Good morning.
At the same time that we applaud the federal government's investment in the future work of NALD, we are dismayed and perplexed by the recent government cuts, especially the $17.7 million to the National Office of Literacy and Learning funded by HRSDC. We would really like to know what evidence was used to decide that the services and programs that were cut were not value-for-money. We would also like to know why the government made these cuts with no consultation with the literacy community.
NOLL funds that were cut provided critical support to literacy programs, including those that prepare adults with literacy challenges to participate in the workforce and adults in the workplace who need to upgrade. These cuts affect crucial support to programs, such as coordination, promotion, learner recruitment, professional development for practitioners, research, partnership development, and sharing of best practices. We can already see the disastrous effect of these cuts across the country, as provincial and regional networks and coalitions that have provided these supports for decades are or will be forced to close or severely downsize.
It's unclear to us whether the cuts will affect the workplace education partnerships in place in several provinces, such as Nova Scotia, which we just heard about, and examples like Manitoba and the NWT, where employers, labour, and provincial governments work together to promote and deliver workplace literacy programs. Nor is it clear to us what the effect will be on provincial and territorial federations of labour. Federations have been successful partners in workplace literacy partnerships. Their work provides successful examples of provincial partnerships and should be strengthened and enhanced, not cut. These provincial and territorial organizations are also really important partners that NALD and other national organizations work with closely to do their work efficiently and cost-effectively.
I'm going to go to recommendations.
The results and impacts of workplace literacy programs that we've already heard about have been well established through the years by organizations like ABC CANADA, the Conference Board of Canada, the Canadian Association of Municipal Employees, the Canadian Labour Congress, and various unions.
At this point, we would just like to make a number of recommendations to the standing committee.
First, we ask that the federal government restore the $17.7 million to the NOLL program. The cuts contradict the advice of the same committee that, in 2003, called for an end to the patchwork approach to adult literacy, highlighted the need for a national vision and a pan-Canadian strategy, and called for increased investment.
Secondly, we urge the federal government to honour and transfer committed funds to the provinces through the labour market partnership agreements.
Third, we encourage the standing committee to review the 2003 report by the same committee, “Raising Adult Literacy Skills: The need for a pan-Canadian response”, especially concerning the development of the pan-Canadian accord and an increase in the annual contributions and grants through the national funding stream and the provincial–territorial funding stream.
Also, we urge you to review the ideas and recommendations from the cross-country consultations on literacy and essential skills that happened in 2005. These consultations included employers and unions across the country and had some great ideas that the federal government could use for increasing employer investments in workplace literacy.
Lastly, we urge the federal government to consider a joint partnership model with both private and public sector employers and unions, along with other important stakeholders, to provide a shared vision of workforce and workplace literacy. We encourage a broad definition of literacy rather than a narrow one that just considers the present jobs, as well as multiple entry points for upgrading. We discourage a one-size-fits-all approach.
Thank you.