
Family doctor crisis: 7 options to find the physicians Canada needs
In the absence of effective solutions, mayors and municipal councils across the country are competing with each other to entice doctors to their communities.
It seems insurmountable, but options do exist and, no doubt, multiple approaches will be needed. What's possible?
My clinical, administrative and educational roles over the years have provided an opportunity to work within and examine the doctor "pipeline" from multiple perspectives. There's a disconnect between that pipeline and the urgent and growing need for doctors, which was a major motivation for my book The Doctors We Need: Imagining a New Path for Physician Recruitment, Training, and Support. Based on all this, at least seven approaches seem possible. All have their pros and cons.
Medical education and training is available in most countries. The number of doctors available varies widely. In fact, some countries appear to have a surplus of medical school graduates who are unable to find employment.
In Canada, doctors are in demand and enjoy an excellent standard of living. Immigration to Canada, if offered, would likely be seen as a very attractive option.
However, medical training globally is highly variable and assessing qualifications relative to Canadian standards is challenging. There would also be no assurance that such doctors would be interested in taking on needed roles or remaining in those practices once settled. Finally, there is an ethical concern - we may be robbing other countries of their needed physicians.
Many foreign-trained doctors have already immigrated to Canada and are working at non-medical jobs, hoping to gain residency status that would allow them to undertake examinations or complete their training.
This approach would have many of the same disadvantages as above, but at least ensures these individuals already have some familiarity with Canadian work environment and a better awareness of the expectations facing physicians.
It's generally acknowledged that there are at least as many Canadians studying medicine outside Canada as within. These are people who were unsuccessful or chose not to engage in our highly competitive admission processes that annually turn away thousands of highly qualified students. They tend to enrol in well-established medical schools in countries such as Australia, Ireland and England.
Although no rigorous analysis or statistics are available, it's increasingly recognized that the majority remain and practise in the countries where they trained, having established relationships and support structures. In fact, many are actively recruited to take up much needed primary care positions in those countries.
Attracting them back to Canada will require a targeted recruitment strategy and expansion of available post-graduate training positions. All that being said, this is potentially a workforce already prepared and willing to address Canadian health-care needs.
All doctors, particularly family physicians, face a burden of paperwork and administrative tasks that drastically reduces their capacity to assess and treat patients. Developing innovative processes and collaborations that allow them to focus their time on direct patient care will expand their impact and reduce the number of physicians required.
We're already seeing this strategy play out with nurses and pharmacists providing some primary care that was previously provided only by physicians.
This approach has many merits and can allow physicians to concentrate on key essential roles, as for Option 4, above. The keys will be to ensure that the health-care teams co-ordinate and integrate their work effectively, and that all essential services are provided.
If we're not able to train sufficient physicians through our own medical school structure, we could partner with foreign, well-functioning medical schools to promote access for Canadians who wish to return to Canada and engage the types of practices that are in such demand.
This would require identifying appropriate schools and developing partnerships ensuring that the admission standards, curriculum and clinical training meet Canadian standards.
The most obvious and intuitively appealing approach would be to simply ramp up the training pipeline within Canada's medical schools. After all, we have excellent schools and certainly no shortage of very willing and capable applicants.
There are currently 18 medical schools in Canada. Plans are in place to expand to 20 schools over the next few years, but this will not be effective unless we change the current processes of training.
The supply of family doctors provided by our current admission and training processes falls far short of our needs. Recent studies also demonstrate that graduates from our current training programs are increasingly turning away from the comprehensive and community-based practices so much in need.
Consequently, even a dramatic expansion within the current training paradigm will fall far short of addressing our needs. To be effective, expansion must occur in conjunction with new approaches to admissions and training.
The new program developed by Queen's at Lakeridge in Oshawa, which is dedicated to admitting and training family doctors, is an example of such innovative programming.
The major drawback of this approach, of course, is that it will take time to even begin to address the shortfall. However, it addresses the fundamental problem most directly and establishes a framework for ongoing sustainability.
While there is no single perfect solution, there are a number of approaches, all of which have potential to relieve Canada's medical workforce crisis. It's time to explore and pursue them all. It's time to develop and empower a multi-disciplinary, pan-Canadian panel to decide which mix of the options will build the reliable, sustainable physician workforce that Canada needs and deserves.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Ottawa Citizen
29 minutes ago
- Ottawa Citizen
Bell: A fiery Danielle Smith on fighting when Alberta is punched in the face
Article content I really didn't think the premier would use the lingo of street fighting. But there you have it. Article content Article content Article content Article content The fight Smith is talking about is the battle with Ottawa. Article content Smith insists she wants a better relationship with Ottawa. She has tried but it has not worked out yet. Article content 'Every time I reach out with an olive branch I get smacked down and they come through with more offensive policies.' Article content These are policies such as the No More Pipelines law, the net-zero power regulations, the cap on oil and gas emissions, 'causing so much harm to our economy and fanning separatist intent.' Article content Article content On top of the ugly policies there are those Canadians from outside Alberta who send messages saying Smith and other Albertans should stop whining and shut up. Article content 'The Americans don't really want your steel, just shut it down. The Americans don't want your aluminum. Just shut it down. What are you complaining about? What's wrong with you?'


National Observer
an hour ago
- National Observer
Energy minister leans on oil industry talking points in carbon capture announcement
At a carbon capture funding announcement, Canada's energy minister was using rhetoric straight out of Big Oil's playbook. On Friday, the federal government announced $21.5 million for a handful of carbon capture projects in Alberta, and while the amount isn't going to move the needle, Energy and Natural Resource Minister Tim Hodgson's choice of words and tone signal how Prime Minister Mark Carney's government plans to engage with the fossil fuel industry. Hodgson billed this as 'an investment in the long-term future of the oil and gas industry' and highlighted other federal support for carbon capture, utilization and storage (CCUS). 'Every barrel of responsibly produced Canadian oil and every tonne of clean Canadian LNG can displace less clean, riskier energy elsewhere in the world,' Hodgson said at the announcement in Calgary. 'Our exports can help our allies break dependence on authoritarian regimes and help the world reduce our emissions. Canada will remain a reliable global supplier — not just today, but for decades to come. The real challenge is not whether we produce, but whether we can get the best products to market before someone else does.' The line that Canadian oil and gas is more ethical and more responsibly produced than in other parts of the world — and that it displaces dirtier fuels elsewhere — are tried-and-true industry talking points. Similarly, the idea that Canada will inevitably remain a major oil producer or be replaced in the market by other players is a familiar oilpatch argument. 'Is that Minister Hodgson saying that, or is that somebody from the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers?' Stephen Legault, senior manager of Alberta energy transition at Environmental Defence, asked in a phone interview with Canada's National Observer. 'Because the two, in that statement, sound indistinguishable.' On Friday, the federal government announced $21.5 million for a handful of carbon capture projects in Alberta. The minister's remarks signal that Carney's government is trying to find a way for Canada to continue on as a petro-state and is 'desperately' looking for ways to somehow make it socially acceptable, Legault said. Bitumen from Alberta's oil sands is among the dirtiest, most water- and carbon-intensive oil in the world. Communities downstream of the oil sands live with health and environmental impacts every day. Carbon capture and storage has become a major fixation of the oil and gas industry in recent years as it seeks social licence to continue producing despite its climate impacts. 'These are talking points that the Pathways Alliance uses to justify trying to extract billions of dollars in Canadian taxpayers' money to clean up a mess made by the most wealthy companies in the country, and some of them the most wealthy in the world,' Legault said. Export Canadian LNG to fight climate change Hodgson emphasized the need to 'make investments that fight climate change, so we can reduce carbon emissions and bring the lowest-cost, lowest-risk and lowest-carbon products to domestic and international markets — like we have just seen this week with the momentous opening of LNG Canada Phase 1.' Some of Hodgson's comments justifying Canada's export of fossil fuels to reduce global emissions could also be lifted right out of the Conservative Party of Canada's election campaign materials, which proposed lowering global greenhouse gas emissions by exporting more Canadian LNG to countries that currently burn a lot of coal. However, a growing body of evidence throws cold water on the notion LNG is a lower-emission fuel than coal. A study from Cornell University, published last October, found carbon emissions from American LNG are actually 33 per cent higher than coal, when processing and shipping the LNG are taken into account. There's also widespread skepticism about the business case for ramping up LNG production and export. In October, researchers from the U.K.-based Carbon Tracker found global markets for LNG are likely to be oversupplied by the end of the decade. 'This was not the tone of a minister of natural resources who takes climate change seriously,' Legault said. 'Two weeks ago or three weeks ago, people were terrified that their communities were going to burn down, and the fire season had barely begun. We've got record temperatures around the world right now, people are dying, and it would appear as though the Carney government is going down the same path that we might have gotten with a Poilievre government, which is to believe the rhetoric that these oil and gas companies are spewing and to believe the rhetoric that Danielle Smith is spewing.' Legault quipped that perhaps Stephen Harper's staff left his playbook for 'ethical oil' sitting around and one of Carney's people dusted it off. Government 'taking the temperature' for Pathways investment Hodgson delivered his remarks at Bow Valley Carbon Cochrane Ltd.'s facility, which is getting $10 million to design and install a system and pipeline to capture carbon from the Interpipeline Cochrane Natural Gas Extraction Plant, transport it and sequester it in a well. Enbridge Inc. and Enhance Energy Inc. are getting $4 million and $5 million, respectively, for work to support separate storage hubs in Central Alberta by identifying underground reservoirs to store the captured carbon. Half a million dollars will go to a company to improve measurement, monitoring and verification of CO2 stored underground. The remaining $2 million is to investigate using small-scale carbon capture technology on diesel engines. This $21.5 million comes from the Energy Innovation Program's $319-million funding stream for carbon capture. The funding was introduced in Budget 2021 and will span seven years. The federal government also has a CCUS investment tax credit worth more than $5.7-billion in its first six years, according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer's estimates. All of this is dwarfed by a multi-billion-dollar carbon capture megaproject proposed by a consortium of Canada's six largest oil sands producers called the Pathways Alliance. The project, with an estimated $16.5-billion price tag, would capture carbon dioxide from more than a dozen oilsands sites in northern Alberta and transport it to an underground storage site south of Cold Lake, using approximately 600 kilometres of pipelines. Legault believes Hodsgon's remarks are 'taking the temperature' of the Canadian public to gauge what the reaction will be 'when the government makes an announcement that they want to support the Pathways Alliance.' At the news conference, Hodgson did not answer multiple questions about the Pathways Alliance's proposed multi-billion-dollar carbon capture megaproject and whether his government will put public money on the table, other than to say the discussions are 'active' and he will not 'negotiate in public.' A January 2025 study by The International Institute for Energy Economics and Financial found the Pathways project business model is shaky at best due to high costs and limited opportunities to generate revenue. The project is currently stalled awaiting an investment decision. A 'multi-billion-dollar CCUS industry' CCUS is widely criticized by climate advocates for its inefficiency, high cost and the fact it risks locking in oil and gas production despite the majority of the emissions created by burning fossil fuels. As Legault put it, these projects 'tend to leave an awful lot of carbon on the table, and that's not what we need right now.' 'If carbon capture was such a great idea, then the companies should pay for it themselves. It's not like they're cleaning up a mess that the Canadian public made. They're cleaning up a mess that they made.' Canada can develop 'a world-class, multi-billion-dollar CCUS industry' if governments move quickly and strategically, Hodgson said Friday, adding that Alberta is an 'MVP' in the federal government's game plan. New legislation grants the federal government broad powers to override environmental laws and regulations to build projects cabinet deems in the national interest, which could include a wide range of projects from ports, rail, electricity infrastructure, pipelines and carbon capture. The legislation has added fuel to conversations about new pipelines and Carney has name-dropped the Pathways carbon capture project as a possible contender. On Friday, Hodgson said, 'One of the criteria is that we honour our commitments to a clean economy and to fighting climate change, and that will be one of the key ways that we evaluate any project going forward.' The legislation does not force the federal government to treat this or any of its factors as criteria that must be met; it just suggests it as one of many to consider. 'I really hope that the prime minister has read his own book and is able to translate the value that he talks about in his book [ Value(s): Building a Better World for All ], into policy on the ground for Canada and its future, because right now, we're not getting many hopeful signs,' Legault said.

Montreal Gazette
an hour ago
- Montreal Gazette
Letters: Bilingual greetings shouldn't be shamed by CAQ government
Re: ' Language complaints soar in Quebec as English service eclipses concerns about signs ' (The Gazette, July 4) I often travel to Ottawa for work. When I stop in Casselman, a Franco-Ontarian bastion, I am greeted with 'Hello-Bonjour.' It's one thing to say everyone in Quebec is entitled to be greeted and served in French, as previous governments have, and quite another to attempt to shame businesses for also wanting to welcome clients in another language, as the Coalition Avenir Québec is doing. English is not a foreign language in Quebec, as much as some nationalists may like it to be. Jordan Black, Rosemont A caring response to an urgent need Re: ' 'I'm happy': From homeless to housed, tenants grateful for new Lachine facility ' (The Gazette, July 3) It was a pleasure to read about the Old Brewery Mission's Tenaquip Place. In a world where stories of hardship often dominate the headlines, it is deeply uplifting to see a project focused on compassion, community and hope. This complex is not just a structure — it's a sign we are capable of thoughtful, humane responses to urgent needs. We are at our best when we look out for one another. To those who made Tenaquip Place a reality, thank you for your vision and humanity. Elizabeth Bright, Côte-St-Luc Patriotism is a personal matter Re: ' Canadian pride isn't a betrayal of being a Quebecer ' (Robert Libman, June 28) It is infuriating that a nationalist commentator, as reported by Robert Libman, would try to negate what another person believes in by stating 'Canada is an artificial political structure.' The commentator also claims we can't be Canadian and Québécois at the same time. Perhaps they missed a recent Association for Canadian Studies poll that showed 82 per cent of Quebec respondents — believing a nation's 'members share a common culture, language and history' — felt 'they were part of the Canadian nation.' To harbour strong patriotic feelings for one's nation is fine, but to dismiss another's pride in a country you don't identify with is wrong-headed. Goldie Olszynko, Mile End NATO spending goal needs a rethink Re: ' Trump hedges on NATO pledge ' (NP Montreal, June 25); ' Ottawa pledges to ramp up NATO defence spending ' (NP Montreal, June 26) NATO's decision to raise member countries' defence spending to five per cent of GDP will pose serious difficulties for spending on domestic needs. The chief reasons given are the need to counter the increased threat posed by Russia and other hostile countries, and to match U.S. military expenditure in NATO. Yet according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, Russia spent only US$149 billion on the military in 2024, while NATO countries collectively spent US$1,506 billion, with European NATO countries at US$454 billion. The U.S. spent only 3.38 per cent of GDP on defence in 2024. President Donald Trump has said the five per cent goal shouldn't apply to the U.S., but only to other NATO countries. For Canada to reach five per cent, it would have to increase its annual defence to $150 billion. This would probably result in significantly increased taxes, debt or severe cuts in domestic spending. Canada and other NATO countries should seriously reconsider this increase. Robert Hajaly, Montreal Submitting a letter to the editor Letters should be sent by email to letters@ We prioritize letters that respond to, or are inspired by, articles published by The Gazette. If you are responding to a specific article, let us know which one. Letters should be sent uniquely to us. The shorter they are — ideally, fewer than 200 words — the greater the chance of publication. Timing, clarity, factual accuracy and tone are all important, as is whether the writer has something new to add to the conversation. We reserve the right to edit and condense all letters. Care is taken to preserve the core of the writer's argument. Our policy is not to publish anonymous letters, those with pseudonyms or 'open letters' addressed to third parties. Letters are published with the author's full name and city or neighbourhood/borough of residence. Include a phone number and address to help verify identity; these will not be published. We will not indicate to you whether your letter will be published. If it has not been published within 10 days or so, it is not likely to be.