role="main" class="main-container container js-quickedit-main-content" id="main-content">

May 31, 2001

37th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2001-May-31 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Thursday 31 May 2001 Jeudi 31 mai 2001

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

SPECIAL EDUCATION

SUPPORT WORKERS

DOCTORS' SERVICES /

SERVICES DE SANTÉ

SPECIAL EDUCATION

SUPPORT WORKERS

DOCTORS' SERVICES

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

FALUN GONG

EDUCATION

NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT LEGISLATION

CHARLESTOWN RESIDENTIAL SCHOOL

SEWAGE AND WATER TREATMENT

WATER QUALITY

DEER PARK PUBLIC SCHOOL

AMBULANCE SERVICE

PETERBOROUGH FESTIVAL OF LIGHTS

HÔPITAL MONTFORT /

MONTFORT HOSPITAL

CORRECTION OF RECORD

VISITORS

SPEAKER'S RULING

VISITORS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

TECHNOLOGY FOR CLASSROOMS

TAX CREDIT STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 MODIFIANT DES LOIS

EN VUE DE CRÉER UN CRÉDIT D'IMPÔT

FAVORISANT L'EMPLOI

DE LA TECHNOLOGIE

DANS LES SALLES DE CLASSE

IMPROVING CUSTOMER SERVICE

FOR ROAD USERS ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 SUR L'AMÉLIORATION

DES SERVICES À LA CLIENTÈLE

OFFERTS AUX USAGERS DE LA ROUTE

WILFRID LAURIER UNIVERSITY

AMENDMENT ACT , 2001 /

LOI DE 2001

MODIFIANT LA LOI INTITULÉE

THE WILFRID LAURIER UNIVERSITY ACT

VISITORS

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

PUBLIC SERVICE DELIVERY

SENIOR CITIZENS

PUBLIC SERVICE DELIVERY

SENIOR CITIZENS

ORAL QUESTIONS

EDUCATION FUNDING /

FINANCEMENT DE L'ÉDUCATION

SAFE DRINKING WATER LEGISLATION

STRATFORD FESTIVAL

DOCTORS' SERVICES

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

COMMUNITY CARE ACCESS CENTRES

EDUCATION FUNDING

FISH AND WILDLIFE LEGISLATION

EMERGENCY SERVICES

VICTIM EMPOWERMENT LEGISLATION

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

PETITIONS

EDUCATION TAX CREDIT

LORD'S PRAYER

NURSES

EDUCATION TAX CREDIT

WATER EXTRACTION

EDUCATION TAX CREDIT

ELECTRICITY GENERATING STATION

SALE OF SCHOOLS

EDUCATION TAX CREDIT

PROTECTION OF MINORS

ORDERS OF THE DAY

BROWNFIELDS STATUTE LAW

AMENDMENT ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 MODIFIANT DES LOIS

EN CE QUI CONCERNE

LES FRICHES CONTAMINÉES

ADJOURNMENT DEBATE

DOCTORS' SERVICES

Thursday 31 May 2001 Jeudi 31 mai 2001

The House met at 1000.

Prayers.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

SPECIAL EDUCATION

SUPPORT WORKERS

Mr Norm Miller (Parry Sound-Muskoka): I move that, in the opinion of this House, since special education support workers make an important

contribution to the education and overall physical and mental well-being of special-needs students, immediate measures should be taken to declare special education support workers an essential

service during work stoppages to provide special education programs and services at all times to students who have been identified as special-needs students.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): The member for Parry Sound-Muskoka has up to 10 minutes for his presentation.

Mr Miller: In my first month of elected office representing the people of Parry Sound-Muskoka, there was a support workers strike in the Near

North District School Board. I received hundreds of letters, e-mails, faxes and telephone calls from concerned constituents to do with this strike. Most were asking that support workers be deemed

an essential service. This resolution originates from the need in my riding, as well as the rest of the province, to consider special education support workers an essential service.

In Ontario, many children who have special needs may require special education services in order to enable them to attend school where they learn life skills

from their educational experience. Special education support workers play a pivotal role in the life of exceptional students and their families. Exceptional students rely on their support workers

for all manner of personal tasks that most of us take for granted. Because of the nature of educational assistants' duties, many can be classified as nursing duties, which are essential in the

province of Ontario.

Students with physical disabilities who need help with personal hygiene rely on assistants to help them in the washroom. Some students rely on assistants to help

feed them. Special education support workers may even be required to administer medication. Students who are non-verbal rely on their assistant to help them communicate. Students who are hearing

impaired or visually impaired rely on their assistant to help them with the most fundamental tasks in the classroom and around the school. Without these special education support workers many

exceptional students cannot function in Ontario schools.

Imagine for a moment a student with a severe physical disability who is unable to perform their daily activities independently, such as eating, speaking or

walking. These students require the constant support of assistants to help them with these everyday life skills in order to pursue their goals in all aspects of their education.

I have spoken with numerous constituents who told me that support workers are essential in delivering quality and specialized care to help special-needs children

reach their full educational potential. These assistants deliver the care and services that are essential to the lives of special-needs children. Disruption of these services has proven to be

harmful to the well-being and everyday life of exceptional students and their families. That is why I feel the services of these workers should be considered essential for special-needs children.

Without them, exceptional students are unable to reach their full educational potential. Many cannot even attend school.

The recent Near North District School Board support workers' strike in my riding of Parry Sound-Muskoka demonstrated how the withdrawal of school services is

disruptive and impacts on the learning process of exceptional students. One of my constituents, Gail Mayhew of Nobel, spoke to me about her grandson, who is autistic. His schooling was disrupted

for four weeks during the recent Near North support workers strike. Since Gail's grandson was identified as a special-needs student he has made a great deal of progress with the help of his

educational assistant. However, during the recent strike, Gail's grandson suffered major setbacks in his overall progress. The strike was extremely disruptive to his learning, as it was to all

children in similar situations. In fact, many of these children were recently told to stay away from school when their support workers were on strike because their safety in school could not be

assured.

If I could quote from an

article in the Toronto Star, dated May 21, 2001, written by David Lepofsky, chair of the Ontarians with Disabilities Act Committee, "An

effective Ontarians with Disabilities Act would achieve barrier-free education from kindergarten through university. No special-needs students should again suffer the second-class treatment meted

out during last month's Toronto school strike. Most kids without disabilities went to school; special-needs kids were told to stay home."

It is unacceptable that special-needs children were discriminated against in this way. However, assistants were not available to look after these exceptional

children as they were on strike.

The most effective way to ensure special-needs students receive this needed care is to declare the work of their assistants essential. As we have seen recently

in Toronto, without the special education support workers, these children cannot attend school. They are totally excluded, despite legislation that assures them equal access to regular schools.

In a Toronto Sun

article dated Friday April 13, 2001, entitled "Disabled Kids are `Victims,' Hurt by Strike: Parents," it states:

"Thousands of special-needs students have become the forgotten victims of the public school workers' strike....

"Thousands of kids were left without at-school care when 1,600 educational and health care aides walked out with other CUPE 4400 members.... The Toronto District

School Board sent letters to the parents of 26,000 special-needs kids advising many of them to keep their kids home for their own safety....

"Susan Yewchuk, whose 11-year old son is autistic, says two classes of kids have been created."

Kathy Deschenes's son, who also is autistic, had to stay home during the strike while his brother attended school. She states, "My son without special needs came

home with a letter saying it's business as usual, while another memo for parents of special education students tells them to keep their kids home."

School boards affected by the strike determined that their principals and teachers could simply not provide the extensive special services that these children

need, and I have no doubt that the school boards were quite right. Our schools cannot serve exceptional students without the services of special education support workers.

I had the opportunity to talk to parents of special-needs children in my riding recently. The mother of one child told me how difficult it is to arrange care for

her son when he is not in school. A regular babysitter will not do. The caregiver has to be able to provide specialized services specific to the child and has to know just the right way to

communicate with him.

When school services are suddenly withdrawn from these children, parents cannot easily make alternative arrangements. Even older children cannot be left at home

alone. When educational assistants withdraw services to these children, the impact on them is far-reaching. Parents who cannot make adequate arrangements for their children must stay home to look

after them. They lose time from work and money from their family's budgets.

Special education support workers aid students with many different exceptionalities: students with intellectual differences; students with auditory or visual

problems, communication disorders, physical disabilities, behavioural disorders and developmental disabilities. The service provided to some of our special-needs students by their assistants must

not be underestimated. It is essential.

My resolution today is focused on those exceptional students who need an educational assistant in order to attend school along with their peers. The most

vulnerable children in the province have been barred from our schools because their assistants were not there to ensure their safety. This is the worst form of discrimination, because it targets an

already disadvantaged group of our citizens.

I attended the annual meeting of RISE last weekend in Parry Sound. RISE is an organization that advocates for people with disabilities and is affiliated with the

Canadian Association of Independent Living Centres. My meetings with RISE have given me some insight into the challenges people with disabilities face in their daily lives -- every minute of their

daily lives.

Teachers in my riding who have special-needs students in their classrooms have told me how important assistants are in their classrooms. Much of their program

must be modified and adapted for an exceptional student. His or her ability to function in the classroom often depends on having one-on-one supervision and help from their assistant.

Society's most vulnerable children have been discriminated against by not allowing them to attend schools when special education support workers are on strike.

Let's not allow this to happen again.

Special education support workers provide an environment for all special-needs students to be integrated with all students. Special-needs students are unable to

succeed or even function without the continuous support of these special education support workers. These people are essential to the everyday lives of exceptional students, and they should not

under any circumstances be denied this service.

Therefore, on behalf of the people of Parry Sound-Muskoka, I am calling on the government to adopt this resolution.

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I'm pleased to join the debate. The member has brought an important issue before us. Certainly our

young people with special needs face unique difficulties in labour disruptions, and one needs to find solutions to the problem.

I used to be chairman of a school board. I was on a school board for 11 years, including chair for several years, here in the city of Toronto and have some

understanding of the needs of special students.

I would say one of the most important steps that's been taken over the last 20 years, probably, is the move to increasingly integrate students with special needs

into the total classroom. Virtually every school board now works very hard to make sure that our students with special needs are made, as much as possible, part of the regular classroom, and I

truly applaud that.

When I was chairman of the school board in Toronto, we used to have unique schools, segregated, for -- at that time they were called schools for the retarded;

luckily that name changed. Really through the work of the parents we recognized that those young people best develop and grow within the regular schools; and that's happened to a very large extent

to the credit, as I say, of the parents and, I think, of the enlightened school boards across the province.

My first question on this issue is, is this a step backward in terms of ensuring to the best of our ability that all young people are made, to the maximum

extent, part of the same environment? I say there is a risk in this motion that once again our special education students are treated differently. Offsetting that, of course, is the need, during a

labour disruption, to make certain that these young people are safe and secure, and looked after and aided properly.

The second thing I would say about the issue of essentially taking away the right to strike for these employees is that there are some areas I agree with the

Premier on. He said recently that taking away the right to strike for the teachers may very well not lessen the disruption but increase it. He's been around for some time in the education field, as

I have. I think he was actually a school trustee about the same time I was, in the 1970s and early 1980s. He remembers, as I do, that before teachers had the right to strike there were significant

disruptions going on but there was no mechanism to really deal with them, because they were essentially work to rule. The reason the then Davis government introduced legislation giving the teachers

the right to strike, I believe in 1975, was a recognition that that perhaps was the best way of bringing disputes to a resolution. The Premier very recently said that, and I agree with that.

The member for Muskoka is suggesting that in this case we remove that right. I'd say that before one does that, we have to say, therefore, how do we resolve

those disputes? By taking away the right to strike, would we simply be adding to the disruption for our young people or taking away from it? The Premier today just said we would be adding to the

disruption.

I think during the last few months we've seen that where there is a long-standing dispute between support workers and school boards that has gone on for a

considerable period of time and where the students' education year may be in jeopardy, there may be a need to consider legislation that would deal with that. As we all know, where there's a

situation involving teachers and a long-term labour dispute, there is a legislative mechanism for dealing with that. There isn't one where we happen to be involved in a dispute with support

workers, and perhaps there's a need to deal with that.

The next point I'd like to make is that at the root of the disruptions between the support staff and the school boards is a lack of funding. I reject totally the

contention that provincial support for education has gone up. I would just say to the members to look at the budget. In 1998-99, the province provided $7.7 billion of support for school boards.

Today the province is providing $8.5 billion. But we must recognize, first, that $500 million of that money that is now in operating support from the province previously was in the capital budget.

The province has completely changed the way it funds capital now, and $500 million of operating grants go to paying principal and interest costs on money that school boards have borrowed to build

schools. That's $500 million that's now in the operating budget that never used to be there. It's a neat accounting trick. It's a way to essentially get debt off the books.

The school boards now have about $3 billion of brand new debt hidden over there off the province's books that used to be on the province's books, because the

province used to fund school construction out of provincial resources. Now they say, "School boards, you go borrow the money." So $500 million of the grants from the province to school boards goes

to paying principal and interest on money they've had to borrow to build schools.

Then the province said, "We're going to cut property taxes by $600 million and we're going to replace it with increased grants." The $600 million is supposed to

be cut from property taxes and the province will increase by $600 million in spending, and $500 million in operating grants will go to pay the principal and interest on money school boards have

borrowed to build schools. There's $1.1 billion.

I contend, and I challenge any government member to prove this wrong, that four years ago the province was providing roughly $7.7 billion in support to school

boards. Today, on an apples-to-apples basis, it's $7.3 billion. The only way they can show an increase is by saying, "We're now funding capital out of operating."

Mr Frank Mazzilli (London-Fanshawe): Tell us what Dalton's going to provide.

Mr Phillips: I hear the member for London, who loves to heckle and seldom likes to listen. I would say to the member for London that the

province is strangling the school system. You want to know where the real problem came up in Muskoka? It was because the Muskoka school board didn't have the money to provide for the support

workers. You want to know the problem in the city of Toronto? Every year the city of Toronto is getting less money to spend on people in the city of Toronto. That's why they had a major dispute at

the secondary schools.

If you want to know what the real facts are, member for London, you should be talking to the Minister of Education and saying, "We have to stop strangling our

school boards." The problem the member for Muskoka ran into was that that school board simply did not have the resources to pay for those support workers. Who paid for it? I'll tell you who paid

for it. Those students who were out of school week after week. There's what you should be yelling about, member for London. Yell at the Minister of Finance to solve the problems. You're attacking

the messenger when you should be attacking the problem.

It's the Minister of Education and the Minister of Finance who have strangled school boards so they don't have the funds. I know that for a fact in the city of

Toronto. Today communities can't use schools. We're closing pools because there's no money. The support workers finally reached a resolution of their dispute, and then the school board had to lay

off hundreds and hundreds of employees because they can't fund the settlement.

Member for London, as you love to yell in the Legislature, I suggest you spend a little bit of your time talking to the Minister of Education and the Minister of

Finance and finding some real solutions rather than simply yelling all the time.

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): I appreciate the opportunity to speak on behalf of the resolution put forward by the member from Parry

Sound-Muskoka. He's bringing forth to this Legislature an issue that was very significant in his riding. I compliment the new member for doing that, particularly a member who just won an election

this past winter and is doing an excellent job here in the Legislature at Queen's Park.

The essence of this resolution is right here, that education support workers make an important contribution to the education and overall physical and medical

well-being of special-needs students. I think too often that is overlooked, the tremendous contribution these people make to the education system, particularly to those special-needs students.

Recent events, both in the riding of Parry Sound-Muskoka, as well as what has happened here in Toronto with the strike of support workers, have absolutely been disheartening for those special-needs

students. Listening to the concerns out there, it was very devastating to those particular young people. Some of them do not really understand what is happening, and I think it's very unfair that

such students are put through that.

I agree with the member for Parry Sound-Muskoka that it's time our government review what is indeed an essential service. I know it's subjective, but there is no

question in our minds, when it comes to services such as paramedics or police or firefighters, that those should be essential services, but what other services are essential? As I said, I recognize

that it is a subjective opinion as to what should be and what shouldn't be.

I'd like to point out the fact that our government is indeed committed to the needs of these special students. If you look at the budget last year, it was up 17%

from 1998-99. In 1999-2000, it was at $1.2 billion; that was an increase of some $32.5 million from the year before. Then we see in the budget this year some $1.37 billion. That is a lot of money.

We're also seeing some $4 million to expand the support workers for special needs.

The real story that lies behind these numbers is what happens to these special-needs students when a strike occurs. Here in Toronto, those special-needs students

were told to stay at home while the other students went to school. This is really segregation and it's something those students cannot understand or appreciate. It was a little different in Parry

Sound-Muskoka, where the schools were simply shut down because of this particular strike. These young people have to learn basic life skills, things like personal hygiene, and these kinds of

interruptions are really disastrous to their training programs. Again, it's something they don't understand.

I've always had a lot of trouble with strikes and lockouts from both sides. It seems to me a rather barbaric way of settling wage negotiations and arriving at a

collective agreement. I'm sure if the minds sat down we could come up with a better way of dealing with this, but at this time we're still dealing with strikes and lockouts. Because of this, I

think we really have to sit down and look at what is an essential service. Is teaching an essential service? Is nursing an essential service? Are physicians an essential service? I think the list

can go on.

In closing, I'd like to address some of the comments made by the member for Scarborough-Agincourt. He seems to have all the answers on education funding. I know

he sits on the standing committee on finance and has a lot of insight. Nevertheless, I look back to when he and his party were in government. During their five years, there were good times in

Ontario, certainly not because of their policies. But what happened? The spending doubled. They claimed the budget was balanced one year, but it was only because of innovative accounting methods.

When Bob Rae came to office he said he wanted to be the Premier in the worst way and that's exactly how he got it -- in the worst way, after five years of Liberal government in Ontario.

Coming back to the resolution before this House put forward by the member from Parry Sound-Muskoka, I enthusiastically support it and compliment him for bringing

it forward.

Mr Dave Levac (Brant): I want start by complimenting the member for Scarborough-Agincourt, again because of the very sound and rational way in

which he tries to present the case for being very concerned about this issue of declaring special educational service providers as an essential service.

I want to refer to my personal background as the principal of a school before the 1999 election and explain to the public out there that although the intention

of the member for Parry Sound-Muskoka might be to try to declare that special-ed providers are very essential and very important to our system -- I have to ask the member, was he on my board,

particularly my school, where I had to tell eight parents that because of the funding formula their child would no longer receive the special-needs assistance they needed to progress in my school?

The year before, those students were receiving that special-needs assistance by those very special-needs assistants. Today I will announce that yesterday the board in my municipality had to make

the decision of cutting special-needs providers. Why? Because the funding is not there.

The game and the fallacy that the ISA grants are getting bigger and bigger -- they've shrunk. They raised the bar for the grants provided to hire those workers.

The bar to qualify as a special-needs student was raised so high, they saved millions and millions of dollars by saying those special-needs students had to have that much more of a problem before

we provide them with assistance in the very classrooms I had to vacate to take this job.

I am offended that this gentleman stands up today and says, "We are after better special education and we want to declare them special needs, and because of that

we're going to make sure they're there." Are we talking about daycare services or are we talking about an essential service that those students need to progress in our educational system? I am

offended that this gentleman thinks that by making this resolution and having us here agree that they shouldn't be allowed to leave that school, those students are going to be better served by it.

Quite frankly, the funding formula ripped from the heart of those students the ability to have those workers there.

There are fewer educational assistants in our system than when this government took power. What did they do? They played a game at the expense of these

special-needs students and their parents -- the tears in their eyes when I had to announce to them as principal of my school that their child would no longer qualify to get the special help they

deserved to be an equal partner in the educational system. It was ripped from them because this government had to save money at their expense. We're not even talking about the $1.2 billion that

this government took from that. We're not talking about the continuing downloading to school boards and ripping from them the responsibility for making sure those students receive that special

help.

The unfortunate case is that I had to face those parents eye to eye and say, "I am truly, truly sorry." The hours and hours of paperwork you made us go through

to qualify those students, to prove to you they needed help -- that was ripped from us, because you raised the bar to even allow us to give them those educational assistants. Shame on you for

trying to play a game at the expense of those students who now don't have that special-needs help they so desperately need. We demand that you return that to them.

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford): I'm very pleased to join in the resolution put forth by my colleague Norm Miller. Comments have

been made by members of the opposition, particularly the member for Brant and the member for Scarborough-Agincourt. I want to focus on the comments of these members shortly. But what the member for

Parry Sound-Muskoka --

Mr Tascona: Mr Speaker, I can't hear.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. The member for Niagara Centre is not in his seat. And the government members would know it's probably not good to be

heckling your own member.

Mr Tascona: The focus of this is obviously to address the needs of special-needs students in terms of a labour strike. We have the reality of

the situation that there was differential treatment during these labour disputes. The bottom line here is that the member from Scarborough-Agincourt obviously is very pro-right-to-strike for

teachers and in the educational system. That's the bottom line. He's not only pro right-to-strike in the educational system; he also feels that the only way to have labour peace is to throw money

at it. That's basically his solution. He doesn't want to look at accountability for school boards. He doesn't want to look at standards in education to make sure we have quality education. When you

read through the lines here, he says, "We need more money. That'll bring about labour peace." More money brings labour peace. He's pro right-to-strike in the educational sector, regardless of the

cost.

But the thing I really take offence at -- we heard a lot from the member for Brant about how he was offended, and I can't believe he has the disposition to say

that. I wish I could say it to his face, but he's not here. But the bottom line is, he's offended by the resolution.

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-St Clair): Point of order --

The Deputy Speaker: You'll withdraw the comment about attendance.

Mr Tascona: I withdraw that. I'd like to say it to his face. He's offended by the resolution. On what basis would he be offended by this

resolution? Anyone who is coming forth here with that pompous attitude doesn't understand what's going on in reality. I think the member for Scarborough-Agincourt put forth that there's a risk

they'd be treated differently. There isn't a risk here, member for Scarborough-Agincourt. The reality is, they were treated differently.

The thing that was put forth here, in the column that was written by David Lepofsky, in terms of how they were treated -- special education students were told to

stay home during the Toronto strike. I say for the member from Muskoka, as we've recently seen in Toronto, without the special education support workers these children could not attend school. The

Sun

article states, "Disabled kids are victims hurt by the strike." They were the forgotten victims of this public workers' strike. That's the reality. They were treated differently because of the

inability to solve the labour problem. It wasn't about money. The bottom line is, we're dealing with a labour relations issue here.

What the member is putting forth in his resolution is to remove that right to strike, because the reality is they were treated differently. The member opposite

from Scarborough-Agincourt is pro right-to-strike. He says, "Throw all the money you want at this, but at the same time treat them differently. Treat the special kids differently." So their

position on special education, in terms of dealing with labour strife, would be to throw money at it in terms of, "We're still going to have that labour strife, and you'll be treated differently,

but the bottom line is, make sure the right to strike for education remains."

We're looking at the funding issue, and I want to be very clear about this: there have been significant increases in special education funding. We have made it

very clear that you can't take money out of special education and put it into hiring more `educrats.' Special education funding has increased, we've brought accountability into special education

funding, and we've made sure that school boards can't take the money out of special education. So the comments about where special education funding goes are not only unfounded, but the bottom line

here is that the member for Parry Sound-Muskoka is bringing about a resolution to deal with a serious problem where there's been outright discrimination by the school boards against special

education children, and the only solution to maintain the education system intact is arbitration to resolve these issues, not the right to strike.

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): I want people to understand what just happened here. I saw the member for London-Fanshawe stand up to speak

to this resolution; he even put his jacket on. What happened? Did his caucus let him speak? No. The member for Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford bullies his way in, proverbially knocks him aside --

Mr Tascona: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I was trying to speak in the House. The member was out of his seat, and I couldn't even speak to

you because I couldn't hear. He knows that.

The Deputy Speaker: That's not a point of order.

Mr Kormos: Thank you, Speaker. So what happens? The member for London-Fanshawe stands up and tries to utilize his responsibility to speak to

issues. Lord knows, he doesn't get a chance very often. His caucus has kept the member for London-Fanshawe on a pretty short leash. The member for London-Fanshawe finally figures he's got his

chance to talk about this resolution -- this union-busting, anti-labour, pro-scab resolution -- and the member for London-Fanshawe gets brushed aside, body-checked by the member for

Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford. Shame. Scandalous.

So here we are. I was interested in hearing -- I'm not sure; as a matter of fact I'll tell you I'm quite convinced I wouldn't agree with what the member for

London-Fanshawe had to say. But, Lord knows, his folks have a right to have their member speak too. I protest the effort on the part of the government caucus to exclude the member for

London-Fanshawe from this debate. I insist he be given an opportunity to speak to this resolution. I'm eager to hear what the member for London-Fanshawe has to say.

Let's understand what this resolution is all about. Of course special-ed support workers are critical. Every member of the educational community is critical to

the maintenance of a healthy educational system. The author of this resolution says they're so important. Of course they are. If they're so important, why aren't they being paid accordingly? If

they're so important, why aren't they being supplied to classrooms in appropriate numbers? If they're so darned important, as they are, then why doesn't this government do more, as it can and could

have, specifically and most recently during the strike by CUPE workers here in Toronto? Why didn't this government do more to make sure the boards of education -- in this past instance, most

specifically, the Toronto board of education -- had adequate funding so that strike could have been settled, indeed so that strike could have been averted?

Let's recall that those support workers were merely seeking the same percentage -- not dollar value, but percentage -- salary increase that had earlier been

granted without a strike to teachers by that same board. The demands of those workers were not in any way, shape or form extravagant. This government didn't do anything to ensure the Toronto

District School Board could avert that strike. The member who authors this resolution didn't speak up in this Legislature calling upon his government to pay back -- what was it; how many hundreds

of thousands a day were being kicked back into government coffers while those workers were on strike that the government could have returned to the board so the board could have properly funded the

fair but modest salary increase those support workers were seeking? Where were you? Why weren't you speaking out then? Why are you now standing in this Legislature telling us that yet another group

of working women and men have to lose their right to strike? That's what this is all about.

Interjection: He's pro-strike.

Mr Kormos: What more fundamental right can there be in a democratic society --

Interjection: He likes strikes.

Mr Kormos: Please, Speaker -- than the right for working women and men, regardless of whether the workplace is an industrial workplace, a

rural workplace, an agricultural workplace or whether it's in schools and within the educational family, to withdraw their labour? It's unbelievable.

Only yesterday, when this government rammed through its closure motion -- I understand why Tory backbenchers are not accustomed to speaking to bills. It's

because this government uses closure so frequently. I want you to understand, member for London-Fanshawe, that I've insisted you be given an opportunity to speak to this.

Mr Mazzilli: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would ask for unanimous consent that the member for Niagara share his time with me. I would

like to speak.

The Deputy Speaker: Do we have unanimous consent? No. It's not granted.

I want to tell you right now -- stop the clock -- this is private members' hour. Everything is timed. I don't want to have any abuse of the rules. Let's just

try to treat this as it is: it's private members' hour.

Mr Kormos: I understand the member for London-Fanshawe's desperation. I understand that he has to appeal to opposition parties to assist him

to get time to speak on the resolution by his very seatmate. We saw what happened a few minutes ago when he stood, rose to attempt to speak to it. He got bodychecked by one of his own colleagues. I

understand his desperation but I tell you it's something he's got to deal with within his own caucus. He's got to talk to his whip and his House leader. He's got to appeal to his Premier. He's got

to rely upon his constituents to write letters, send faxes and e-mails saying, "Let our member speak." People from London-Fanshawe, e-mail the Premier and say, "Let our member speak." I'm doing the

best I can to help him. I've already insisted that this government give the member from London-Fanshawe a chance to speak, because when he tried to speak he was checked aside, shoved aside by one

of his colleagues, who makes more money than he does.

Interjection.

Mr Kormos: Well, he does. Do you want me to identify the sources of the income? I'll leave it at that. I should identify the sources of

income, but that's a matter for another debate, isn't it?

Scab legislation: let's understand that we've had more contentious strike actions in this province since this government was elected and since their repeal of

the anti-scab legislation than we've seen literally in decades, than we've seen, I put to you, since the 1930s and even the 1940s when we saw the birth of the trade union movement here in the

province of Ontario.

I understand why this government wants to take away the right to strike for any worker. I understand why it wants to take away the right to strike for

education support workers, because the education support workers stood together in solidarity with their sisters and brothers as they took on not only their own board, but as they took on this

government, because of this government's scuttling of public education, with all of the manifestations of that.

You see, that was but one of the manifestations of this government's attack on publicly funded education. We see a backbencher being used to -- what is it?

It's the old trial balloon syndrome. Let the balloon rise and see what kind of response there is. First, we'll start with the special-ed support workers and then maybe, as was contemplated -- do

you remember the contemplation, the amplified thinking, if it could fairly be called that, about maybe eliminating the right to strike for all of the support worker community, maybe eliminating the

right to strike for custodians, for the people who keep our schools clean, hard-working women and men who don't make very much, just like special-ed support workers don't make a whole lot of money

either?

I've been in those classrooms. I've been in those classrooms down in Niagara region and other parts of the province. I've been in those classrooms down in

Welland, Thorold, St Catharines and Pelham. I've spent time. I've sat there and watched teachers at the elementary level, and yes, even at the high school level but most acutely at the elementary

school level, deal with special-needs kids, ranging from modest levels of needs to some very serious and complex levels of needs. I've watched those teachers accommodate those kids, care for them,

love them and teach them, help them learn, help them grow.

I've watched teachers do that with the assistance of support workers in their classroom and I've watched teachers who have been denied that assistance. I've

watched as teachers cart into the classroom early in the morning construction paper, crayons, pencils and other school supplies that they've purchased out of their own pockets.

I've similarly joined those teachers and their students and their students' families on Saturday mornings and Saturday afternoons and Friday evenings when they

have so-called fun fairs, the sole purpose of which is to raise money to support day-to-day classroom activities in their school. Ross school in Welland holds a minimum of three a year. It's not

about having fun; it's about raising money, a nickel, a dime and a quarter at a time, being happy if a Saturday morning bake sale and flea market sort of thing manages to raise a couple of hundred

bucks, because maybe they can buy a couple of books for the library, or maybe they can buy some of the arts and crafts supplies that are an integral part of kids' educational programs, or maybe

they can buy some of the very sophisticated and specialized learning tools that are available for all kids, including kids with special needs, because "special needs" means precisely that -- you've

got special needs.

I've watched those same support workers do their jobs and do them in a caring, professional way. By God, you don't take away their right to strike, you don't

punish them for being among the lowest-paid people in the educational community, notwithstanding that they equal any others in their level of commitment, their level of professionalism, and yes

indeed, with respect to their specialization, their level of training.

This is just another manifestation of this government's hell-bent commitment to union-busting, its hell-bent commitment to destroying free collective

bargaining here in Ontario. It knows the Charter of Rights doesn't permit it to ban trade unions, so it will do it through the back door. It'll eliminate the right to strike, or for the right to

strike that exists it'll legislate workers back to work, making the right to strike irrelevant, and it will, by legislation, designate more and more workers as essential workers. Yes, that's coming

to the floor of this Legislature very soon when it comes to paramedics, ambulance workers and this government's attack on the SEIU, CUPE and OPSEU workers who provide those ambulance services, once

again effectively eliminating the right to strike.

I've got a message for the author of this bill and for the Premier: you don't legislate essential workers if you believe in free collective bargaining; you

negotiate it. Let me tell you, let this member or anybody else on the government bench come up with a single instance of a special-ed support worker who has ever been anything less than thoroughly,

totally committed to the welfare, the learning and the care of the kids who are in their care and who their job is to assist during the course of a school day and beyond -- one single instance.

This is a shameful attack, because it's an attack not only on the special-ed support workers; it's an attack on the kids those support workers are committed

to, because those kids, like all of our kids, deserve teachers, teachers' aides and support workers who are fairly paid, who are respected by this government and who have the basic democratic

rights any worker should have, ought to have and does have in a truly democratic society.

This government committed itself some chunk of time ago to creating a crisis in education and, by God, it's done it, and it's going to pursue it. It's going to

pursue public education, drive it into the ground and drive its workers into the ground, be it support workers or teachers, until it destroys public education so it can sustain and use public

dollars to finance its private for-profit school system.

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): It's my pleasure to speak on behalf of the member from Parry Sound-Muskoka's resolution this morning, specifically

declaring special education support workers as an essential service. The point's been established, I believe, that when we're speaking of children with special needs, particularly health needs, and

physical support workers of the particular group we're talking about, it could be considered discrimination. It's not as in the cases where other children may also be disrupted by work stoppages in

our schools. This is a particularly unique case, with children who are being deprived of the essential supports they need, in many cases to survive. The educational component is in addition to the

support workers' role.

I think he makes a very good point. Today, as you know, it is illegal for health care workers to strike. There is a dispute mechanism, an arbitration process,

where there are collective bargaining agreements reached without the need of a strike which does, in this case, affect vulnerable children.

A little bit of history, but first I want to mention that this morning I had the privilege of opening a two-day symposium on fetal alcohol syndrome, FAS, in

Durham. A former neighbour and friend of mine, Marion Cook, has worked tirelessly from the early 1990s to have recognition of fetal alcohol syndrome as a precipitous ailment that may affect special

education children. ADHD -- attention deficit hyperactivity disorder -- and others -- there is a growing demand for special education services.

I would say, respectfully, that members of my family were special education instructors, speech and language pathologists. I chaired special education for

about four years and am very supportive and sympathetic to this need.

The history should be examined here because for years the process of identifying children with special needs was called an IPR, an identification, placement

and review program. That was often delayed for many years, until about grade 3 or 4, because once the child is identified, the service must be provided. So often it was delayed, delayed, delayed,

and the supports were not put in place. When we encouraged the student focus funding model and identified ISA, intensive support amount, etc, we were attempting to make sure that the money for

special ed is frozen.

I want to summarize that I understand the NDP's position. They are in favour of, and indeed encourage, strikes in our schools, which affects our children.

Second, I'm suspicious of the Liberals' position because you can't trust them. It's a case that they don't keep their promises.

The member from Parry Sound-Muskoka has made a commitment. He's stated in public that he puts students first.

I also have more to say but the history does show that Dalton McGuinty is also opposed to the right to strike. That is on the record, it's permanent and it's

something that should be followed up on.

Out of respect for the member from London-Fanshawe, I want to save him exactly one moment to redeem himself, because he's a member of great respect in this

House.

Mr Mazzilli: It's a pleasure to speak to this resolution. The member for Niagara Centre has laid out the NDP position, of everyone's right to

strike to get a collective agreement. And what do we have? Often, back-to-work legislation in this Legislature. The NDP has been consistent, under the leadership of Howard Hampton, in saying, "No,

back-to-work legislation is not the way to go."

Where do the Liberals stand on it? Well, one day they vote for it and one day they vote against it. When it comes to our budgets, the NDP often support the

Centre for Social Justice, which comes out with an alternative budget, and it is something to put forward to the people of Ontario. Where are Dalton McGuinty and the Liberals? What is the proper

funding for education? What is the proper funding for health care? What is the proper funding for farmers? I have yet to hear that and I demand that we hear that from Dalton McGuinty and the

Liberals.

The Deputy Speaker: Response? The member for Parry Sound-Muskoka has two minutes.

Mr Miller: I'd like to thank the members who commented this morning on this resolution: the member from Scarborough-Agincourt, the member from

Brant, the member from Niagara Centre, the members from Northumberland, Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford and Durham, and lastly, the member from London-Fanshawe.

I'd like to comment that the member from Scarborough-Agincourt was talking more about teachers striking. This is not to do with teachers striking; it's to do

with special education support workers for those special education students.

He talked about funding, and I'd like to point out that the funding for special education programs has increased 17% since 1999, and we are now investing, this

year, $1.37 billion in special education in Ontario -- a very big commitment to special education.

The member from Brant was talking about programs to do with special education. The Minister of Education announced comprehensive new plans on January 27, 2000,

to do with special education, and we have a good plan in effect for special education.

The member from Niagara Centre was talking about his pro-union position. With his usual theatrics, which he's very good at, he was talking about the rights of

union members. I happen to believe that the rights of special-needs children and students are more important than wage negotiations. Also, I'd like to point out that normally with arbitration the

history is that wage settlements tend to be higher than with negotiated settlements. So it should be to the benefit of the special education workers.

The key point here, though, is that the needs of these special education students are of the utmost importance and they are just too disrupted when a strike

occurs. We must put the needs of these special education students first.

The Deputy Speaker: The time for debating this ballot item has now expired. I will put the questions relating to it at 12 o'clock noon.

DOCTORS' SERVICES /

SERVICES DE SANTÉ

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke): I move that in the opinion of this House, the government of Ontario immediately develop and

implement an emergency plan to address the critical shortage of family physicians in rural Ontario.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): The member for Renfrew has 10 minutes.

Mr Conway: I rise today on behalf of my constituents in rural eastern Ontario to address a matter of urgent and pressing necessity, namely,

the fact that I am hearing more and more from people living in rural Ontario generally -- and I speak as a member from rural eastern Ontario -- and from my constituents living in communities like

Cobden, Beachburg, La Passe, Douglas, Eganville, Griffith, Matawatchan and several other small communities that they simply are having a very real difficulty accessing or retaining the services of

a family physician.

And it's not just in my part of eastern Ontario. I noticed the other day in the Globe and Mail some comments from Dr Ken Hook, who is the president of the

Ontario College of Family Physicians. Dr Hook is a family practitioner in southwestern Ontario, according to this report, a 55-year-old doctor in Tavistock, Oxford county. Let me just quote what Dr

Hook said: "The figures aren't good and what the public has told us is really quite shocking. It really shows that something has to be done fast."

I think Dr Hook speaks not just for his own society of family practitioners but certainly for most of the constituents who have spoken to me in my community.

We know, according to the data, that our population is aging. In my part of eastern Ontario, we have some of the highest older populations anywhere in the province. If you're in an area like the

Eganville-Douglas-Cobden-Beachburg area, it's a very rural part of eastern Ontario. The populations there are older than average. There is no public transit. There is a lot of winter weather.

Let me just tell this Legislature that people in that part of central Renfrew county -- do you know how they are getting access to family practitioners? We've

got, at Beachburg, two physicians coming over on a regular basis from Shawville, Quebec, staffing the Beachburg Medical Centre; good people providing excellent service. These are physicians whose

hospital privileges are at the Pontiac Hospital in Shawville, Quebec. So more and more of my constituents in that part of Renfrew country are going over to Quebec to get their hospital

services.

It's not an easy problem, and I want to say that the Ontario government has done a number of things for which I applaud them, but these are small steps to deal

with, as Dr Hook has said, an urgent problem.

I want to also make plain that in rural Ontario there are issues having to do with lifestyle. I've been through this debate for many years and there's no

question that there are some lifestyle issues that have to be taken account of as we look at good public policy in terms of future physician recruitment.

There are demographic issues, not just for the general population but for our physicians. The average age of family practitioners in this province,

particularly in rural small-town Ontario, is rising sharply. We know, for example, that one of the real problems many people are experiencing is that when their long-time family practitioner

retires in some of these communities, it's virtually impossible to find a local replacement unless we can bring new resources into the community.

We also, quite frankly, have to take into account the feminization of the medical profession, which is a very good thing. But the medical schools are clearly

going to have to graduate a substantially greater number of graduates to get to the same number of full-time equivalence because, happily, the young women who are graduating into the world of

medical practice in most cases want to have and raise children. That has got to be understood in a way that I don't think we've understood it before.

What is to be done? In an area like the Cobden-Beachburg area of my constituency there's an excellent community group, the Whitewater-Bromley Community Health

Centre group, with people such as Dave Shields and Bonny Johnson and scores of very dedicated community volunteers who have been working valiantly for the last number of months and years to find a

solution to their problem. A very well regarded, long-time family practitioner died in the village of Cobden a couple of years ago. For that vacancy, there is still no replacement.

One of the solutions clearly is to expand the community health centre concept. It's not going to be the solution for everyone, but I can tell you in the

Cobden-Beachburg area of my constituency we believe it is a solution. That community group that has worked so hard, raised public monies and public consciousness now has a number of physicians

willing to consider joining the service on a salaried basis, but they have no resources. I know the government of Ontario has a pot of money for alternate payment mechanisms and I want to say that

one part of the solution to this urgent problem has to be expanding the community health centre concept.

A second solution for rural Ontario has to be a look at medical school tuitions. We know, according to what the society of rural family physicians has told us,

that one of the strategies that works best for bringing rural physicians home to rural communities, or bringing physicians into rural communities, is recruiting them from those selfsame areas.

The average household income in Renfrew county is something in the $43,000 range. Do you know that since medical school tuition fees were deregulated a few

years ago, at the University of Western Ontario medical school the average household income now of a first-year entrant to the medical school has risen, in just two years, from $80,000 to $140,000.

Let me repeat that. The average household income now of the first-year entrant to the University of Western Ontario medical school is $140,000. That household income of $140,000 is three or four

times the average household income in Renfrew county and most rural communities.

Do you think that kind of medical school tuition fee policy is helping this critical problem? Clearly, it is not, and I beg the government to revisit this

medical school tuition policy, and particularly to understand what it's doing in terms of aggravating a problem that is already serious.

Another part of the strategy clearly has to be, colleagues, that medical schools -- and in our area, the two that are regional schools are the University of

Ottawa medical school and Queen's University medical school -- have to do a better job and do it much quicker, in making sure that young people who are being trained to become physicians have as

part of their medical education a good and ongoing exposure to the opportunities of practising medicine in rural communities.

Some of the medical schools have made some tentative steps to deal with this, but I do not personally believe those steps have been aggressive or numerous

enough. I have talked to deans over the years and I've heard all the excuses. I'm simply saying what rural members of this Legislature know, that whether it's Beachburg, Cobden, Eganville,

Killaloe, Wilno, Griffith, Matawatchan, Chalk River -- in fact the Pembroke city council, the Petawawa town council, have in recent days passed resolutions imploring the government, asking the

Legislature, to take steps to deal with problems, including the city of Pembroke, where we now have a deficit of family practitioners.

Medical schools can and should do more. I think we have an obligation to the hundreds of thousands of people, many of them elderly, living in rural Ontario,

where there is no public transit to speak of, where oftentimes seniors are on fixed incomes and don't have great private resources to travel distances to get what? To get access to primary health

care.

I'd simply say this is a matter that deserves more immediate action than we have seen from the current government. I repeat on behalf of people like those of

Cobden-Beachburg, the Whitewater-Bromley Community Health Centre group, that's done everything we've asked them to do -- they've gone out and prepared the community; they've raised awareness;

they've raised money -- they have asked me to ask the government and the minister: when are you going to expand funding for the community health centre concept?

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): I'm pleased to take

part in this discussion because I have the largest rural constituency in all of

Ontario. In fact, it covers 35% of the geography of Ontario, and there's hardly a community in my constituency that isn't facing a shortage of physicians. But it's not just a shortage of

physicians. It's a shortage of nurses; it's a shortage of other health care professionals. Indeed, almost every week the situation gets worse.

I want to speak about it from the perspective of family physicians but also from the perspective of all those other people in the health care system who

support family physicians. When they're not there, it becomes more difficult to recruit and retain family physicians.

This is not some new thing. This is not something that sort of happened yesterday. In fact, this has been studied over the last 20 years a number of times. You

can basically recite the issues that have to be dealt with. One of the problems is that if all of your medical schools are located in southern Ontario, and particularly in an urban setting in

southern Ontario, when students, no matter where they come from, attend medical school, what gets drilled into their heads is that it's urban medicine, high-tech medicine, medicine that is

supported by 10 specialists down the hall that's the only kind of medical practice you can have. In fact, that's the only kind of medical practice a number of medical students get.

Some years ago, in 1990, in fact, steps were taken to overcome that, in particular in northern Ontario, by instituting two things: the northwestern Ontario

medical training program, called NOMP, and the northeastern Ontario medical training program, called NOMEC. In fact, those two things were actually quite successful.

If you looked at the medical school students who took

part in those two medical training programs, which actually took medical students into the small

communities in northern Ontario and let them experience what family practice would be like in a small town, those two programs were very successful in that many of the students who came through the

program actually went back to those communities to start their practice. They didn't regard it any longer as somehow going to another planet. Many of them who went back and started up a practice or

took over a practice in a small community like that, if you looked five years later, had stayed. They actually continued to work in that kind of setting.

So some inroads were made in overcoming this problem. But there are a number of things that have happened in the intervening years, particularly in the last

seven years, that have made it more difficult. If you don't expand the number of training spaces -- and I for one am glad that the government after seven years finally saw that. They finally saw

that they needed to expand the number of training spaces. The announcement of a medical school in Sudbury is a good half-step, but it's only a half-step because we really want to deal with the

problem. We also have to establish something in Thunder Bay. You need to pay particular attention to what's happening in First Nation communities, because if First Nation communities cannot access

family doctors and health care in their own community, then they will move to communities like Thunder Bay or Timmins or Sault Ste Marie or Sudbury or Kenora or Dryden or Sioux Lookout and you'll

experience a physician shortage in the local community. So government has taken a half-step, sort of a half-recognition of the problem, but the half-step isn't good enough.

The other part of this that is problematic is that if you only think of health care and a medical practice in a small community or a rural community as simply

family doctors, you miss a very important part of the equation. The important part of the equation is nurse practitioners.

If every time someone cuts their lip playing hockey or if every time someone has to get a few stitches as a result of a soccer injury they have to see a

physician to get it stitched up, it won't take very long before your family physician is working 12- and 13-hour days, seven days a week. Under those circumstances you will not keep family

physicians. They will leave because they can't sustain those hours of work over long periods of time.

So if we're going to deal with this issue we have to recognize that nurse practitioners are a central part of the solution. There are all kinds of health care

issues that under the current regime have to be dealt with by a family physician but under a more thoughtful strategy could and should be dealt with by a nurse practitioner.

I'll give you an example of one that I had to deal with. About 10 years ago I was playing hockey on a Sunday night with some friends of mine in my hometown and

one of the fellows got a stick up and got under my shield and cut me above the lip. It just so happened one of the fellows on the ice was a physician, a friend of mine, and he said, "Come on, I'll

take you down to emergency and we'll stitch up your lip."

We get down to emergency and the emergency room nurse would be about as far away as the Hansard reporter is here, and he points to the emergency room nurse and

says, "You see that nurse? She does better stitches than I do." In fact, every morning now when I wake up and I look in the mirror I understand what he meant by that remark, but at the time I

didn't quite get the drift of it. But he said, "This emergency room nurse does better stitches than I do, but under the current rules I will stitch your lip because I get to make a claim against

OHIP for an emergency service, and then when you come in seven days from now to have the stitches taken out I'll get to make another claim for OHIP. So it will cost me," referring to himself, the

physician, "about $100 to put five stitches in above your lip and then take them out again."

He points to the emergency room nurse, who at that time would have been paid about $22 an hour, and he said, "It would take her about three minutes to stitch

up your lip; it would take her 30 seconds to take the stitches out; it would cost the health care system less than $10 for her to put the stitches in." He said, "This is why we need nurse

practitioners."

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): And who brought them in?

Mr Hampton: One of the government members wants to take some credit somehow for nurse practitioners. He ought to know that nurse practitioners

were started by the government before you, and you ought to know that under your government there are 200 nurse practitioners in the province today who aren't working. They're trained, but they're

not working because the government hasn't brought in a payment strategy for those nurse practitioners. If you want to get the statistics, talk to the Registered Nurses Association of Ontario. They

will give you not only the numbers, but they'll also tell you the situational issues of those nurse practitioners.

So I just want to point out that a thoughtful government would've said that we need to have a strategy whereby nurse practitioners can work throughout the

health care system but particularly in remote rural and northern Ontario communities, and that if you have a strategy whereby they can be paid and they can be paid an adequate amount and they have

some job security, you wouldn't have 200 nurse practitioners in Ontario today who are unemployed.

If those nurse practitioners were employed, I suggest to you that the pressures on family physicians in small rural communities would be much, much less. They

wouldn't have to stitch up every hockey player who comes in and has a cut above the lip. They wouldn't have to stitch up everybody who got a fish hook in their finger when they were trying to take

the hook off their line. They wouldn't have to deal with everyone who comes in and has a common cold but simply needs to be examined to confirm that they have a common cold and then be told: "I'm

sorry, there is no cure for the common cold. Go home, drink lots of liquids, stay warm and generally look after yourself."

A number of those things would no longer fall on the responsibility of family physicians. They could be handled by nurse practitioners, which would mean we

wouldn't be working family physicians in rural and northern Ontario to death and we'd have a far better capacity to retain them in our communities.

I too want to speak a bit about community health centres because the issue of community health centres is important. I'll just give you an example of one of

the communities in my constituency. It's a community of about 9,000 people. In fact, they have three doctors' clinics. I believe there are three physicians in one, four in another and four in

another. They're really running three independent businesses.

Because they're running three independent businesses, there is not very much capacity for a physician in practice number one to cover for a physician in

practice number two to cover for a physician in practice number three. In other words, they may all be making money, but in terms of health care for the whole community it's rather uncoordinated.

In fact, there are lots of gaps and cracks.

If you had a community health centre in the community, if every physician who came to the community didn't have to cover all this overhead of setting up a

practice and employing their own nurses and their own receptionists and all of the support equipment, if they didn't have to worry about all of that, if there was a community health centre where

they could work on a wage basis and they knew there were going to be nurse practitioners to support and, gee, maybe even something revolutionary, a chiropractor on staff to do some of the

supportive work, in that community of 8,000, I would suggest to you that physicians would be able to cover for one another more often; nurse practitioners would be able to take responsibility for

some of the work that now falls on family physicians; physicians might even get a weekend off once in a while; they might even be able to go home at night four nights a week, knowing that they're

not going to be called in because someone is covering that week. They might be able to go away, say, to Toronto or to Winnipeg for further professional education, knowing that someone is going to

cover for them for two weeks.

It's an idea where health care starts to make sense on a community level. But, alas, do you know what's happened in this province? The government has frozen

the budgets and frozen the number of community health centres in the province for the last seven years. There's been no expansion in the community health centres across this province. There's a

waiting list that doesn't run in twos or threes; there's a waiting list of several dozen communities who have put in a request for a community health centre and have been told by this government,

"We're not expanding the community health centre network. We're not interested in making health care work on a community basis. We're not interested in a scenario where physicians would be working

together, covering for one another. We're not interested in a strategy where nurse practitioners would be part of the program and would be helping to lighten the load on family physicians. We're

not interested in any of that." They're saying to the communities, "You're on your own."

There are a number of things that could be done to make it easier to recruit physicians, make it easier for communities to retain their family physicians, make

better use of nurse practitioners, and have a more inclusive, holistic health care system. Think of it, Speaker. Think of the money and the overhead a community would save if it didn't have to deal

with the infrastructure of three independent physician clinics and instead there was one community health centre.

You wouldn't need three separate radiation devices. You wouldn't need three separate small labs. You wouldn't need three separate receptionist intakes. You

wouldn't need a lot of this duplication of infrastructure, and it would actually start to make sense on a community level because physicians could cover for one another. Physicians could actually

look forward to a quality of life. They might be able to take a two-week vacation in the summer. They might have a weekend off without being called in to work, because another physician would be

covering for them.

These are practical, workable things that could be done, that should be done in Ontario. But alas, what's been the government's response? "Don't go there"; not

interested in expanding community health centres; continues to say no to the dozens upon dozens upon dozens of communities that have come forward and said, "We need a community health centre. We

want to incorporate nurse practitioners within the practice. We want to broaden the community health centre, avoid the duplication, so our physicians will not have such a load, our physicians will

be able to take time off for further professional education, will be able to spend time with their families etc." The government's response has been no.

I'm glad this issue was brought forward today. I'd be pleased to offer government members more illustrations, but alas, I don't think in general the government

has been listening. That's why it's a private member's resolution.

Mr Frank Mazzilli (London-Fanshawe): I certainly would share my time with the member for Northumberland. I know he was on his feet and looking

forward to speaking to this resolution so I will only take a couple of minutes.

This resolution, like many others, is a direct budgetary issue. And when we hear about the budget and how money should be spent, we hear from Howard Hampton,

the leader of the NDP, who supports alternative budgets like the ones which come out from the Centre for Social Justice. The CAW puts out its own alternative budget. You support that type of budget

and certainly --

Mr Hampton: It's all part of democracy.

Mr Mazzilli: And it is. It is and I respect your leadership for being behind those alternative budgets.

But what is still a secret today is, what would a Dalton McGuinty Liberal budget look like? We hear every day, in this Legislature and outside of the

Legislature, "You've not spent enough on this. You've not spent enough on that." What is the proper amount? I'm waiting to hear that. The people of Ontario are waiting to hear that. But you know

what? The Ontario Liberals, under the leadership of Dalton McGuinty, will not make those very basic decisions. I suspect the people of Ontario will want to hear some of those decisions.

Do you know what they're opposing now? A $300-million tax credit for hard-working parents. It's OK for the rich to capital-cost their Mercedes with their

businesses -- that's OK -- but for a hard-working family who has children and chooses to send them to a religious school to take a 10% tax credit, that's not OK with Dalton McGuinty. Those people

should pay everything in taxes. They should pay their school taxes, they should pay their education and not get anything back for it.

Our government, under the leadership of Mike Harris, will continue to fight for hard-working families. I turn it over the member for Northumberland.

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor West): I'd like to advance an important part of a solution that would actually help go a long way to further the

cost of bringing doctors into Ontario.

When the Minister of Health attended the Windsor area to open the long-awaited Windsor Cancer Clinic, we brought into the Caboto Club for some meetings in

advance of that. We sat him down to meet our medical school community, those who've been advancing for some time the notion of opening a medical school as a satellite of the University of Western

Ontario in London. The minister's still hedging on when that's going to forward. We hope to hear something soon.

Following that meeting, we moved into the library in the basement of the Caboto Club. Just then the power went out. We continued in that hour to meet, I

thought rather poetically, with the Minister of Health in dark. Thankfully, Dr Heimann was there with a huge flashlight. Why he would carry this around I don't know, but he turned the flashlight

upside down, set it in the centre of the coffee table and we proceeded to have the balance of the hour meeting in the dark lit only by the flashlight.

But what was impressive is that despite sitting in the dark with the Minister of Health, Dr Mark Gallow came to meet Tony Clement. A resident of Windsor, a

member of the south Windsor community, a family doctor, someone who grew up in Windsor, was trained outside of Ontario as a medical doctor and continues to practise today as a family doctor in

Michigan, he said to the Minister of Health, "I want to work in Ontario. I want to work as a family doctor in Windsor." Here are just some of the many letters that Dr Gallow has on file. Letters to

the college of physicians, letters to the Minister of Health, letters to our local recruitment team: "How can I practise in Windsor?" Everyone is shutting the door on Dr Mark Gallow, a very

knowledgeable individual who has practised for a number of years and who goes home every night to south Windsor and talks to his neighbours and friends about how they can't find a family doctor

while he is more than happy to come back to work in Ontario.

These are the issues we brought forward to the Minister of Health. We said to the minister, "It's like giving them the sleeves out of your vest to make changes

in the regulations. By the ministry's own account, we have some 450 people who have trained outside of Ontario at schools that can be recognized immediately to have standards equal to or better

than ours in Ontario, who could be here tomorrow practising in Ontario -- a vital part of a solution."

I marvel to hear the leader of the third party today stand and talk about underserviced communities. In 1993, the NDP government cut the number of spots at our

medical schools, under some cost containment measure which was at best short-sighted because it only compounded the problem that demographics cause us today, along with a whole list of other

issues.

In that hour with the Minister of Health we brought to him cardiologists, Dr Chette and Dr Glanz, and sat with the Minister of Health and said, "We need to

perform angioplasty in Windsor. We can't put these patients in Windsor, where we have a much higher level of heart disease and requirement for angioplasty, sitting in expensive cardiac care beds in

Windsor hospitals on waiting lists for London. We need to move them quickly, to do angioplasty service right in Windsor." Not only does it service our patients better and actually help people who

have heart disease live -- because we have a higher mortality rate for heart disease in our area than in any other part of Ontario, and that means people die because they don't get service quick

enough -- but it also allows us to go and search for cardiologists and bring them to Windsor. They won't come to Windsor if they don't have the tools to practise their craft. What they need is

access to the cath lab. They need access to the diagnostic equipment for heart patients. They need to be able to do procedures that they just stepped out of school learning to do. We need

cardiologists in Windsor. We need to provide the field for them to practise as cardiologists.

Two months before that we met with the Ministry of Health. We gave them a nine-point plan of what they could do to provide services to lay the groundwork to

bring physicians to our community, the most dire of southern urban centres in shortages of physicians. We itemized ways to increase funding for nurse practitioners so they could practise with

family doctors. We asked that they expand community health centres in Windsor so that people could take advantage of that.

We asked them to do a review of these community clinics, the clinics that don't carry files on patients. We have patients, like cancer patients, who cannot

fill pain prescriptions for cancer treatment because they don't have a family doctor. When they go to the local clinic, the local clinic will not give them medication on a prescription because they

don't keep files on patients. We need to find a way to encourage all of those clinics to act in a much broader fashion to assist our patients who have no family doctor.

We brought in both CEOs of our hospitals to meet with the Minister of Health, Frank Bagatto and Dr Marty Girash, to talk about hospital operating budgets. What

does this have to do with families and specialist physicians? Everything, because we don't have enough operating room time to allow our specialists to work in our area. We found an orthopaedic

surgeon who came to Windsor and wanted to practise and could not fit into our operating rooms to actually do hip surgery and knee surgery because we can't operate our operating rooms with enough

time because of the funding that our hospitals have.

When we've finished this restructuring and all the renos around our remaining two hospitals, from four, we still will not have enough operating room time for

the current number of surgeons that we have in our Windsor area, let alone trying to attract the 50-some-odd specialists who have already been identified by a number of sources as being short in

our community.

We asked this minister specifically to address, in southern urban communities, these kinds of solutions that he could implement tomorrow and not to wait the

four to seven years before we see new people come out as doctors, out of schools and new medical schools. Increasing spaces is critical. We have solutions that can be implemented immediately:

number one, starting with the streamlining of foreign-trained physicians. I marvel to have heard it in the budget. I marvel to have heard about it in a throne speech. I marvel to hear too that the

College of Physicians hasn't had a phone call yet to tell them to advance their plan in any kind of meaningful way to get these people practising in Ontario.

I'm anxious to see the response from this House to my colleague Sean Conway's resolution that deals with the shortages in rural Ontario. Let me say that it's a

sad day when a member from Windsor West fills out an application form that says "northern rural underserviced designation program" for the city of Windsor, and yet that's what we did in 1997. After

receiving that designation in 1997, we are shorter of doctors today than we were then. I look forward to the current government fulfilling our needs, which they can do in very short order with the

kinds of solutions we have advanced for some time.

Mr Galt: I'm pleased to rise to speak on Mr Conway's resolution. I have a lot of empathy for his concerns. I really see it as equal access for

all Ontarians to proper medical services. This is important to me in many respects, not only the medical aspect but also for small-town and rural Ontario as it relates to economic development.

Serving on the Premier's Task Force on Rural Economic Renewal, one of the barriers we have in Ontario to economic renewal and development in rural Ontario is the lack of physicians and sometimes

the lack of medical services in small-town Ontario.

I'd like for a moment to refer to some of the things that have been happening in my riding. Some of the communities have taken it into their own hands to

ensure proper medical services are there. I would like to compliment the Campbellford hospital board for building a medical clinic. That was opened a year or so ago, and since then several

physicians have come into their community. Quinte West raised funds and worked for a long time to get a new hospital in that community, the Trenton Memorial Hospital. They were promised a new

hospital first by the Liberal government; they were then promised a new hospital by the NDP government; it didn't happen until our government came in and went through the HSRC and we ended up with

a new hospital in Quinte West.

Interjection.

Mr Galt: The member from Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington I'm sure is very pleased to know there's a hospital being developed in her

riding, up in Bancroft, as part of the Quinte Healthcare Corp. That wouldn't have happened had it not been for our government working with the Health Services Restructuring Commission. I would

think she'd want to compliment our government for obtaining that facility for her.

Also, compliments are very much in order for communities in west Northumberland, like Cobourg, Port Hope, Bewdley, Grafton, Colborne and Castleton, not to

mention the townships of Hope and Hamilton, that worked so hard to raise funds for a new hospital, one I was pleased to announce just the day before the last election back in 1999. They've raised

over $11 million for that new facility. We broke the ground last spring and construction will be rolling very shortly.

A lot of things have happened in Ontario to help improve medicine. This problem is universal. It's across Canada and the US. It isn't just here in Ontario.

We've brought in things like tuition payment for physicians who will go to rural Ontario and stay there for at least four years. We've increased spending this year by some $1.2 billion, which

amounts to more than several other ministries put together. In the next few years we will be expanding for physicians -- 120 positions, not to mention the 25 in the north and the 40 that already

came in.

One of the problems we've had is that you will remember Minister of Health Ruth Grier coming in and capping what physicians could make and also cutting

positions in medical schools. We're now finding the results of those cuts.

There's a tremendous number of things our government has been doing, making major steps to improve health services in rural and northern Ontario. The changes

that were made pre-1995 are hurting today, hurting drastically. Are more changes needed? Yes, and I for one will be supporting Mr Conway's resolution.

Mr Jean-Marc Lalonde (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell): I appreciate having the opportunity to speak on the member for Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke's

private member's resolution today. As mentioned by the member for Windsor West, it is a very important resolution.

C'est le temps propice de passer le message au gouvernement Harris et de lui faire comprendre qu'il y a une pénurie de médecins en Ontario et surtout

dans les régions rurales.

Depuis l'élection de ce gouvernement en 1995 et aussi en 1999, nous nous apercevons que de plus en plus de nos médecins quittent l'Ontario pour

pratiquer la médecine aux États-Unis et même en Europe. Aujourd'hui, ce gouvernement est conscient qu'il y a un manque de médecins dans 109 de nos communautés, et surtout

dans le secteur rural, que ce soit dans les régions de Hearst, Kapuskasing, Pembroke, Wawa et même Maxville, d'où vient une de nos pages d'aujourd'hui, Rhianon.

Dans la circonscription de Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, aucun transport en commun n'existe. Je peux vous dire, monsieur le Président, que dans la

région de Bourget, tout récemment les bureaux de médecins ont dû fermer leurs portes, en raison du manque de médecins. À Rockland même, la clinique du

D r Cournoyer a fermé ses portes il y a quelques années, et le D r Cournoyer et quelques-uns de ses collègues sont maintenant dans la région de la Louisiane

aux États-Unis.

À Alexandria, nous avons de grandes difficultés à garder nos médecins. Nos résidents et résidentes doivent se rendre soit à

Cornwall, soit à Hawkesbury, et même à Ottawa. Encore une fois, aucun transport en commun n'existe. Mais il me semble que ce gouvernement, même si récemment ils ont

présenté un rapport sur le développement du secteur rural, a complètement manqué d'identifier que nous connaissons une pénurie de médecins dans nos régions

rurales.

À Cornwall récemment, le Centre de santé communautaire de l'Estrie m'a fait parvenir une lettre m'informant de leur situation alarmante. Le

directeur de ce centre, M. Beaulieu, m'a informé que les médecins quittent la région de Cornwall pour se rendre à l'autre côté du fleuve Saint-Laurent, qui est les

États-Unis. L'hôpital Montfort a de la difficulté à recruter de nouveaux médecins et même à garder ceux que nous avons en place. C'est dû à

l'incertitude de ce gouvernement, qui parle toujours de fermer cet hôpital. Nous connaissons tous que l'étude qui a été entreprise en 1996 était complètement fausse.

Il faut dire que, dû à la pression de membres de ce gouvernement, nous avons inclu l'hôpital Montfort à l'intérieur de cette étude, et nous avions identifié que

seulement 18 % de francophones provenaient de cette région : encore là une lacune -- je ne dirai pas un mensonge -- dû au fait que les gens n'ont pas eu la chance de faire

une étude approfondie. Mais il y a bel et bien 68 % de francophones dans cette région. Mais c'est dans ces études-là que nous pouvons voir que le gouvernement ne comprend

pas la situation du secteur rural.

Tout récemment, le 13 février 2001, l'équipe McGuinty avait reconnu qu'il y avait bel et bien un manque de médecins dans 109 de nos

communautés. On a même suggéré de regarder la possibilité de créer un campus en médecine dans la région du nord, mais le gouvernement s'est

réveillé, et le 17 mai dernier, nous avons lancé une annonce disant que nous allions créer un centre de médecine dans la région du nord, soit dans la région de

Sudbury et de Thunder Bay. Est-ce qu'il faut toujours renouveler la mémoire à ce gouvernement pour leur dire que de temps à autre il faut concentrer nos études à

l'extérieur des grands centres et non seulement dans la région de Toronto ?

Nous connaissons très bien les objectifs de ce gouvernement : c'est de privatiser, privatiser, privatiser de plus en plus nos services publics. Mais

lorsqu'il vient le temps de privatiser les services de santé, comme nous essayons de le faire dans le domaine de l'éducation, nous oublions toujours de garantir aux francophones et aussi

aux citoyens et citoyennes de l'Ontario qu'un service sera toujours en place. Je regarde les situations des cliniques de radiologie. J'ai mentionné dans cette Chambre il n'y a pas tellement

longtemps qu'une compagnie de l'Alberta qui avait fait l'achat de 140 cliniques de radiologie en Ontario était en grande difficulté. La bourse démontrait récemment que l'apport

ne vaut que 12 sous chacune. Cette compagnie de l'Alberta qui a fait l'achat de la majorité de nos cliniques -- le gouvernement ne pourra regarder à s'assurer qu'il pourra y avoir une

continuité dans le secteur rural. Tout récemment, nous avons annoncé que dans ma région seulement, la région de Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, nous allions procéder

à la fermeture d'au moins quatre de ces cliniques. À travers l'Ontario, plusieurs de ces cliniques font face à l'incertitude.

Toujours dans cette Chambre ici à l'Assemblée législative, nous osons porter le blâme sur le gouvernement fédéral. J'ai

mentionné hier soir que le gouvernement provincial devrait faire attention, le gouvernement Harris, puisque cette année le gouvernement fédéral va remettre à la province de

l'Ontario au-delà de 5,7 $ milliards pour le domaine de la santé, et tout récemment nous avons annoncé que le gouvernement fédéral donnerait à la province de

l'Ontario plus de 400 $ millions pour l'achat d'équipement dans nos hôpitaux. Les 5,7 $ milliards de transfert du fédéral au provincial représentent plus de

2 $ milliards de plus de ce que vous avez obtenu en 1998-99 : 2 milliards de dollars de plus. Est-ce que c'est la raison pour laquelle aujourd'hui vous vous êtes tus sur ce

point que le gouvernement fédéral n'arrive pas en aide ?

Je crois que le gouvernement doit se pencher davantage et regarder toutes les possibilités. Je regarde aussi dans le domaine des ambulances. Le

gouvernement a omis encore de regarder au secteur rural.

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford): I'm very pleased to speak on this resolution from the member from Pembroke. I would say that

obviously we're focusing on physician supply and distribution in Ontario.

I want to speak for a moment on one of the Rae government initiatives in terms of the northern medical school. I want to thank Dr George and other members of

the Expert Panel on Health Professional Human Resources for their dedication in authoring their report, Shaping Ontario's Physician Workforce. I appreciate the challenges faced by the panel in

considering the very complex issues of physician human resources. The expert panel is to be commended for producing a thoughtful report that maps out a comprehensive strategy to ensure we have the

right number and mix of physician resources to meet future health needs.

Like the expert panel, this government is committed to ensuring that physician services are available to residents across Ontario. On May 17, in response to

recommendations of the expert panel, we gave clear evidence of our commitment. In a landmark announcement, our government unveiled our plan to create a northern medical school, the first new

medical school in Ontario in more than 30 years. A made-in-northern-Ontario medical school exemplifies our government's commitment to deliver high-quality health care to all residents of Ontario,

regardless of where they live.

We expect that the new medical school will begin admitting students in the year 2004. From an initial group of 55 undergraduates, 20 will move to Thunder Bay

beginning in the year 2006 to complete two years of clinical training, while the remaining 35 will stay in Sudbury for clinical training. Both Sudbury and Thunder Bay will offer permanent

post-graduate specialty positions, with Laurentian University providing most of the research capabilities. Medical students of this new school will develop their skills and experience while having

the opportunity to work in northern communities. This will help the north keep their best and brightest at home.

This was a key point raised by the expert panel. They examined research that clearly demonstrated that where doctors train influences where doctors practise.

Not only will medical students gain skills and experience in these locations, but they will also form professional and personal relationships during the six to 10 years of training in the

north.

As well, e-learning or computer-mediated communication programs will be developed to offer distance learning to students through the Internet while providing

an interactive educational experience.

This plan has already generated lots of excitement in the north. The city of Sudbury has hosted a northern and rural medical school symposium. Experts from

around the world and the country, as well as members of northern communities, presented issues related to establishing and operating northern and rural medical schools.

Jean Watters, president of Laurentian University, said this was "a historic occasion for health care in northern Ontario," and that her university "is honoured

to be in partnership with Lakehead University in this important initiative to improve the supply and distribution of doctors in the north."

I couldn't agree more. Our medical schools will both train doctors in the north and encourage them to practise there. I want to express my congratulations to

Minister Clement and to the communities of Sudbury and Thunder Bay for creating this remarkable opportunity.

In closing, I want to focus that in my own riding I've been a part of and working with a doctors' task force in the city of Barrie through Royal Victoria

Hospital and other interested parties. We have certainly been working very hard to deal with the situation within my riding. Mine is a very, very growth-oriented riding with a lot of demands on

health services, for sure.

I want to say that this government has taken many efforts to make sure there is a supply of physicians throughout the province in terms of a number of measures

in rural areas and non-urban centres, and also has taken innovative approaches in terms of medical service. But I'd like to hear from the other parties opposite, because this basically is a

physician supply and distribution issue. What I'd like to hear from them is whether they'd be in favour of a fair geographic distribution of family physicians across the province in terms of

whether the other parties would mandate and require the physicians to locate, to be able to get the licence and their OHIP number, to make sure we have a fair distribution. I'd like to hear from

the other parties what they think about that, because I think they're dodging the issue.

Mr Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): As a rural MPP, I also am fully aware of the problems with respect to recruitment and retention of

physicians. There are a number of additional government initiatives I would like to describe this morning.

As we know, in July 1999 the Ministry of Health appointed Dr Robert McKendry as a fact-finding commissioner. This was a joint initiative with the Ontario

Medical Association. When the report was released, we immediately committed $11 million to implement the short-term recommendations and, secondly, to establish the expert panel which is chaired by

Dr Peter George. I know mention was made of that by the member for Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford, who gave a very good description of what's going on in northern Ontario with respect to the northern

medical school. This panel provided advice on strategies to ensure a number of things: an adequate supply of doctors and more effective distribution, and changes to the medical education system to

ensure an appropriate mix of doctors in this province. From this panel, we will expand undergraduate and post-graduate enrolment. We will increase post-graduate training positions. This is the

first of a series of government initiatives in response to the expert panel report.

In response to Dr Robert McKendry's original report, we have implemented a number of initiatives to help small rural and northern communities recruit and

retain physicians. This is supported by an annual commitment of $11 million. We are funding additional post-graduate training in Ontario to recruit back Canadian medical school graduates. We've

expanded the international medical graduate program by 50%. We've doubled the number of community development officers. We've expanded two northern family medicine residency training programs.

We've expanded the ministry's re-entry training return-of-service program by 15, from 25 to now 40 physicians, and we have created the tuition grant program and location incentive funds.

In July of last year the ministry announced $4 million for free tuition, again to ensure that new doctors are willing to return to underserviced areas. In July

2000 we announced new maternity benefits; female physicians are eligible to receive 50% of their average weekly earnings for the past year.

Our government has implemented a number of other initiatives, really too many to cover in the time allotted. I'll give a few examples that many of us are aware

of: the $70-an-hour sessional fee for those willing to work nights, weekends and holidays in our emergency department; the community-sponsored contract program, again directed toward northern

communities; there is an Internet physician job registry, again in agreement with the Ontario Medical Association, to help identify and to help communities to recruit physicians; I want to remind

those present of the locum program to assist northern and rural communities that are experiencing shortages of physician services; and of course the underserviced area designation, where

communities that are experiencing a severe shortage get that kind of assistance. I know in my area, both Norfolk county and much of Haldimand have been identified. Again, unfortunately, when

physicians are present we still have trouble having physicians report to hospitals.

Mr Conway: I want to thank colleagues on both sides of the aisle for their helpful and constructive observations with respect to this issue. I

want to repeat, my concern as the member for Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke is this critical situation of doctor shortages, family practitioner shortages, in rural small-town Ontario.

Let me repeat that today in Ontario nearly 20% of our population lives in rural small-town Ontario and less than 10% of family practitioners work in small-town

rural Ontario. So that problem is becoming more and more serious.

Yes, there have been initiatives undertaken by the current government, by the Rae government, by the Peterson government and by the Davis government. I might

remind people that the nurse practitioner initiative began decades ago, I believe under the Davis administration. But as the Pembroke Observer editorialized last week in an editorial on May 22,

2001, "Doctors a Scarce Commodity Here in the Upper Ottawa Valley." In a very balanced and thoughtful way, the editorial in the Pembroke Observer makes the point that more and more of these

communities -- in my area it's Cobden, it's Beachburg, it's Westmeath, it's La Passe, Douglas, areas like that, Killaloe, Griffith, all kinds of small communities -- there either is an older family

practitioner retiring or simply no one there to meet the family needs of hundreds and thousands of people.

The member from Kenora is right that it's not just about doctors; we have to provide good primary care and I strongly support an expansion of the community

health centres. Let me say again, for those good people in the Cobden-Beachburg area, the Whitewater-Bromley Community Health Centre group is a very powerful, positive group that has worked to find

a solution, and for them it is an expansion of the community health centre concept. We have the need; we have the people. We need a positive government response in these areas.

The Deputy Speaker: This completes the time allocated for debate on this motion.

SPECIAL EDUCATION

SUPPORT WORKERS

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): We will now deal with private members' notice of motion number 4, moved by Mr Miller. Shall the

motion carry?

All those in favour will say "aye."

All those opposed will say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it. The motion is carried.

DOCTORS' SERVICES

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): We will now deal with private members' notice of motion number 5, standing in the name of Mr

Conway.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

All matters relating to private members' public business having been completed, this House stands adjourned until 1:30 of the clock.

The House recessed from 1200 to 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

FALUN GONG

Mr George Smitherman (Toronto Centre-Rosedale): This past Saturday, I had the pleasure of joining over 50 practitioners of Falun Gong at Allan

Gardens in my riding of Toronto Centre-Rosedale. Falun Gong, also known as Falun Dafa, is a peaceful, healthy and popular meditation exercise of body, mind and spirit which has benefited thousands

of Canadians and millions worldwide.

The fundamental values of Falun Gong -- truth, compassion and forbearance -- are really core values shared by most every citizen of our province. Tragically,

the world has witnessed the often horrific persecution and intimidation of practitioners of Falun Gong in China simply for the espousal of their core values. It is, therefore, most disturbing that

I report to this House that this past winter a rally was organized in Toronto to condemn Canadian Falun Gong practitioners, featuring the Chinese Consul General as the primary speaker.

Lawyer Rocco Galati reports there have been threatening phone calls from the Chinese Consulate officers to intimidate Canadian Falun Gong practitioners since

July 1999. I understand this information has been brought to the attention of the Attorney General.

I am calling on all members of provincial Parliament, and in particular the Premier and the Minister of Citizenship, to speak out and protect Ontarians

exercising their fundamental right of freedom of belief and freedom of assembly and association.

Today, I'm joined in the members' gallery by two of the Falun Gong representatives from my riding. I encourage all members to give them a warm welcome.

EDUCATION

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): During Reading Week, I had the opportunity to meet with two classes in the Notre Dame Elementary School in

Cobourg; during constituency week, I spent an hour and a half in the technical department of East Northumberland Secondary School; and this Friday I'll be spending more than an hour with a grade 10

class at the Campbellford Secondary School.

A year ago, we were very fortunate to have the Minister of Education spend approximately two hours in an elementary school in my riding of Northumberland.

Since my election in 1995, either myself, my staff or my wife have attended all secondary school graduations in my riding. I do this because I enjoy it, because it's educational for me and because

I have been invited by the school. I can assure you that I did not do it because of the Liberal education critic's letter, nor do I have any intention of reporting to him any of my activities

connected with education.

I congratulate the Liberals on finally getting out to visit schools, something the PC members of this House have been doing all along.

With all due respect, I would encourage the Liberal education critic to leave partisan politics out of education. I would suggest that he should be providing

sound alternatives for our government's education policies. There is absolutely no room in our government for partisan politics in the classroom.

NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT LEGISLATION

Mr Steve Peters (Elgin-Middlesex-London): For over a year now, headlines in provincial newspapers have been reading as follows: "Dirty Water,

Rural Politics"; "E Coli Scare Renews Calls for Ontario to Regulate Manure"; "Hog Factory Abandons Quebec ... Take Advantage of Ontario's Less Stringent Manure Disposal Regulations"; "Experts Try

to Calm Neighbours' Fear of Factory Hog Farms"; "Neighbours Fear 6,000-Pig Farm"; "Hogs Aren't the Only Problem"; "Farmers Get a Bad Rap."

Farmers are truly getting a bad rap in this province. I lay the direct responsibility for this on the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs for

allowing the media to portray agriculture as the sole reason for the contamination of water in this province.

Minister of Agriculture, you must speak up. This can't be further from the truth in saying that all this blame lies with agriculture. I've got a municipality

in my own riding, the village of Straffordville. Do you know why their water system is polluted? Because of faulty septic tank systems. You can't blame that on the farmers of this province.

This government and this Ministry of Agriculture have totally mishandled this issue of dealing with nutrient management. Ontario farmers, residents and

municipalities are demanding clear, fair legislation and regulations. We need to level the playing field in this province, not just the minimum that municipalities may exceed. It's incumbent on the

minister to stand up and guarantee to every Ontario citizen that we will see province-wide legislation.

Minister, your action is causing serious division in rural Ontario. It's stifling investment in this province. When will we see this legislation?

CHARLESTOWN RESIDENTIAL SCHOOL

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel-Wellington-Grey): It's my pleasure to stand today and publicly acknowledge the 30th anniversary of Charlestown

Residential School located in my riding of Dufferin-Peel-Wellington-Grey. Thirty years ago, co-founders Wayne and Janet Dunster had a vision for how they could improve the lives of Ontario's youth.

Their commitment, determination and perseverance led to Charlestown Residential School.

Charlestown Residential School houses hard-to-serve adolescents with developmental and other handicaps. Most of the residents at Charlestown are young

teenagers placed there by children's aid societies from across Ontario. Through many governments and many different approaches in philosophy on how troubled youth can best be served, Charlestown

has always been there, doing their job and doing it well.

Wayne and Janet are hands-on operators who take their responsibilities to the children of Charlestown very seriously. Young people who have spent time at

Charlestown over the years still come back and update Wayne on what they are doing and how important their time at Charlestown was to their development.

As the local provincial member of Parliament, I've had the pleasure of working with Wayne and Janet Dunster over the years, and Charlestown Residential School

couldn't have had more committed or determined advocates. It's my pleasure to congratulate Wayne and Janet on their commitment to Charlestown and wish them many more years of service to Ontario's

youth.

SEWAGE AND WATER TREATMENT

Mr Michael Gravelle (Thunder Bay-Superior North): Many municipalities in my Thunder Bay-Superior North riding are growing increasingly

frustrated with the government's foot-dragging related to funding for upgrades to water treatment systems in their communities.

As you know, in the aftermath of Walkerton, the province is requiring all municipalities to meet new standards related to water treatment. While every

municipality in my riding is working to meet those standards, it is nothing less than stunning that the provincial funding program set up to help those communities get on with the job has not yet

approved any of the capital projects that were applied for well over six months ago. In the case of Nipigon, minor turbidity problems, which have forced the community to recently issue a boil-water

advisory, could have been avoided had the province approved the funding application which has been gathering dust in some ministry office since last November. These delays are unacceptable.

Having said that, the problems my municipalities face go even deeper than that. While I believe that the province should provide full funding for these

upgrades, it appears that the government will only provide a percentage of the costs. In the case of Terrace Bay, which the ministry has determined is eligible for only 20% of the total cost, they

may be forced to pay for their major upgrades by imposing huge increases to the residential property tax rates unless the government steps in.

Minister, I have two requests of you. First, please stop the foot-dragging and approve the applications you have received so that situations like Nipigon can

be avoided in the future. But further to that, you must re-evaluate the level of funding support you will provide. Nobody will argue that clean drinking water is absolutely vital for every

community, but surely your aim cannot be to bankrupt a municipality to achieve that goal.

WATER QUALITY

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): I don't agree with Ian Urquhart, who wrote in the Star that there was no smoking gun at the Walkerton

inquiry. The environment ministry staff wrote at least eight memos warning that the Conservative government's drastic budget cuts could put health or environmental protection at risk, according to

evidence submitted this week. Testimony by Linda Stevens, the deputy minister at the time of the cuts, indicated that former environment ministers Brenda Elliott and Norm Sterling were aware of

those worries. Stevens admitted that senior Conservative politicians knew their budget policies raised environmental risks almost from the start of the cuts in 1995.

Stevens said ministers Elliott and Sterling had seen some of the documents and had been at meetings where the proposals contained within were reviewed.

The cuts slashed the ministry's budget by almost half, led to the elimination of hundreds of jobs and forced the ministry to privatize such important functions

as the testing of municipal drinking water, but the official government line was that the cutbacks would not compromise the environment. "These reforms will remove barriers that do not protect the

environment and get in the way of job-creating economic activity and growth," the ministry's 1996 business plan said.

How can we trust any minister in this government ever again when they assure us their cuts will not hurt our health and safety? Never again can we trust

them.

DEER PARK PUBLIC SCHOOL

Mrs Julia Munro (York North): I rise today to pay tribute to a group of students from Deer Park Public School in the town of Georgina in my

riding of York North. The students recently won a special award for their video on anti-racism and multiculturalism that they produced, directed, videotaped and edited. Steven Simon, teacher of the

grade 5 class, travelled with the class to the awards ceremony in Mississauga to collect their award from Panasonic Canada.

Panasonic, through its Kids Witness News program, provides video cameras, tech support, editing suite, free shirts for the kids and a free school bus for a

field trip.

Mr Simon is very enthusiastic in his praise of Panasonic as a sponsor of this type of experience for the students. Most children would not come in contact with

or have access to this type of equipment at least until high school. Deer Park is the only school in York region, of just 15 in Canada, that is part of the Kids Witness News program. This is

Panasonic's 10th year of sponsorship. Congratulations to Deer Park Public School and the students, and to Mr Simon and his grade 5 class.

AMBULANCE SERVICE

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Thunder Bay-Atikokan): A new report on Toronto's ambulance service tells us that in almost one third of emergency calls, city

ambulances took more than nine minutes to respond. These weren't routine calls; these were emergency calls in life-threatening situations where a delay of a few minutes can cost a life.

The report tells us that response times are much worse now than they were in 1997. Despite all the government claims to have done to fix the ambulance problem

in the city of Toronto "once and for all," the so-called fixes have only made the situation worse.

Now the government wants to end critical care bypass, which was worse in March than it has ever been before. They're not going to allow hospitals to redirect

their patients. But the problem of emergency room backlogs will just get worse under this new plan.

The Toronto report says that response times are slower because ambulances are waiting in parking lots with their patients, and that's because there is no room

for the patients in the hospitals. The problem has always been, and still is, the lack of beds in hospitals. Since 10,745 hours of paramedic service were lost to unloading delays at a cost of $1.8

million, why doesn't the government bite the bullet and put those lost dollars into hospital beds so the real problem can be addressed?

This is not just a Toronto problem. In 1999, 28 of 49 regions across the province were taking more than 15 minutes, on average, to respond to emergency calls.

The standard for response times in rural areas is 15 minutes. That's the outer limit of acceptable standards and more than half the regions in the province aren't even meeting that standard.

The government is negotiating standards and cost-sharing agreements with the municipalities. They'd better be sure we have enough ambulances to better those

disastrous response times.

PETERBOROUGH FESTIVAL OF LIGHTS

Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough): The Peterborough Festival of Lights has recently been selected as the top cultural event in Ontario in the

Attractions Canada Awards 2001. They were presented with a trophy at an awards ceremony in Halifax earlier this month.

The Peterborough summer festival of lights offers free open-air musical concerts followed by an illuminated boat show and fireworks at Del Crary Park in

downtown Peterborough every Wednesday and Saturday evening throughout the summer.

This season the festival entertainment lineup provides an attraction for the whole family with a variety of entertainers such as Lighthouse, Prairie Oyster,

Jesse Cook, Canadian tribute to Glenn Miller, and Gordon Lightfoot, just to name a few. The festival is funded entirely by local sponsors and there is no admission charge to the public.

Minister, as the provincial representative for Peterborough, I would like to first congratulate Fred Anderson, chair of the festival, and his committee for

their hard work and dedication and the recognition they so well deserve. Second, I would like to invite all members of this House to attend this festival this summer.

My colleague from Durham and I listen to it each Saturday night, both of us having cottages on the very famous Otonabee River, part of the Trent-Severn.

I invite everybody to come. It's a great evening. The Chair of Management Board has also been there and was entirely thrilled with what he saw. It's a great

festival. Please come and join us.

HÔPITAL MONTFORT /

MONTFORT HOSPITAL

M me Claudette Boyer (Ottawa-Vanier) : Je veux aujourd'hui féliciter publiquement l'administration de l'hôpital

Montfort, qui est le seul hôpital de la région d'Ottawa à avoir reçu la prime de performance du gouvernement ontarien reconnaissant la qualité des services et

l'efficacité de son administration, compte tenu de son sous-financement chronique de l'hôpital.

Yes, I want to take this opportunity today to publicly congratulate the administration of the Montfort Hospital in my riding of Ottawa-Vanier. Do you realize

this is the only hospital in the Ottawa region that received a performance bonus offered by the Ministry of Health to 90 hospitals throughout the province for the quality of their services and the

efficiency of their administration?

Ceci démontre pour une deuxième fois en moins de deux ans que l'administration de l'hôpital Montfort est une des meilleures en Ontario.

Malgré tous ces déboires, l'hôpital Montfort continue d'être un excellent exemple de services médicaux exceptionnels et d'administration budgétaire efficace.

The staff and administration of Montfort Hospital continue to work very hard to allow this hospital to reach its full potential. I do hope the Harris

government recognizes the importance of this institution to the community it serves so exceptionally.

Encore une fois, félicitations aux administrateurs de l'hôpital Montfort. Merci.

CORRECTION OF RECORD

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I stand on a point of order to correct the record on a question I asked

yesterday. I ask for your indulgence, as I have to refer to the first part of my question, refer briefly to the Solicitor General's answer, refer to a letter from the chief coroner and then correct

the record.

In my first question to the Solicitor General, in

part I said that "your government refused to honour an agreement reached between the chief coroner, who

negotiated on your behalf, and the Ontario Association of Pathologists," and the Solicitor General said there was no agreement.

Mr Speaker, before I correct my comments, I refer to a May 18 letter that went out to all the pathologists in Ontario from James G. Young, the chief coroner

for the province of Ontario. It said in one paragraph:

"The Ontario Pathologists Association met on several occasions with representatives from the Ministry of the Solicitor General and myself, and together we

agreed on a proposal.... This proposal was presented vigorously to the government on your behalf. The authority to approve any increase rests with Management Board and ultimately, cabinet."

I'd like the record to reflect that in my question when I said that "your government refused to honour an agreement reached between the chief coroner," I

should have also said, "between the chief coroner and representatives from the Solicitor General." Thank you, Speaker.

VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Just before we begin, we have with us today in the members' gallery east a former member, Mr Ron Johnson, the

member for Brantford and a member of the 36th Parliament.

We also have with us today in the Speaker's gallery a trade delegation from the People's Republic of China. Please join us in welcoming our special guests.

SPEAKER'S RULING

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): The member for Davenport (Mr Ruprecht) has provided me with written notice of a point of privilege, as required

by standing order 21(c). I would like to thank the member for giving me sufficient time to carefully review this matter.

I wish to advise that I will be deciding on this matter without further he