Finance Committee on Oct. 2nd, 2006

[Doug Graham]

They are not quite flexible enough. That's right. We would appreciate more flexibility, including being associated with the territorial government to negotiate those agreements, because the end objectives of the territorial government and the municipalities are not necessarily always the same.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

Thank you.

You have five minutes, Mr. St-Cyr.

[Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Thank you.

I'll try and ask three easy questions. The first is directed to Ms. Sierra van der Meer.

I was fascinated by your presentation on the economic virtues of literacy and the inherent, intrinsic values of literacy in an evolved society. It's obvious that people must have the ability to communicate, read and write.

I find it somewhat disheartening that the last time I heard people speak of serious funding problems associated with literacy programs, I was in Haiti. To my way of thinking, Canada is a wealthy nation, wealthy enough to give tax rebates to oil companies and wealthy enough to amass annual budget surpluses of $13 billion.

Fundamentally, it rather shameful that Canada is incapable of investing what really amounts to modest sums of money in terms of its overall budget to public literacy programs. Would you not agree?

[Sierra van der Meer]

May I answer that question in English?

[Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Certainly.

[Sierra van der Meer]

Thank you.

I agree with you. I think it's very unfortunate that there are cuts to something like literacy at a time when there is a $13 billion surplus.

We recognize there is a financial benefit from literacy skills; there is an economic benefit from literacy skills. But there is certainly an intrinsic value to literacy skills. They help people communicate; they help people have a high quality of life; they help people read books to their children, to send emails to their friends, to read letters. That is of huge value.

To have that cut in a time when we can pay off $13 billion and make investments in other areas is certainly very disappointing.

While I don't expect my opinion on the value of literacy should change an entire government's budget, I do think that as Canadians we really value our desire to help people who are in less fortunate situations, and we would certainly like to see that.

[Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Thank you.

I'll move right along, because I want to put this question to the representative of the Yukon Historical and Museums Association.

In my opinion, the timing of announcements is critically important. The Conservatives are promising something even better for museums. However, should they not have waited to announce a “better” program before abolishing the old one? Shouldn't they have held off announcing this cut on the very same day they reported a surplus of some $13 billion? Isn't there something rather provocative about their timing?

[Rebecca Jansen]

The hurtful thing was their coming out and saying they were going to put forward this new museums policy and then the next day coming back and cutting $4.6 million. That's saying that it's a wasteful or inefficient program. So definitely it doesn't show a very good sign of faith, I don't think, in supporting the museums.

[Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

I have one last question for Ms. Morgan, still regarding the surplus.

In the past, the Bloc Québécois has called for an improved Guaranteed Income Supplement for seniors. Some seniors were entitled to the GIS and were not receiving it, wither because the forms were too complicated, there was too much bureaucracy or the rules were not clearly defined. Ultimately, because of the pressure brought to bear on the previous Liberal government to correct this situation, most seniors who were entitled to it now are receiving the GIS. Benefits covering 11 months were paid retroactively to them. Those who were not entitled to the GIS at the time have still not received their benefits.

On the day the surplus was announced, should the government not have taken some of these surplus funds and paid seniors who have yet to receive the GIS benefits to which they were entitled for many years, instead of allocating the surplus fully to debt reduction?

[Roberta Morgan]

Yes, I actually quite oppose the idea that they only get eleven months, or so many months, back payment. If they turn 65, they turn 65. What does it matter that they turned 65 eleven months ago or five years ago? They were still entitled to the money. They still have a right. It is not their fault if they did not know about the program.

The government is not promoting the program, or these people would have known about the program, regardless of what government is in power.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

Thank you, Mr. St-Cyr.

We continue with Madam Ablonczy, for five minutes.

[Diane Ablonczy, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

And thank you to all of you for being here and for your good presentations. As policy-makers, collectively, all of us really value the input and the insight you give us.

My first question is for Mr. Graham.

We heard similar issues from Fort St. John and other municipalities.

One of the difficulties I see is that in a democracy there are lines of accountability. Municipalities are creatures of the province; in fact their legislation is provincial legislation, which governs them. The federal government made an agreement with the provinces for gas money, but if the federal government starts leaping over the heads of the provinces, funding municipalities directly, then the lines of accountability become blurred, because then the municipality is not only accountable to their own taxpayers and to the province—their legislation—but now somehow, without legislation, is also responsible to the federal level of government. It seems to me that makes it extremely difficult for municipalities.

My question to you is, have you discussed this matter with the provinces? Is there a willingness in the province to have more flexible lines of communication, more flexibility in meeting your concerns through the legislation responsible for municipalities? Otherwise I think we're going to get into quite a mess, so to speak, as to who does what and who is accountable to whom, and all of those things.

[Doug Graham]

I don't disagree with you, and that's why I said programs similar to the gas tax agreement. We don't advocate direct conversations between the federal government and the Association of Yukon Communities. What we would like to see is us being involved with the federal government in any conversations that occur with the territory with respect to communities' needs and wishes. That way, we feel that our priorities are being addressed somewhat, and also the federal government's priorities.

I know that when the federal government decided water quality was an issue they had to address, they made money available to municipalities through the territories and provinces, but they made sure it was directed to that specific area. Therefore, their priorities were met, as well as some of the municipalities' priorities. And that's what we would advocate.

We realize the difficulty with the legislation, and the jealousy with which some provinces and territories guard their spheres of influence. We would just like to be included.

[Diane Ablonczy, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Ms. van der Meer, you've been a popular person today, because literacy is important. One of my favourite sayings is, “Readers are leaders”, and it's certainly true. I was really struck by your statistic that 42% of Canadians have low literacy. That's a stunning indictment of our education system. By law, every child has to attend school up to the age of 16, yet nearly half of Canadians, you're saying, in spite of that, have low literacy. That just blows me away, as a former teacher, and I find that extremely disturbing.

My question for you is how you fix that. If after ten years of school, 40% of Canadians have low literacy, how can you possibly fix that?

[Sierra van der Meer]

First of all, there might be a misconception about literacy levels directly related to school, because one thing that the IALSS, the international adult literacy and skills survey, showed about Canadians is that the highest literacy levels were at the block closest to the end of school. So those between 19 and 25 years of age had the highest levels of literacy, and then the levels of literacy actually dropped as people got older.

So the fault does not lie alone with the school system. It's not that people come out of the school system and right away 42% of Canadians can't--

[Diane Ablonczy, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

You can either read and write or you can't.

[Sierra van der Meer]

No, one of the big things they say about literacy is that you use it or you lose it. Literacy skills deteriorate when they're not being used. Literacy skills deteriorate over time. Literacy skills deteriorate when people are not applying themselves, or when people aren't in a position where they're reading often, or in a position where they're writing--

[Diane Ablonczy, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

So your definition of literacy is a little different from what I think most Canadians would understand.

[Sierra van der Meer]

Our definition of literacy is the one that was being used by the National Literacy Secretariat and by the federal government, which I believe defines literacy as the ability to use and process basic information. So it's not a definition that I have made up or one that is being used in the literacy community.

[Diane Ablonczy, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

No, no, I'm not saying that. I just want to understand.

[Sierra van der Meer]

Literacy now is identified as the different ways that people use information in their lives, in their homes, and in their schools.

In terms of what we can do about literacy skills, I think one of the big things is that it's a lifelong issue. It's not just something for kids. It's not that you learn literacy when you're six years old and you learn literacy until you graduate at seventeen or eighteen. Literacy is something that needs to be started in the home and needs to be encouraged through things like family literacy. It continues through the school system, and then it needs to be continued through things like workplace literacy and through literacy initiatives for adults.

[Diane Ablonczy, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Thank you. That's very helpful. I appreciate that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

Just further to that, then, if literacy is defined as the ability to use technology, would the introduction of the BlackBerry reduce literacy rates among the general population?

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Sierra van der Meer]

I don't know. We don't get BlackBerry service up here, so I can't answer that.