Evidence of meeting #42 for Finance in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was social.
A recording is available from Parliament.
11:45 a.m.
Head, Research and Representation Department, Option consommateurs
Yes, absolutely.
Unfortunately, I don't have the figures handy, but according to the survey, the required level for functioning in today's consumer society was determined to be level 3.
11:45 a.m.
Head, Research and Representation Department, Option consommateurs
A study involving credit card statements was conducted last year. People were asked some questions and grouped together for discussion purposes. Participants were asked some questions about literacy and a number of recommendations were made. I don't have time in three seconds to list all of them. The recommendations called for credit card statements to be much more legible and easier to understand.
11:45 a.m.
Bloc
Jean-Yves Roy Bloc Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC
The fact remains, though, that 55% of Canadians aged 16 and over do not have level 3 skills. That is catastrophic. It means that nearly 55% of people are incapable of functioning in today's society. That is essentially the conclusion reached by the international survey.
11:45 a.m.
Head, Research and Representation Department, Option consommateurs
We have indeed taken these findings into consideration. Initially, we were not affected by them, given our status as a consumer association. Our interest was piqued about five or six years ago when we began to put together small guides for stakeholders and students attending literacy programs. The demand for this kind of material was overwhelming.
11:45 a.m.
Bloc
Jean-Yves Roy Bloc Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC
I am, however, not in agreement with your second recommendation that calls for the federal government to add a training component to the employment insurance regime. In Quebec, training is, I believe, a provincial government responsibility. As a rule, there should be training programs—perhaps shared programs—for adults, to help them function better in society. Currently there are no such programs.
11:45 a.m.
Head, Research and Representation Department, Option consommateurs
One thing that we observed, after cross-referencing the survey's data, was that people who are employed are generally better trained. It is the unemployed, the people who are out of work, who are having problems. That is why we limited ourselves to three recommendations calling for very concrete actions to be taken. People are out of work, we are in the throes of a recession and those affected need basic literacy and numeracy courses. People need the financial skills to function in today's world.
11:45 a.m.
Bloc
Jean-Yves Roy Bloc Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC
What other recommendations have you made? You mentioned one, but what type of plan are you proposing to make adults functionally literate in society? We're talking about 55% of the population. That's a significant percentage.
11:45 a.m.
Head, Research and Representation Department, Option consommateurs
Option consommateurs' main concern is not to increase the level of literacy and numeracy of all Canadians. That is not our primary mission. Our mission is to defend and promote the rights of consumers. We have observed, however, that a well-informed consumer makes better choices. Businesses must also demonstrate leadership in this area. It is not solely the government's responsibility to take action. We have recommended that financial institutions produce clearer statements and credit card application forms. Also, we recently completed a study of the invoices mailed out by telecommunications companies. We try to ensure that our efforts are tied to consumers, because they are our primary focus.
11:50 a.m.
Liberal
11:50 a.m.
Conservative
Kelly Block Conservative Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Thank you to all of you who are here presenting today.
As a fairly new member of Parliament and certainly as someone who is new to this committee, I have not had the privilege of meeting many of you, nor am I as familiar with your organizations as my colleagues are. I have appreciated what I've learned through the briefing notes you have provided as well as the questions you've answered already here this morning.
My questions are for Ms. Golfman.
I think you would agree that our commitment to research, whether it is in the science and technology area, industry, or the social sciences and humanities, is clear in Canada's economic action plan. Indeed, just this year, as my colleague pointed out, we have invested $136 million in university-based social sciences and humanities research.
My question is more with regard to your organization itself. I'm incredibly interested in understanding what process you used, because it is a very broad and diverse membership that you have. What was the process you used to identify the three recommendations that you put forward?
My second question would be this. We have heard from other organizations such as polytechnics and the Partnership Group for Science and Engineering. Is there any collaboration among all of the different organizations that are identifying the need for more research dollars?
11:50 a.m.
President, Canadian Federation for the Humanities and Social Sciences
Those are good questions.
In the first case, we certainly consult as widely as possible, as they say. For academics and marshalling consensus, the challenge is herding the cats, but we have been around long enough to know that we neglect our members at our peril. We represent 65 to 70 learned societies, and all of those societies have input into all of our briefings and all of our submissions across the spectrum of research issues.
We also very consistently consult with SSHRC and, I might add, with NSERC and CIHR. It would be fruitless for us to come here singing from a different hymn book. There has to be confidence that what we are asking for is something that we know the community both needs and is behind. I am fully confident in the solidarity, if you will, of the research community in asking for what we think is rather modest in view of the growth potential of research in this country.
11:50 a.m.
Conservative
Kelly Block Conservative Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK
Thank you very much.
I have just one comment to make to Dr. Pekeles. I appreciated Mr. McKay's question and your response about balancing the suggestions you made in your brief with tax credits and benefits that provide families with a measure of choice when it comes to how they will provide for their early childhood development and care needs.
Thank you.
11:50 a.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Massimo Pacetti
Thank you, Ms. Block.
I have one quick question for Mr. Lochhead, seeing as how you haven't had any questions.
In your brief you talk about community infrastructure, which is a little different from the bricks-and-mortar type of infrastructure we've been talking about in the House. There's also a litany of items, and some of course are under provincial jurisdiction. I'm wondering if you can give us a concrete example of investing in community infrastructure.
11:50 a.m.
Executive Director, Vanier Institute of the Family
Sure.
I want to first say that the litany, as you've described it, is really the notion that through the lens of family there is a multitude of very worthy kinds of support. That's quite intentional. For example, movement into the areas of social housing, home care, training, and education poses an interesting link to some of the things we'd like to see happen under employment insurance. There's an interest in a coming together of the delivery of training programs at the community level, particularly to vulnerable populations, with a renewed and expanded emphasis within the employment insurance system on continuing those efforts on training.
I don't want to simply re-read the list, but immigrant settlement services is a terrific example. These newcomers have been dealing with issues of integration. We're going to see more of this in a more serious way as we work our way through the recession. Support dollars there are very important.
11:55 a.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Massimo Pacetti
I think you answered my question. It's just where does the federal government play a role in the list you have here? When it comes to pensions in the section where you have shore-up income security programs, I understand you're looking for an increase in items like the guaranteed income supplement. But do you have a position on CPP benefits to help seniors--to maybe increase the premiums paid? Is that something you've considered?
11:55 a.m.
Executive Director, Vanier Institute of the Family
We don't have a position that would specify what ought to be done with CPP. I think the bottom line for us is that we have a seniors population and a near-retirement population that are going to face some tremendous challenges as they move into those CPP and GIS years. We're only at the front end of that now.
A lot of these displaced workers are going to find jobs, with any luck. Unfortunately, many of them will find jobs at earning levels well below what they are now. I think we need to look at that transition among that older population--not only for the existing seniors but for the ones approaching retirement. That's why we're saying let's take a look at the whole pension system, the GIS, and protections for very low-income seniors, and put some ideas on the table.
11:55 a.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Massimo Pacetti
The committee has started doing some work on that, and I know the government is very interested in it, so thank you for that.
I want to thank the witnesses for coming forward. I was a bit worried there when you all overspent the allocated time. It's our first week of the pre-budget consultations, so thank you for coming. It's going to be a big job.
I want to remind members that we'll be travelling when we return, so we'll be under the common practice, rules, and procedures of the House when committees travel.
Thank you again to everybody.
The meeting is adjourned.