Mr. Speaker, it has been six weeks since the Conservative government announced a cut of $17.7 million to adult literacy programming. After six weeks, it is still very unclear exactly what is being cut and every answer from the minister last week was an evasive one.
I believe we all agree that literacy is a fundamental building block of Canada's human capital and productivity. It is a critical requirement for social and economic equity.
The Liberal record on literacy was not good. There are 1.2 million more adults with insufficient literacy skills after the Liberal reign, the number having risen from 7.7 million to 8.9 million. Instead of drawing simplistic conclusions, as the minister has, and cutting into programs that support the delivery of literacy programs, we should remember that the Liberals spent just $1 per Canadian per year on adult literacy. That amount was clearly far too small to make any significant impact in improving our literacy levels in this country.
The Conservative government's response is to take that failed Liberal funding and cut it by $9 million a year. The minister refuses to call these cuts “cuts”.
We are told that no existing agreements will be cut, but that is because there are very few existing agreements for literacy at the moment. The call for proposals due in early January was delayed until August, we have been told by many groups, and all received proposals are currently under review. Literacy groups across the country are hanging by a thread waiting for this year's funding. Hence, no cuts; just an inexcusable delay in funding and a drastically smaller pot of funding to draw from.
The minister lists projects that were funded by the Liberals that appear to be wasteful. However, if the Conservative government really believes in helping the 8.9 million adults with low literacy levels, if it were genuinely interested in retargeting and refocusing literacy spending to improve Canada's literacy rate, it would certainly not reduce the amount of government spending on literacy.
Retargeting does not mean less money; it means money better spent, better focused. With 8.9 million adults in need of literacy programs, there is no rationale for lower spending. Given that every 1% rise in literacy scores equates to a 2.5% rise in productivity and a 1.5% rise in gross domestic product per person, cutting literacy is simply the wrong approach.
What we need in Canada are adult learning systems that are easily accessible, part of a coherent learning framework and sufficient help for every adult in need of literacy training.
My question for the parliamentary secretary to the minister is, when will we get to a pan-Canadian literacy strategy, as has been advocated by people very knowledgeable in literacy programming right across Canada?