Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. O'Leary, you said we had to ensure there were more people in Canada who were able to read and write at a high level. In my opinion, that's precisely the direction we must take. It's definitely not by reducing funds allocated to literacy that we'll be able to do so.
I'm pleased as well to hear the comments by my Conservative colleague. That will enable me to invite him to New Brunswick, to the rural Francophone regions, where literacy offices have had to close their doors. Those offices didn't do any studies, but they provided services in the communities to people who didn't know how to read or write. They didn't do any studies; they provided services. Today they're closed down because of these cuts.
Mr. O'Leary, Canada is a big country, with its provinces, territories and regions. Do you agree with me that the only way to reach an individual who lives on a range, as we say back home, is through people from the community?
That's what happens back home, in New Brunswick, and I suppose it's the same everywhere. These are volunteers who make it possible for literacy programs to exist. This is the one and only reason why they work. It's volunteers who convey the information, who talk with their neighbours and family members to convince them to go take the necessary training.
Do you also think that we can reach people by going into the regions? In a community like Ms. Bonsant's, where there are 112 inhabitants, people are hard for officials from Ottawa, Toronto, Vancouver or Montreal to reach.
As regards literacy, some say people aren't reaching the levels they should reach, but isn't it correct that technology is changing so quickly that everyone has trouble following the situation?
Let's take the example of the BlackBerry and cellular telephone. As far as I know, the BlackBerry wasn't around 10 years ago. We're given a manual one inch thick so we can operate it. When you find yourself with that kind of manual, you may think we should probably evaluate literacy needs every year. That doesn't necessarily mean that we've regressed; it simply means that we haven't advanced as quickly as technology required.