employability. We have focused on identifying individuals who may be most worthy of investment, rather than thinking of literacy and education as a continuum on which each individual is important.

Of course, investing in the almost Level 3s, or the marginally illiterate, provides faster results. But it leaves large portions of the population, those with greater needs, with little or no access to resources. What has happened in our public policy is, in a way, a perversion of the research that has been conducted.

Therefore, little, if any, thought is given to the other objectives of literacy, such as participation in the community. I spoke of these objectives in the context of official-language minority communities. Many of you, honourable colleagues, can think of the essential role of literacy in empowering other communities and vulnerable Canadians and residents in a context that goes far beyond employment.

[Translation]

What we need, honourable colleagues, is a national public policy that makes the success of the learner the focus of any endeavour. In this model, all partners must be involved: the learners, communities, agencies or organizations, schools and post-secondary institutions, unions, employers, professional associations, trainers and educators, researchers, municipalities, provinces, territories and, naturally, the federal government.

Australia’s national strategy, which Senator Bellemare described for us, deserves special attention given its structure — a federation where the states have the primary role in education and training.

In its report entitled A Plea for a Comprehensive and Consistent Approach to Adult Education for Minority Francophones in Canada, RESDAC states:

In the context of the United Nations 2030 Sustainable Development Goals, which seek to end poverty, protect the planet, and ensure prosperity for all, Canada’s responsibility as a signatory requires us to report on progress based on economic, social and citizen criteria.

Honourable colleagues, I support Senator Bellemare’s conclusions. Canada can and must do better. Above all else — and I want to reiterate this — we must put the same emphasis on social and citizen criteria as we do on economic ones.

Thank you.