Literacy is defined as the different ways that people use information in their lives, their workplaces, and their communities. Today, 42% of Canadians have challenges with literacy. Four out of every 10 citizens have some difficulty taking in and using written information and math in their everyday lives. This is a significant portion of our population, and the economic and social impacts are not something that can be ignored.
Many year ago, the Conservative government, under Brian Mulroney, recognized the importance of literacy by instituting the National Literacy Secretariat and establishing a network of coalitions in each province and territory. Federal funding was also made available across Canada in an effort to build the capacity of the literacy field.
In 2003, this committee presented a report titled, “Raising Adult Literacy Skills: The Need For A Pan-Canadian Response”. It recommended that the National Literacy Secretariat's annual grants and contributions budget be increased to $50 million from $28.2 million; that new funding continue to be delivered through the national funding stream and the federal-provincial-territorial funding stream; and that the federal government increase spending under part II of the Employment Insurance Act by $100 million for literacy and numeracy programming.
In 2005, another report was tabled by this committee titled, “Towards a Fully Literate Canada--Achieving National Goals Through a Comprehensive Pan-Canadian Literacy Strategy”. This report called for the adoption of a pan-Canadian approach to literacy and sustainable funding approaches by the federal government.
In an age of increased economic competitiveness and globalization, more investment in literacy is imperative. Therefore the $17.7 million in cuts to literacy do not make good economic or social policy sense. The rationale for the policy cuts from the federal government were said to be found in three areas: value for money, unused funds, and efficiency. I will argue that this reasoning does not hold true for the cuts to literacy spending.
With respect to value for money, Imagine Canada's report on investing in citizens and communities states that governments benefit from partnering with the community non-profit sector to deliver programs. Non-profit organizations add 60% of the value to government investments in non-profit service delivering, through their initiatives and the support of their donors and their volunteers. Literacy organizations provide cost-effective services for the public. Their rates are lower, they are supported by countless volunteer contributions, and they work on a not-for-profit basis.
I will give you one example from Ontario. The provincial government developed outcomes to measure skill areas and progress in adult literacy learners. The Ontario Literacy Coalition took the government's approach and made it into an accessible and tangible resource. We then trained 600 teachers across this province for $190,000. This resource is still in use, and it is a good tool for measuring accountability. This is just one example of good value for money; there are countless other examples from all the other literacy organizations across Canada.
I want to address the unused funds. The rationale for funding shortfalls with unused funds is not applicable in the case of literacy spending. For the most part, literacy organizations fund portions of their work through projects. A call for proposals is done on a yearly basis. This year the call for proposals was severely delayed and then cancelled altogether a week after the deadline for the proposals was reached. Therefore literacy organizations never received the opportunity to bid for new funding opportunities, let alone use unused funds.
The argument that literacy programs have been cut because they are inefficient cannot be supported on any grounds. Literacy organizations are funded on a yearly project basis. Therefore each year they have to prove their worth. In order to be approved for funding, organizations need to submit comprehensive proposals. I have a copy with me today, if anybody want to look at it. There is a stringent review process whereby proposals must demonstrate, based on current research findings, the need for the particular project. They must include references, and they have to support their work through extensive project timelines, project plans, communications, sustainability, and partnership plans.
All funded projects require external evaluators to assess the effectiveness in meeting the deliverables of their project, and a report of these findings is submitted at the end of the project. So the determination of efficiency is built into the application process itself.
Furthermore, literacy organizations have not been provided with an outline indicating what constitutes effective programs and projects upon which the determination of ineffectiveness has been determined. The only rationale that the government thus far has made is that literacy organizations are being cut because they are not effective, based on findings from the IALS study between 1994 and 2004, which indicate there's been no marked improvement in literacy rates.
This is not a valid method by which to make this argument. The statistics don't tell the whole story. A direct comparison is not possible because Canada's population increased 10% between 1994 and 2004, from 29 million to 32 million. According to Satya Brink, from the learning policy directorate of the HRSDC, at the current rate of investment in the current programming, any improvements achieved are slower than the population growth nationally. If we keep doing what we do now, the number of people with low literacy skills will increase at the rate of 100,000 a year.
Other factors that contribute to these findings that need to be considered include an aging population. Findings indicate that the average Canadian worker begins to lose prose literacy at the age of 20. Literacy skills are like muscles. If they are not maintained and strengthened through regular use, they will be lost.
We need to go beyond simplistic interpretation in our analysis of progress in literacy levels in Canada and take into account Canada's population growth. In addition, without comprehensive planning and a robust policy framework in place, Canadians do not have adequate opportunities and support to maintain their literacy skills throughout the course of their lives.
Decreasing investment in literacy will have a substantial impact on program delivery and the adult learners themselves. Without the infrastructure in place to support the capacity and continuous improvement of literacy programming in Canada, the programs will not have the valuable support they require. Any teacher is only as good as their ability to access ongoing professional development, research, resources, and curriculum.
Some of the tangible losses we face include the loss of provincial and territorial coalitions. They provide an important interconnected link between the provinces and territories and the national organizations. They also include coalitions that have been set up for the francophone community, the deaf community, and the aboriginal community to meet the specific language and cultural needs of these groups. Adult learner networks that allow for the input of adult literacy students in assessing and determining programming needs...and there are many more, but in the interests of time I will move forward.
There's also been a major policy shift whereby the federal government has now moved to supporting projects with only a national focus. The federal government has substantially withdrawn from its involvement in coordination and capacity-building efforts within the provinces and the territories.
Without funding that supports provincial and territorial initiatives--