Mr Ted Arnott (Waterloo-Wellington PC)
Mr Marcel Beaubien (Lambton-Kent-Middlesex PC)
Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton West / -Ouest ND)
Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland PC)
Mr Monte Kwinter (York Centre / -Centre L)
Mrs Tina R. Molinari (Thornhill PC)
Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt L)
Substitutions / Membres remplaçants
Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River ND)
Clerk / Greffier
Mr Tom Prins
Staff / Personnel
Ms Elaine Campbell, researcher,
Research and Information Services
The committee met at 1004 in the Best Western
Lakeside Inn, Kenora.
PRE-BUDGET CONSULTATIONS
ONTARIO NURSES' ASSOCIATION, LOCAL 81
The Chair (Mr Marcel
Beaubien): Good morning, everyone. It's 10 o'clock. I'd
like to bring the committee to order. This is our fifth day on
the standing committee on finance and economic affairs'
pre-budget deliberations. This morning we have the opportunity
and the honour of being in the great city of Kenora. Beautiful
weather this morning, nice and cool.
Our first presenter this
morning is a representative from the Ontario Nurses' Association,
Local 81. Please step forward and state your name for the
record.
Ms Judy
Carlson: I'm Judy Carlson.
The Chair:
On behalf of the committee, welcome. You have 30 minutes. You may
use the entire 30 minutes for your presentation. If not, whatever
time is left after your presentation we'll use for questions,
comments or statements.
Ms Carlson:
I'd like to welcome you to northwestern Ontario. Actually, those
of us from northwestern Ontario think this is a warm morning.
It's too bad you have to spend it indoors, because it is
beautiful out there.
My name is Judy Carlson. I am
a resident of the new city of Kenora. I have lived and worked in
Kenora for the past 30 years. I have raised both of my children
here. At present I am a registered nurse and I work full-time in
the emergency department at Lake of the Woods District Hospital
here in Kenora. I am also the local coordinator for Local 81 of
the Ontario Nurses' Association. The Ontario Nurses' Association
is the union body for registered nurses in Ontario. Local 81
covers northwestern Ontario west of Thunder Bay.
I represent the staff
registered nurses working in Atikokan General Hospital; La
Verendrye general hospital in Fort Frances; Rainycrest district
home for the aged in Fort Frances; Emo Health Centre; Rainy River
Hospital; Northwestern Health Unit, which covers all of
northwestern Ontario; the Kenora and Rainy River district
community care access centre, which also covers all of
northwestern Ontario; Lake of the Woods District Hospital here in
Kenora; Pinecrest district home for the aged here in Kenora;
Birchwood Terrace home for the aged in Kenora; Dryden District
General Hospital; Sioux Lookout District Health Centre; and the
Red Lake Margaret Cochenour Memorial Hospital in Red Lake. As you
can see, this is representative of many areas of health care:
acute care, long-term care, community care and home care. All
provide an essential service to our communities.
I was born and raised in
southern Ontario. My hometown is in Meaford, on the western shore
of Georgian Bay, which is quite a rural area. I did my nurse's
training in St Thomas, just south of London. I know this province
well. I have travelled it extensively and I know people who live
and work in most of the province. I am here to say that Ontario
is a very diverse province. The various areas are very different.
What might work in southern and metropolitan Ontario does not
usually work in northern and rural Ontario.
I am sure you are all aware
of a recent study that shows that people living north of Parry
Sound are at a distinct disadvantage when it comes to longevity.
Most, if not all, of the hospitals in northern Ontario have
submitted deficit budgets. These hospitals are running as lean
machines as it is now. There is no more fat to be cut without
cutting what most would qualify as essential services. If that
service is cut, there is no one to take it over. In the north we
have traditionally worked as a community, through necessity, in
co-operation. There is not the population base to have many
places providing the same services. For example, if a hospital
cuts outpatient physiotherapy service, which in many cases is an
essential service, there is nowhere else to get that in the
area.
Lake of the Woods District
Hospital is running on a budget that has had a decrease in
funding of $1 million over the past five years. Add on inflation
and other increases, and this is really more like a $5-million
revenue reduction.
If there is not access to
these services, it makes it very difficult to attract health care
providers: doctors, both family practitioners and specialists,
nurses, physiotherapists, and other health care providers. Even
new businesses are reluctant to move to a community that cannot
provide a wide range of health care services.
Privatization does not work.
It does not save dollars in any setting. For those needing the
care, it creates great inequities. It makes a two-tier system. Those with
money get; those without go without. And private, for-profit
agencies are not attracted to this area because of the
geographics and population base. There is no profit to be made
providing health care in northwestern Ontario. In fact, I was
talking to a friend in Winnipeg last night who works at a
private, for-profit nursing home in Winnipeg, and conditions are
pretty terrible.
Health care in northwestern
Ontario is in crisis. Health care in all of Canada is in crisis,
but northern and rural areas are critical. Because of cuts to
health care systems over the past years, there is no health care
system; it is sick care and there is no system. There are silos
of funding. Hospitals, nursing homes, long-term care, community
health, home care, diabetic education and many other areas all
should be under one umbrella, all coordinated into a system that
works to serve the people of this province.
Essentially, bureaucrats tend
to pass the blame on to other departments or levels of government
when there are problems. The people at that level need to know
how the system works.
1010
A Ministry of Health
spokesperson was recently quoted in the Thunder Bay paper on
January 18 as saying that he was not aware of any hospitals in
the province where there was not always a doctor on-site. I hate
to tell you that in most, if not all, small community hospitals
there are many hours every day that, if there is not a critical
situation going on, there are no doctors on-site. There needs to
be an effective accountability framework in all levels: funding,
service and delivery.
Some examples of how the
fractured system we now have is failing us:
Between Christmas and New
Year's there was a patient in a small hospital in northwestern
Ontario who needed more advanced care than could be provided
there. At no hospital in Ontario, not in Thunder Bay, Sudbury,
Ottawa, Kingston nor Toronto, was there a bed to be had. The
patient was transferred to Duluth, Minnesota, USA, for two days,
flown there and back. This is not the only patient from
northwestern Ontario who has had to have treatment in Duluth
because the treatment was not available in Ontario. Actually, the
treatment was available but due to a lack of beds, staff or
funding, they could not get it in a timely manner. In southern
Ontario, patients are being sent to American facilities for their
cancer care because there are not adequate resources in Ontario.
Does this make economic sense, to pay our tax dollars to another
country to provide a service that could be provided more
economically at home if there was a system that worked? Imagine
the unnecessary stress on these patients and their families.
There is a critical shortage
of nurses in northwestern Ontario. This past summer, the
hospitals in Dryden, Fort Frances and Kenora each spent at least
$50,000 over a four-month period just in overtime. That means
nurses were working more than full-time hours and/or beyond their
regular shifts.
In Rainy River hospital no
one got holidays, because there was no one to replace them.
Last fall the Lake of the
Woods District Hospital closed 10 beds and cancelled all elective
surgery for several weeks due to the nursing shortage. They
created 10 new full-time positions. Some of these positions were
not really full-time; they were made by combining part-time
positions that were not filled. The 10 new positions are filled
and we are still working overtime. I could have worked two shifts
this past weekend, and I am as a last resort.
Now we have very few
part-time and virtually no casual nurses to fill in for sick
time, vacation etc, but no one will come here for anything but
full-time work. Can you blame them? If nurses are forced into
part-time jobs but require full-time to pay the bills, they work
more than one job and are still not available for call-in. This
is a scenario that is common in every town across the north and
in many of the areas in the south as well.
There needs to be funding
made available for health care facilities to create local
incentives to attract nurses to the communities. The universities
must be encouraged to make northern and rural experiences
available to their nursing students, much like what is done for
the doctors.
It has become abundantly
clear to the Joint Provincial Nursing Council subgroup, the
nursing task force, that it is impossible to track the dollars
and where they go and how they get to front-line nursing in their
nursing care plans, or even if they make it there. The government
has made repeated announcements of dollars flowing to health
care. We know the same dollars were announced on several
different occasions in different formats, and that makes many
believe there is a lot of money coming back into health care when
in fact the front lines see very few of those dollars. They are
soaked up somewhere and they are never seen at the patient-care
level.
A few years ago this
government spent many thousands of our tax dollars looking at
integrating health care systems. Communities put a lot of time
and effort into bringing their data to that forum, but to date we
have seen nothing.
Please take immediate action
on the recent Health Services Restructuring Commission
recommendations released in December 1999 regarding primary
health care strategy. Having a comprehensive primary health
strategy system will ensure better utilization of all parts of
the system, and the real winners will be the public: the
consumer, the taxpayer.
In the present non-system
there is underfunding of the public health units, the one real
area that concentrates on health. There must be provincial
standards set up. With the downloading on to the municipalities,
municipalities may choose not to fund the health units, and those
very important public health services will not be provided.
Home care and long-term care
have had their funding cut. If public health units were
adequately funded to carry out all their mandates fully, if home
care was funded as an essential service, which it is, and not
privatized to the lowest bidder, which it is, and if there was an
adequate number of
long-term-care beds that were adequately funded, there would not
be a backup of long-term-care patients in acute beds.
Long-term-care patients could be cared for by adequately educated
caregivers and would not require acute-care beds as frequently as
in the present situation. As you can see, it's all related, not
separate.
Continuing education is an
essential for health care providers. It is mandated by the
Regulated Health Professions Act that health care professionals
must have a continuous education plan. Education in this area is
very difficult to access. It's expensive to travel out for
education and it's expensive to bring people in to educate.
University tuition has skyrocketed out of the reach of most
people. Education is definitely another field that this
government is in the process of desecrating-but that would take
another day-but it does need careful consideration and needs to
be made more accessible to all.
Locally, there is a
registered practical nursing program that is to be discontinued,
a program that is desperately needed with the nursing shortage.
As well, there is a proposal to have a registered nurses' program
here at Lake of the Woods District Hospital, a program that would
help relieve the nursing shortage, at least locally and in this
area of the world. We ask for your support.
In the business plan for
1999-2000 of the Ministry of Health and Long-term Care there were
to be five areas of focus:
Hiring more nurses: 10,000 is
the number that I recall. Recently the number 4,300 has been a
guesstimate; again, no way of tracking, but still a long way from
10,000, and unless there are a lot of positive changes in the
system, it will be very difficult to reach that 10,000.
Decreased waiting lists:
Until there is sufficient funding returned to the system, this
will not happen. Waiting for medical and surgical interventions,
especially of a critical nature-for example, CT scans and
diagnostics-is very stressful for people. Imagine waiting two,
three, four, maybe even more than five weeks to see if you have a
cancerous growth, all the time wondering, "Is it growing while I
wait?" And afterwards, "If I had gotten treatment sooner, would I
have a better prognosis?"
Relieving pressure on the
emergency rooms: Unless the whole system is considered, this is
not going to change. Of interest to you perhaps, there is no
redirect in northwestern Ontario. From Kenora, the next emergency
department is 130 km to the east, in Dryden, or 200 km west, in
Winnipeg.
Expanding home care: a
necessity with the downsizing of hospitals and the rush to get
patients out sooner. But that means there must be sufficient
funding; public funding, that is. This will also help meet the
previous three areas.
Expanding long-term care:
Again, a necessity, but again it requires adequate funding. There
was a proposed 20,000 new beds in the province. So far we have
not seen any locally. There is some shifting from community to
community, but there do not seem to any more beds. There must be
strict standards of care, high standards that are mandated and
monitored.
A few years back, there was a
reduction of funding hours required for each resident in
long-term care; this at a time when residents are requiring more
and more care. People are not in these facilities unless they
need more care than can be provided at home. There are changes to
the Long-term Care Act being tabled this spring. I would ask that
there be full consultation with the public, with adequate time
for all to respond. You can tell that even these five focuses are
all related, all one system.
In closing, I encourage you
to look seriously at the five principles of the Canada Health Act
when you are making recommendations on the health care budget:
public administration, comprehensiveness, universality,
portability and accessibility. It is imperative that if the
single-tier health care system that we as Canadians are so proud
of is going to survive, adequate funding, at a pre1993 level,
must flow and must flow quickly to a publicly funded,
comprehensive health care system that will provide universal,
portable, accessible health care to the residents of Ontario.
Thank you.
The Chair:
Thank you very much on behalf of the committee. We have
approximately four minutes per caucus. I'll continue on the same
rotation that we left off on Friday afternoon, and I'll start
with the government side.
Mr Ted Arnott
(Waterloo-Wellington): Thank you, Ms Carlson, for your
presentation.
I think I can probably speak
for all members of this committee. We are all very happy to be
visiting Kenora today to hear the views of the people of this
community on issues of concern. You started off with probably the
number one concern across the province of Ontario, still the
health care system, and you outlined some very good advice, I
think, that we have to consider.
You said the budget for the
local hospital in Kenora is about $1 million less than it was
five years ago. Have there been reinvestments taking place? I
don't have the figures in front of me, but there have been a
number of announcements in the last year or so which provide
reinvestments for most of the hospitals. Is that included in that
figure that you've given us?
Ms Carlson:
Yes. Sometimes what happens when it filters down to the smaller
hospitals is that it doesn't make enough-the nursing money that
came in wasn't enough to even create a new full-time position to
attract new nurses to the area.
1020
Mr Arnott:
It was always the expectation and hope of the government that
reduced funding to hospitals wouldn't mean less patient services,
that hopefully there would be improved patient services by
directing resources towards patient care as opposed to
unnecessary administration.
Ms Carlson:
From the staff perspective, I think we are about as lean as we
can get in management. Even if you could say you were going to
get rid of one management
position, that wouldn't give us enough to improve where we need
to improve. I think it has been shown in a few other places where
they have cut management to the bone that then there is no
leadership. You have to have leadership in the area. If there is
no leadership, then things don't happen as they should.
Mr Arnott:
You mentioned the tendency of levels of government to point the
finger at other levels. At the risk of sounding like I am doing
that, I point out the fact that the federal government has
reduced transfers to the provinces, as you know, by about $6.2
billion, although there was a partial reinstatement of about $2
billion in the previous budget. Last week in Quebec City, the
pitch of all provincial governments of all political stripes, not
just our provincial government, was that in its upcoming budget
the federal government needs to restore that funding fully so
that we can ensure that our health care needs are being better
met across the whole country. I assume you would support the call
of the premiers in that respect.
Ms Carlson:
Yes, we do support that. If you are looking at the whole picture
of northwestern Ontario, to our north, which all the provincial
hospitals in the south serve, we have our aboriginal communities,
which are federally health care funded. There doesn't seem to be
any coordination between the provincial and the federal, and it
all runs together here. Sioux Lookout is a big area, and is
probably one of the very few small communities in this province
that has two hospitals. They have the provincial hospital and the
federal Sioux Lookout zone hospital, which over the past couple
of years has had what I would call catastrophic consequences with
the universities from the south pulling out their medical
support.
That has made a really big
impact on our provincial hospitals. Not having health care
services in those remote communities really makes a big impact.
People who are transferred out of there and into provincial
hospitals are usually very ill when they get transferred, because
they aren't receiving the care they used to get when doctors went
in there, and their chronic conditions were looked after. Without
that, it's not happening and so they are critically ill by the
time they are transferred out.
Mr Monte Kwinter
(York Centre): Ms Carlson, is the ONA agreement that was
ratified last weekend going to help in any way to attract new
nurses to the profession, or is it just going to possibly keep
there longer the nurses who are already there?
Ms Carlson:
I hope it will attract new nurses. There were some good gains at
the start level, to make it more attractive to people coming into
nursing, so we're hoping that will happen. It's hard to project.
Working conditions are a big part. If you are working
short-staffed all the time, it doesn't matter how much you make.
It doesn't make work a place you want to go to. If we can attract
enough nurses that they are not working short-staffed all the
time, it makes it a much more lucrative profession.
Mr Kwinter:
You are an emergency room nurse.
Ms Carlson:
I am.
Mr Kwinter:
I sit on the board of Branson hospital. One of our critical areas
is getting emergency room nurses, and this is in Toronto. We just
can't seem to get them, and it has created a problem, so much so
that with that and with getting emergency room doctors, the
emergency department is closed from 10 o'clock at night until 8
o'clock in the morning. Do you have the same kinds of problems up
here?
Ms Carlson:
Maybe on a smaller-well, I don't know if you'd call it a smaller
scale. We are a community hospital. There isn't always a doctor
available, so you have to have experienced nurses working in the
emergency department, especially on the night shift. You're the
only one there lots of times, so you have to be comfortable in
your skills. You never know what's coming through that door, and
it doesn't always come in by ambulance so that you're prewarned
to have extra people there.
Doctors are going to become
an issue here. The doctors don't like being on call as often as
they have to. It really decreases their quality of outside life
when they have to do call. They are up at all hours and expected
to run an office as well, because we don't have enough family
physicians. I'm not sure how many thousands of people in Kenora
do not have family physicians. All of our physicians are
over-taxed now and cannot possibly take on more, so that
emergency physician role is becoming unattractive.
Mr Kwinter:
I assume the fact that there's a cap on their billings also
impacts on that, because if they are going to have to stop or
have no incentive, the first things they want to get rid of are
the night shift and the emergency.
Ms Carlson:
That's right, because if you are up all night, you can't practise
in the morning and you can't do other things that you might like
to do socially during the next day. And you can never tell. You
might get a night's sleep and you might not; you don't know
that.
Mr Kwinter:
Tell me how you handle the fact that there's no redirect. What do
you do?
Ms Carlson:
You just have to take them. It's not uncommon to have every
stretcher in our department full and three and four stretchers in
the hallway, which actually doesn't quite meet fire regulations,
but you do what you have to do and yell for more hands. They're
not always available. We haven't had any major crisis, but even
with opening the 10 beds we're still keeping people in emergency
overnight, and sometimes two and three nights, on a stretcher. We
do not have an observation unit, so if you're sick and in the
emergency, it doesn't mean you're not going to have people coming
and going in the room all night, because you're having people in
and out for other things.
Mr Howard Hampton
(Kenora-Rainy River): I was amazed; I think you managed
to mention just about every community in northwestern Ontario in
your description of the problem.
I want to ask you four
specific questions. You mentioned that the registered practical
nurse program, the training program here at Lake of the Woods
District Hospital, is going to end at the very time when there is
a critical nursing shortage. Could you tell me why that's
happening?
Ms Carlson:
I'm not sure why. A number of years ago it was to be in Kenora
one year and in Fort Frances one year. As it has turned out, it's
been in Kenora every year. But there just isn't the funding. The
colleges aren't running the program.
I think there are some
changes in nursing education. There's been a push to do away with
what used to be the registered nursing assistant, now RPN. They
are upgrading their skills. It used to be you had your diploma
RN, your RPN, and the nursing aide. What I see in the future is
that it will be your baccalaureate-trained nurses, the RPN will
be upgraded to RN, and then your health care aide.
I might add that people
working in the kitchen and housekeeping one day are not
adequately trained to look after patients the next day. This is
what's happening in our long-term-care facilities. Working in
emergency, the people who are coming in from our long-term-care
facilities-there just aren't enough hands. You can tell that they
are not getting the level of care they did five years ago, and
it's really sad. It's a combination of having untrained people
and not enough people to look after these people. Most of these
are heavy-care patients. Most of the people in our long-term-care
facilities are almost total care, and for whatever reason there
just isn't the money there to provide adequate funding for the
staffing levels.
Mr Hampton:
And the funding to continue the RPN program?
Ms Carlson:
The college isn't going to continue it.
Mr Hampton:
You mentioned in your comments that part-time nursing doesn't
work here. Yet what we're seeing across Ontario is a move toward
trying to utilize nurses more on a part-time basis, and less
full-time nursing. Why do you say part-time nursing or contract
nursing or temporary, on-call nursing doesn't work here?
Ms Carlson:
Well, you have to pay bills, and when you're working part-time or
casual, there's no guarantee of the number of hours that you're
going to work. If you need full-time work, you're going to go
someplace you can get full-time work or you're going to pick up
two part-time jobs, three part-time jobs. If you're working three
part-time jobs, some people are almost double-shifting to make
sure they're getting their number of shifts in. You've got a
two-week pay period; you have to pay the bills. So you work like
crazy the first week, until you have yourself exhausted, to make
sure you're getting-we're over 50% part-time. You don't see
half-time architects or engineers. There isn't a part-time-it's
the nature of the beast, but there has to be some guarantee of
the number of hours that people can work. If the spouse comes
into the community and has a full-time job, you don't need
full-time. But to attract new people into the community, they
aren't going to come for part-time work.
1030
Mr Hampton:
Is that the experience, that when you try to recruit nurses from,
say, Winnipeg or elsewhere in Ontario, they're looking for
full-time work, not part-time work?
Ms Carlson:
Yes. "If you can guarantee me full-time hours, I'll be there in
two weeks. If you can't guarantee me full-time-a full-time job,
not just full-time hours-I'm not coming."
Mr Hampton:
You mentioned primary health care reform. I wonder if you can
elaborate on what you believe needs to happen in terms of primary
health care reform.
Ms Carlson:
I think there has to be one health care budget. Locally here, we
fought for years-there was a silo for diabetic education and a
silo for hospital. We came very close on several occasions to
losing our diabetic education program. The number of people with
diabetes in this community is astounding. There was nobody else
to pick up that service, and when you made the call-we don't have
access to those. It's all one. It's the same in long-term care.
If you have a retirement community, you might need more
long-term-care services in that community than in a young and
growing community, which probably needs more acute care kinds of
things. It all needs to be under one. The hospital and the
long-term care and home care all need to be one, and that
community needs to lay out where it's needed most in that
community, and not have one ministry against another ministry.
That just doesn't make sense. It takes so long that it's not
effective.
The Chair:
With that, Mr Hampton, your time has expired. On behalf of the
committee, thank you very much for your presentation this
morning.
KENORA AND DISTRICT CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
The Chair:
Our next group is the Kenora and District Chamber of Commerce.
Good morning. On behalf of the committee, welcome. Could you
please state your name for the record.
Ms Debbie
Schatkowsky: Mr Chairperson, committee members, ladies
and gentlemen, my name is Debbie Schatkowsky, the just newly
elected president of the Kenora and District Chamber of Commerce.
With me this morning are two fine gentlemen: Mr Blair Hutchings,
a chamber director and also president of NOACC, the Northwestern
Ontario Associated Chambers of Commerce; and Mr Pat Brett, the
past president of our local chamber. Both gentlemen are here this
morning to help me answer any questions you may have after this
presentation.
First of all, welcome to the
city of Kenora. As you may know, on January 1, 2000, we became
the newest city in Canada. For future reference, you could refer
to us as the largest city between Thunder Bay, Ontario, and
Winnipeg, Manitoba.
Being situated in northwestern Ontario certainly
allows for unique situations and concerns. Northern areas are not
often given a chance to voice their concerns, and I would like to
thank you for giving the Kenora and District Chamber of Commerce
an opportunity to represent over 200 businesses and provide input
to the financial decision-making of our province.
I'm sure you didn't drive to
Kenora this morning, so I thought I'd give you a really quick
geography lesson, and I assure you that you will then know what I
meant when I said we have unique problems and challenges
different from other areas of Ontario.
Kenora is geographically
situated only 215 kilometres or, in other words, a two-hour
drive, from the US border at Fort Frances to the south of us. To
the west we are only 55 kilometres from the Manitoba border and
subsequently it is only a two-hour drive to the major city of
Winnipeg. To our north lie many remote communities and, to the
east of us, some 1,855 kilometres or a 24-hour drive away, is
Toronto. It is believed that all of southern Ontario could fit
between Thunder Bay and Kenora.
As you can see, our
problems arise mainly because of location, location, location.
That alone affects the following seven concerns we bring to your
attention. Please note that the order in which I present these
issues does not reflect the most important to the least
important, but, rather, keep in mind that all these issues are of
equal importance to us.
The first concern we have
affects every member of our community and seems to worsen by the
day. Our local health care system and hospital are at a crisis
situation now and cannot take any more cuts. There are over 1,000
people in Kenora without a family doctor and the numbers are
growing. Over the last two years we have lost four general
practitioners. Funding must be restored for relief doctors. Our
local doctors need a break or a holiday.
It's a fact that in 1993 we
received $600,000 more from the Ministry of Health than we
currently receive today. Kenora's health care system is not being
treated fairly, and we are expected to do more with less. In
1993, 90% of the costs of our health care system were paid by the
Ministry of Health. Today, 84% is covered by the ministry. That
6% decrease represents millions of dollars in actual cash cuts.
When you factor in normal wage increases and inflationary issues,
the problem grows. There is simply no fat; there is no give in
the system. It has been expressed to me recently by a local
health care official that a simple flu bug drains our resources
immensely.
Our hospital was recently
awarded $230,000 dollars, a 0.5% increase from last year. The
provincial average increase was over 2%. If Kenora had received
2%, all of the problems we now face would be gone. It must also
be noted that the administration and support services costs of
our hospital are among the lowest in Ontario. In fact, our
administration costs are the lowest and support services costs
are the third lowest, proof of the high efficiency of our
system.
In closing remarks on this
issue, I'd like to point out-and this is where our geography
plays a part-that if our hospital is forced to cut services to
save money and meet its budget, you must be reminded that our
patients are close enough to Manitoba and Manitoba will take
them. The Ontario government would then, in turn, be billed by
the Manitoba government services. In the end, where are the
savings?
The Kenora and District
Chamber of Commerce requests the financial support of the
provincial government with this next concern, the snowmobile
permit issue in northwestern Ontario. In a letter from the
Ontario Federation of Snowmobile Clubs, President Bert A. Grant,
to Premier Mike Harris, dated September 21, 1999, Mr Grant
pointed out that the OFSC has worked very hard since the
introduction of the Ontario snowmobile trail funding initiative
in 1995 to secure sustainable funding for the operation of the
province's tourism-based snowmobile trail infrastructure.
It was the understanding of
the OFSC that the provincial government was prepared to support
the volunteers who operate the trails upon which the growing
winter tourism industry is dependent. In order to sustain
snowmobile tourism trails in northwestern Ontario, new
operational funding must be forthcoming before the burden on our
clubs and volunteers becomes unbearable.
1040
The initial reasoning
behind the government's involvement was to create opportunities
for expansion of the tourism industry by allowing the industry to
generate much-needed dollars in the wintertime. Successful
marketing efforts of the provincial and federal governments have
dramatically increased the traffic of nonresident snowmobilers on
our trails. However, the increased usage of our trails has
resulted in an increase in operational costs. As a responsible
partner of the government of Ontario, the OFSC felt it had to
take whatever immediate action it could to protect the tourism
product both had invested in. Trail-use permits are currently the
only source of operational funding for trails that the OFSC
has.
As Mr Brett, our past
president of the Kenora and District Chamber of Commerce, alluded
to in his letter to Mr Joe Spina, MPP, the proposed full-season
permit fees of $300 to non-resident snowmobilers and $150 to
full-season Ontario residents for the year 2000-01 are not the
answer. These outrageous fees will only drive away visiting
snowmobilers to other destinations that are not gouging them for
permit fees.
These recent price
increases have already had a negative effect on winter tourism in
our area. It's important to remember that because our base
population in the north is limited, the sale of trail permits to
residents is insufficient for continued development and
maintenance of the trail system. The dollars generated through
non-resident trail permits are critical.
Mr Brett went on to point
out that the revenue generated by riders to hotels, restaurants
etc greatly affects the viability of many operations. In areas
with a larger resident
rider base, this may not be the case. It's essential that we
encourage visitors to come to our area to experience some of the
finest snowmobiling available in North America.
The Kenora and District
Chamber of Commerce feels that it would be in the best interests
of Ontario to play a greater role in expanding this relatively
new and vibrant industry it helped to develop.
A suggestion we would like
to make to the Ontario finance committee is that perhaps Ontario
should be charging a snowmobile registration fee, using 90% of
those monies to fund the volunteer groups for the trail
maintenance and development. That would leave 10% to allow for
government administration costs. Perhaps this would then allow
out-of-province stickers to be offered at reasonable rates to
encourage tourists, not deter them. I must note that an Ontario
snowmobiler travelling across into Manitoba is only charged a $50
trail permit fee.
Another very important
issue we would like to bring to your attention is gasoline
prices. As you may or may not know, Kenora has the second-highest
gas prices in Canada. We are situated on the Trans-Canada
Highway, allowing easy access by fuel haulers, yet 18 kilometres
west of us, in Clearwater Bay, and 60 kilometres to the east, in
Vermilion Bay, the prices are lower.
The Kenora and District
Chamber of Commerce is very concerned for the local retailers.
They are the visible, front-line people who are seen every day
when we gas up our vehicles, and with the constant rise in gas
prices it is very easy for consumers to direct their anger at
those retailers.
The Kenora and District
Chamber of Commerce has been a participant in the fair gas price
committee formed here last spring. In fact, our office was used
as a clearing house and communication centre for letters and
comments from the public. The mandate of the chamber is to look
out for the interests of businesses in Kenora and surrounding
communities, and it is clear to see that the price that northwest
Ontario, particularly Kenora-area people, is paying for gasoline
is a travesty and grossly unfair to all.
We felt it was extremely
important that we collect and analyze the information available
as to why this is happening to us. The chamber of commerce had
requested information from the gas retailers in our area with
respect to gasoline costs at the pump. Further to receiving it,
we have investigated the information to ensure its accuracy. I
must add that we feel the approximate 10% margin for retailers is
not at all out of line, as the normal practice in retail is to
try to have a 30% margin to cover the costs of operation, like
overhead, utilities and salaries.
The following is an average
breakdown of the cost of a litre of gasoline sold in Kenora
today-that's regular gasoline. The provincial fuel tax is 14.7
cents a litre, federal excise tax is 10 cents a litre, the GST is
4.5 cents, making the total taxes 29.2 cents per litre. The cost
of the fuel from the oil company is 38.4 cents, freight from
Winnipeg is one cent a litre and the dealer's gross profit is 5.3
cents, leaving us the current Kenora pump price of 73.9 cents for
a litre of regular gasoline.
The current provincial fuel
tax of 14.7 cents a litre applies equally across the province.
This money is spent on building and maintaining provincial roads
and highways. And we do credit the government for the recent
increase in spending towards northwest Ontario highways and
roads-but don't stop there. The roads are our lifeblood.
We realize that much more
of the money raised through the total government taxes collected,
29.2 cents, are spent on highways in southern and eastern
Ontario-paying for the big toll highways and the 401. In fact,
the government has recognized that less money is spent on
highways in northwestern Ontario by reducing the cost of a
vehicle licence here; a vehicle licence costs less here than in
southern or eastern Ontario.
By doing that, the
government has set a precedent. The same should apply to the
provincial fuel tax-less money is spent on highways in
northwestern Ontario, therefore the provincial fuel tax should be
lower here than in eastern and southern Ontario.
We ask for your help to
investigate why prices in northwestern Ontario are so high and
encourage you to work with the federal government. Force them to
the table with the oil companies. Surely there must be some room
for the oil companies to move on their prices. It is simply
unbelievable that it is cheaper to deliver gas to Clearwater Bay,
Vermilion Bay or Dryden than to Kenora. All we want is a fair
deal at the gas pumps, and the current situation is simply
unacceptable.
Another issue recently
brought to our attention is the Ontario government's position on
economic development programs, especially in northern Ontario.
Cuts to this kind of funding have the same impact on our economy
as the high permit fees for non-residents have on tourism in our
area.
The uniqueness of northern
communities must be recognized, and special consideration given
to our areas. It is very difficult to attract and keep good,
qualified people in our economic development offices. Without
these human resources and subsequent marketing money to promote
our area, progress in economic development ceases.
It is apparent by the
support from the federal and municipal governments that qualified
personnel and the funds they require to provide economic
development programs for our area are of great importance to
ensuring our continued growth and prosperity. Should we not
expect the same support from our provincial government?
In 1999 the Kenora and
District Chamber of Commerce was once again asked by the Northern
Ontario Associated Chambers of Commerce to submit resolutions for
provincial and/or federal government action. Five resolutions
were submitted by our chamber and endorsed by NOACC. The Northern
Ontario Associated Chambers of Commerce represent 16 chambers,
consisting of 2,000 businesses from the Manitoba border to
Marathon.
The following three resolutions pertain directly to
the Ontario Ministry of Finance. The first one reads:
"In the provincial sales
tax `business' classification system, the `logging' and `farming'
industries are exempt from paying the PST in regard to the
purchase and repair of equipment and materials used to complete
their job. The PST classification system does not take into
account those companies in the reforestation industry who also
prepare land and plant trees on that land, which is similar work
to that done within the farming and logging industries. The only
work the reforestation companies do not do is the harvesting of
materials.
1050
"Reforestation companies,
which as their business conduct forestry/farming type work,
cannot compete fairly with those companies who are classified
under the PST system as being within the `logging' or `farming'
categories. The main issue is in the land scarification (site
preparation) which uses the same equipment as that which is used
for daily logging activities. Those companies whose main industry
is logging quite often do site preparation with the same
equipment. This makes competition unfair because these companies,
classified as `logging' have a PST exemption on all equipment,
repairs to their equipment and materials necessary to complete
the operations."
We ask:
"That the government of
Ontario, in particular the Ministry of Finance, examine the PST
exemption classification with a view to the equalization of PST
exemptions. This will allow for more equal and fair competition
in the workplace."
Next we have:
"Smaller municipalities in
Ontario have a very difficult time financing tourism promotions
due to budgetary constraints. Often there is little or no moneys
left in municipal core budgets to finance tourism promotion in
those communities in which tourism revenue is a critical
component of their economies.
"Current legislation
prohibits the imposition of an `accommodation or bed tax' for
accommodation facilities within municipal jurisdiction. Such tax,
if able to be implemented with monies generated dedicated to
tourism promotion, would greatly improve the ability of small
municipalities to promote themselves, resulting in increased
tourism revenues to support local economies."
Again we ask:
"That the government of
Ontario, in particular the ministries of municipal affairs and
finance, amend legislation which would allow municipal
governments to implement an `accommodation or bed tax' and that
the monies generated from such a tax must be specifically
dedicated to tourism promotion marketing campaigns. Increased
market presence will result in increased tourism-related
expenditures in Ontario."
Finally:
"Northwestern Ontario
clothing retailers are in competition with Manitoba retailers for
the consumer dollar. Currently, Manitoba laws permit the deletion
of provincial retail sales tax on clothing if the customer is 14
years of age or younger. The resultant savings to the consumer
have driven Ontario-based consumers to shop in Manitoba and
reduced potential retail clothing sales to Manitobans and others
travelling in Ontario who are expecting not to pay PST on such
purchases.
"Northwestern Ontario
clothing retailers are at a competitive disadvantage because of
the current set-up of the Ontario provincial retail sales tax
with respect to clothing sales to children. This results in loss
of sales and potential sales for retail clothing merchants in
Ontario."
We ask:
"That the government of
Ontario, in particular the Ministry of Finance, amend the Retail
Sales Tax Act to allow Ontario retailers to delete the provincial
sales tax on clothing for purchasers who are 14 years of age or
younger."
In closing, once again I
would like to thank you for allowing the Kenora and District
Chamber of Commerce the time to express our concerns to the
Ontario government's Ministry of Finance.
The Chair:
Thank you very much for your presentation. We have approximately
three minutes per caucus.
Mr
Kwinter: Debbie, I just wanted to correct a particular
statement that you have in there, just to let you know so that if
you're making representations to the government you'll
understand. You imply that the sales tax on fuel is being used to
improve roads and build roads and that it's not coming up north.
You should know that that doesn't happen. The fuel tax is not a
dedicated tax that goes to building roads; it goes to the
consolidated revenue fund. That's a great bone of contention with
the Canadian Automobile Association and the Ontario Road
Builders' Association, because initially that was what it was
intended to do. But it's been years and years, decades, where
that hasn't happened. The money comes into the consolidated
revenue fund and is used for general government expenditures.
There's no relation whatsoever of the amount of tax on fuel and
the amount of money that's put into roads. You should know that,
and rather than suggest that this is the case in your
representations to the government, you should make that point to
them, because there are others trying to do exactly the same
thing.
I'd also like to comment on
the snowmobile incident, which I have to admit I wasn't aware of;
it's not a huge issue in Toronto. How did that work? You're
saying it costs $50 for an Ontarian to go into Manitoba? I assume
then that it's probably free for Manitobans or maybe just a
nominal fee, or is it all the same?
Mr Blair
Hutchings: Last year, the Sunset Trail Riders
association, which is our local club, had reciprocity with
Manitoba. They could ride for free if they had their trail permit
and we could ride for free on their trails. That was just a
one-year trial. That ended this year. So for a Manitoban to ride
on our trails is a full permit price of $150 a year per sled.
Mr Pat
Brett: That reciprocity agreement was agreed to by OFSC
on a one-year trial period, but it was also ceased by OFSC this year, although
representatives of the northwestern Ontario clubs-in particular
the Kenora-Dryden area-went back to them and said: "This worked.
We generated some new traffic in here." But their mandate being
across Ontario, period, again they simply wouldn't hear of it,
and the same with the permit fees. I guess the suggestion we're
making is that sometimes the one-size-fits-all is making it very
difficult in this particular area. We don't have the resident
population to sustain the industry, so non-resident and visitor
population is very critical to the economy in terms of winter
tourism because that's what the whole initiative was sold
under.
Mr
Hampton: I want to focus just for a minute on the
snowmobiling so that people get the full picture. As I understand
it, there are about 700 to 1,000 people who live around Winnipeg,
but the snowmobile trails in Manitoba, after awhile, get rather
boring because it's all bald prairie?
Mr Brett:
That's correct.
Mr
Hampton: There are literally hundreds of thousands of
snowmobilers in North Dakota, South Dakota and Minnesota, but
they also get bored of the bald prairie, so they like to come
somewhere where the snowmobiling has some interesting landscape
and some interesting communities, communities like Kenora,
Dryden, Ear Falls?
Mr Brett:
And quality trails, Howie.
Mr
Hampton: And quality trails, which we all partnered
together to build. Is it fair to say that snowmobiling has the
potential to become a very important winter economic
activity?
Mr Brett:
Absolutely, in an area that really had very little. It could be
the premier winter activity and create jobs and create
economy.
Mr
Hampton: So we are talking about an important
recreational activity, but more than that we're talking about an
incredibly important economic development opportunity?
Mr Brett:
That's correct.
Mr
Hampton: What you're asking is for the government to
recognize this and make a small contribution?
Mr Brett:
It wouldn't take a lot to sustain the industry, but clearly it's
not working the way it is, and I believe that the government
could take a role and should take a role in sustaining this
important economic development initiative.
Mr
Hampton: Is it fair to say that the government in
Manitoba has recently decided they're going to concentrate on
snowmobiling as an economic development opportunity?
Mr Brett:
We understand that as indeed correct.
Mr
Hampton: So this becomes a competitive situation as
well?
Mr Brett:
Absolutely.
Mr
Hampton: Could I ask just a few questions about gas
prices? It is unfortunate that the government's gas price task
force, which is made up exclusively of government members,
wouldn't come to this community, nor would they go to Red Lake,
Sioux Lookout, Pickle Lake, Ignace or any of the communities that
experience very high gas prices. I just want to elaborate on a
couple of things in your brief. Kenora has a population in the
area of about 17,000?
Mr Brett:
Correct.
Mr
Hampton: Clearwater Bay, which is about 20 kilometres to
the west, has a population, I understand, of about 500-about
that, more or less-and Vermilion Bay, 60 kilometres to the east,
has a population of about 1,500?
Mr Brett:
Probably even less.
Mr
Hampton: The gas all comes from Winnipeg?
Mr Brett:
It goes right through.
Mr
Hampton: The cheapest place to transport gas, one would
think, would be right here to Kenora?
Mr Brett:
You would think so.
Mr
Hampton: So distance doesn't explain the fact that your
prices are more expensive than Clearwater Bay and more expensive
than Vermilion Bay?
Mr Brett:
In many cases in fact it's the same truck.
Mr
Hampton: Exactly the same truck that drops the gas. So
in a nutshell, can I say that people in Kenora are infuriated
about gas prices because any argument that's trotted out to
justify them doesn't add up?
Mr Brett:
Absolutely. It doesn't make any sense.
Ms
Schatkowsky: It doesn't make any sense at all.
Mr
Hampton: Then transportation doesn't explain it. There's
no difference in the tax level between here and Vermilion Bay or
here in Clearwater Bay? This is the largest market; you'd assume
that you could actually get cheaper prices here.
Mr
Hutchings: I sit on the gas committee and I just got a
fax on Friday from the Competition Bureau. They were here last
year doing a study and they found no evidence of any kind of
price fixing. In their words, "It is because it is." Now, we
don't know why it is.
Mr
Hampton: Maybe the government members could advocate
within their own caucus and have the government's gas price
review committee come to Kenora, and maybe go to another
community like Sioux Lookout, because we're very close to the
refinery here-Winnipeg is only two hours away-yet there is no
explanation for the differing prices that are being charged in
this community and in four or five other communities.
Mr Brett:
That's correct.
The Chair:
Thank you very much, Mr Hampton. I know why it is we have to go
there, because we've got to keep on time. So I'll go to the
government side.
1100
Mr Doug Galt
(Northumberland): It's great to be in Kenora. It was
just beautiful looking out the hotel window this morning across
the lake with the hard water.
I'm curious. My children
are older, and I don't have any grandchildren yet, but just help
me out a little bit. You're talking about 14-and-under in
Manitoba, and I understood children's clothing was not taxed in
Ontario. Is there an age line or does it have to do with a
size?
Mr Brett: I can't speak to that
issue specifically, because that came forward, but I can get back
to you on that.
Mr Galt:
Well, I can find that out, but I'm just more curious, being here.
But you're telling me there is a differential anyway?
Mr Brett:
I would say there is a differential on it.
Mr Galt:
Just a quick comment in connection with your one recommendation
as it relates to loggers versus those planting trees: What you're
suggesting is an environmentally friendly activity, and I'm
certainly empathetic to that concern and a push in that
direction. I think that's just an excellent one that I was
unaware of before. But congratulations on bringing an
environmentally friendly one like that forward.
Certainly, when it comes to
gas prices, there's no question we'll be taking it back and
commenting to the task force.
You know, I travelled
through here extensively in the summer of 1970, and it was hard
to understand then the gas prices. So in 30 years I don't know
that there's anything really new in the confusion of gas pricing,
and it's sort of moving up in parallel. As I understand, your
figures on the tax of gasoline are accurate. The only thing that
moves up as the price of gas gets more expensive is the GST; the
rest of them stay fixed on a per-litre basis.
Certainly gas pricing is
very frustrating in southern Ontario, talking with truckers
recently, particularly in diesel fuel. But it isn't just in
Ontario; it's also in the US, up as high as, they were telling
me, US$1.99 per American gallon, which puts that very much in
line with the price of diesel fuel here in Ontario. Don't get me
wrong; I'm not trying to defend the petroleum companies, far be
it from that. But it would appear that out of the Middle East
there is a crisis going on.
As we talk about highways,
one of the things to help balance this just a little bit is that
in the south, such as in my riding in Northumberland, all of the
provincial highways have been turned over to the local
municipalities, except for the 401-it's the only one that runs
through my riding that is supported by the province-whereas a lot
of your main roads still are supported by the province in
northern Ontario. So I do have some empathy. Hopefully our task
force can come up with something that's helpful, but there are a
lot of people pretty frustrated. The people in Kenora, I can
assure you, are not the only ones really frustrated over the
price of gasoline.
The Chair:
With that, Mr Galt, I must bring your comments to an end because
we've run out of time. On behalf of the committee, thank you very
much for your presentation this morning. It was very
informative.
MAYOR'S COMMUNITY COMMITTEE ON HOMELESSNESS
The Chair:
The next presenter this morning is a committee on homelessness,
the city of Kenora. Could the representative come forward,
please, and state your name for the record.
Ms Sue
Swaigen: Sue Swaigen.
The Chair:
On behalf of the committee, welcome.
Ms
Swaigen: Thank you. I'm speaking this morning on behalf
of the mayor's community committee on homelessness. We're here
today to ask you to listen very carefully to a pressing economic
and social need of our city and the surrounding communities.
Kenora is a brand new city,
and we have inherited all the forces which give rise to
homelessness everywhere. Affordable housing stocks are drying up.
Private-sector developers have not moved in to fill the gap.
Affordable housing provided through the non-profit housing sector
has undergone budget reductions continually over the past number
of years. Changes to the Landlord and Tenant Act give landlords
more discretionary power to determine who they will consider and
who they will turn down, leading, we believe, to human rights
violations. Vacancy rates have markedly declined over the past
years. Psychiatric patients are expected to be cared for in the
community. Social assistance rates and restrictions in
eligibility to get both welfare and EI have meant that many
formerly stable and working-class, working-poor families fall
through these traditional safety nets into the street.
Responsibility for affordable housing has devolved to the
municipalities. Mental health reform means that the kinds and
quality of care that were previously there are no longer there,
and the response to homelessness has become crisis intervention
and emergency services, jails and hospitals.
It's important to know that
Kenora, a young city, just over a month old, is affected by all
these factors; we're not unique in that regard. But we are unique
in another regard, that in addition to all of the at-risk groups
that are impacted by those factors-which are the addicted and
mentally ill, the working poor and welfare families, abused women
and children, disabled elderly and youth-we also have a very
large, damaged and marginalized street population. This fact
oftentimes and unfortunately is the first thing that comes to
mind when people think of Kenora. We had a bit of flurry in the
press around the election time. This issue is a sore point and
continues to be a sore point with people in our area.
The provincial task force
on homelessness was here in April 1998, and the chairperson, Mr
Jack Carroll, reported to the press: "Kenora was certainly
different than most small towns we visited. You have a particular
issue with homeless people that is typical of a centre much
larger and certainly not like a similarly small-sized town in
southern Ontario. It's a complex issue for the community to deal
with, and surrounding First Nations have to co-operate if it's to
be remedied." He added, "I think Kenora's solution will be
designed in Kenora's best interests, and the province has to
support the community."
The chairperson also
suggested that the final report may have to have a special
section reserved for the unique problems in Kenora. "I don't know
that there will not have to be another chapter that has to be
written for Kenora. I sense that your problem is different. I
leave here with no more
sense of what the answer is than when I came here."
Kenora is positioned as an
economic, cultural, social and political centre, surrounded by 10
First Nations communities. When the traditional cultures
eventually collapsed, under much ongoing strain in the last half
century, Kenora became the receptacle for many First Nations
persons who fell through the cracks when their communities began
the long and arduous effort to restructure. Kenora remains a
destination for many persons who have "lost their connection to
family, work, education, community and their personal support
system." This is the definition of homelessness used by the
provincial task force on homelessness.
I'll just stop there and
make a point. It's important to understand that the definition of
homelessness is not "not having a home." The definition of
homelessness is "lost connection to family, work, education,
community and their personal support system."
Kenora has been
overwhelmed, frozen in ambivalence and indecision about how to
address this community problem for some time. For political,
historical and complex reasons, we have been unable to reach a
community consensus. Our group, the mayor's community committee
on homelessness, from the time it was struck in 1997, has had a
long and troubled history, through a period of frustration and
eventual dormancy, to now renewed resolve to doggedly study,
understand, come together and act to fulfill our mission
statement, which is: "To provide shelter for those in need of
emergency accommodation in the Kenora area."
1110
Our problems are not going
to go away by themselves. The Kenora Police Service recently
reported in the local press, "A 30% increase in arrests of drunks
projected-hostel called for by police chief and advisers."
We are a little city with
big-city problems. We are a new city without big-city experience.
We are a vigorous, responsible and generous city with hopes of
creating a community free from the divisions that give rise to
poverty, crime and despair. Mr Carroll, reflecting on his visit
here, observed:
"This is the first
community we've been to where the police have been involved in
the discussion. Everywhere else they say it doesn't affect them,
so I think we have a different problem here. Mental diseases seem
to be less of an issue but substance abuse and more First Nations
people are involved and that's apparent when you speak to police
in this area."
Our local detoxification
centre, of which I am the supervisor, sees admissions steadily
increasing with, sadly, many new and younger faces showing up at
the door.
The Honourable Claudette
Bradshaw, Minister of Labour, who is responsible for the
homeless, visited our community in July and heard from various
interest groups in the community, including our committee. The
text of our community committee submission to her is attached. We
asked that the unique needs of this far-flung northern
constituency-extreme climate, long distances between communities
and our disproportionate share of social problems-be taken into
account when allocating federal money. We felt that Ms Bradshaw
heard us.
Our committee envisions
first and foremost a shelter for Kenora's homeless. This will be
the first step towards the kind of compassionate intervention
envisioned by Ms Bradshaw. She stated to the local press:
"The homeless are homeless
for a reason. They have problems we can address. We need to offer
them compassion and love. Housing and feeding are one thing but
we must also provide support where it is needed most."
Kenora's position and
problems are unique. This has been established. The shelter we
require must be permanent, well-equipped, staffed and securely
funded. It will be an intake point to help those on the street
rebuild their lost connections. It will be a safe and comforting
place where, with the help of staff and community volunteers,
residents can begin to imagine a new life to construct the steps
necessary to rebuild the connections. Advocacy and support will
be provided to help each resident through the sometimes
nightmarish maze of bureaucracy to access welfare, treatment,
literacy training, job preparation, health care and eventually
more stable housing. Once vulnerable citizens are safe, we will
begin to work with the First Nations to help each resident
strengthen their connections.
However, we recognize that
the legacy of assimilation-the residential school heritage-racism
and social chaos have produced some individuals for whom the
shelter will become home-those souls who have lived on the
margins of both cultures and truly cannot envision any connected
future. These persons deserve and require care, respect, dignity
and refuge. Our first commitment is to them. These are the
persons to whom we truly owe a shelter as our basic human social
contract. These are the persons who die on our streets, in police
cells, accidentally or through acts of violence, sometimes
self-inflicted. They must be kept safe.
We see our shelter as more
than a roof and warmth. It will be a clearinghouse or entry point
to our already well-established but uncoordinated and sometimes
unresponsive social service delivery system. As Ms Bradshaw
described it, "support where it's needed most."
Our committee has applied
and we're waiting to hear from the Kenora District Services Board
for a study grant-we've asked for $20,000-to examine our unique
situation and to find innovative ways to involve the broader
community, especially the business sector, in planning. We will
be vigorously pursuing any money that becomes available. The
disproportionate number of seriously disadvantaged persons in
Kenora is not going to change any time soon. We cannot deny or
ignore this reality any longer. We have to accept that we do have
big-city problems. We're ready to act. We require attention and
responsiveness from our provincial government to work together in
trust to help rebuild the social fibre of our community.
The community committee does commit itself to
continue on with aftercare and support for people once they leave
the shelter. We will be continuing to examine the factors in our
community that continue to give rise to homelessness.
In conclusion, I want to
say that Kenora, like many communities in the north, feels a deep
sense of isolation, indifference and abandonment by the
provincial government. We feel acutely that our reality is simply
not understood or accounted for often in provincial
decision-making. Our gasoline prices, cancellation of the spring
bear hunt and abysmal health care are obvious examples. Sometimes
it feels that our rights and our needs are simply not taken into
account. Funding formulae applicable to Cobourg or Barrie simply
do not apply here. Our sprawling geography and the special needs
of our citizens mean that allocations to health care,
transportation and education based on per capita calculations
penalize us over and over again.
The savings which accrue to
the government funders are now borne by the municipalities and
Kenora suffers specifically under this formula. One of the
initiatives identified by the social services minister announcing
the $100 million to help the homeless is "Supports to communities
to allow innovative approaches to local homelessness issues with
an emphasis on prevention."
We hope we have clearly
outlined Kenora's needs and plans and our urgent need for
"supports."
The cost of not addressing
the issues of the homeless and disenfranchised in our community
is resulting in higher policing costs; higher incarceration
costs-up to 60 detainees in custody over a single weekend;
escalating court costs; much higher utilization of emergency
services at hospital; loss of civic pride, which impacts on our
ability to aggressively market ourselves as a tourist
destination; and, I believe most importantly, the discrediting of
our community as one which fails to care for its most vulnerable.
This causes entrenchment of exclusionary attitudes and results in
an unhealthy and fractured community.
Economic health is vital to
the development of any community; however, social health and
stability is the foundation on which a healthy community is
built. This social health and stability costs money.
In your deliberations
regarding allocation of provincial dollars, we ask you again to
listen very carefully to the Kenora area's needs.
The Chair:
Thank you very much for your presentation. We have approximately
four minutes per caucus. Mr Hampton.
Mr
Hampton: Thank you very much. I want to ask you four
specific questions. I understand that a number of the police
chiefs, not just here in Kenora but in northwestern Ontario, have
remarked that their holding cells are often taken up not by
people who have engaged in criminal conduct but by people who are
simply mentally ill and on the street or homeless and on the
street. Is that a fair assessment?
Ms
Swaigen: I couldn't speak for the other communities, but
for Kenora, it's certainly a fair assessment, absolutely.
Mr
Hampton: As I understand it, Lake of the Woods hospital
is the one hospital west of Thunder Bay that has psychiatric
services.
Ms
Swaigen: For the north, yes.
Mr
Hampton: So patients come to Kenora, Lake of the Woods
hospital, from other communities across the northwest for those
services.
Ms
Swaigen: Yes. The Lake of the Woods District Hospital's
area goes right up to James Bay, Hudson Bay.
1120
Mr
Hampton: I understand as well that Kenora and Fort
Frances are the two communities where most court hearings occur
in terms of criminal law or quasi-criminal law. Incarcerated
persons are brought here from elsewhere in this broad expanse,
which covers over 30% of the province's geography. Is that
true?
Ms
Swaigen: I couldn't say that for sure. I don't know that
for sure, but certainly the reports that appear in our newspaper
indicate that court happens here for the whole district.
Mr
Hampton: To your knowledge, someone who is brought here
either for psychiatric services or to appear in court, what
happens when they are released? Do they get transportation back
to their local communities, or very often are they simply
released on to the streets of Kenora?
Ms
Swaigen: I can't really speak with authority on what
happens when they come for treatment or for court and are
discharged, but I can tell you that the facility that I supervise
is the detox centre, and we are the detox centre for northwestern
Ontario. There are many times that people leave our centre with
absolutely no options. They have no money, they have no way of
getting home and they have few supports, if any, in the city of
Kenora. There is virtually nothing that can respond immediately
to their needs. This is extremely painful for staff at the detox,
to see people who are struggling and don't have the after-care
supports they need, for sure.
Mr
Hampton: I used to work in the court system and I know
that people would often come here to Kenora for court hearings
and then not have a way of getting home and would simply become
part of the population who are poor and with no place to go.
I hear you making a plea
for two things, I think, and I want to be sure of this: One, you
are saying that because of the uniqueness of Kenora-people come
here for health services, the justice system etc from all across
the northwest-there has to be some kind of decent, financed
hostel set up here, otherwise this simply becomes impossible.
Ms
Swaigen: That's pretty much exactly what I'm saying. As
I tried to outline in my presentation, because of the way we're
positioned, it isn't going to be just formal reasons, to come to
Kenora court or for medical treatment. Kenora is the urban
centre. It's going to draw people who don't have connections in
their communities. That's just a fact of life. That's just what
cities do. That's what Toronto does. Some 55% of the people in
Toronto's hostels are not from Toronto. We just have to accept
that this is a responsibility that Kenora is going to have to
fulfill.
Mr
Hampton: Do you think a hostel alone, though, is the
answer?
Ms
Swaigen: I think a hostel is the absolutely essential
beginning. We have to start there, as I tried to say here, as an
intake point, because we have to keep people safe, and then we
have to start building the supports and making the connections
with them and for them.
Mrs Tina R.
Molinari (Thornhill): Thank you very much for your
presentation. I have a few questions and some comments.
I noticed that your report
stated that this is one area where Mr Jack Carroll said that the
police have been involved, unlike other areas, and I guess it's
because of the nature of the homelessness that is its cause, not
mental diseases but substance abuse and others. Is there any
community involved in any projects underway that would assist
some of the people in difficulties of substance abuse to move
away from that disability, for lack of a better word?
Ms
Swaigen: Are you asking if there are substance abuse
treatment programs?
Mrs
Molinari: Yes, and what are they.
Ms
Swaigen: First of all, I'd like to say that I think Mr
Carroll made that comment in response to the police presentation
to the committee. The police in Kenora take people they pick up
on the street to the cells because they don't really have an
option. We have a detox centre but our capacity is limited. They
also take people who are intoxicated and in need of medical care
to the hospital.
My statement is that it's
difficult to deal in isolation with these factors that give rise
to homelessness. Certainly mental illness and addiction are two
of the big ones in this community, but there are so many other
social problems that people have: They have lost the connection
to their family; they don't feel welcome in their home community;
they maybe don't have, or have been cut off, welfare; they don't
have good work skills, job skills. So the future is very bleak,
it's very dark, and a lot of people just don't know where to
start. We're saying in this proposal that we want to at least
give people a place-I think I made it clear-where they're
welcome, they're comfortable, they're safe. Then, if we can
engage and build on whatever motivation they have, we can connect
to the broader social service delivery system.
Yes, we are a centre here
for mental health services. There are several out-patient
services that are offered in the community and through the
hospital: addiction services, out-patients and the Challenge
Club, which is a service for ex-psychiatric patients. We have a
detox centre, which is attached to the hospital, that helps
people recover from the immediate effects of intoxication. We
also have a two-week pre-treatment program. There is a local
First Nations treatment centre as well.
The Chair:
You have one minute left.
Mrs
Molinari: Then just briefly, the $100 million that was
announced by the social services minister to help homelessness,
can you expand a little on how that was spent, where that money
went?
Ms
Swaigen: How it was spent? I think it's about to be
spent.
Mrs
Molinari: Then if you could talk about where it's going,
what specific things have been targeted for improvement.
Ms
Swaigen: My understanding-this may not be accurate;
please correct me-is that $60,000 was allocated to the
Kenora-Rainy River district. Just this past year that was upped
$20,000 from the previous year. The previous year the shelter in
Red Lake, which is basically a couple of Atco trailers that have
been pulled together and have no beds and no kitchen and no
shower and no washer or dryer-they're simply heated boxes to keep
people from freezing, and that's commendable and I'm happy that
they have it; it's more than we have-received $10,000. The
shelter in Sioux Lookout, which is of the same order, also
received $10,000. The fellowship centre here in Kenora, which is
an outreach program of the Presbyterian church, received $20,000
to keep their drop-in centre open 24 hours a day over the winter
months. But you can't sleep there; it's just a drop-in.
Mr
Kwinter: Do I understand that there are no shelter
facilities for the homeless in Kenora?
Ms
Swaigen: There are no shelter facilities for the
homeless in Kenora.
Mr
Kwinter: Now that you're the city of Kenora, is there
any provision to provide one?
Ms
Swaigen: That's why our committee is here today, to ask
you in your deliberations to remember Kenora and to remember our
unique needs and to understand that this kind of funding-$40,000
for the whole of northwestern Ontario-is completely
inadequate.
1130
Mr
Kwinter: Throughout your presentation, and the report of
the committee on homelessness with Mr Jack Carroll, you keep
referring to the special needs. It's almost like a euphemism. I
mean, let's call the problem what it is. You've got a unique
problem because of people of the First Nations. It would seem to
me that there has to be a coordinated effort, particularly with
the federal government. They certainly have the ultimate
responsibility for First Nations problems, and you would think
that this is something they would be very much involved with
other than just giving lip service to: "Yes, it's a problem.
We're going to have to do something about it." Have you had any
indication at all other than the minister coming and saying,
"Yes, I understand there's a problem"? Are they doing anything
about it?
Ms
Swaigen: I think one of the reasons why something hasn't
been done to address this issue in Kenora is that it's much more
convenient for people to point their finger at another level of
government-another First Nations government, city council, the
provincial government or the federal government-and say: "It's
your responsibility."
A good proportion of the people who are homeless in
Kenora are First Nations, but a good proportion of the people who
are poor in Kenora are First Nations as well. I don't really want
to comment on who should be responsible or who has the lion's
share of the responsibility. I believe the First Nations
communities and governances are doing the absolute very best they
can to address this issue in whatever way they can. Their first
priority to their own community is providing housing and supports
in their community.
What we're talking about
here are people who have lost the connection to their community.
These are the homeless. I guess our position as a committee is
that we don't really want to say it's somebody else's
responsibility, and I think it's kind of a specious argument. In
my research and study and reading a million Web sites on this
issue I came across that factor, that in Toronto 55% of the
people in the hostels are not from Toronto. I think we have to
accept and own that too. We're a city. We have to provide for the
people who drift, shall we say.
Mr
Kwinter: I'm not suggesting that we have to find one
person to point the blame to, but it would seem to me that there
has to be a shared responsibility. Certainly it would be the
municipality, the province and the federal government, but it's
got to be a shared responsibility. It can't be just pointing the
finger at someone else. I'm not suggesting that, but I just feel
that certainly the federal government should be very directly
involved, along with the province and with the municipality.
Ms
Swaigen: As a committee, we plan to apply for and lobby
for whatever money we can and as much as we can to try and get
this permanent shelter established. Right now we're talking to
you because you're here. We will continue to talk to the federal
government. Monies are coming. I don't know exactly how they're
going to be allocated, but our purpose here today is to outline
to you what our special circumstances are.
The Chair:
On behalf of the committee, thank you very much for your
presentation this morning.
TOWNSHIP OF EAR FALLS
The Chair:
The next group is the representatives from the township of Ear
Falls. Could you step forward and state your name for the record,
please.
Mr Stan
Leschuk: Good morning, Mr Chairman and panel members. We
want to thank you for the opportunity to present our concerns
today. My name is Stan Leschuk. I'm a councillor with the
township of Ear Falls. I have my colleague here with me, Mr Geoff
McClain, who is also a councillor.
I've been a councillor with
the township of Ear Falls for the past 25 years or so. They
usually call me one of the grand-daddies left in the Kenora
district as a municipal politician. I've served on several boards
and committees of council. Over the past years, I've taken a very
active role in the economic development of our area. In my
private life, I own and operate a Home Hardware store in Ear
Falls.
Ear Falls is a small
community with a population of approximately 1,500. We know how
fragile the economic base of our remote communities can be. We
have experienced the loss of our major industry with the closure
of the Griffith mine in 1986 and the resulting loss of jobs,
population and tax base. At that time, the mine was paying over
70% of our tax base, and we lost 500 jobs overnight with the
stroke of the pen. We've had a tough time over the past 12 to 14
years to try and regain some of our economic development.
In 1998, a new sawmill was
built in Ear Falls by Avnor, who are now Weyerhaeuser. Despite
140 new jobs in the mill and additional jobs in the harvesting
and hauling of timber, the community has really seen little new
development.
A new phenomenon has
emerged in our area. People are travelling farther to work and
shop, and this has implications for the entire makeup of the
community. Daily trips of one and one-and-a-half hours are
becoming a way of life and the four-hour trip to Winnipeg is
becoming very commonplace. As a community, we are concerned about
our ability to provide the basic needs of the community and its
residents. Although people may work here, they live and shop
elsewhere. While they are here, they expect emergency service,
which are becoming more costly and difficult to provide. I hope
to provide you with some insight into our concerns and perhaps
offer some suggestions for your consideration this morning.
The topics I will be
discussing include the municipal finance, health care, fuel
prices, infrastructure works program and expanded highway
policy.
We'll start with municipal
finance. Our municipalities need some security in the area of
provincial funding. The recent downloading has significantly
increased costs in our responsibilities to manage services that
once were delivered by the province. One has to only look at
policing costs in northwestern Ontario. Although increased
funding has presently offset these costs, there is a great fear
that funding levels will be reduced and eventually eliminated.
The speed at which the province has been able to change the
basics of municipal relationships and the basic foundations of
municipal financing over the last two years has left us with
great concerns. From past experience with reassessments in our
municipality, we knew of the many pitfalls that awaited hasty
decisions. Look at the number of legislative changes and new
regulations that were required mostly after the fact to deal with
the implications that should have been anticipated on the
changes.
I don't want to sound
totally negative. Our municipality has fared well to date, I'm
told, under the local services realignment and community
reinvestment fund, but we must continue to look to the future. We
ask the government: Maintain the community reinvestment funds.
Without it, I fear there would be undue hardships on the
taxpayers of especially small municipalities with no large
commercial tax base. The 10-5-5 capping program is approaching
its end. As municipalities prepare to meet the challenges that will follow 10-5-5, we
are becoming anxious to know what will be in place to succeed it.
We are interested to know what the future holds for tax policy.
Where are we heading with the tax ratios? I believe that
municipalities will want to start to prepare for 2001 as soon as
possible on these issues.
Next topic, health care. At
our recent Kenora District Municipal Association convention held
in Ear Falls this weekend, the issue was one of the major
concerns of the assembled municipal leaders. It is also a major
concern to Ear Falls residents who have over the past few years
experienced life without a physician and reliable access to
medical services. It is devastating to residents who require
ongoing primary care and have to travel for medical attention
where no taxi services exist, there is no public transportation
between communities and a visit to a clinic requires a
140-kilometre round-trip bus trip and an overnight stay in a
hotel.
1140
I am happy to say this
morning that today we have a physician and an operating clinic
with funding from the province under the community-sponsored
contract. With me here today, as I said, is Councillor Geoff
McClain, who is also chair of the Ear Falls Community Health
Centre board. He would be most pleased to answer any questions
concerning the health issues we're talking about this
morning.
The health centre board is
comprised of local community members who have a clear
understanding of the health care needs of our residents. The
health care centre is able to match the needs of the community.
We currently offer both day and evening clinic hours, minimal
wait time for appointments to see the doctor, professional
nursing care and excellent linkage with other health care
providers in our region. Our centre operates full-time on a
budget of $128,000, exclusive of the physician's salary,
employing two full-time support staff for the physician, covering
all of the overhead costs of the clinic, serving our population
of 1,500 residents.
Although we are managing
well with these resources, we need help to address some service
gaps. We currently have no X-ray services but have the capability
to offer the service if we had the operating dollars, about
$4,500 per year. Without X-ray services, our patients must travel
the 70 kilometres to Red Lake for this service.
Another area of need
involves physiotherapy services. Our population consists of
workers involved in the forestry, mining and heavy equipment
industries. These workers are prone to repetitive strain injuries
and other workplace injuries which require regular physiotherapy.
Patients are referred out of the community for such treatment,
displacing them from work and creating economic hardships due to
travel. Community-clinic-based physiotherapy services would
greatly complement our health centre operations and save tax
dollars.
We believe that we have the
workings of a viable health care model for small rural
communities like Ear Falls. We noted with great interest a recent
article in the Thunder Bay Chronicle-Journal on Sunday, February
5, 2000. Liberal Lyn McLeod outlined a plan to address the
physician shortage in northwestern Ontario. I do have a copy of
that clipping at the back of the presentation. Appended to our
submission, we have included copies of the newspaper clippings
for your review.
An alliance of Ontario
municipalities, chambers of commerce and rural and new physicians
identified three key points in attracting and keeping these
physicians in the north: Pay doctors a good salary; limit hours
of work to a reasonable standard; and provide time off with
coverage for the community, for the doctor to take vacation and
professional development.
These ideas are not new.
Our Ear Falls health centre adopted them over one year ago, with
proven success. We've maintained over the years that that is what
has to be done. We would invite the government to come to Ear
Falls to witness at first hand a model of primary care service
that works very well on a budget that is less than one quarter of
some of the community health centres serving similar populations.
We are successful, but we need the government's continued support
in a partnership that continues to provide excellent health care
services to Ear Falls residents.
Staying with the health
care subject, I'd like to take a few moments of your time to talk
about recruiting doctors and other health care professionals to
the underserviced, remote and northern communities. Ear Falls has
participated in every doctor recruitment tour since its
inception. These tours have cost the province a lot of money, and
I am sorry to say I do not believe they have attracted many
doctors to northern Ontario-and I've been on many of these
recruitment tours over my 25 to 30 years as a member of the Ear
Falls council.
I think we have to take a
new approach to this problem. We are asking that more funding be
made to medical schools for seats to be filled by northern
students, along with fee assistance for the students who are
willing to enter into agreements to work in the north for, say,
five years. Failure to complete their agreed terms would require
that these students repay their funds 100%. It is our view that
this is one of the ways to have the new doctors coming back to
the north. We have to groom our own.
We have to act now because
it takes six or seven years before these new doctors come on
stream. When we go through these doctor recruitment tours we're
talking to first- or second-year medical students, and that's the
last we see of them. I tell you it's an issue, and there's a
problem that can be solved if we look at it from a really simple
point of view.
Last year the University of
Ottawa had 3,000 applicants for medical school. They interviewed
500, and approximately 80 were accepted into the medical program.
I happen to follow this issue with interest, as last year my son
made it to the waiting list. He wants to become a doctor, and I
know that he would be glad to practise in the north and reach his
dreams. Instead he's going through the process again this year,
and if not accepted in Ontario or Canada, has acceptance in an
American university, and
I'm sure that if he becomes a physician you won't see him back in
Canada.
I read in the Thunder Bay
Chronicle-Journal of Friday, February 3, 2000, that the training
for radiation therapists will be transferred from Thunder Bay to
Toronto. While the training was in Thunder Bay, it was found that
these professionals were staying in the north. It is now being
moved to where radiation therapists are in high demand. We agree
with the city of Thunder Bay that this training should stay in
the north. We need your support to get and keep training here,
especially since it has proven to keep those professionals in the
areas where they have been trained, in northern Ontario. Also, in
the appendix in the copy that I sent to you, the director of the
cancer treatment service certainly outlined that in his
presentation.
Now we'll go on to fuel
prices, and you've heard that this morning. We recognize that
there is a special task force looking into the price of gas in
Ontario. This body is not coming into this area so I am taking
the liberty to note our concerns. We here in the north have the
greatest distance to travel and are paying the highest prices.
Fuel trucked through the area from the west is sold at lower
prices east of us than it is here.
In short, we ask that the
government consider equalized pricing at the least, to lay to
rest once and for all the issue of price gouging. Nobody can seem
to get a handle on why the prices fluctuate so much within a
100kilometre distance. We believe that prices should actually be
less here than further east. We hope that through the
deliberations of the government and all the parties this can be
seriously looked at and that they will try to equalize provincial
gas pricing.
I was in the gas business a
number of years ago. We would get a phone call at 8 o'clock in
the morning saying, "Tomorrow morning your price is up 2.5 cents
per litre." No reason for anything, just up, down, and as the
retailer you just have to take your marching orders and do what
you have to do.
I'd like to take a few
moments now to talk about the infrastructure works program. The
township of Ear Falls supports the reintroduction of an
infrastructure works program. It makes good sense to us that
funding be spread across the three levels of government.
Here in the north our costs
are higher; most contractors are located a good distance from the
communities. Maintenance of infrastructure already represents a
good part of our operating budgets.
We must emphasize that
municipalities must be given greater authority to develop
projects within their priorities on the infrastructure program.
We know that the weekend's meeting of the Kenora District
Municipal Association supported a resolution to this effect,
which I expect will make its way to the provincial government in
due course.
1150
It is in the best interests
of all governments to ensure that infrastructure is maintained in
good condition. It's good for people and it's good for
business.
The next item I'll touch on
is the expanded highway policy. The Trans-Canada Highway through
northern Ontario is deplorable when compared to its counterparts
throughout the rest of Canada. Here it comes through some of the
roughest terrain and weather conditions in all of Canada. All the
other provinces have made tremendous strides to make their
sections meet world-class standards. Ontario has made some
strides in the right direction, but there is work to be done.
We recognize the great job
that has been done to upgrade the highway over the past few years
in this area, but this is just the first major work to be
undertaken since the highway was first constructed.
We are aware that Ontario
highway policy is presently not addressing any expansion. Ontario
needs to develop highways into the north. This will help to
promote economic development and create jobs for these
regions.
We believe that Ontario has
to work with the federal government to improve the Trans-Canada
Highway and seriously consider a highway expansion program for
northern Ontario.
In summary, the township of
Ear Falls extends its appreciation to this standing committee for
the opportunity to deliver these concerns here in Kenora today.
We ask that you consider the issues we have raised.
We are concerned with
municipal finance. We need to know what is happening to us in a
timely manner.
Here in the northwest
health care is a big issue, as it is elsewhere. We strongly
believe that local health clinics offer one of the best
opportunities to improve the health of our residents. These
clinics can provide many services and reduce pressure on
hospitals and ambulance services. More funding has to be directed
to our clinics.
Fuel prices affect us as
individuals, as businesses and as municipalities.
Our municipalities liked
the infrastructure program and benefited from it greatly. We
suggest that this type of program is good for everyone and
efforts should be made to bring it forward, permitting
municipalities to identify their priority projects.
The Trans-Canada Highway
needs to be upgraded to North American standards as a national
highway. Road expansion is needed in the north. The province
needs to get the government of Canada to work with it in these
efforts.
Again, on behalf of our
mayor and the rest of council and the citizens, I thank you for
the time that you've given me here this morning.
The Chair:
Thank you very much for your presentation this morning. We have
approximately three minutes per caucus, and I'll start with the
government side.
Mr Arnott:
Thank you for your presentation. It was excellent. I really
appreciate hearing your views. You've been at this for a long
time-you said 25 years-and it shows. The way you've gone about it
is something that's very positive, and I think the government
will take these concerns very seriously and work to address
them.
You mention the community
reinvestment fund, and it's my understanding that it's still the
government's intent to
make that a continual ongoing program, a permanent program, in
future years. Certainly that would be my expectation and hope for
Waterloo-Wellington as well.
I'd like to ask you about
the 10, 5 and 5 system of capping property taxes on business.
What would you suggest the government do, since next year I guess
the caps are off if we don't take action?
Mr
Leschuk: I'm glad to hear from the government side that
you would be looking at keeping that assistance in, because at
that level-and I can only speak for Ear Falls-we only have one
little major industry. We were able to try and keep those
commercial taxes down with that 10, 5 and 5, and our fear was
that if the extra funding wasn't there, we wouldn't be able to
hold the taxes at a proper level. I think what you did on the 10,
5 and 5, after the readjustment with all the assessments, was a
very wise move. When these new adjustments now will come into
play, probably on next year's assessment where a lot of the
homeowners' assessments will start to balance out, and those who
were too low will start to come up and those that were too high
will start to come down a little more, and we can bring down the
commercial cost another few points, it makes it healthy not only
for the community, the residents, but also to attract new
industry. I am pleased to hear that the government would consider
keeping that reinvestment fund going, because it is critical to a
little community. Like I said, in 12 years we lost 70% of the tax
base, and for 12 years we lived on crumbs to survive. It can keep
our community well and alive. So thanks for your point.
Mr Galt:
Do I still have some time?
The Chair:
Quickly.
Mr Galt:
Just one quick comment in connection with your son becoming a
physician-and thank you for your presentation. We did have in our
platform this last time around paying tuition for those going
into medicine. Provided they go to an underserviced area, such as
the north, and stay there for five years, their tuition would be
looked after.
Part of the problem of
having enough physicians across Canada was a report that came out
in 1992 to cut back on spaces. The government of Ontario at the
time did so, probably a real mistake at the time. Not to beat up
on the government of the day, the recommendation, as I
understand, that we were going to have too many doctors, was
across Canada. You can see today how wrong that report was.
Mr
Leschuk: I am very pleased that you, as part of the
government, see that. From my own experience, my friend from
Thunder Bay had his son go to U of T, become a medical doctor,
work two years and get offered a position in California-a great
medical doctor lost, and he says he would never come back to
Canada. Here we are: northern students educated here and going
south. That's wrong. That has to stop. We don't all have to be
Philadelphia lawyers to figure that one out.
The Chair:
Thank you. Mr Kwinter.
Mr
Kwinter: Thank you for your presentation. I want to
touch on two issues you raised. One is health care and the other
is highways.
I agree in theory with the
idea of setting up clinics and paying doctors' salaries so you
can attract them to a community like the township of Ear Falls,
which has a population of 1,500.
The problem, from a
practical point of view, for a young doctor or a doctor who is
established, is to come to a community where there are really no
support systems: no X-ray facilities and he has to go, you say,
60 or 80 kilometres to get an X-ray; no hospitals that have the
kind of facilities most doctors would like to have access to,
MRIs, CAT scans and things of that kind.
How do you address that?
How do you make it a viable area for a doctor starting out, who
wants to be able to practise medicine as he has been taught and
to have all the resources that are normally available in the big
centres? To me, that is one of the major problems we have.
Mr
Leschuk: I would like Councillor Geoff McClain, who is
the chairman of the health centre board, to address that.
Mr Geoff
McClain: We look at places like Kenora and Thunder Bay
as metropolises compared to Ear Falls. Looking at the new
hospital in Thunder Bay, we're looking at the potential for
expansion of training facilities in Thunder Bay, training some
physicians in the north.
We are very successful when
we have physicians who go on rotation through our communities.
They actually get some on-the-ground experience and find out it's
not such a bad thing to come to a community, deliver good-quality
health care services and not have access to a lot of
state-of-the-art technology. They have the experience of
colleagues in the north who can provide good care.
Improvements to some of the
communication linkages would be a real asset-telemedicine,
videoconferencing for physicians to participate in remote
training or consultation with other centres. We have a pilot
project up in the Red Lake area, linking with an Ottawa hospital.
Via video, they can zoom in to take a look at a skin condition, a
medical condition and so on, and provide some assistance in
diagnosis. So there are options there.
1200
In participating in the
doctor recruitment tour, the main concern of potential graduates,
of physicians coming to the north, was that they would be the
only physician in the community; they would be burned out. That's
why in our submission we've identified the need for release time,
vacation time. Recognize that the doctor needs to do their
laundry and take their kids to school and so on. We need good
coverage, but we also accept the fact that we do live in the
north and there are some things we just can't have. But in
speaking with the physician recruits, their greatest concerns are
not being the only person in that community but having access to
the linkages to the other hospitals within the region that they
can draw upon, and some technology input would certainly
help.
Mr Hampton: Thank you for your
comments. I want to ask first about health care. There have been
about four studies that show that where health care workers,
whether physicians or nurses or radiation therapists, are trained
in northern Ontario, they are more likely to stay here, yet at
the very time when we're experiencing shortages, the government
is going to end the registered practical nurse training program
here in Kenora and they're going to take the radiation therapist
training program out of Thunder Bay. In your sense, is that going
to help or hurt us, given what you know already from your
experience in Ear Falls?
Mr
Leschuk: Certainly, Howard, it's going to hurt us. As
Geoff and I were saying, and from my own personal experience over
the last 25 to 30 years going on recruitment tours, we just can't
get the people who are trained in the south to come to the north.
You have to look at the home-grown policy, take your home-grown
students out of the north who want to go to the south to train
and get educated but are willing to come back. That is basically
the only answer that will work. We can throw a lot of dollars at
the medical profession, but if that desire to stay and live in
the north is not there, like Monte had said, and you have the
burnout factor, you will not get them here for any dollars.
We're very fortunate that
under the underserviced program our doctor signed a contract. We
made the schedule out with her as to the time off and the
education training that she will take. We're so lucky that her
husband is a dentist and he's set up practice in Ear Falls. We
gave them a doctor's house at a very low rent to be one of the
little perks. It's the lifestyle. We work directly with them:
"You set out what your schedule has to be and we will work around
it with the medical centre group." And it's working.
Mr
Hampton: I know from other information that you have
applied to the Ministry of Health to have a nurse practitioner. I
wonder if you could tell us why you've applied to have a nurse
practitioner, why that's important for your community.
Mr
McClain: In the 30 years that we've had the health
centre up and running in Ear Falls we've had 35 doctors. So you
can see what's happening. There is a revolving door taking place.
We made the application for the nurse practitioner because we
recognized the necessary skills that a nurse practitioner would
bring to providing primary health care, doing routine things such
as MTO medicals, prescriptions for sore throats, that sort of
thing, the things that are clogging up the rest of the health
care system, at a much lower cost.
It is our belief that the
nurse practitioner would provide greater continuity. We know that
our doctor won't stay with us forever. We're always casting our
radar out, looking into the future. If we lose our physician,
we're back to zero. When we had our doctor sign the contract, our
physician complement went up by 100%. With a nurse practitioner,
it would provide us with at least base-level services. When we
lose our doctor, the community-sponsored contract collapses and
the clinic shuts down. So with the nurse practitioner, we'd be
able to maintain that continuity of service.
As yet, we haven't heard
back from the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care.
Mr
Hampton: I note your recommendations for recruitment of
physicians and other health care providers. Number one, you don't
say, "Increase the fee-for-service"; you say, "Pay doctors a good
salary," and then you point out, "Limit hours of work to a
reasonable standard." So you've got a physician who's on
salary?
Mr
McClain: Yes.
Mr
Hampton: If you add a nurse practitioner, will that help
you limit the hours of work for your physician, so your physician
isn't overworked and burned out?
Mr
McClain: Very much so. The doctor's already giving us
some feedback that she's pretty busy, but we're not at a
population stage where we could return to having a two-physician
complement, which we had actually given up to Red Lake a number
of years ago.
Mr
Hampton: So it's fair to say you'd like to see the
province move very quickly on nurse practitioners, and you
believe there's a future in paying physicians a salary rather
than continuing on the fee-for-service road we've been on.
Mr
McClain: Very much so.
The Chair:
Gentlemen, on behalf of the committee, thank you very much for
your presentation this morning.
Mr
Leschuk: Thank you for your time and consideration.
The Chair:
That completes our session for this morning. The committee will
reconvene this afternoon at 1:30.
The committee recessed
from 1207 to 1334.
NORTHWESTERN INDEPENDENT LIVING SERVICES
The Chair:
Good afternoon, everyone. I'd like to bring the committee back to
order. This afternoon our first presenters are representatives
from Northwestern Independent Living Services. Could you please
state your names for the record.
Ms Kristan
Miclash: Kristan Miclash.
Mr Wayne
Ficek: And Wayne Ficek.
The Chair:
On behalf of the committee, welcome.
Ms
Miclash: Good afternoon, Mr Chair and committee members.
Northwestern Independent Living Services sincerely appreciates
the opportunity to make this presentation today. Since 1985, NILS
has been the provider of attendant care outreach services to
persons with physical disabilities in the Kenora and Rainy River
districts. The attendant care program assists consumers with all
activities of daily living. Daily living activities are defined
as those physical functions necessary for the management of one's
own affairs. NILS also works in partnership with Kenora Municipal
Non-Profit Housing and operates a supportive housing program.
Over the years we have seen
an increasing need for attendant care services in the Kenora and
Rainy River districts.
As you are aware, the attendant care programs are funded 100% by
the Ministry of Health and the consumers we provide services to
are long-term due to the nature of their disabilities.
One such disability that
we're seeing is multiple sclerosis. There is a very high
population of persons with this disability in our area, and as
the disease progresses the need for attendant care services
increases. This past year has been a perfect example.
The issues that NILS wants
to address today are the following:
When a referral is received
to provide attendant care outreach services to a new consumer,
Northwestern Independent Living Services is unable to meet the
need due to lack of dollars.
When an existing attendant
care outreach consumer's needs increase due to their disability,
NILS is again unable to meet these needs.
Within our supportive
housing program, we are finding that it is necessary to enhance
our hours due to increased consumer needs.
Last, we are an
organization that is obligated under the Pay Equity Act, through
the proxy method, to increase employee wages by 1% per year; yet
we have been unsuccessful in securing annualized dollars to meet
this obligation.
The focus of this
government is to keep people at home. We recognize that there is
not an unending supply of dollars. We've been successful so far
in partnering with other agencies to temporarily alleviate the
pressure. However, this is only a Band-Aid solution and does not
address the issue of keeping people at home and out of
long-term-care facilities.
We know that costs are
greatly reduced by keeping people at home. The attendant care
program keeps families together by offering flexible services in
the home, which allows persons with physical disabilities to
maintain a level of independence that, in turn, improves quality
of life.
In closing, Northwestern
independent Living Services appreciates the opportunity to speak
on behalf of its consumer group. It is imperative that the
attendant care outreach and supportive housing programs grow with
the ever-increasing needs in order to provide the necessary
support to persons with physical disabilities in the Kenora and
Rainy River districts.
At this time, I'd like
to-unless somebody has any questions. I've never done this
before.
The Chair:
We'll have some questions after, but if you have more of a
presentation we'll undertake that right now and then we'll come
back to questions.
Ms
Miclash: Sure, thank you.
Mr Ficek:
In speaking for people with disabilities in the Kenora-Rainy
River area, there are two points I'd like to identify for you
which are unique to northwestern Ontario yet most likely
universal when it comes to difficulties for people with
disabilities.
The first, and one of the
largest concerns or a concern that I heard the most, was dealing
with transportation issues. I would ask this committee to
seriously consider contributing incentives or concessions to any
transportation service provider, whether it be a bus line, a
taxicab or any other means of transportation within the
Kenora-Rainy River district.
Kenora, Dryden and Fort
Frances all had accessible taxicabs in their communities at one
time or another, yet all have ended in failure. The price of
purchasing a new taxi van for transporting people with mobility
impairments is in excess of $45,000. Because people with
disabilities represent approximately 15% of the general
population in Ontario, it becomes difficult for advocates like
myself to get a businessman to even consider the purchase of
these vehicles when for the same price he or she could outfit
three regular taxis.
I believe that it is the
right of all persons to have equal access to public and private
transportation, especially when one pays money for the service.
However, it is also the businessman's right to try and make an
honest living any way that he sees fit. If we don't try and
alleviate the tremendous initial costs involved in purchasing
accessible taxis, then I fear the transportation dilemma will
continue.
Currently, our local
Handi-Transit operates seven days a week in the Kenora area from
8 am to 8 pm. However, places like Dryden have no such service
even available to them on weekends. Unless options are available,
people with disabilities will continue to be isolated and will
not have the option of getting out of the house or the apartment
or the residential home without pretty well putting strain on
friends and family.
1340
The second part I'd like to
address to this committee is the Ontarians with Disabilities
Act.
More than 1.5 million
Ontarians, or 15% to 17% of our population, now have
disabilities. A great number of people with disabilities are
seniors, aging being one of the biggest causes of disability.
Therefore, as the population ages the percentage of people with
disabilities will increase. Seventy-seven percent of people
surveyed across Canada knew someone with a disability close to
them; therefore, disability is everyone's concern.
People with disabilities
living in Ontario face many barriers that make it difficult for
them to participate fully in all aspects of life in Ontario.
While governments, business and others have taken steps to remove
these barriers, many still remain. Even more are being created
daily. Since the Ontarians with Disabilities Act Committee was
formed well over three years ago, it has raised the awareness of
both the public and governments about these barriers and the
importance of removing them. The Ontarians with Disabilities Act
Committee has also connected with hundreds of people with
disabilities, their friends, families and organizations to ask
for their views on the barriers they face and what it would mean
to them to have them removed.
The Ontarians with
Disabilities Act Committee is a voluntary, non-partisan coalition
of individuals and community organizations concerned with the
rights of people with
disabilities. The ODA committee came together to advocate for the
prompt passage of a strong and effective new law that would lead
to the achievement of a barrier-free Ontario for people with
disabilities by the year 2000. Regional groups have been launched
to encompass and reflect the local needs of the province. The
group in Kenora that I'm involved with, Persons United for
Self-Help, has kept Kenora and other small areas in our community
informed and up to date on the issues as they unfold.
The thing I would like you
to consider is that the cost of creating a barrier-free society
for people with disabilities must be compared to the massive cost
to society if existing barriers are permitted to stay and new
ones are allowed to be created. The removal of existing barriers
and the prevention of new ones does not just help these people
with a disability; it also means the needs of those who acquire a
disability in the future will be met, which includes most people
in society.
The Chair:
We have approximately seven minutes per caucus. Mr Kwinter.
Mr
Kwinter: I'd like to get an idea on your attendant care.
Unfortunately, I don't know the situation here, but I can only
relate it to what happens in my riding, which is in Toronto. Many
of my constituents are complaining that they used to get
full-time care and they keep getting cut back. There isn't a
realization or an awareness that they are disabled full-time, not
just part-time, and that when that care is withdrawn from them
they literally are, as you say, held prisoner and cannot do the
things they want to. Do you have a similar experience here?
Ms
Miclash: Yes. I think one of the key issues is that it's
long-term. When you have somebody with a physical disability,
whether you have somebody with multiple sclerosis, muscular
dystrophy, a spinal cord injury, once someone requires services,
it's not something that's going to necessarily improve or get
better with time. When you have a disability such as-and I use
multiple sclerosis because it is a fairly prevalent disability
right now that we are seeing. With that disability it
deteriorates over time. So what happens is you then have people
who require services on an ongoing basis, long term, and when the
dollars aren't there to enhance the service or if the services
are cut back, then you're stuck at square one again. What do you
do? Where does the person go? Yes, we're seeing that right now in
the Kenora and Rainy River district.
Mr
Kwinter: What happens with your transportation for the
disabled? How is that provided now? Is that provided through
commercial entities? Is it subsidized by Kenora, now that this is
a city? Is the city involved?
Mr Ficek:
In the past practice, the Handi-Transit has been funded by all
three levels of government-federal, provincial and municipal.
Although my understanding now is that federal and provincial
dollars aren't available and it's up to the municipalities to
continue to have that type of service running.
Kenora has been very lucky
in that they have two wonderful people who drive the
Handi-Transit who are very committed to their job. They go above
and beyond the call when it comes to transporting people door to
door, yet the dollars just aren't there to continue to offer the
service on a basis where it's needed. Right now our Handi-Transit
only runs until 8 pm. It will stay open until 11 o'clock if they
have, I believe, over five or six riders between 8 o'clock and 11
o'clock. Obviously it's not practical for them to pick up one
person.
There was a cab service in
Dryden, Fort Frances and Kenora, and for one reason or another
they have not been able to continue operations-largely, from my
experience, because I know at first hand for the cab stand that
was in Kenora, the vehicles at $50,000 apiece haven't lived up to
how much they cost in order to keep them running. Right now with
the D-409 package it's very stringent for pay in the
transportation of people with mobility impairments, and the
vehicles just haven't been able to stand up to it. What they're
doing is cutting the floor of a brand new minivan, a Dodge
product, and inserting a lower floor in it. Unfortunately, the
structural integrity of the vehicle is being taken away. Unless
we can get the manufacturer, like Chrysler, Dodge or Chevrolet,
to build these vehicles right in the factory, we're going to
continue to have these problems.
There was a wonderful
subsidy available from the federal and provincial governments at
one time for these vehicles, but unfortunately the only one doing
any good out of it was the guy cutting the floors and putting
these vehicles on the road. It was still costing $50,000 to buy
this vehicle, and if you got the subsidy from the federal and
provincial governments to help, it was still costing you in
excess of $30,000, whereas you could go buy that brand new same
minivan at a factory and pay a cash price for it and get it for
less than that. It was costing way too much to be able to supply
these vehicles.
Mr
Kwinter: In the Kenora-Rainy River district, is Kenora
the only municipality that's providing that service?
Mr Ficek:
No, I believe Dryden does have a Handi-Transit available during
the week. It works from 8 o'clock to 5 or 6 o'clock. There's no
weekend service available. I know that Fort Frances has a
Handi-Transit service, but there are criteria to be able to ride
that. For someone with a disability that doesn't fall under the
criteria of being able to ride the Handi-Transit, there's no such
service that they could pay for to get a taxi to go downtown and
remain in their chair. You can transfer into a vehicle, if you
can do that, but for someone with limited arm function or limited
mobility there's no such service in any of our communities now to
access on an on-call basis, to pick up the phone and get a
cab.
You have to book the
Handi-Transit in Kenora 24 hours in advance and you have to
cancel 12 hours in advance, if you can, before you're even
eligible to be picked up. Then chances are they have to look at
whether it's a work-related trip, a school trip or just a
pleasure trip, and they prioritize work and school ahead of the
person who wants to go to the shopping mall to get their
groceries. You may want to go downtown at 8:30 in the morning but are told you can't
get a ride until 10:30, when all the people who have to go to
school and work have been taken and delivered, and vice versa for
getting picked up. If you want to get picked up at 4 o'clock,
they may say, "I can pick you up at a quarter to three or I can
pick you up at 5:30." That service of being able to just phone
and get a ride doesn't exist in any of our communities that I'm
aware of.
Mr
Hampton: I wanted to ask some general questions first
and then maybe get to some more specific ones.
I was in Red Lake last
week, where they have 22 long-term-care beds in a new facility
replacing the 22 that were in an old facility. The point made
over and over again was that they have about 20 people on a
waiting list and they're desperately in need of supportive
housing to help look after people. If they are not able to find
the supportive housing, it will mean moving people into
long-term-care beds in Dryden or Kenora or Fort Frances or
wherever.
1350
I was in Dryden, and you've
got the new long-term-care beds that are being added there after
about seven years of debate, but the concern is that there is a
far greater need than will be met by those long-term-care beds,
and in fact there is a pressing need for supportive housing. I
was in Fort Frances, and again the complaint is made: "We need
more supportive housing. Otherwise we're going to have a lot of
people here we can't look after."
I guess my general question
is this: Recognizing that allowing people or helping people to
live independently through supportive housing or through the
services that you provide is infinitely cheaper than more
institutional beds, do you have a sense of what kind of
investment needs to be made in supportive housing in Kenora, in
Dryden, in Red Lake, in Fort Frances, and perhaps in Sioux
Lookout? Do you have a sense of that, if we're going to maintain
our people in the future?
Ms
Miclash: It's interesting that you bring that up in
terms of the length of time. We operate in partnership with
non-profit housing, a supportive housing unit here, and we did
have a proposal on the table for six years. The Ministry of
Housing was able to put the building up, wheelchair-accessible
apartments. At the same time, we had applied six years ago for
on-site, 24-hour attendant care and the proposal was turned down.
Last year we were finally successful in receiving new dollars
from the Ministry of Health where we are now able to operate
on-site, 24-hour attendant care. The cost of having one person in
the building to provide on-site care for 13 apartments is
$150,000. When you take a look at having that one person there
providing services to several people living in an apartment
building throughout a 24-hour period, the cost is reduced
greatly, as opposed to going into a long-term-care facility.
At this time there is
actually a needs study being conducted in Fort Frances for
supportive housing. I am also in Red Lake taking a look at the
issues up there.
Again, we look at whether
or not it's people with disabilities, is it seniors, is it aging
in place? All those issues come into play when we're taking a
look at dollars and who requires the service.
Mr
Hampton: That $150,000 essentially takes into account
someone working-
Ms
Miclash: On-site, 24 hours a day, one staff person
throughout a seven-day period, 365 days of the year.
Mr
Hampton: So three shifts during the week and possibly
one shift on the weekend, or some other variety on the
weekend?
Ms
Miclash: Four staff: three full-time, one casual.
Mr
Hampton: One part-time.
Ms
Miclash: Yes.
Mr
Hampton: If we're not able to get the province to see
the need for supportive housing, do you have a sense of what that
means in terms of more long-term-care beds?
Ms
Miclash: I don't see it in terms of long-term-well, yes,
I guess it would be in terms of long-term-care beds. I think what
you're looking at then is that we get down more to the realistic
issues of breaking up families and having somebody move into
Thunder Bay or Winnipeg, out of this area. We've just had a
person actually move from Red Lake who had multiple sclerosis.
She was deteriorating to the point where her husband was no
longer able to care for her over a 24-hour period. Had there been
a unit set up there, she would have been able to stay at home or
in her community and they may have been able to move
together.
Therefore, in terms of
numbers, no, I don't have any numbers off the top of my head, but
if there aren't those options available to people in communities
such as Red Lake, Fort Frances, Atikokan and Rainy River, then
people are going to be moving out into other communities such as
Kenora or Dryden.
Mr
Hampton: I wanted to ask a question as a follow-up on
the Handi-Transit. I'll speak just about Fort Frances for a
minute. It's my impression that they actually had a more
extensive handicapped transit system in place, but because of
budget pressures and downloading of the costs they had to
substantially reduce it. Has that been the experience elsewhere,
and what has to happen to remedy this, in your view?
Mr Ficek:
I think that's definitely a problem in that all three levels of
government at one time contributed and now you're finding that
it's being left on the municipalities to try to keep that service
available, but we have to have alternative services besides just
Handi-Transit service.
We need to have some type
of legislation or something that will commit taxi companies to
being able to offer service to 100% of the population. We now
have approximately 21 taxi licences in Kenora. We don't need a
22nd licence, except on the month-end weekends, to be able to
transport all the people in Kenora. To add another taxi licence
isn't really the answer, unless it's an accessible service that
can pick up everybody and be inclusive of everyone.
Nine times out of 10 in Kenora you can get a cab
within five minutes, except on those month-end weekends and
payday weekends when it becomes difficult, and then 100 cabs
wouldn't be able to offer the service within five minutes. We
have to offer some type of incentive to people to spend the money
on these vehicles and to spend the money to keep them up, because
without offering that type of service, people are stuck in the
house and they can't get out. We need that type of service in all
our communities.
The Chair:
Thank you, Mr Hampton. The government side, Ms Molinari.
Mrs
Molinari: Thank you very much for your presentation this
afternoon. I'm interested very much in the comments that you made
about keeping people at home and that the costs are in fact
reduced. Aside from the money issue, I think keeping people at
home with their families is bigger than just the dollars
involved. I'm pleased to see the kinds of services that you offer
for keeping families at home.
Would you say that in a
specific situation, there are different levels of need for the
disabled? Of course, there is a wide range of disabilities, so
not all need the services to the extent that some more needy
people would. With accessibility within the home, then people
would be able to be more flexible and more independent, so
putting these services in place would minimize the need for
attendant care. Would you say that's a true fact?
Ms
Miclash: Yes. It's also important to note that when you
keep someone at home, if you have a family unit, a husband, wife,
children, depending on which spouse is disabled, then the whole
family contributes, thus also eliminating the need for increased
attendant care. When you don't have all those services available
to somebody in their own home, then you have to take a look at
moving that person out of that home, whereas, if they're staying
with their spouse and their children, the other family members
can contribute by making the meals or by doing some of the
housekeeping. Therefore, the number of attendant care hours
needed in that home is greatly reduced.
Mrs
Molinari: The intent then would be to move towards that
to a much greater extent, where there are family supports within
the home and thereby your association would be able to serve more
of the population because you wouldn't be called upon as often as
someone who doesn't have the family supports.
I have to say that I
totally agree with a lot of the comments you made with respect to
vehicle modifications. I have had a direct experience with
vehicle modification. The only one that guarantees any
modification to a vehicle is Ford. If it's a Ford vehicle where
you can actually drop the floor, then the lift is guaranteed; the
others are not. Then, with others like Chrysler and some of the
other companies, they don't even guarantee the vehicle parts if
you've modified it to the extent, if you could, to do that.
That's definitely an area that we need to be looking further in
and being able to provide more flexibility for those types of
vehicle modifications.
They can only seat or fit
one person in this Ford vehicle. The Handi-Transit that you
talked about, is that for more than one individual? How many
would you be able to get into a Handi-Transit?
1400
Mr Ficek:
Our handi-bus here can hold four wheelchairs and three sitting
people, but the taxicabs-I have no experience with the Ford but I
know the Chrysler handi-van or the taxi that's available can seat
up to three wheelchairs at once by removing the front seat, which
is removable, plus it can hold two wheelchairs in the back as
well as still have a bench seat in it for people to sit. That way
it's more economical than running a large bus that would cost
twice the gas money and twice the maintenance to run. I think the
way of the future is going to the taxi-type vehicle or the
smaller-sized vehicle just for economical reasons. I have no
experience with the Ford vehicle. I wasn't aware that it could
only hold one wheelchair at a time.
Mrs
Molinari: It's more for personal use. It can only hold
one scooter type of mobility device. Thank you very much. I'm
going to leave some time for one of my colleagues.
Mr Galt:
Thank you for your thoughtful presentation. I certainly have
empathy. I have a building in Colborne. I wanted to put in a ramp
into the building about 10 years ago and the council totally
objected to having a ramp put in on the sidewalk, but steps were
OK. Still, to this day, I don't understand what that council was
thinking. Certainly that kind of thought process creates all
kinds of difficulties for you.
I guess in a very
non-partisan way, I'd like to ask you what went wrong with the
disabilities act that was introduced about a year and a half, two
years ago. My background is more science-technology. The disabled
and that whole area is not something I'm all that familiar with.
I knew we were bringing one in, and there was this protest in the
galleries and the next thing the bill was withdrawn. I guess my
thinking is that one step is better than no steps. We'll get one
step today; we'll get two tomorrow. We'll get the second one
today; we'll get a third one tomorrow. Do you have a comment? Do
you feel comfortable commenting?
Mr Ficek:
Yes, I do. Basically, what I can see with it and what I'm aware
of is that the government virtually ignored all 11 points that
were put down in black and white as to what we needed in the
Ontario disabilities act. In the three-page legislation that
Isabel Bassett introduced, not one of the 11 points was even
considered.
Mr Galt:
These were 11 points that you people had brought forward-
Mr Ficek:
They were 11 points put through in a blueprint that had been
given to the government. Time and time again David Lepofsky and a
number of members of the ODA committee had tried to meet with Mr
Harris and anyone who would listen and virtually weren't able to
get anywhere. My understanding now is that process is again
taking shape. They are planning on meetings, but the three-page
ODA that they introduced virtually ignored all 11 points of the Ontarians
with Disabilities Act Committee, which they said would need to
have all or most of those points included to make it a strong and
effective legislation.
Mr Galt:
So this was brought forward to Derwyn Shea and the Honourable
Isabel Bassett when they were touring the province during the
consultation process.
The Chair:
We're out of time. On behalf of the committee, thank you very
much for your presentation this afternoon.
CITY OF KENORA
The Chair:
Our next group this afternoon is the city of Kenora, the mayor's
office. Could you please step forward and state your name for the
record.
Mr David
Canfield: Mayor David Canfield.
Mr Bill
Preisentanz: Bill Preisentanz.
The Chair:
Gentlemen, welcome.
Mr
Canfield: Thank you very much for the privilege to make
a presentation on behalf of the city and some of our concerned
organizations and council. The first part of our presentation is
dealing with recycling and the problem with recycling and the
funding.
We've put together a letter
from NORA, the Northwest Ontario Recycling Association, which
covers the Kenora and Rainy River districts. NORA's been in
operation for 12 years. It now serves 17 municipalities, as well
as First Nations, in the Kenora and Rainy River districts. Its
program has gained in popularity over the years with the citizens
of both districts. With more and more of the larger towns and
cities now instituting bag-tag systems for landfill sites in each
community, NORA trucks are picking up more and more recyclable
material.
Since the Progressive
Conservatives were elected to govern in Ontario in 1995, little
financial assistance has been made available to help cover the
costs of operating, nor for capital items such as trucks that are
urgently in need of replacement. The only financial assistance
was in the form of a cheque that was received in 1998 for $34,641
through the contribution the Liquor Control Board of Ontario
provided in recognition of the amount of their materials we
handle. A similar amount was made available in 1999 and we trust
will also be there this year as well. However, we anticipated
that by now one-half of our operating costs would be covered by
the Waste Diversion Organization. However, it appears that the
Waste Diversion Organization will not provide any financial
assistance this year. This is most unfortunate.
The attached draft budget
for 2000 indicates that NORA expenditures for the year are to be
$783,915. However, this doesn't provide any money for the gradual
replacement of the five trucks that NORA owns and operates. Some
of these trucks have over 400,000 kilometres on them and are in
constant need of repair.
NORA was counting greatly
on the provincial government for financial assistance this year
through the waste diversion plan, as was more or less promised by
Minister Sterling in a letter dated March 24, 1999, to Mel
Fisher, the past chairman of NORA. However, in correspondence
from the present Minister of the Environment Tony Clement and Mr
Keith West, director of the ministry's waste management policy
branch, it appears that financial help will not be coming this
year; it is supposed to begin in the year 2001. Having to wait
another year will create undue hardship on NORA and some
municipalities may even choose to withdraw from NORA, which in
turn creates more problems for the remaining municipalities.
Presently, we spend over
$100,000 on repairs for the five trucks, and we need to begin
replacing the trucks in the year 2000. In order to do this, we
need financial assistance from the provincial government. Last
year, the various municipalities paid money, in addition to the
$8 per capita, in order to pay down the $500,000 accumulated debt
due partly to the provincial government withdrawing its help in
1995. As a result, the participating municipalities can't be
asked to pay more than the $8 per capita this year.
The participation of the
provincial government in a large financial manner in the year
2000 is necessary to keep NORA operating. Your assistance is
needed and will be greatly appreciated. NORA is a very worthwhile
organization and all steps must be taken to ensure it
continues.
I'll just add a few more
statements on the recycling situation. As you know, not all of
northwestern Ontario, and I'm sure not all of Ontario, has gotten
involved in the blue box system. We have an area that covers a
third of the provincial land mass and therefore it costs a lot
more to run trucks up and down and around our gravel roads. It's
come to the point where we can't afford to keep this service
going, but we can't afford not to keep the service going, just
for the impacts on the environment. We believe something has to
come out of this.
Looking around, I've seen a
few different possibilities. There are a couple in the provinces
west of us. One of course is in Alberta, with the deposit return.
In Manitoba I'm not exactly sure how it works, but I believe
there's a two-cent levy on the manufacturers for each bottle or
package. I understand, talking to people in Winnipeg, that with
what they get from the recyclables and what the manufacturers pay
them in this packaging fee, they actually break even or make
money on their recycling program. I guess the unfortunate part
about that is, right now they're only recycling about 14% of
their recyclables in the city of Winnipeg while here we are now
recycling well over 30% and deferring it from landfill. It
appears that we're not being rewarded for doing a good job. I
believe the government has to somehow come up with some more
money or the manufacturers, the people who package the stuff,
become responsible and pay the money so the average homeowner
doesn't have to pay it on their tax bill.
The next item is winter
tourism in northern Ontario. I understand there was a
presentation made by the chamber and it will be somewhat similar
to this presentation, although not the same.
1410
While winter tourism in
Ontario has experienced unprecedented growth over the past seven
years, this past winter has seen a significant drop in winter
tourism revenues. This is due to several factors: The cost of a
trail permit for local riders of $120 to $150 if purchased after
December 1 or $180 if purchased on the trail; the cost of a
permit for visitors traveling on the trail system of $25 for a
day, $85 for a seven-day permit; the lack of reciprocal
agreements with Manitoba and Minnesota resulting in
out-of-province riders needing to purchase an Ontario Federation
of Snowmobile Club permit; the advent of trail wardens
intimidating riders without valid permits.
All of the resorts offering
winter tourism services have experienced dwindling revenues due
to decreased out-of-province ridership on the trails. As well,
local and regional travel is down too, as many riders have
refused to purchase permits. Much of the decline can be
attributed to the strict policy of the Ontario Federation of
Snowmobile Clubs which does not give local clubs the flexibility
to deal with issues such as reciprocal agreements, permits prices
and enforcement procedures.
Some solutions have been
suggested in order that this trend be altered and some
preliminary ideas in this regard are:
Provincial legislation
requiring mandatory permits. If all sleds were required to have a
permit then the permit fee could be reduced substantially. I
understand by listening to the radio that the Chamber of
Commerce-I believe the way they addressed it was mandatory
registration, and this would go 90% back into the trails. I
understand that in Manitoba the registration they pay every year
goes directly into their trail permits which, of course, cuts
down the cost of the trail permit. I believe a trail permit there
is around $40 or $50, where we are about three times that
here.
Provincial funding for
trail maintenance. The industry would support a room tax for
trail development and maintenance of a province-wide trail
system; the creation of a family permit to make registering more
than one snowmobile more affordable to traveling families;
providing trail funding directly to the local clubs instead of
the OFSC-one size does not fit all, especially in northwestern
Ontario.
It is hoped that the
province will address this issue immediately as the tourism
industry in northern Ontario needs to continue to build on the
economic growth so evident over the past seven years.
Again, to add to that,
because of our close proximity to Manitoba and Minnesota, being
only 30 miles from the Manitoba border and about 40 or 50 from
the Minnesota border on the Lake of the Woods, we do get a lot of
tourism coming in this direction. Because of some probably
overzealous coffee shop talk and things that have happened, there
was a front-page article in the Free Press a few weeks ago
telling Manitoba snowmobilers that they weren't wanted in
Ontario. So although this doesn't seem like a serious situation
in southern or central Ontario, in this part of Ontario it is a
very serious problem. As I said earlier, one size doesn't fit all
and somehow Queen's Park is going to have wake up and understand
that one size does not fit all.
Another problem in the
north, and I understand, listening to the news, that it's a
little bit of a problem across the country and in the south, is
our gasoline pricing. There has been a long-standing disparity in
gasoline prices between northern Ontario and the rest of Ontario
for years. Despite the best intentions of local business, special
committees and previous provincial governments, this situation
remains unchanged today.
The reality is that
gasoline prices are controlled at the refinery market level by
the major oil companies and in spite of our best intentions,
gasoline prices as a whole disregard competition.
Kenora has historically
been faced with higher than normal fuel prices, putting this area
at a disadvantage in commercial and tourism opportunities. In
fact, last week Kenora had the distinction of the second-highest
gas prices in the country.
For the information of this
committee, here are some facts on gas pricing in northwestern
Ontario: The current price of gasoline in Kenora is 73.9 cents a
litre; the current price of gasoline in Dryden is 65 to 68 cents
a litre; the current price of gasoline on the Manitoba border is
60.5 cents a litre; the cost to haul fuel is approximately one
cent a litre; the gasoline refinery is located in Winnipeg, and
the Manitoba provincial gas tax is 3.2 cents a litre lower than
Ontario.
On the gas tax, I will make
a suggestion, especially for your next budget, and the fact that
we have a 3.2-cent difference. I'm suggesting that we do have a
serious problem with the oil companies and price fixing or
gouging, however you want to put it. We also have a problem with
an unlevel playing field. I would like to suggest to the
government that if you plan on cutting taxes again in the future,
instead of cutting income tax, you cut the gas tax so that we're
at least on a level playing field. As it is with a 3.2%
difference, that puts our small businesses in this community at
an awful dis-advantage, not only the small businesses but the
people travelling. We don't have a transit system up here. We all
have to own cars. We have long distances to travel to get back
and forth to work. Realistically, a gas tax cut up here would fix
it a lot better for us. Again, this could be a "one size doesn't
fit all," because Toronto has a fantastic transit system, and a
lot of other cities in Ontario do. We do not have a transit
system-it doesn't make sense because of our great distances-so
we'd really appreciate your putting gas tax as a priority for tax
reduction in the future.
This disparity in gas
prices is affecting Kenora and its ability to compete for the
commercial and tourist traffic. Given Kenora's location and
proximity to the Manitoba border and the Trans-Canada Highway, we
are missing economic opportunities. Tourism has become one of
Kenora's main industries, with an estimated summer population of
60,000 residents. In addition, there were approximately 30,000
visitors who made direct contact with our tourism centre in Kenora and a further
13,000 requests for information. A majority of these tourists
drive to Kenora. Furthermore, approximately 93,000 adult tourists
visited the remote tourism establishments of northwestern
Ontario.
I am aware that the
provincial government has established a task force and is
undertaking an investigation into the fairness of fuel pricing in
Ontario. I am also aware that this task force will only be
meeting as far west as Thunder Bay. I would suggest that any
recommendations and final actions arising from this task force
are not to be expected in the foreseeable future.
Recommendation: As a viable
and practical step, we would recommend that the provincial
government reduce the provincial gas tax in Ontario to the same
level as Manitoba, thereby leveling the playing field on the tax
side of the equation.
To add to that, in 1986 I
went out to Expo `86 in Vancouver. I was quite proud when I went
into the Ontario pavilion because I thought that the Ontario
pavilion was one of the premier pavilions in the world for Expo
`86. The problem was, sitting through the show in the Ontario
pavilion, again the province of Ontario ended at Thunder Bay, and
we would really like you to extend it to Kenora.
The Chair:
Does that complete your presentation?
Mr
Canfield: One more.
The next one is on the
Canada-Ontario infrastructure program. Municipalities attending
the Kenora District Municipal Association conference were advised
by cabinet Minister Robert Nault of the federal government
initiative to introduce an infrastructure program. Previous
Canada-Ontario infrastructure programs have been very successful
in levering funding for needy municipal capital projects.
Municipalities with aging infrastructure have limited access to
the provincial funding for water and sewer infrastructure funding
and there is no funding for roads or other municipal capital
projects. We strongly urge the provincial government to
participate in this new initiative, given its past success.
On the infrastructure, I
would like to add that I understand from the leak, as the federal
government does it now on their budgets, that it's going to a one
third, one third, one third. I would like to make a suggestion to
the government that it be 50-50; that each level of government
put in 50-50 for 100% funding, and if we so choose, or can afford
it, that we top the funding up out of municipal revenues, if
that's possible. The reason I say that is in the last probably 10
years-I know in the eight and a half years that I've been in
municipal politics, transfer payments have been cut over all
those years. We have had highways downloaded.
In my former community of
Jeffray Melick, we topped the provincial list at a 33% increase
to our highway system. We used to do all our major maintenance
with supplementary funding that used to be put out years ago that
has also dried up. That was the only way we could do any major
capital work to our highways. We also enjoyed the 90-10
relationship with connecting links and bridges. That has also
changed where it's a 100% cost. So if we don't get infrastructure
money, our infrastructure will eventually crumble and fall
apart.
My last subject is the
crisis in health care. Throughout the province the committee is
undoubtedly hearing the message of the crisis in the health care
system and municipalities are hearing loud and clear from their
citizens. We are now finding ourselves, as municipalities,
involved in their health crises.
1420
We had hoped to get a lot
more information on health care and some facts and figures. We
didn't have that opportunity as we were pressed for time in
getting this together. With everything that's been going on, and
as a new city, we were kind of working 24 hours a day, and our
administrator is getting a little tired. But again, this is a
situation where one size doesn't fit all. Some of you might know,
and others wouldn't, that the Kenora district hospital is a
district hospital and services a very large area all the way up
to Fort Severn and Hudson Bay, one third of the provincial land
mass. It serves a lot of northern native communities. This
hospital has been strapped, and working hard to try and keep
functioning and keep services going while at the same time
running an annual deficit.
In some discussions with
health care professionals in our community, we found that they've
done just about everything there is. I think in audits they found
that the hospital here is run extremely efficiently. At the same
time the cuts have happened throughout the years. I'm not blaming
the provincial government. As we know, this all started with
federal transfer payment cuts to the provincial government. The
bottom line is that between the two upper levels of government it
has to be fixed. I'm sure you have heard this right across the
province. It is in a crisis situation.
I do want to compliment the
committee for coming here and for realizing that Thunder Bay
wasn't the end of Ontario. We just hope you can continue with
other committees and make sure that Kenora doesn't fall off the
map, because we're going to be growing rapidly and we will be in
the news a lot and we expect to see a lot more of you.
The Chair:
Thank you very much. We have approximately three and a half
minutes per caucus.
Mr
Hampton: Thanks very much, Mayor Canfield. I want to
focus for a minute on the tourism issue because some of the
government members and I had a discussion over lunch hour about
this. I'm struck by your comment, first, that winter tourism is a
growth industry and one that has grown rather significantly in
the last seven years. So it's an important industry for this part
of the province, is that right?
Mr
Canfield: That's right.
Mr
Hampton: Your comment, "Much of the decline can be
attributed to the strict policies of the Ontario Federation of
Snowmobile Clubs, which does not give the local clubs the
flexibility to deal with issues such as reciprocity, permit
prices and enforcement procedures," is this another case of one
size fits all?
Mr Canfield: One size doesn't
fit all.
Mr
Hampton: Your recommendation that instead of simply
providing funding directly to the OFC, the government actually
look at working with local clubs and local organizations, because
the challenge in Sudbury may be different from the challenge in
Kenora or the challenge, let us say, in the Ottawa Valley may be
different from the challenge in Dryden or Ear Falls, do I hear
you saying that there is a solution to this if the government's
willing to work with local communities?
Mr
Canfield: I believe there is. Some of the points come
here from input from different organizations. The reality is, a
club in North Bay or Sudbury, as you said, is totally different
from a club here because of the typography of the land and a lot
of different issues.
I don't think this is a
really easy one to sort out but I do believe you're not going to
please everybody on this. I'll tell you that right up front. We
can't afford having tourists turn around at the border and go
home because of the trail permit agreements. At the same time, by
no means do I want our volunteers and our clubs here to feel the
pressure they're getting, because they're doing a very good job
and we much respect that. The problem is that it's not
working.
I don't know if it works in
southern Ontario, I don't much care, and I don't think they much
care if it works here, but we do care if it works here because
this is our revenue line. Tourist camps have opened in the
wintertime because they just couldn't quite make it on summer
tourism any more. It was an opportunity and it's been building
rapidly. We have to have something that will work here, and it
might not be the same thing that works in southern or central
Ontario.
Mr
Hampton: I want to ask you just one question about
gasoline prices. Again, we had a chance to talk about this. My
understanding is all of the gasoline comes from Winnipeg.
Mr
Canfield: That's right.
Mr
Hampton: And there aren't significant trans-portation
costs to bring that gasoline two hours from Winnipeg.
Mr
Canfield: One cent a litre.
Mr
Hampton: Is there any way to account for the fact that
if you go 18 kilometres west of here to Clearwater Bay the price
of gas is cheaper, or if you go 60 kilometres east of here to
Vermilion Bay the price of gas is cheaper, and yet both of those
communities are significantly smaller than Kenora? Is there any
way to account for that, in your view?
Mr
Canfield: We can't figure it out. The only way we can
account for it is strictly through the oil companies. To give you
an example, approximately five years ago, when the price of oil
was up around $29 or $30 a barrel, before it started dropping,
the price of gas in Toronto was 66.9 cents. I believe home
heating fuel was around 38 cents or 41 cents at the peak. I'm not
sure, I didn't check what the price of a barrel of oil was today
but it has been hovering around the $27 or $28 mark, yet our
gasoline is now 73.9 cents and home heating fuel is 47.9 cents.
If anybody can make any sense of that, I'd sure like to find out
how.
Mr
Hampton: I take it you would urge the government to send
the gas pricing task force to communities like Kenora, Red Lake,
Sioux Lookout, Pickle Lake. Perhaps the committee can make some
sense of the wild disparity in prices.
Mr
Canfield: Definitely. We'd like to have them come to as
many communities in northwestern Ontario as possible. The scary
part of this, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that the provincial
government has a task force and the federal government has a task
force. Maybe these two task forces had better get together so at
the end of the day they can quit passing the buck back and forth
on whose decision it is to regulate it. I think an amalgamation
of the task forces, provincial and federal, might help out.
Mr Galt:
Thank you, Your Worship, for your presentation. I just have a
couple of comments in connection with recycling etc. When that
all started out and the grants for that, it was a start-up for X
number of years, tapering down, certainly moving in the direction
of the Waste Diversion Organization as a carrot approach versus
the stick approach. I was unaware of the slippage that you've
just told us is in here. I was with Norm Sterling as the PA for
environment and was quite enthused with the Waste Diversion
Organization. It seemed like it was heading in the right
direction but it looks like a bit of time slippage there.
I want to quickly ask you a
couple of questions, one relating to the 3.2-cent difference in
Manitoba versus Ontario. If that was changed, we'll say for
northern Ontario-in southern Ontario it isn't going to make much
difference as it relates to across the border-what would that
create job-wise? It must be having an effect on jobs now. Do you
have any gut feeling as to what that might be in jobs?
Mr
Canfield: I don't have a real gut feeling what it might
be in jobs. I do have a gut feeling on what it's going to do to
the existing jobs. It's definitely going to hurt the small
businessman, the truckers who are hauling wood. I'm sure that
Abitibi Consolidated and Weyerhaeuser and the other companies are
not going to come up with more money for a cord of wood because
of this increase in gas and fuel that we've just seen recently.
This is why I say it's a twofold problem. Hopefully we can get
the 3.2 cents back down to the same level as Manitoba. The
government has bragged about having the lowest provincial income
tax. We respect that. We'd also like them to be able to brag
about having the lowest, or at least a comparable, gas tax.
It's really hard to give a
number in jobs. You're not going to see a lot of growth, I don't
believe, in the leisure industry. That's a big industry up here.
What's the first thing you're going to quit running when you
don't have the money to run it? It's probably your snow machine
or your Sea-Doo or your boat and motor as opposed to your car,
because you have to get back and forth to work. I'd be afraid of a recessionary
trend as opposed to trying to guess on jobs.
Mr Galt:
Jumping to tourism, I'm still not clear. I think you are about
the third one in who has talked about these trails. The permit
fee-this is over and above li-censing of the vehicle-goes to the
provincial snow-mobile association? Is that where that fee is
going, rather than to the local ones, and then they look after
the trail? I don't have it clear. Who requires them to pay that?
Could you just walk me through that at the Dick and Jane
level?
Mr
Canfield: I understand that $25 goes to OFSC and the
rest remains local.
Mr Galt:
Who says it has to be $150?
Mr
Canfield: The OFSC dictates what the price will be.
Mr Galt:
But they only get $25 of it and the rest of it comes locally.
Mr
Canfield: That's right.
Mr Galt:
So this extra money, when it's that high versus Manitoba and the
other provinces, the other states, really comes to the local
association. Can't the local association say to the provincial
organization, "Hey, get your fee down so we're competitive"?
Mr
Canfield: I understand, with some discussions, they've
tried to do that. You have to understand that it's little brother
up against Big Brother. You don't have the numbers here to change
democracy. I strongly believe in democracy. That's why I keep
going back to the phrase that one size does not fit all.
Mr Galt:
Is it $150 for all trails in Ontario?
Mr
Canfield: That's what I understand.
Mr Galt:
So in southern Ontario that's what you pay to take your Ski-Doo
and run it on one of the trails down there as well.
Mr
Canfield: That's right.
The Chair:
Ms Molinari, you have one minute.
Mrs
Molinari: It's a quick question. First of all, thank you
for your presentation. The question on the gas tax-part of the
challenge of this government when we're reducing taxes is to make
sure that savings is directly to the taxpayer. Do you have any
ideas on how, in reducing that gas tax, we would ensure that the
saving would be directed to the taxpayer? We can talk about
regulating the gas prices, and we're looking forward to the
report the task force is coming out with on that, but will that
go directly to the taxpayer or will that just be another increase
that the oil companies will take?
1430
Mr
Canfield: I guess that's the cop-out. Mr Nault used the
same one on me, and you're probably going to get the same
answer-maybe not quite as rough; we were in private. In my mind,
that's a cop-out by any government. The government has to get
control of this situation. They have to regulate or they have to
bring some kind of rules of whatever that the gas companies have
to follow. Let's take care of our backyard and do what has to be
done with the gas companies.
You asked, how do I feel
this will go directly back to the individual? An individual
making $10,000 or $20,000 a year probably doesn't pay any
provincial tax today, so a provincial tax cut is going to help me
at my income level, but it's not going to do anything for the
person with a low income anyway. Most of these people in this
part of the country have to own and drive a car to get back and
forth to work, and that kills them. When you're making $10,000 or
$15,000 or $20,000 a year, can you imagine driving a car 10 or 15
miles to work every day at 73.9 cents a litre?
Mrs
Molinari: But if it's not-
The Chair:
We're out of time, Mrs Molinari. I have to go to Mr Kwinter.
Mr
Kwinter: Mr Mayor, are you in a position to discuss the
budget of NORA, Mr Brown's budget?
Mr
Canfield: I can try.
Mr
Kwinter: I don't want to put you at a disadvantage,
because I know it isn't your presentation. You were just doing it
on his behalf.
Mr
Canfield: That's right.
Mr
Kwinter: The question I ask is, if you look at it,
you'll see that the only government participation is the $34,641
that is really the LCBO contribution, which is in order to look
after the materials the LCBO generates. When I look through the
correspondence with Mr Sterling, he was saying that they were
looking to fund up to 50% to encourage municipalities to get
involved with the blue box program. You're telling me that Kenora
is involved in that program.
Mr
Canfield: We're very heavily involved in the program. In
fact, at the end of last year the then town of Kenora implemented
a bag tag, which has doubled or tripled the amount of material
going into the blue box system. I believe that is the right
track. In fact, my goal eventually-if I'm around long enough-is
to get into 100% recycling. We're doing the right thing, at our
cost.
Mr
Kwinter: So the proposed budget for the period ended
December 31, 2000, shows a break-even, which includes the $34,641
coming as a result of the LCBO. They were promised a 50%
contribution. They haven't got it yet, and the then minister-I
don't know whether there's been a confirmation with the new
minister-said it would be in 2000; then he said it's going to be
delayed; now he's saying it's going to be 2001. Other than the
capital requirement that Mr Brown seems to ask for for the
replacement of the five trucks, he seems to be running on a
break-even basis. My concern is that as long as he keeps putting
forward these budgets, the government is going to say, "They're
asking for money but they seem to be doing fine. They seem to be
operating and they're not incurring any debt because it's picked
up by the municipal contribution of $8 and all of the other
things they're getting." How do you address that?
Mr
Canfield: I believe-and I'd have to relate this to
Bill-it costs the new city of Kenora about $180,000 a year to be
part of the blue box system, which we didn't have to pay at one
time and which we now have to pay, along with other transfers of
highways and connecting links, as I stated before. We've jumped
through all the hoops. We've amalgamated; we've found
efficiencies. But
we're getting to the point where we're getting strained. I
believe there's an answer here, and I'm not necessarily saying
it's with the government. Maybe we should be putting this back in
the hands of the manufacturers. Maybe a system like Manitoba's or
Alberta's is a better system. I believe that the people who
manufacture these goods should be responsible for these
goods.
Mr
Kwinter: Have you had any discussions with industry
about that?
Mr
Canfield: I've read quite a bit of the stuff. I haven't
been on the NORA board over the last few years and I'm not as up
on it, but I do read all my material and try to keep up on it a
bit. No, we haven't, but that would come, I imagine, from the
provincial government, from legislation forcing them to be
responsible for their packaging.
The Chair:
We've used all of your time. On behalf of the committee, thank
you very much for your presentation this afternoon.
ONTARIO SECONDARY SCHOOL TEACHERS' FEDERATION,
DISTRICT 5A
The Chair:
Our next presenter this afternoon is the Ontario Secondary School
Teachers' Federation, district 5A, Northern Shield. Could you
please step forward and state your name for the record.
Mr Dave
Rhind: My name is Dave Rhind, president of district 5A,
Northern Shield.
The Chair:
On behalf of the committee, welcome.
Mr Rhind:
Thank you for the opportunity to make a presentation. Much of
what I am going to say actually comes from my staff. I represent
secondary teachers in Dryden, Kenora, Red Lake and Ignace. We
basically are a very large board, 100,000 square kilometres, so
we don't have much chance to get together. I asked them for their
comments on this, and they sent me some material. What I am going
to try to do is to show the extent of the problem being faced by
education in the north, due partially to budget restraints and
what we consider to be a fairly inflexible funding formula which
has been used to cut hundreds of millions of dollars from
education.
Currently schools in my
board are being run on a shoestring. That's the comment that
comes up from many teachers. The philosophy apparently is to get
only the bare necessities; in other words, it's a make-do
attitude. As a result, out-of-date texts are not being replaced
and some classes are using different editions of the same
textbook. I have an example in senior biology in my high school
of Beaver Brae in Kenora, which has two different editions
because they don't have sufficient of either one for the
students. Senior math classes in Dryden don't have enough texts
for their current class numbers, forcing the teacher to either
photocopy or have students share texts or in some way make
do.
Special-needs facilities in
my school are woefully inadequate, especially to service the
severe-disability stu-dents, who have very specific needs with
regard to lunch, bathroom facilities, toileting and extra care.
Due to the age of many of our high schools, major renovations are
required to adapt current rooms to handle these students.
Unfortunately, money for these renovations is almost nonexistent
and has to come out of some other budget, if we can find it.
The lack of resources due
to budget constraints has led to some interesting dilemmas. For
example, the science department at my school, Beaver Brae, has
$15,000 worth of computer-based labs, purchased using a special
federal fund for that, but they can't afford to purchase the
hardware necessary. They have one computer in the entire
department that will run these programs. They can't afford to buy
more and still buy the necessary supplies for classroom
instruction.
Not only have resources for
the classroom been cut back, but the current funding model has
put a serious strain on the adequate education of special-needs
students. At present, we have a lot of special-needs students
coming in from northern schools and remote communities; they
require very specialized programming and often one-on-one
workers. Unfortunately the current special-needs funding does not
get transferred with the students, and so our resources are being
stretched to the limit due to the funding crunch.
One of the problems I found
out today is that the new special-education funding is with the
program, not the student, so you have to establish in May of the
previous year what you believe your requirements will be for the
following year. In our case, if we get students coming in from
remote communities and northern reserves who require special ed,
we don't get the dollars, because we didn't know about it the
previous May, and they show up in September.
It is not uncommon now to
have classes of 22 or more students-and this is especially true
in our computer labs-with up to five special-needs students and
no teacher's aide, our support personnel to assist the classroom
teacher. This is at a time when curriculums are being revamped
and made harder and changes are being introduced at all
times.
1440
The reality of small
northern schools is that we've always had a difficult time
offering the wide range of class options available in the larger
southern schools. This difficulty has become a serious problem
with the current education funding model inadequately recognizing
the costs in providing choice for students in a small school.
Split-grade classes, such as 11-12 or 9-10, as well as mixed
levels of difficulty, academic and applied together, are the norm
for many of the optional subjects. We are seeing more of these
classes than ever before. I have an example of a teacher last
semester who had a grade 11 class with a basic-advanced split. He
had to teach both with no support personnel for his special-needs
students who were in that class.
An ongoing concern to many
teachers in the north has been the cutback in professional
development opportunities at the same time as curriculums are
changing, technology is changing and the demands on teachers are
increasing at a rapid
pace. PD days have been cut in half-they actually have gone from
nine down to four-and the dollars available have also been
reduced. Sending even one person to a conference in Toronto costs
a minimum of $1,500, as you know if you had to fly up here. No
business introduces new equipment or new technology into the
workplace without substantial in-service. Unfortunately, teachers
in the north are not receiving enough of this training and
development.
Not only have we seen a cut
in the actual dollars being spent in instruction in the
classroom, but extracurricular funding has also been drastically
curtailed in the past four years. In fact, extracurricular has
been removed from the funding formula. It has been well
documented that a good secondary program must also include
opportunity for participation in sports, drama and music, as well
as field trips to museums, theaters, plays and other productions.
Unfortunately, the reality of life in this part of the province
is distance, and today distance equals higher costs. The
province's funding model does not adequately take into account
the facts of life for northern students. As costs for the extras
keep mounting, more and more students are prevented from
participating fully in their secondary school programs.
An example of the burden
higher costs are placing on local schools and ultimately the
students is the recent increase in bus rates from the local bus
company, Excel. I phoned them a couple of days ago to find out
exactly what it costs to transport students. These are just two I
took out of what they sent me: A round trip to Dryden, which is
our closest neighbor that we participate with in terms of
extracurricular sports and other activities, was $395.85 as of
last November, and just last week it changed to $553.20, plus
GST, and that does not include overnight; to Winnipeg, which is
where we often go for drama productions, museums, theatres,
musicals, it's $992.50, plus GST, for a one-day round trip.
Obviously, the educational
opportunities for our students in the north are fewer than those
in the larger southern boards, and as costs continue to rise, not
only will participation drop but the number of opportunities for
the extras of high school life will also decline. Students, in my
opinion, are being shortchanged in their high school
experience.
Distance, as I said, is
obviously a fact of life in the north, yet the Ministry of
Education has chosen not to recognize this fact for the
Keewatin-Patricia District School Board. The board covers
approximately 100,000 square kilometers but is not considered
remote and isolate, at least for the purposes of extra funding.
Yet the Rainy River board, with half the number of students and a
smaller area of operation, gets an extra $600,000 a year.
Apparently, adequate consideration has not been given to the need
for travel and communication throughout the board. I attached an
appendix from what the board presented to the Ministry of
Education to make a request for its extra funding.
A more recent ramification
of the change in education funding has been the decision not to
replace teachers retiring at the end of semester 1 or leaving to
take jobs elsewhere, as I had in my school. Locally this has led
to the canceling of some semester 2 classes and the subsequent
changing of teacher and student timetables. Many staff and
students learned only days before the beginning of the new
semester that their courses were changed. In Dryden, they changed
15 teachers' timetables, and they only have 62 on staff. In my
school, it affected seven teachers. This has added an extra
burden on to teachers already trying to finalize semester 1 marks
and get ready for semester 2, all in a very short period of time,
as a matter of fact in less than a week.
We now have in Ontario a
very rigid funding formula that does not take into account the
realities of bargaining. Teachers have a right to expect to
participate in the wealth of this province and will certainly be
going for a salary increase this year. Such an increase is
necessary not only to restore some of the lost purchasing power
of the last seven years, with no raises and an increased cost of
living, but also to make teaching in the north an attractive
option for young teachers.
It will be increasingly
more difficult to attract these qualified young teachers to the
north, similar to the difficulties being faced by the northern
communities trying to attract new doctors, as teachers in the
north are falling further behind employees in both public and
private sectors. For example, in Kenora, teachers have not
received a raise since January 1993. This was only one-half of
1%. Since this time we have suffered through Rae days, inflation,
increased benefit costs, as well as the current government's
inadequate funding model.
Traditionally, our board
has looked to Manitoba to replace some of its retiring teachers.
There is hardly a school in northern and northwestern Ontario
that doesn't have somebody who was born and raised in Manitoba or
Saskatchewan but comes to teach here.
A recent article in the
Winnipeg Free Press, which I have included as appendix 2, would
appear to put this source of qualified young teachers at risk.
The headline in the January 24, 2000, Free Press reads, "Fort
Garry," which is a Winnipeg school division, "could see
horrendous teacher shortage."
The hiring crunch is
expected to be very serious in Manitoba this year; so serious, in
fact, the St James school division is offering a $1,500 bonus to
any teacher planning to retire who informs the board before
February 29. It's expected this allows the division to scoop up
new graduating teachers from the universities in Manitoba by
offering them firm contracts rather than tentative ones based
upon what projected retirements might be. The reality is, we will
have an increasingly difficult time hiring new teachers out of
Manitoba, especially as this year's hiring fair at the University
of Manitoba will also have recruiters from Calgary and Los
Angeles.
Considering the higher cost
of living in northern Ontario-an example would be gasoline at
73.9 cents in Kenora and only 61.5 cents in Winnipeg, because I
was there yesterday filling up-and the current state of
amenities, such as health care, the question is: How are we going to attract the highly
qualified, energetic young teachers needed to teach the tougher
new curriculum?
The job of teaching has
never been an easy one. Recently, however, due to cutbacks,
amalgamations, lack of resources and a curriculum that is
changing faster than the changes can be absorbed, the task is
becoming impossible. Teachers are demoralized and frustrated.
They believe their job is no longer considered valuable by the
province or their board. Most teachers feel they have little or
no control over their work environment and, yet, studies show the
more employees feel in control of their destiny, the better they
do their job. As a consequence, more teachers are looking
elsewhere, either to teach out of province or to get out of
teaching altogether. The unfortunate part of this is that the
ones doing most of this kind of thinking are the young teachers
or those in the technical trades programs who see their
colleagues in business participating in the wealth of the
province while they are not. Experienced teachers also are
feeling the stress of day-to-day teaching in the current
environment and more can't wait to retire. The topic of
conversation in the staff room turns repeatedly to the benefits
of retirement, but the concern has to be who will replace these
qualified experienced teachers when they go.
I'd just like to add, I
actually received this an hour or two ago on my desk in my office
in the school. It comes from one of our second-year teachers. She
goes through her day during exam time. She had two exam
supervisions of two and a half hours where she was not able to do
any of her marking. Rather than go through all of it, I just want
to get to the end. Her day basically starts off before 8 o'clock
in the morning and goes oftentimes till 12 o'clock the next
morning, because she also coaches. She coaches for three or four
hours and then she tries to go home and do her marking, which was
due last week. At the same time, she's trying to prepare for her
brand-new second semester classes which started the day after
exams ended but prior to the time you can get all your marks
done, and she hasn't seen her husband in about a week, so I won't
mention who it is. As a result, she is seriously considering next
year, if this continues, not to coach at all and she's only been
at it two years. So the problem we're facing is that the young
teachers are getting burnt out and the older teachers can't wait
to retire.
The
Vice-Chair(Mr Doug Galt): Thank you
very much for your presentation. We have about five minutes for
questions and/or responses from each of the caucuses. We'll start
with the government caucus.
Mr Arnott:
The point has been made on a number of occasions since this
committee initiated its discussions that the education funding
formula continues to evolve. It's certainly my view that as
legitimate problems are brought to the attention of the
government and backed up by analysis and the kinds of ideas that
you've put forward today in a positive and constructive way, the
government is obligated to consider those ideas and to hopefully
see what it can do to initiate positive change.
I also want to ask you
about something you said in your brief. On page 4 you talked
about the increased cost of busing for what you call some of the
extras. Apparently it has gone up for bus trips to Dryden and
Winnipeg, and I can understand why you would want to have various
programs where kids could see what is happening in the cities in
terms of museums, theatres and so forth.
Do the kids have their own
fund-raising programs to raise money to offset the cost of these
trips, or is it something that traditionally has come out of the
education budget, the school budget?
1450
Mr Rhind:
I have been teaching in this town for 26 years, so I can go back
to what it used to be and then tell you what has happened. It
used to be that a component of the budget for each department
would be field trips. Recently those have been cut out. Probably
in the last six years, those have been cut to almost none, and
now it's almost entirely raised by the students, which brings us
to fund-raising burnout in a small town. You're constantly
hitting the same people, time after time. A lot of teachers and
students are now saying, "We just can't afford the $20, $30, $40
or $50 a trip."
Mrs
Molinari: Thank you very much for your presentation.
Certainly you bring a different perspective, and we are hearing a
lot of that today from the northern community and that one size
doesn't fit all. Some of the comments you have made that are
specific to the needs of the north-as a government, that is part
of the process we are going through now so that we can hear from
various communities.
I have one question on your
presentation: On page 5 you say that in education funding there
has been a decision not to replace teachers retiring at the end
of September or in semester one. I don't know what your
collective agreement would entitle but, based on my knowledge,
it's not up to a school board whether you replace a retiring
teacher. Depending on the number of students you have within the
system, your collective agreement calls for the number of
teachers required. So a new teacher would have to be hired when
one retires.
Mr Rhind:
That would have been the case years ago. In the last round of
negotiations, we were under the gun for a fair number of things.
One of the things the board insisted on removing was the clause
that said, "If you have this number of students, you have to have
X number of teachers." One of the concerns with the funding
formula is that because schools have been cut so lean, they have
to keep as many students as they can. And when they find in the
second semester that they don't have as many as they originally
anticipated, they have to find the money. One of the ways they do
it is simply not to replace. Two teachers left in Ignace. They
didn't replace them. One left in Dryden-actually two; one is on
maternity-neither was replaced. I had one who just left and
didn't get replaced because they simply figured they would not
get the money come the March 31 reporting date to pay for the
programs.
Mrs
Molinari: So that was a result of a reduction of
students taking second-semester courses?
Mr Rhind: According to the
board, it was a reduction in terms of what they anticipated they
would get. I haven't got all the exact figures yet, because as we
speak-they go through guidance-they are still enrolling new
students. But the decision was made not to hire the teachers. So
they have changed a tremendous number of timetables, students'
included, to accommodate the lack of classes.
Mrs
Molinari: I know what it can be like at the beginning of
a second semester, where the expectation is that you are in a
certain class and suddenly get your schedule changed. I can
sympathize with some of the difficulties around that.
Before the new funding
formula was introduced, there was municipal taxation, where an
education levy was tapped. So boards had the ability to levy
taxes. How was that here in the north? In York region, the
community I come from, there was a constant upheaval every time,
because education taxes seemed to be increasing the most in the
municipality. The idea was that it's not based on what you can
afford, it's based on how much your house is worth and the mill
rate and so forth. How did that taxation base affect the
community here?
The
Vice-Chair: I have to step in and move to the Liberal
caucus. My apologies.
Mrs
Molinari: You won't even allow him to answer the
question?
The
Vice-Chair: Do you want to have a quick response, and
then we'll move on?
Mr Rhind:
Well, nobody likes paying taxes. There isn't really a quick
response to that one. I'm sorry.
Mr
Kwinter: Thank you, Mr Rhind. I was listening to your
presentation and it really struck home. I just want to share with
you an experience I had as recently as Saturday.
My wife is a schoolteacher.
She loves to teach. She often jokes that they would have to
remove her when she was using her walker, because she really felt
it was something she has enjoyed doing for her entire adult life.
She is retiring this year, under duress. The duress isn't that
they are making her retire; it is that she says she cannot afford
to get sick because it puts a huge burden on her colleagues. They
won't get a supply teacher unless, I think, seven teachers are
away. This means that every time she feels she just cannot get in
to school, she really feels an obligation to be there, otherwise
it's going to put a burden on staff who are already stressed
out.
Saturday night I had dinner
with a principal who teaches in the same board, but not her
principal. He was telling me that he has never had a worse time
in teaching and is thinking about pursuing some other
vocation.
My question to you is, with
that kind of attitude-I certainly know my wife and I know this
principal. These are dedicated educators. The morale is so low
that it has to impact on the quality of teaching that is taking
place in those schools.
Mr Rhind:
Unfortunately you are correct. I have been teaching in this town
for 26 years. I have seen a lot of teachers come and go. I have
said goodbye to a lot of them at retirement parties. I have never
seen a group so eager to get out of teaching as I have in the
last five years. They are demoralized; the morale is low. It's
not the kids. To a person they will tell you: "I love the kids, I
love teaching, I love what I'm doing. I just can't put up with
the budget problems. I can't put up with dealing with the board
any more."
The comment you made that
you can't afford to get sick is very true. Apparently, in our
board, you had better not have a relative die who you feel close
to. We had an example last year where a teacher was asked to be a
pallbearer. Unfortunately the person who died was not part of
what our collective agreement says was a close enough relative
for him to get time off, so they docked him a day's pay to go to
Winnipeg to be a pallbearer. It's happening all over the place.
The best they will do is charge you the supply teacher rate.
Recently we were told, "We may dock you a day's pay, but your
other colleagues are going to be covering your classes while you
are away at a funeral, if indeed you have to go."
Mr
Kwinter: That seems to be the main problem. It puts an
added burden on your colleagues, who are already stressed out and
having difficulty coping because of the constraints.
Mr Rhind:
You have marking to do, you have preparation to do, and you have
a brand new curriculum which you supposedly have to get prepared
to teach and the prep period you have just got taken up doing an
on-call for another teacher who is ill. Yes, the stress is
increasing, and more and more it's the young teachers who are
saying, "I just can't do this any more." Something has to
give.
Mr
Kwinter: Given all this, and I don't know whether this
is getting out to these enthusiastic new teachers, are you
finding that there are still lots of teachers who want to come in
and get those jobs?
Mr Rhind:
I really don't think I'm qualified to comment, because I'm not
part of the hiring team. I know we sent somebody from the board
to Thunder Bay to interview. I don't know the results. Given the
fact that in Manitoba, if you read the article from the Free
Press, one of the superintendents in the Fort Garry division
school board says, "We are going to have to make education more
attractive by increasing salaries and benefits," if they are
going to start increasing theirs, I would say we're not going to
get the staff we thought we would get out of Manitoba. I know
there are some who are currently teaching in our school who come
from down east, the Maritimes, who are considering leaving and
going back home. I don't think we're going to get the numbers of
energetic, qualified young teachers, the best of the best, as one
of our superintendents puts it. I don't think we're going to get
them the way we used to be able to.
Mr
Hampton: I have two questions. The first is about the
education funding formula, especially for special needs. The
second is about remote and isolated boards.
I was at two of the schools
in Red Lake last week, and the issue of special education funding
was brought up in each case. I was at three different schools in
Dryden last week, and
the issue of special education funding was brought up there as
well. I am hearing a lot of it in Fort Frances. What, in your
view, is the problem with the funding formula with respect to
special education? I asked the teachers I was talking to then
about the announcement of the additional $40 million for special
education and the response was, "Well, that's good, but it
doesn't come anywhere near the need."
Can you explain for us the
problem with the funding formula for special education and what
has to happen before it gets fixed?
1500
Mr Rhind:
I'm not an expert on the ISA grants, which is where they are
generating most of their funding now, but I had it explained to
me at noon by one of our special-ed teachers, so I'm trying to
relate what I just heard at noon.
Apparently, the problem is
that in order to qualify for complete 100% funding, you have to
have a severe disability. What's happening is that more and more
of the board's money goes to certain individuals and less is now
available to those who are in the regular classroom but could
benefit from a resource program or from having some extra help:
one worker in with five or six kids. The money's simply not
there, because to get the money you have to go through a series
of hoops in order to qualify as a category 1, 2, 3 or 4 type of
disability.
Mr
Hampton: So students who may be coping with a
disability, but whose disability is not so severe as to be
classified by ISA, essentially fall through the cracks now.
Mr Rhind:
Precisely. That's the way it was put to me by one special-ed
teacher. More and more of them are doing just that, falling right
between the cracks.
Mr
Hampton: The issue of remote and isolate boards-and I
thank you for bringing this graph which compares the
Keewatin-Patricia board, the Rainy River board and the
Superior-Greenstone board. Some of the government members and I
had a chance to talk about this over lunch, so I wonder if you
could emphasize it.
I want to draw your
attention to the Rainy River board. The area recognized within
the board is 6,015 kilometres. I know the history of that. In
1987, the then Fort Frances-Rainy River board made an application
to the Ministry of Education to have what are called remote parts
of Rainy Lake and Lake of the Woods and some of the other areas
that are not necessarily serviced by road added to the board's
geographic area. The Ministry of Education in 1988 assented to
that, so the board gets credit for places that are at the end of
the road, and even beyond the road.
I know the old Kenora board
made a similar application in about 1988, but there was a torrent
of letters and faxes from people-I think the Right Honourable
John Turner wrote a letter opposing it-and so the government of
the day declined to recognize the geographic area of the northern
part of Lake of the Woods and some of the other geographic areas
falling within the board.
I think what I hear you
saying is that if there's going to be equitable funding for
Keewatin-Patricia, that area has to be recognized, because even
though it may not be the most urban of areas or may not even be a
suburban area, it geographically ought to fall within the extent
of the board, and the board therefore ought to be recognized for
remote and isolate funding. I think that's what you're asking
for, isn't it?
Mr Rhind:
I actually am repeating what our business administrator for the
board made as a presentation. That's where this chart came from.
His argument was just that. This doesn't take into account the
fact that we are responsible for running all the way from Red
Lake down to Sioux Narrows and all the way from the Manitoba
border to Ignace. All this grant does, or all the ministry will
take, is the actual jurisdictional boundaries of those towns
rather than the distance in between, as though somehow one can
magically go from Kenora to Dryden and all that distance in
between that you're covering, that theoretically is not in your
jurisdiction according to the old boundaries of the old boards,
doesn't cost you any money; you can get there free.
Mr
Hampton: In fact, it does cost you an awful lot of
money.
Mr Rhind:
We're basically responsible for providing service for anybody who
lives within those boundary lines too.
Mr
Hampton: As I understand it, if all of those areas were
within the geographic boundary of the board, the province would
actually add to its educational property tax resource.
Mr Rhind:
That's what I have been told.
The
Vice-Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation
and your responses. Best wishes.
Mr Rhind:
Thank you very much for listening to me.
ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION
The
Vice-Chair: Our next delegation is from OPSEU, Mr Len
Hupet, vice-president. Would you come forward and state your name
into the microphone for recording purposes. Thank you very much
for coming forward.
Mr Len
Hupet: Good afternoon. My name is Len Hupet. For over 30
years, I've been a correctional officer at the Fort Frances jail.
Right now I'm on leave from that job and serving my second term
as first vice-president and treasurer of the Ontario Public
Service Employees Union.
I want at this time to
thank you very much for the opportunity to address these
hearings, and welcome to the north.
I am here today to bring my
union's perspective to the provincial budget. Since 1995, OPSEU
members have found themselves directly in the path of the
Conservative steamroller. Since 1995, we have seen over 25,000
members lose their jobs, not only in the Ontario public service
but also in our community colleges. We have seen dedicated
workers in health care and social service agencies struggle to
serve their clients in the face of ongoing budget reductions.
We are among those who have paid a heavy price
for the Common Sense Revolution. We believe we have a particular
understanding of what this government's policies have done to
Ontario. We believe we have a unique perspective. We know what it
means when a government deliberately chooses to destroy public
services.
I want to talk about two
main things here today: first, our ongoing concern with the
general fiscal direction of this government and, second, the
impact of this direction on our members, their work and their
communities.
As everyone knows, this
government decided a long time ago that tax cuts were more
important than any other policy goal; more important than public
services, more important even than deficit reduction, which
Conservatives normally put a premium on. This singleminded focus
on tax cuts is about one thing and one thing only: to change the
way the wealth of this great province is distributed.
In the north, we are used
to seeing our resources shipped away to make other regions better
off. Under this government, the same thing is happening, but it's
not just a transfer of wealth from poor regions to rich regions;
it's a transfer of wealth from poor people to rich people.
Of course, the government
doesn't want to just come right out and say that cutting taxes
and chopping public services are moving money from the poor to
the rich, so they make up reasons. They say that we have to cut
taxes to compete globally. They talk about a brain drain. They
talk about tax cuts as if they put more money into everybody's
pockets. They talk as if tax cuts are actually making Ontario a
better place to live. They are not. You just have to read the
headlines: emergency room tragedies, environmental disasters,
homelessness in Toronto, deteriorating roads in the north, and
students who can no longer afford a higher education.
In the middle of these
serious problems, the government always tries to put the blame on
others: the federal government, poor people, the union movement
and its own employees.
According to the
alternative provincial budget, the Tory tax cuts will double the
provincial debt, an additional $80 billion since 1995. So much
for being conservative. Driving us into debt, slashing public
services and cutting taxes all have the same effect. Debts give
future governments an excuse to cut public services. Tax cuts
give the current government an excuse to cut public services.
When public services are slashed, they deteriorate. This causes
people to lose faith in government.
Unlike the Bill Davis
Conservatives, good government is not this government's goal.
Their goal is no government. With no government, the playing
field will be wide open for private corporations to run
everything, and when corporations run everything, democracy means
nothing. This is the direction the Harris government is driving
us. They never say that, of course. They say tax cuts actually
increase government revenues. If this were true, and it's not,
the best way to increase government revenues would be to give all
our money away. Well, the real world doesn't work that way.
A recent study by the
Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives compared British Columbia
and Alberta between 1993 and 1997. British Columbia faced slower
growth in the economy and introduced few tax cuts. Alberta had a
faster rate of economic growth and introduced deep and extensive
tax cuts. It should come as no surprise to anyone that British
Columbia had a faster rate of revenue growth; it's common
sense.
1510
Yes, revenues are growing
in Ontario, but not because of tax cuts. Since the Harris
government came to power, the United States economy has been
booming. The federal government has maintained a policy of low
interest rates. These two things are driving the current economic
boom. But a very sad thing is happening. At one time, an economic
boom was good for everyone. They used to say, "A rising tide
lifts all boats." This economic boom is different. While some get
richer and richer, others are getting poorer and poorer, and the
destruction of public services only helps those who can afford to
buy their own. In their hearts, Ontarians know this. In poll
after poll, the public ranks education, health care, the
environment and assistance to poor children, to name a few, far
ahead of tax cuts.
This isn't that surprising,
given the actual pocketbook impact of the tax cuts. As you have
previously heard, the Centre for Social Justice has recently
released new figures from Statistics Canada tracking the income
of families raising children under 18. The centre compares the
year 1994, the last full year of the NDP government, to 1997, the
most recent year for which statistics are available. During those
four years, the disparity in income earned in the marketplace
between the richest 10% of the population and the poorest 10% of
the population actually dropped. The gap fell by over 70%.
Amazingly, however, after this government's intervention in the
market through tax cuts for the wealthy, transfer cuts to average
Ontarians and new user fees, the gap between the richest and
poorest actually increased from six times after-tax and
after-transfer income to almost eight times.
The political choices of
this government have ensured that our society is even more
divided than ever.
The impact on public
services and OPSEU members: I want to talk about the impact of
public service cuts. Public services have always been the
backbone of our northern life. Publicly maintained highways have
moved our resources to market. Government regulation has, to some
degree, made sure that our resources have helped build the
province and not only line the pockets of corporate shareholders.
All of that is coming undone.
By laying off hundreds of
resources technicians, this government has given forest companies
free rein over a resource that is supposed to belong to us. By
laying off over 40% of the staff in the Ministry of the
Environment, they've given polluters a free ride through what
they call "self-regulation." Asking private industry to do its
own management of public resources and cut pollution voluntarily
is exactly the same as expecting speeders to turn themselves in at the next OPP
detachment. It just doesn't happen.
What's happening to our
northern highways is even more obvious. This winter people across
the north are asking, "What's gone wrong with our highway
maintenance?" For starters, it's not as good as it used to be.
There's less salt, less sand and less plowing. That means more
dangerous roads. It may mean more highway deaths. In communities
like Schreiber, Neebing, Temagami, Latchford and Ottawa municipal
councillors are wondering if poor maintenance is causing highway
deaths. If it is, there is a good chance that privatization is to
blame.
Starting in 1996, the
government launched an ambitious plan to privatize highway
maintenance. Their goal is to have all of it sold off to private
corporations by this spring. The 1999 report of the Provincial
Auditor did not slow them down one bit. This past November the
Provincial Auditor, Erik Peters, wrote a scathing report on how
the Ministry of Transportation had handled highway privatization
so far. Here's what he said. "The ministry's procedures were not
adequate to ensure that the outsourcing initiative was managed
with due regard for economy and efficiency, nor to ensure
compliance with legislation, policies and contract terms and
conditions." In other words, MTO did pretty much everything
wrong.
First off, the report
proves taxpayers didn't save money by contracting out. What
appears to matter to the government is not satisfying highway
safety and maintenance but only satisfying its corporate
friends.
The report noted the
inadequate monitoring of safety standards in privatized areas.
The auditor also saw selling off public highway equipment and
then listing the revenue as an attempt to "cook the books." He
pointed to evidence that the government had double-counted
certain budget items to make the work performed by public
employees look like it cost more.
The auditor's report
confirms what OPSEU has said all along about the privatizing of
roads: It's too expensive and it's too dangerous. Public
employees do a better job because they don't have the profit
motive interfering with their work.
When you privatize a
service like road maintenance, the motive is there for private
operators to cut corners to increase their profits. They might
use less salt or sand or they might lift their plows off the
pavement to save the blades. Whenever that happens, the public is
put in danger. We cannot support that. That's why OPSEU is
working now with northern mayors to call for an independent
review of the whole highway maintenance scheme. We believe
privatization is destroying our roads and endangering our lives.
We believe an independent review will prove it once and for
all.
Despite the fact that
privatization has been an all-out disaster for Ontario's
highways, the government now wants to do the same damage to
another area that has a lot to do with public safety. That area
is correctional services. Right now, the government is planning
to privatize one and likely two of the 1,200-bed superjails it is
building in Penetanguishene and Lindsay. They plan to privatize
the escort of prisoners when they are taken into the community
for medical appointments or when they are being transferred
between institutions. They plan to privatize the maximum-security
facilities for young offenders. This is very dangerous.
People who live in
communities with provincial jails don't think about them much.
That's how it should be. Ontario jails have an excellent track
record in keeping inmates locked up and keeping communities safe.
The people who run Ontario jails are directly accountable to
ministers of the crown. In addition, provincial jails provide
decent-paying jobs that support local economies.
These are the three things
that our communities will lose if private jails come to Ontario:
safety, accountability and economic benefits. And don't think
it's something that will just happen down south. The corrections
ministry has already completed its review of the northern
district. We don't know what they've got planned, but we do
expect community jails to close and bigger jails to be built. If
the government can get away with private jails in the south, they
will privatize here as well.
By now, most people have
heard the horror stories about what has happened with prison
privatization in the United States and overseas. In 1997, the
city of Youngstown, Ohio, invited the Corrections Corporation of
America to set up a private prison with the promise of 450 jobs
to be created. The CCA prison held 1,700 inmates. In the next 10
months that prison had 13 stabbings; two of them were fatal.
All of the other prisons in
Ohio, all publicly run, had only 12 assaults with deadly weapons
during that period. No one died. The public prisons in Ohio held
48,000 inmates. In other words, the record of violence in
Youngstown was 30 times as bad as it was in the rest of the
system.
Peter Davis, director of
the Ohio state corrections agency, said, "There is nothing in
Ohio's history like the violence at that [private] prison."
1520
Maybe some people don't
care about what goes on behind the locked gates of a jail; we do.
Correctional staff do not want to die so some foreign corporation
can make money. Then there's the community aspect.
In Youngstown, six inmates
broke through seven layers of prison security. Five of these
escapees were convicted murderers. When they escaped, the prison
held off on calling the police for several hours. This is not an
isolated case.
The two private prisons in
New Mexico run by Wackenhut Corp had riots, nine stabbings and
five murders in just over a year. One of them was a guard. The
man who died was named Ralph Garcia. He signed on at the prison
for $7.95 an hour. He had not completed his short training
course, but he was put in a cellblock with 60 unlocked prisoners.
Leaving Garcia alone was part of Wackenhut's cost-cutting policy.
The response from a Wackenhut executive was, "We'd rather lose one
officer than two."
In a public facility,
you've got experienced, professional staff who know how to keep
things calm. You've got managers who are accountable to citizens.
A corporation is accountable to its shareholders. It is not
accountable to local citizens. Private corporations exist only to
make money. In private prisons, they do this by cutting costs.
And that means jeopardizing safety.
We've already seen this in
Ontario at the government's private boot camp for young
offenders. Project Turnaround is a facility for offenders aged 16
to 17. It opened in August 1997 near Orillia.
We don't know exactly
what's going on inside Project Turnaround right now. As a private
facility, it's not open to scrutiny the way a public facility is.
The public can't even get a copy of the minister's report on the
escape that happened there.
The escape happened on the
day of the grand opening. The minister went up there to do a big
media event and the kids did one instead. Two of the inmates
broke out of their rooms, hot-wired a van and crashed it through
the gates. Fortunately for police, the breakout damaged the
radiator and the van broke down not far down the road. The
inmates took off into the bush and were not captured for several
hours. After that, real correctional officers from the public
service were called in to secure the facility. Taxpayers paid for
that. Taxpayers also paid $380,000 for security improvements at
that facility.
There was a public meeting
held near Project Turnaround a few months after the escape. One
of the local citizens posed a hypothetical question to ministry
officials. He asked what would happen if the escaped inmates had
crashed the van into his wife and children and killed them. He
wanted to know who he would be suing.
The then corrections
minister Bob Runciman couldn't answer the question. Finally, a
ministry spokesperson said, "That would be up to the courts." Of
course, that's not true. In reality, he would be suing the
company and the government. The government cannot escape
liability by contracting out. It just loses control. Taxpayers
are always on the hook for extra costs, but the company's profits
continue. The history with private prisons is that the public is
always the last to know what is going on.
Finally, there is the money
issue. Governments who push private prisons always say that they
will save money and create jobs at the same time. Neither is
true. According to the most comprehensive report done by the
General Accounting Office of the US Congress, there is no
evidence that private jails are cheaper than comparable public
jails. There is also no evidence that a private jail puts more
money into the local economy than a public jail. The reason is
simple. To make a profit, the company must take money out of the
service and out of the community to ship back to the corporate
head office. Taking money out of the service means taking it out
of payroll.
On March 1, 1999, the
Ontario government privatized Arrell Youth Centre, a
secure-custody facility for young offenders in Hamilton. The
first effect of this was that the facility lost almost all of its
experienced correctional staff. Of those working at the facility
before privatization, only five employees remained after. The
correctional officer's salary for new hires dropped from $44,500
to between $31,168 and $34,058. At the same time that salaries
were being cut by over $10,000, the government gave the private
operator an extra $300,000 a year to run the operation. The
budget went from an existing $2.2 million to $2.5 million a
year.
Privatization did not save
money; it cost more. On top of that, it cost the public the
services of experienced professionals.
Deregulation of resource
management and privatization of highways and jails are not being
driven by common sense, not at all; they are being driven by a
government that has set itself one goal: to move wealth and power
from democratic citizens to corporate shareholders. On behalf of
my union, I'm here to say that this is not the direction Ontario
should be going.
I would like to ask each
and every one of you on this committee to take a hard look at
what is happening, and when you get back to Queen's Park, please
fight for an Ontario that is for all of us, not just the lucky,
Conservative few. Thank you very much.
The Chair:
We have approximately two minutes per caucus.
Mr
Kwinter: Thank you for your presentation. I'm going to
do something I don't like to do: I'm not going to ask any
questions, I'm just going to make a statement.
I believe that government
has the same responsibility as the private sector, and that is to
become as productive as they can and to be as efficient as they
can. If that means consolidating and getting rid of employees, I
have no problem with that, if that's the goal. It happens in
industry every day. Where I do agree with you completely, and
this is what I want to talk about, is the whole issue of
privatization.
We have a situation where
in the previous government the man who is now the Minister of
Transportation was absolutely critical of what was happening with
Highway 407. He would stand up every day and condemn it and say
it was the most terrible thing that ever happened. Then he
becomes the Minister of Transportation and it's the greatest
thing going.
The government sets up a
minister in charge of privatization and hires someone to run that
ministry, the most expensive civil servant in the government.
After a few months, he's gone and the minister is gone, the
reason being, if you take a look at it, there is example after
example that privatization doesn't always work. I have no
problem-if you can show the benefits, privatize. They talked
about privatizing TVO and the LCBO. They've backed off on that,
the reason being that just because it's in the private sector
doesn't mean it's going to be better, and sometimes there are
things the government should be running.
I agree that in the
correctional service, that is a role for the government. There
are many areas, as I say, that can be privatized. We've heard of tree nurseries.
Big deal. They privatize a tree nursery. That was their benchmark
issue of how they're going to privatize things. So I agree with
you completely on that area.
On the other hand, I want
to make sure you understand that from my perspective there has to
be an examination of everything the government does, and if there
is waste, if there are unproductive areas, they've got to be
addressed. We have a responsibility to the taxpayer to get value
for money and to make sure that it happens. I feel there's got to
be a judicious application of where you increase productivity and
where you increase safety and responsibility for the taxpayer
where the government has a role to play.
Mr
Hampton: I want to ask you some questions about highway
maintenance because I think the government members need to hear
this. This has not been a particularly severe winter in
northwestern Ontario, in fact it has been a relatively mild one,
yet we've had 15 highway deaths since the beginning of December.
In almost every case, highway maintenance or the lack of winter
highway maintenance has been identified as a major contributing
factor.
What are you hearing about
what has changed with the privatization of much of the winter
highway maintenance? What are you hearing is the difference?
1530
Mr Hupet:
I believe the difference is that the roads were, for lack of a
better word, supervised more frequently by public service
employees. In other words, they were out constantly looking at
the condition of the road and would dispatch plows and sanders,
and those vehicles were out instantly.
That is not the case with
private operators. They make the assessment on when they go out,
how much sand or salt to use, and where that plow should be
situated.
A private operator is
obviously out for revenue. If it means having a couple of
opportunities to go out and do one snowfall rather than do it
once, that is an issue for us. We know that our members, Ontario
public service employees, did a great job on our highways on the
maintenance side, and we have noticed a tremendous difference in
the last few years.
The Chair:
You have 30 seconds.
Mr
Hampton: I understand that the area that highway
supervisors now have to cover, the distance on the highway, has
in many cases tripled or quadrupled from what it used to be, that
the cutbacks are such that someone has to be responsible for,
say, 250 kilometres of highway, which is almost impossible when
you get into a winter situation. Is that your understanding
too?
Mr Hupet:
That's my understanding.
The Chair:
For the government side, Mr Arnott.
Mr Arnott:
Thank you very much for your presentation, Mr Hupet. You have
argued your perspective very well, I think, but I have to tell
you that I disagree on a pretty fundamental level with most of
your conclusions as to what ought to happen.
I must point out what I
think was an inaccurate statement in your presentation that the
debt has gone up by $80 billion since 1995.
It is my understanding that
the provincial debt was about $30 billion in 1985, when the
Conservative government left office. It was around
$42 billion in 1990, when the Liberal government left
office. It was around $100 billion in 1995, when the NDP left
office, and today it is around $118 billion.
While I agree with you that
it is not good public policy to allow the debt to explode while
you are in office, certainly it is the opinion of the government
that we are now at the point where we should start paying down
debt, and I support that.
I would ask you a couple of
questions about your statements about privatization or the belief
that there is going to be privatization in our jails.
At the Fort Frances jail,
where you formerly worked, I was wondering if you know what
percentage of the overall operating budget is comprised of
salaries and wages. Would it be around 80%, or would I be wrong
in guessing that?
Mr Hupet:
I think it would be safe to say that.
Mr Arnott:
Do you feel there has been any effort to identify areas of
wasteful spending within the institution such that money could be
saved? That is the kind of thing the government is looking at in
terms of privatization. It is not being driven by a philosophy
but by a belief that there may be ways we should explore to do
things better and cheaper by looking at alternatives. If savings
were identified within the existing way of doing things, I think
it would make it less likely that the government would move
towards privatization.
So my question is, what
more can we do to identify savings within the Fort Frances jail
so that we can save the taxpayers money and still do the job the
way it has to be done?
Mr Hupet:
I think one area to start with would be having an opportunity to
dialogue with the government. That would be the first place, and
we are certainly open to having those discussions.
On the issue of the
privatization model, given what we know in our history and our
research of the US situation, atrocities have taken place. It is
surprising to us that the government would be looking at a model
where there has been all this activity over the years and you now
have US Congress and other government officials looking at ways
of getting out of the mess they are in.
We find it very surprising
that the government would be looking at attempting to bring that
kind of model into Ontario when we know that we have a safe
system here.
The Chair:
With that, we've run out of time. On behalf of the committee,
thank you very much for your presentation this afternoon.
Mr Hupet:
Thank you.
ONTARIO SECONDARY SCHOOL TEACHERS' FEDERATION,
DISTRICT 5B
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS' FEDERATION OF ONTARIO
The Chair:
It's my understanding that the next group, Women's Place Kenora,
is not in the audience. However, apparently the 4 o'clock group
is in the audience. So I would invite the Ontario Secondary
School Teachers' Federation, district 5B, Rainy River, to please
step forward and identify yourselves for the record.
Mr Andrew
Hallikas: A slight omission in who's presenting; we're
co-presenting with the Elementary Teachers' Federation. I'm
Andrew Hallikas of OSSTF.
Mr Gary
Gamsby: Gary Gamsby, ETFO.
The Chair:
On behalf of the committee, welcome.
Mr
Hallikas: We would like to thank the committee for their
time and also for making the journey to Kenora. We really do
appreciate the chance to be heard up here.
We would like to speak to
you today about the education funding formula, and in particular
we would like to talk to you about education in the north.
Although the secondary and
elementary teachers of the Rainy River district federations are
co-presenting this brief, the brief itself was prepared with the
co-operation and also input from the board chair, the director of
education, principals, vice-principals, elementary teachers,
secondary teachers, caretakers, students and educational workers
of the Rainy River District School Board. We all have a lot of
concerns.
John Snobelen, when he
served as Mike Harris's first Minister of Education, was quoted
widely as saying, "The system is broken," and "We must invent a
crisis." We'll all remember those quotes. Of course the system
wasn't broken, but the Conservative government certainly invented
a crisis in education. We believe this crisis served as the
excuse the Conservative government would use to extract money
from the education system in order to fund its income tax
reduction scheme. The Conservative government has cut close to $1
billion out of the education system.
In 1998 Ontario was ranked
55th out of 63 North American educational jurisdictions. This is
down from 13th in per student spending in 1993 and 42nd in 1995.
We invest less in the education of each child than every American
state except Utah. When you examine what the 12 Canadian
jurisdictions spend on education as a percentage of their gross
domestic product, Ontario is at the bottom of the class again:
10th out of 12.
Although the message that
continues out of the Premier's office, as well as from the
ministry, is that this government is spending more on education
today than at any other time in Ontario history, those of us who
work in the classroom and see first-hand the effects of
underfunding know that the government truly has created a crisis
in education.
Janet Ecker, the present
Minister of Education, on three separate occasions highlighted
the point that government spending on education is up, although,
interestingly, Mike Harris, in a statement to the editorial board
of the National Post, admitted that education spending, when
inflation and increased student enrolment were considered, had
declined under his government. Again, those of us in the
classroom know that we have less in the classroom than ever
before.
Operating expenditures,
which represent the constant funding that goes into education,
peaked in 1995 when this government was first elected and has
never risen to this level since. This is in spite of the fact
that there have been increases in both enrolment and inflation
since 1995, as Premier Harris stated. It's true the government
has put money into capital expenditures and is obligated to pay
its share of pension contributions, but these dollars don't go
into the classroom.
The government bases its
case for spending more on education, on expenditures other than
operating expenditures. But when capital and pension
contributions are factored out, the Ontario government in fact is
spending less on more students. Combine that with fewer teachers
doing more with fewer resources and larger classes and you begin
to get an idea of why teachers are leaving the profession that
they love in droves.
Funding for full-time
equivalent students has gone down. We have all seen the
unfortunate result in terms of unrest, protests, demonstrations,
and demoralized teachers and education workers across the
province, and I'm afraid that perhaps the worst is yet to come
unless something is done with the funding formula.
1540
It's not the education
system that is broken; it's the funding formula and its premise
that all students are the same that's broken.
The funding formula
centralizes authority and decision-making but it decentralizes
blame. School boards and employees are placed by the government
and its broken funding formula into a position that virtually
guarantees labour unrest, something that neither boards nor
unions wish for or are responsible for. Worse yet is the negative
impact that this government's funding formula is having on our
students.
In this brief, we'd like to
comment on the negative impact that the present funding formula
for education is having locally, on the teacher shortage and on
collective bargaining.
Mr Gamsby:
Not all students in Ontario are the same. One of the major flawed
premises of the present funding formula for education is that all
students are the same. This is simply not true in Ontario.
Certainly all students are
entitled to equal opportunity and to equal quality of education,
but the funding formula does not deliver this. Students of
southern Ontario boards do not have to spend between one and five
hours a day on a school bus. Students in northern boards which
cover large geographical areas but do not contain large
populations do not have the same access to educational enrichment
that students in the southern boards have.
Our students do not have
access to the museums, science centres, symphonies, universities,
theatres or field
trips that students elsewhere have. If our students are studying
a Shakespearean play, they cannot take a field trip to Stratford,
Ontario, the way students in Kitchener or London could. For our
students to see a Shakespearean play, they would have to travel
at least 650 kilometres, one way, to Minneapolis, Minnesota, stay
overnight, miss two days of school and pay a large amount of
money, if indeed they could afford it. There is little or no
money available in the funding formula to provide the
transportation necessary to give our students the same advantages
that students in larger centres have.
Mr
Hallikas: Our special education children are also being
shortchanged by the funding formula. Although we received new
high-needs students this year, the funding stayed the same. The
SEPPA funding is on a per pupil basis, but for boards with few
students this funding does not amount to very much. The last
increase that our board received in SEPPA funding didn't even
cover the cost of one full-time assistant.
The EIC, the Education
Improvement Commission, the government's own committee, in their
report on the Rainy River District School Board, commented:
"The Rainy River board is
challenged to meet its community's expectations regarding special
education.
"Some special-needs
students require the support of a full-time education assistant.
Others do not, but it is not always practical to assign more than
one client to an educational assistant when the jurisdiction is
so vast and sparsely populated."
The SEAC committee which
oversees all special education students in the district, met very
recently, February 2, and wrote a letter to the minister about
the flaws in the present funding formula. There is presently
insufficient funding to provide adequate special education
support to classroom teachers who must provide modified programs
to our special-needs children.
I would like to quote a
comment that a teacher at Rainy River High School sent to me, a
young female teacher just starting off:
"I taught a grade 10
Introduction to Computers class this term. The class had 20
students and was an advanced-general split. Six of these students
were special-needs students. However, I did not have any
educational assistants to help me deliver curriculum to these six
students. I feel that these six students did not get enough
individual attention, even though I spent almost all of my class
time with those particular students. These students needed a lot
of individual instruction and one teacher in a class of 20 was
not enough. The advanced students also suffered because I had
very little time to give them any individual attention at all.
Furthermore there were discipline problems in the class that were
a direct result of the lack of educational assistants.
Special-needs students became very easily frustrated with the
computers. If I could not get to them to help them soon enough,
they would become restless and start to act up."
Mr Gamsby:
Guidance and counselling: In our elementary system, due to
insufficient funding, there are few or no guidance or counselling
services available to students with emotional or behavioural
problems. We are seeing a rise in student violence and acting out
at all levels in our school system. Guidance and counselling at
the secondary level has had the number of periods available
cutback due to insufficient funding. Because of this, there is no
longer a department head to oversee the program and most of the
guidance counsellors are part-time.
This causes a lack of
continuity in the department and also with student clients.
Counselors are not seeing students as often for routine
check-ups, where problems with students' courses of studies are
usually caught early. This is having an adverse effect on the
students. For example, often students find out too late that they
require an additional course to graduate. Other duties in
guidance are not being done or done as well as they have been in
the past. For example, letters that need to be written to
colleges and universities on behalf of the students are taking
longer to do.
This year the career fair,
which is very important in the north where opportunities and
resources for students are minimal, didn't even get off the
ground. Getting information and applications out to the students
is taking longer. The course selection book is incomplete and
this will get worse as all the new courses come on-line. There is
a real concern for September when the grade 10 career studies
course becomes mandatory. Since guidance teachers presently
cannot keep up, how will they handle this additional
workload?
Mr
Hallikas: Presently there is no funding in the current
funding formula for school councils. Funding for school councils
must be enhanced in order for them to communicate effectively
with parents and the community. We really believe that school
councils have the potential to be of great service to the
education system, but they must have a budget to be
effective.
Again, the EIC commented on
this in their report on our board. They said, "School council
representatives also expressed concern that the focus of their
role seemed to be on fundraising, particularly for essential
items such as computers and library books." As a staff member
said: "School councils are a good idea. They need the tools to do
the job-a budget and training."
Mr Gamsby:
Physical education: Due to a shortage in funding throughout the
system, curricular aspects of the physical education program have
been reduced or eliminated. Due to budget cuts, physical
education departments cannot afford to pay the costs of busing
students to facilities such as arenas, tennis courts, curling
clubs or golf courses, nor can they afford the facility rental
cost.
In an effort to maintain
the quantity of the equipment required to run programs, the
quality of this equipment has had to be reduced. The department
relies heavily on using equipment purchased through booster clubs
formed by parents, which is a form of user fees levied on the
entire community.
In extracurricular
athletics there are user fees required from all students who wish
to participate. These fees have continued to rise and are now at
such a level that significant numbers of less fortunate or less
affluent students
cannot afford to participate in a very important educational
experience. There is no money at all available for the purchase
of team uniforms.
Mr
Hallikas: Our caretakers have not had a raise in salary
in eight years. During this time positions have been cut and
workloads have increased. Due to cutbacks, some of our caretakers
particularly in smaller schools have no time for routine
maintenance. Some necessary cleaning does not get done and
consequently some of our schools are in poor shape. In some cases
this leads to a situation where the health and safety of staff
and students could be jeopardized. Some of our elementary schools
are not as safe or as clean as they once were. Similarly,
secretaries and clerical workers have lost jobs as positions are
contracted out. Bus routes have been outsourced. Kindergarten
students, who used to have their own bus, are now forced to share
buses with older children. The distance that students must walk
before they are entitled to ride a bus has been increased in some
communities. The number of mechanics who service buses has been
reduced. All of these employees are expected to do more with
less. We feel this is a really risky premise when the purpose of
our system is to nurture and develop children.
Mr Gamsby:
Class size: Due to the ministry-mandated class size average of 25
students per class at the elementary level, class sizes in
general have gone up, particularly at the primary level, and
again at the intermediate level in an attempt to try to keep
primary classes smaller.
At the secondary level, the
number of teachers has decreased while class sizes have
increased. Last semester at Fort Frances High School we had a
record number of classes over the caps specified in the
collective agreement. Although the average class size is mandated
at 22 students, a record number of classes were over 30 students
and some were over 35 students.
Mr
Hallikas: In our entire system there is one
teacher-librarian. The elementary system has no
teacher-librarians. Consequently, elementary schools cannot
adequately utilize their libraries, as teachers need to stay in
the classroom and no one is available to supervise the library.
It's very inefficient. Either the entire class goes to the
library or no one goes. Since supply budgets have been cut, there
is little or no money to buy library books, or much-needed
textbooks, for that matter.
1550
Mr Gamsby:
Twinning of schools: For schools that are twinned, and this is a
situation where one principal will look after two or more
schools, unique problems occur. Since secretarial time is also
insufficient and teachers are in the classroom-and there's no one
in the library-there is no person available to answer the phone,
deal with visitors and handle emergency situations. The EIC, in
its report, commented on this. They said: "Parents and staff
report that they have had difficulty contacting school staff
during the day. The board should examine strategies to ensure
that these schools can be contacted during the school day." This
is good advice, but it will cost money and that money is not
allowed for in the funding formula. This condition is especially
serious for smaller schools. Again, it is our students who are at
risk due to inadequate funding.
Mr
Hallikas: Very recently, this past month, all of our
departmental budgets were cut a further 5%. This is on top of
previous cuts and at a time when resources, texts and equipment
are desperately needed.
Resources are required in
order to support and implement the new curriculum. Many of the
resources that are presently in the schools were produced
hastily-as the curriculum was-and are not effective. In
particular, the following are needed for our elementary system:
history, geography and science textbooks; science equipment for
intermediate grades; manipulatives and equipment are needed for
the primary grades; graphing calculators are needed for the
secondary system.
Rainy River High School has
seven graphing calculators available for all grade 9 students.
The new curriculum mandates the use of these calculators and the
new textbooks assume that students have them. There is no money
available to purchase these much-needed supplies. In fact, our
board had to take some money out of supplies in an attempt to
adequately fund transportation.
Mr Gamsby:
One of the major problems that small northern boards have is
transportation. Many of our students are required to be
transported over long distances, often in bad weather. This is
very expensive to do.
A Toronto newspaper once
did a feature story on how long our students spend each day on a
school bus and how far they are required to be transported. The
title of the article was "Canada's Longest Bus Ride." Students
riding this bus travelled 150 kilometres to school every day, one
way, regardless of the weather. The journey took between two and
three hours, one way. By the time they graduated, these students
had spent a significant proportion of their lives on a school
bus.
Transportation in our board
is grossly underfunded by the government. Our board is short
approximately $250,000 each year. School boards can no longer
turn to the property tax to make up underfunding from the
province, nor are they allowed to run a deficit. This sum had to
be made up from elsewhere in the funding formula and much of it
was taken from the supplies budget. This means fewer textbooks,
supplies and equipment for our students, at a time when there is
a complete and sudden overhaul of the entire education system in
progress.
The EIC report on the Rainy
River District School Board stated, "The vast rural areas served
by this board affect transportation costs and result in long
routes for some students." Another comment by the EIC in their
report was that, "Prior to amalgamation, the larger of the two
predecessor boards was very frugal and had cut transportation
costs to the barest minimum." The funding formula unfairly
penalizes this board for its cost-cutting efforts. The EIC report
states that: "The former Fort Frances-Rainy River board
historically had one of the lowest per-pupil costs for
transportation in the province, but the current board spends approximately
$170,000 more than the ministry allocates for transportation-a
significant amount for this board. The board is spending an
additional $95,000 to transport students to the new secondary
school in Fort Frances."
This situation will not
change unless the funding formula changes. Our fear is that the
shortfall in the funding formula will lead to increased pressure
to close small community schools, which in turn will put further
strain on already inadequate transportation funding.
The EIC stated in its
report that: "The board has several schools operating at less
than 80% capacity. For the most part, they are small schools in
remote communities and closing any one of them would result in
students having to travel long distances. The board is already
spending $177,448 more than it has received from the ministry's
school operations envelope."
The government, in its
hurry to reform the entire educational system, has put incredible
pressure on boards, teachers and students.
Mr
Hallikas: The EIC also commented on professional
development: "Professional development in a large northern board
is a challenge, as it is difficult to get staff together because
of distance and cost."
Since the funding formula
provides minimal money for PD, and since the government has
reduced the number of professional development days to four, the
challenge is even greater, if not impossible. Teachers require
professional development now more than ever before. The
government, of course, has reduced the number of professional
development days at a time when they are needed the most. In
order to implement the new curriculum, get the necessary
training, learn how to do the new report cards, learn new
assessment strategies, report to parents, evaluate resources and
much more, more not fewer professional development or activity
days are required. The government must provide funding for this
if they wish their reforms to be implemented properly.
Just as students in the
north do not have access to the same educational enrichment
possibilities as students in larger urban areas, so also are
northern teachers disadvantaged. There are few local professional
development opportunities available. Teachers in specialized
areas must travel either considerable distances to obtain
specialized training or experts must be brought in at
considerable expense. Simply to attend a conference, most of
which are held in Toronto, entails a substantial expense. Small
boards do not have the money to provide professional development
comparable to that provided by the larger boards.
Many of the new curriculum
reforms are technologically based, and again, we do not have the
resources to properly implement them. With the electronic report
cards, planners, graphing calculators, computer technology and so
on, teachers need greater access to training, technical support
and access to equipment. Our board presently does not have the
resources to provide this.
Presently staff morale is
at an all-time low. Even the EIC noted that, "Morale is a problem
for both union and non-union staff."
Due to the inadequacy of
the funding formula, there are fewer staff, all of whom have
increased workloads and who have not had a meaningful raise for
eight years.
There are inadequate
classroom resources to deal with a huge amount of change that has
occurred in a very short time. Yet the EIC says, "We believe that
it would be appropriate and productive to give people a period of
stability and time to settle into their new roles." We also
believe this, and we wish the government would provide sufficient
funding and phase the new reforms in over time, instead of
rushing ahead with them, so there could be some stability. With
much more change to come, and little in the way of resources, it
is not surprising that staff members are stressed and morale is
low.
Mr Gamsby:
Janet Ecker, in her address to branch presidents in September,
asserted that the government hopes to build an excellent
education system and that one of the cornerstones of such a
system is excellent teachers.
Record numbers of teachers
have retired in the past two years. Given that thousands of
senior teachers will be retiring in the next 10 years, it seems
obvious that the government should be thinking of a strategy to
attract excellent young teachers to replace them. A central part
of that strategy should be a plan to provide funding for
reasonable and fair increases in teachers' salaries and
reasonable working conditions. There is no component in the
present funding formula to address this. In particular, we in the
north are having a great deal of difficulty in attracting
teachers not only to replace retiring teachers but also to
replace those who get ill or go on maternity leave.
There is also great
difficulty in attracting experienced and competent
administrators, especially since the Conservative government has
destroyed their job security by removing them from the teaching
federations. Presently, the Rainy River District School Board is
forced to utilize retired, unqualified or inexperienced
administrators in order to run schools. The EIC stated:
"Recruiting qualified staff is difficult for this board
particularly in certain teaching specialties. In some cases the
board is using unqualified occasional teachers because qualified
teachers are not available." The EIC also says, "As is the case
in other sparsely populated and remote northern communities, this
board has experienced difficulty in hiring qualified personnel."
The EIC goes on to say, "Concern was expressed by the board's
senior staff that the board may need to pay higher salaries if it
wants to attract highly qualified staff."
There is presently a
shortage of teachers in our neighbouring province of Manitoba, in
our neighbouring board here in Kenora and in neighbouring states
such as Minnesota. It is estimated that the Keewatin-Patricia
board of education will require at least 80 teachers this coming
year. The Rainy River District School Board will also require
teachers and administrators next year and in the future. Will we
be able to attract them?
1600
The superintendent of
education for Winnipeg, Manitoba, was quoted recently in the
Winnipeg Free Press as saying that there is a teacher shortage
and that salaries and working conditions must be enhanced in
order to attract enough young teachers to fulfill the demand. In
the absence of such a plan, the much talked about brain drain to
the US and other provinces will include many of our enthusiastic
and excellent young teachers looking for higher salaries.
There is expected to be a
demand for 2.5 million teachers in the US in the next 10 years.
The situation is so bad that in some areas such as math and
science US boards are engaging in aggressive recruiting
campaigns. Signing bonuses are not uncommon-up to $30,000 in some
cases-and teacher salaries are higher in many cases.
Additionally, most states pay teachers to take on coaching and
other extracurricular activities. Meanwhile, back home in Ontario
teachers are facing increased workloads, belittling paper tests
and impoverished resources.
If the current funding
formula does not address this situation, we risk losing our best
and our brightest teachers. Clearly, unless the government starts
directing funds towards making Ontario teacher salaries more
competitive, Ecker's assertions about creating an excellent
system will ring hollow. Attracting and keeping good teachers is
a critical element of school reform, an element that this
government does not seem to understand.
Mr
Hallikas: The Conservative government is publicly
patting itself on the back as it advertises the present
prosperity in Ontario. There is no doubt that many Ontarians are
prospering. In fact, many bargaining groups in other sectors are
negotiating reasonable and fair increases in wages as they share
in this prosperity. Recently the auto workers, local mill workers
and nurses have negotiated collective agreements that contain
significant increases in wages and salary.
The minimum increases
negotiated in industry are in the range of 2% to 4% per year for
multi-year contracts. Many teacher bargaining units have not had
an appreciable increase in salary in more than eight years. The
cost-of-living increase for 1999 was close to 2%. Teachers and
educational workers have seen a reduction in purchasing power of
approximately 10% during the 1990s. Teachers and educational
workers, like all other workers in Ontario, are entitled to share
in the present prosperity. However, nowhere in the funding
formula is there money set aside to pay the reasonable and fair
increases that may be negotiated by teachers during the next
round of bargaining.
Presently, secondary
teachers in Ontario teach six out of eight classes. They have
less than one preparation period per day per semester. These
preparation periods are very important to both teachers and
students. The funding formula as it stands is designed to
increase teacher workload to seven classes out of eight. This
means that in one of the two semesters teachers would have no
preparation time. It also means that even fewer teachers would be
teaching more classes with less time available to help
students.
The EIC comments on this in
their report, stating: "The secondary teachers' collective
agreement has a workload assignment of six periods out of eight.
This settlement is difficult to fund under the province's current
funding formula and could lead to serious funding problems in the
future."
During a time of prosperity
in Ontario when many workers are negotiating wage increases and
benefits, we have a funding formula which assumes that
educational workers will not receive a share of this prosperity.
Not only that, but their workload is expected to increase as
colleagues are laid off. Is this the government's solution to the
teacher shortage: to reduce the number of teachers required by
increasing teacher work load?
Since all secondary and
elementary teacher collective bargaining agreements expire at the
end of August of this year, it is reasonable to assume that, like
other workers in Ontario, teachers will be looking to negotiate
reasonable and fair collective agreements which contain fair
increases in salary, increases which many teachers have done
without for more than eight years. Boards of education recognize
this and would like to do the right thing, but are hampered by
the fact that the government has refused to address the issue in
its funding formula. The government, with the present funding
formula, has backed both the school boards and the teachers into
a corner and is attempting to avoid blame for a problem that is
solely its responsibility.
Earlier I stated that the
major problem with the funding formula is that it centralizes
authority and decentralizes blame. Here is a classic example of
this. The Conservative government made the decisions that have
created major problems in Ontario's educational system, and now
the government is trying to lay the blame for these problems on
boards and educational workers.
Committee members, the
government must accept responsibility for the mess that it
created in education and must now provide the means to repair
this damage through increased funding to education.
We thank you very much for
your time.
The Chair:
On behalf of the committee, thank you very much for your
presentation, but we have no time for questions and comments.
Do we have any
representatives from the Women's Place Kenora in the audience? If
not, travelling plans have been changed quite a bit. The taxi
will leave the lobby at 4:50 pm, so if everybody could be ready
by that time.
With no further ado, this
committee will reconvene tomorrow morning in Timmins at 9
o'clock. Note the change of time. Thank you very much.
