Some of the more successful models are ones in which the employer is not funded directly. As we were talking about, employers aren't interested in applying for grants and going through that long, long process. In the provinces where it works really well, like Manitoba, it's through a labour market department that actually sends out assessors and trainers to your workplace, figures out what the essential skills and literacy challenges are, and then designs that just-in-time program on their behalf.

Similarly, in Ontario we partnered with the Ontario Literacy Coalition for a workplace literacy project that went into 14 different workplaces across the province. The funding went to the Ontario Literacy Coalition, who then contracted with other local providers to ensure that workplaces had their training needs met.

I think that's a really nice model, where the employer doesn't have to be involved in applying for funding. Sometimes that can be a hassle. If there can be an intermediary, some kind of smart third party, that really helps them. The other thing we hear from employers is that they need a lot of hand-holding. They need help with assessment, with training. A lot of the SMEs in fact don't have HR professionals who are masters of training, so they really are looking for another expert, a college, a school board, a literacy organization that can do that work for them.

5:10 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Ed Komarnicki

Thank you, Ms. Eaton, for that intervention.

Mr. Butt, go ahead.

December 6th, 2011 / 5:10 p.m.

Conservative

Brad Butt Conservative Mississauga—Streetsville, ON

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My thanks to you ladies for being here this afternoon. We're learning some good stuff about what you're doing, and I think that's good for members of the committee to know.

One of the things I heard about from Ms. Taschereau was this problem of going from pilot project to pilot project. The purpose of this study is to look at skills development in remote and rural communities in an era of fiscal restraint. We know dollars are tight.

Can you give me an example of a pilot project that received funding but ended because it wasn't successful? Perhaps the government could be reallocating existing resources from that area into an area that could be more sustainable. Do you have any examples of opportunities to shift some existing funding to areas where we could get a better bang for the buck?

5:15 p.m.

Director, Essential Skills, Canadian Partnerships, Association of Canadian Community Colleges

Suzanne Taschereau

The pilot project approach takes about one year. Then you move from one year to the next. You're always testing some new approach, rather than building on approaches that have shown promise.

I haven't been funded by government for a long time, so I can't give you examples of pilots that should not have gone ahead, pilots with funding you could reallocate. My main point is that the reason for a pilot is to assess whether it's worked or not. If it hasn't worked, then you don't continue. If it has worked, then I would hope we could scale those things up. I haven't had pilots that dismally failed, where money could be reallocated. It isn't usually a lot of money. It's usually $5,000 to a college here, $5,000 to a college there. Some colleges will do well. Some won't do as well. You take the lesson from that. You move forward and try to scale up the best practices.

I don't know if my colleagues have any ideas on pilots that have gone haywire, million-dollar pilots whose money could be placed elsewhere. I don't have any examples of those, but maybe you guys have one.

5:15 p.m.

Director, Public Policy and Federal Relations, Association of Canadian Community Colleges

Michèle Clarke

I do have a program, though maybe it's not a pilot. The ASEP program is coming to an end in 2012, and colleges have worked through it. They have recommended some efficiencies for it and for ASETS as well.

I would add a comment on the different kinds of funding available for learners. With ASEP and ASETS, the learners have challenges in knowing where to go to get the funding. Some of it comes from here, and some of it comes from there. Whether it's provincial or whether it's federal, there's funding available. It's funding the one that fits. One will provide this, and one won't. We would recommend that there be a centralization of funding for programs available to learners in rural and remote communities, so that they have a one-stop shop to go to.

5:15 p.m.

Conservative

Brad Butt Conservative Mississauga—Streetsville, ON

Let me go to the literacy side with Ms. Eaton. On the news yesterday, Margaret Atwood was saying that Canadians are getting more literate by using Twitter, which I thought was kind of bizarre. I mention this to raise the issue of information technology and broadband Internet access. I'm assuming that it's the best way to service remote communities. It's tough to get physical bodies there, but through e-learning, webcasting, and those kinds of things, we could be making substantial progress. I would assume that it's the way we should be going. It's probably the most cost-effective way of servicing communities that are currently under-serviced in these remote areas. Would it be fair to say that this is where we need to be moving?

5:15 p.m.

President, ABC Life Literacy Canada

Margaret Eaton

I think access is a huge issue. I know the federal government is looking at a digital economy strategy, and I think that is one of the concerns that's going to be addressed there. Certainly there are tremendous innovations in e-learning and web broadcasting. I know the colleges have been involved in that as well. I think there is a tremendous amount of value in that. But I know there are still many remote communities for which that's an impossibility at this point. Until we have access, it will be very tough for a lot of remote communities to even participate. That would be one part.

I guess the second part is that it's very good for certain types of learning, but maybe not for learning that's particularly related to work and to employment. Oftentimes it has to be about this piece of equipment, this tool, this workplace—things that are very situated in their location and the physical space. And we're hearing about this a lot, especially with new technology. As soon as a new piece of equipment comes onto the shop floor, people are flabbergasted and they don't have some of the basic skills to actually work with that equipment. You were telling me a story about this, Brad, from your experience. Then you need that in-person, on-the-shop-floor kind of training.

I think there are some limitations, but I definitely think it's a big, brave new world of e-learning out there.

5:20 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Ed Komarnicki

Thank you very much.

Our time has run out and we have some committee business to deal with.

We appreciate your presentation and your submissions, and we'll certainly take them into regard.

With that, I'll suspend for a few moments for you to have an opportunity to leave, and then we'll discuss some committee business.

Thank you very much.

[Proceedings continue in camera]