Human Resources Committee on Oct. 23rd, 2006

[Ed Brown]

I have another comment about the rationale for cutting the funds. The Prime Minister stands up in the House and says that the rate of adult illiteracy increased under the previous government. There was never enough funding put into adult literacy to make a big difference. We're struggling. I mean, look at the return on the dollar, look at the scholar for the dollar you're getting from the pittance you're putting into it. Because I'm volunteering, and people around me are. As you said, we're running adult literacy and other programs with volunteers.

So we're asking for operational costs. We're asking for core funding and things like that, and not for the delivery. Often the delivery is done by volunteers too. So if you look at the return on that dollar you're investing in adult education or adult literacy, it's amazing what you're getting.

Now we're withdrawing services. We have to. We have to close offices. We have to take people out. We can't employ people to answer the phones. We might not even have our help line, the 1-800 number, anymore. This is where we have to go. As a coalition, we're looking at this. Our board is talking about things like this. That's unfortunate, because we need to have, as Kim said, funding from all sectors. We need to have understanding from small and medium business. We need to have funding from them, from labour, from everywhere. We're looking everywhere for funding, and we will get a really good return on that dollar.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Brown and Ms. Gillard.

We're going to move to our next questioner. Mr. Lessard, you have seven minutes, please.

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Thank your, Mr. Chair.

I would like to thank you for being here this morning to not only give us your presentations, but also to analyze the very important issue of employability. I also appreciated very much your contribution up to now. I have many questions to ask you. I will ask them in the same order the presentations were made.

My question is for Mr. Jong, of the Society of Rural Physicians of Canada. You reminded us that Mr. Romanow stated in his recommendations that there is simply not enough financial resources to address the problem of access to health care in rural areas. He recommended the investment of $5 billion over a number of years in order to deal with this problem.

You are directly involved with this problem. Could you tell us whether investments have been made to give you the means to go forward the way Mr. Romanow suggested?

[John Wootton, Editor, Canadian Journal of Rural Medicine, Society of Rural Physicians of Canada]

Mr. Romanow's recommendations were not implemented, and there was no investment. When I was with Health Canada's rural health office, some investments were made. There was a $50 million investment in programs, and it was distributed according to a provincial formula. But it was used mainly for pilot projects. And, like every pilot project, they ended, and there was no follow-up.

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Thank you.

Along the same lines, you mentioned it was disappointing the situation still had not improved, after all those studies and the mandate given to people like those on the Romanow commission. Many qualified people sat on this commission, and it did a great job of analyzing the issues.

You also made a comment that a specific strategy was needed for rural medicine. What are your thoughts on this? Could you give some indication on the orientation this could take?

[John Wootton]

We consider the programs that are implemented by the provinces to deal with these problems. Provinces are quite capable of making decisions at a certain level, more particularly in their own fields of jurisdiction, as concerns the financing of the system and the distribution of resources. But the provinces cannot provide a national approach. The problem is the same everywhere. Investments that could come from the federal government would add to what is being done at the provincial level. What is lacking, as we mentioned in our document, is a way to consolidate what has been gained, for example a structural presence in the universities, well identified structures, and a priority mandate in rural health.

In our research, we nearly got a rural research institute, but we did not get it. That is why this mandate is diluted and not and taken up by nobody. The situation is the same with the support structures in communities where students could be interested in a career in healthcare. Everything is diluted in an approach that is not targeted in a way the problem could be addressed. In fact, 80% of the problem is a human resources problem. We have a technological approach that can help, but in rural areas, most of the problem with physicians and nurses is a human resources problem and a lack of support for human resources.

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

I am surprised the situation has not improved more. I worked for 30 years in healthcare. I was also on the receiving end of rural healthcare, and I had to be away from my family for a year and a half for treatments. This was in the fifties. The fact that even today, we are still in this situation... This problem is not specific to Newfoundland. Similar situations occur in Quebec. I am really surprised that the problem is this serious.

I would like you to elaborate more on the proximity in the services that should be provided. Up to now, we have been more concerned with bringing the patient to medical care whereas I think we should rather bringing medical care to the patient. I feel you share this concern. And I am glad that you think we should do this through a strategy that is coming from the grassroots and from the rural areas.

I would like you to elaborate more. I feel something is still missing concerning the way we should go about this. You have indications suggesting you could be interesting for people on the ground, but how could we do it?

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Mr. Wootton, you have about thirty seconds to answer this.

[John Wootton]

The most crucial part is to counter the tendencies in our society toward centralization and specialization. We should privilege versatile human resources, something which is the opposite of specialization. That is why people were much more versatile fifty years ago. Even the demands in our society are more for specialists than for generalists. Our approach should be to support in every way possible general practitioners, who are more useful in a rural setting.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you very much, Mr. Lessard.

Madame Savoie, seven minutes.

[Denise Savoie, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Thank you very much for your presentation. As you've heard, we had an epic journey to Newfoundland yesterday.

I want to focus on literacy and job training.

There seems to me to be an irony, to listen to the presentation made by Mr. George about the expectations of lack of skilled workers in the future and then to hear the presentation on literacy and the problems there. I would like to focus on that. I have a few questions.

One is from the private sector perspective. Clearly it's an issue that will need the involvement of the private sector, governments, and non-profit as well. I'm wondering what Mr. George thinks the private sector's prepared to do in terms of the basic skills; and Mr. Brown and Ms. Gillard, perhaps you would speak a little on what you feel should be the federal government's role. Mr. Loder referred to national standards, and you mentioned the infrastructure. I'm wondering if you want to elaborate on what you think the federal government's role should be, because clearly literacy has been underfunded in the past year.

Perhaps we can start with Mr. George and then work our way down.

[Bradley George]

When we researched this with our members, we found they recognize clearly that this is like a triangle that involves three partners: educational institutions, government, and business. They recognize that they have a role in providing training. They recognize that basic skills are a concern. So I was very interested to hear what Ms. Gillard had to say about this. They are prepared to provide training.

The issue with small-business owners is that of resources. 65% of businesses in this province and country have fewer than five employees, and when you allow one employee to leave for the day to provide formal training, you're letting a huge resource go. But they're prepared to train their employees. Basic skills are difficult to provide. They expect an employee will come to the workforce with basic skills.

As for private colleges, I was really interested to hear Mr. Loder say small-business owners are so supportive of private schools. Basic skills they recognize to be a huge problem, but what we've noted is--and our members, I should say, not me--that governments and business and educational institutions need to be talking to each other. There seems to be a real disconnect. That's a triangle, we find. But they have noted a huge issue with employees coming into the workforce without the basic skills set. They are ready to provide training.

Red tape is a huge problem, and they don't have the time. That's a problem. Cost is a problem, but they are ready to perform that. The apprenticeship programs provided by the federal government are here. More programs like that are so important to small and medium-sized business owners. As I said to you, one thing that comes across is that they're ready and willing to provide the training. Red tape needs to be cut out. Basic skills are a huge problem, and support of private colleges is very important to them.

I'm so very glad I was put in this group today with the other two groups.

[Kimberley Gillard]

With regard to the federal government, I laid most of it out in the recommendations. A very important thing that we need the federal government to support is the national strategy, because there is no system for adult learning in our country. The benefit of the strategy is that we then get to see, across the country, things that work in small and medium-sized enterprises, that work with labour. It's not piecemeal.

That's been the biggest downfall of literacy. It's not that the solutions don't exist within our country. They do. There has been great literacy work going on in this country for years and years, but it has always been under-resourced and piecemeal. The good work that is happening in B.C. doesn't always filter across the country.

This is an important piece of the Literacy Coalition: that we come together under the Movement for Canadian Literacy and we do that sharing. We share resources. We share ideas and things that work and things that don't work. That's why the strategy is vastly important.

The strategy would also figure out what all the different roles are. There has always been that conflict over federal jurisdiction and provincial jurisdiction around education, but as I said, back in Brian Mulroney's day, he recognized how it filters off and affects the country vastly and that there needs to be that intervention. The federal government can really play a big role in talking to provinces and territories about how they work better. We definitely don't want duplication, but we feel that talking needs to happen.

There are really good relationships happening across the country around literacy. The provinces really pick up their end of it and then look to the federal government to pick up the other end. We just need to make sure that filters across the country.

Another thing that's really important in the federal government and across the provincial governments is that literacy needs to be looked at across departments. Literacy does affect justice. It does affect immigration. It does affect health. The more we look through the literacy lens, the more each of us can take on our respective roles in addressing that.

Those are two very key things for the federal government to do.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

You have thirty seconds for maybe just a quick question.

[Denise Savoie, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Thank you.

When I was thinking about the private sector's contribution, recognizing that small and medium-sized businesses don't necessarily have the possibility for training, as you mentioned, is there a financial contribution that employers are prepared to make to ensure that workers are trained, so that those employers are not poaching necessarily one from the other?

[Bradley George]

When I talked about providing financial training—and I have it here in our presentation, which I couldn't provide since it wasn't in both French and English—most of us have members here in the country. Out of all the members in the country, Newfoundland and Labrador provides the most informal training and on-the-job training. We also find that small and medium-sized business owners provide the most informal training. So we're not putting financial dollars into sending workers outside the workforce, for reasons I told you. It's costly to do so.

We find that our business owners are providing mentorships and apprenticeships. Our small and medium-sized business members are saying to us that they now recognize that they need to be doing more of that. They recognize that they need to be working more with educational institutions like the private career colleges and the universities.

They need to be telling governments about the types of positions they need filled. If governments are going to fund programs at the college level, these employers need to say what programs need to be funded and have better communication.

There is more informal education going on in the workplace in Newfoundland and Labrador than any other province in Canada. There is less formal education in this province than anywhere else because of the lack of financial resources.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you. That's all the time we have.

I'm going to take a round of seven minutes. I want to talk to everybody, but the first two groups I want to talk to are literacy and small business.

You talked about a hotline. I'm kind of curious. That seems like an excellent idea. What are the objectives? How does that work? I realize that it might have to be cancelled without the funding, but how exactly does that work? Does it help to steer people in the right direction? What did it cost?

[Kimberley Gillard]

Most colleges do run a 1-800 line that will refer people. We refer to it is as one-stop shop. It's for learners to phone in and find out where there are programs in their area or to ask other questions that they might have around literacy and learning.

It's also for organizations that are out in rural areas to tap into our expertise and our resources. For example, we're like a clearing house. In our office, we receive national work and work that goes on in other provinces and territories. We have it there to filter out to the communities. People can call in and say “I'd like to have a look at that new book you have”, and so on. It's a great service.

I can't tell you what the cost breakdown is. It's just new this year, but it is one of the services that the Literacy Coalition provides.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Is it a provincial number, then? Does every province have one, or is that just the one for St. John's?

[Kimberley Gillard]

It's a provincial line, and most provincial coalitions have one.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

I have two other questions, and then I'll go to business, because my last question will tie into business.

You talked about schools playing a role and maybe not being effective. My question is about your thoughts on that. I realize there are a lot of people who should be responsible for literacy; it's not just one area. You talked a bit about people at schools and the literacy rates. Why do you think they've fallen short? We struggle in terms of elementary schools--I think there was a comment about elementary schools, in particular, where people are passed on, maybe, without getting the skills.

How is it that we've fallen short? And do you have any recommendations so we can do a better job in earlier years, which I realize is a separate issue from adult or even immigrant literacy issues?

[Kimberley Gillard]

It is a piece of the whole picture of how we try to talk about literacy, because people want to define it as an adult problem. Mr. Loder was the one who made that comment, and I'll defer to him afterwards, if you like. From our perspective, what happens is that formal systems tend to box people in, and that's just the problem with systems. So what happens is that people who aren't fitting into that particular box fall outside the system. Of course, today we find that with much greater social issues and with social demands on children within the K-12 systems, they tend to fall outside when they don't have supports at home. Again, that can be linked back to adults with low literacy.

I think, basically, it's systemic. There are problems within the system; it can't always be flexible to adapt. What's very unique about literacy skills is that we tend to try to move to where the learners' needs are, as opposed to forcing them to come to us.

[Ed Brown]

It's also a cycle from the point of view of all these new statistics we've just laid before you. The key to family literacy is often the parents, and unfortunately it's a vicious cycle. So we have to stop this at some point, and what we're trying to do, obviously, is put a halt to this by working with all our fingers in the fire, whether it's family literacy or whatever. And it's connected to adult literacy, very much so.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

It probably makes some sense to make sure there are support systems at home and to follow up on what's happening in the schools. That is the cycle.

My last question regarding literacy sort of hitchhikes onto the issues of business. You talked about looking at government to support policies in the workplace, and I guess my question is what exactly that would look like. What would you recommend? I personally believe that the workplace should be more involved. Certainly larger employers should be. I think Mr. George makes a good point, that it's tougher for small and medium-sized enterprises. But what do you mean by a policy that supports literacy in the workplace, and what exactly may that look like?

[Kimberley Gillard]

There's lot of expertise around the workplace throughout the country, and I think it's important to look to those models and set policies that replicate them across the country.

We've recently had people come in from Nova Scotia and Manitoba to talk about their work. Both Nova Scotia and Manitoba actually have people within their provincial governments, and that's their work. They go into workplaces and help them set up programs. So we do see a huge government role there. Tax incentives obviously help people to have the right kind of funding to support it, and an infrastructure, again, goes back to being able to spread the good work across the country.