Thursday, January 15, 2026

The committee met at 1000 in the Quality Inn and Conference Centre, Pembroke.

Official source

The Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)

Good morning, and welcome to Pembroke. I call the meeting of the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs to order. We are meeting today to conduct public hearings on the 2026 pre-budget consultations. Please wait until you are recognized by the Chair before speaking, and as always, all comments should go through the Chair. The Clerk of the Committee has distributed committee documents, including written submissions, to committee members via SharePoint. To ensure that everyone who speaks is heard and understood, it is important that all participants speak slowly and clearly. As a reminder, each presenter will have seven minutes for their presentation. After we’ve heard from all three presenters, the remaining 39 minutes in the time slot will be used for questions from the members of committee. This time for questions will be divided into two rounds of five minutes and 30 seconds for the government members, two rounds of five minutes and 30 seconds for the official opposition members, two rounds of five minutes and 30 seconds for the recognized third party members and two rounds of three minutes for the independent member of the committee. I will provide a verbal reminder to notify you when you have one minute left for your presentation or allotted time to speak.

Official source

The Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)

With that, we will ask the first panel—they’ve already arrived at the table, but to come to the table. The first panel will be Pembroke Co-Operative Nursery School Inc., Ontario Forest Industries Association and Sustain. As I said, you will have seven minutes to make the presentation. I will say at the end of six minutes, “One minute left.” Don’t stop. The punchline comes from six to seven, then you stop. With that, the first presenter this morning—thank you for being here, the Pembroke Co-Operative Nursery School Inc. I would ask that everyone introduce themselves for Hansard to make sure we have the name to the right—we wouldn’t want the forest industry to be representing the co-operative nursery school. So, very good—the floor is yours.

Official source

Ms. Benita Richardson

Good morning. I am Benita Richardson. Can I go ahead with my presentation now?

Official source

The Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)

Yes.

Official source

Ms. Benita Richardson

Okay. Awesome. Good morning, and thank you for the opportunity to speak on behalf of licensed child care in Ontario, particularly in Renfrew county. I’d like to begin by sharing a little bit about myself. My name is Benita Richardson. I was born in Pembroke and raised on a dairy farm in Laurentian Valley, just a few miles outside of Pembroke, and Renfrew county is certainly my forever home. I’m a 71-year-old proud mother of two and grandmother of five, all of whom have been involved in the field of child care. I have worked in licensed child care for over three decades now. Just looking back, in 1989, I proudly graduated as an ECE from Algonquin College in Pembroke. Following that, I worked for several years as an educational assistant in the Catholic school system before returning to my true passion, which is child care. At that time, in the early 1990s, I became the supervisor of the Children’s Garden—it’s officially known, or legally known, as Pembroke Co-Operative Nursery School Inc.—and I’m still there. Over the past three decades, I have certainly witnessed the field evolve and expand. For example, together with my proactive board of directors, we added a several child care sites to our stand-alone centre in Pembroke. We had two before and after school programs, both within public and separate schools in Pembroke, and for five years, we created and ran a licensed home child care agency also through the county of Renfrew. During my career, I’ve worked closely with Renfrew county child care in addition to meeting monthly with 48 child supervisors across the county of Renfrew. I have also taught as a part-time professor in the early childhood education program at Algonquin College, the campus here in Pembroke, for over 30 years now. So with these multiple experiences, I want to share with you what I believe to be the four most urgent and intertwined challenges facing licensed child care in Renfrew county at this point in time. The first issue I’d like to address is our workforce. Ontario continues to graduate enough ECEs to meet demand. However retention remains a very, very serious concern for us. Even with the recent wage floor increase to $25.86 per hour for RECEs in licensed child care in Ontario, effective this January—and, of course, with thanks to CWELCC, which is the Canada-wide early learning and child care federal/provincial funding agreement—this alone is not enough. A comprehensive wage grid, along with benefits including pension plans, is urgently needed to prevent our ECEs from continually leaving licensed child care to go to school boards or even other unrelated sectors that offer higher pay, pay grids, benefits and pension plans. Please note that licensed child care operates under the Ministry of Education, just as schools do, yet the disparity in compensation for our ECEs remains significant: $25.86 per hour for our ECEs in licensed child care compared to a grid reaching $33.80 per hour for our ECEs in one of our local school boards. That’s almost $8 per hour difference—such inequity this is—and so we request that Ontario’s budget consideration address this inequity by providing our ECEs in child care with wage grids, benefits and pension plans to close this gap. The second major issue is accessibility and equity for families. Child care spaces simply cannot just exist on their own. They must be staffed with qualified educators, they must be affordable and they must be sustainable. Wait-lists in Ontario are enormous. Even as new child care centres are being built, many centres struggle to operate at full capacity due to staffing shortages. Numerous rooms across the province are standing empty. Without addressing workforce retention and equitable compensation, accessibility for families will continue to be compromised. Also, while families with children ages zero to six benefit from reduced fees through CWELCC, once children turn six, they are no longer eligible for these reductions. This creates a significant disparity and presents a major challenge for Ontario families. We ask that all children in licensed child care in Ontario be eligible for CWELCC reduced fees. And this brings me to my third issue: the administration of child care in Ontario. The shift last year to a cost-based funding model for the zero-to-six age group compared to the simpler revenue-based funding model that is still being used for six- to 12-year-old children has created a dual system that’s complicated, confusing and extremely time-consuming. For some centres, this new cost-based funding model is so restrictive that it is pushing them to financial jeopardy. Adding to these administrative challenges, Ontario has yet to fully commit to CWELCC and has not reached the promised $10-a-day child care. This leaves centres uncertain about what each new year will bring, and parents and families are wondering what the future holds. We ask that Ontario, like most other provinces and territories, make a firm, ongoing commitment to CWELCC and remove major funding restrictions that have been put into place since the inception of cost-based budgeting last year. My fourth and final issue, folks, is on protecting key stakeholders such as our local college, which plays a critical role in supporting our rural community by graduating ECEs each year and helping attract and retain them in rural Ontario. We know colleges in Ontario are under significant financial pressures and we fear that if the ECE program at Pembroke’s waterfront Algonquin College campus is closed, it will have serious economic consequences and worsen staff shortages throughout Renfrew county licensed child care centres and beyond. With Renfrew county being the largest geographical county in Ontario and given our rural nature, this issue is frightening for those of us operating licensed child care in our vast county. Hence, we wonder if Ontario’s 2026 budget will be able to provide colleges with the support they need to continue to offer communities local vital programs. In conclusion, we recognize that quality, accessible and affordable child care is an essential social infrastructure and is vital to the education and economic systems of our community, our province and our country. We urge budget considerations to include a strong and sustained focus on licensed child care, all to support our families and our children, Ontario’s most valuable resources. Thank you for this opportunity to speak and share my passionate thoughts regarding licensed child care in Ontario and especially in Renfrew county.

Official source

The Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)

Thank you very much for your presentation. We now will hear from the Ontario Forest Industries Association.

Official source

Mr. Ian Dunn

Good morning, members of the standing committee. My name is Ian Dunn, and I’m the president and CEO of the Ontario Forest Industries Association, or the OFIA. The OFIA represents 55 member companies in the province of Ontario that make forest products and sustainably manage over 27 million hectares of public forests in the province, contributing $5.4 billion to the provincial GDP and supporting 128,000 direct and indirect jobs. Our sector is a pillar of regional, northern, rural and Indigenous economic development across the province. Ontario’s forest industry is also continuing to invest in a stronger future, with over $5 billion of private dollars invested since 2018. We are witnessing multiple sectors across the Canadian economy suffering due to section 232 tariffs, including on steel, aluminium and automotive, but let’s be clear: There is no other industry that has been more impacted or more targeted by trade action than the forest products sector. This is not a new battle. It goes back to the Jay Treaty of 1794. We’re currently on the fifth iteration of the softwood lumber trade dispute, which has been going on for the last 10 years since the last agreement ended. Ontario’s forest sector is facing structural challenges, given weak market pricing and a combined 45% duty and tariff on Canadian lumber exports to the United States, which is the highest we have ever seen. Accounting for interest and exchange, approximately $13 billion of Canadian lumber producers’ money has been collected by US border and customs and is sitting in an account—that is Canadian money sitting in an account—that could be used to reinvest in mills, modernize our mills, make us more competitive and build new facilities—or it could be used to secure a settlement like it was in the last dispute and grow the entire North American wood products market. Why is this happening? It’s pretty simple. The US is targeting us because its industry cannot compete with us. Ontario has a competitive advantage in making superior forest products and this competitive edge is reflected in massive private sector investments coming into Ontario’s forest sector. Importantly, many of those investments are from western Canadian and American companies seeing the incredible opportunity in Ontario’s forest products industry. We are very thankful for the Ontario government’s commitment to the industry, such as an additional $20 million to the forest access roads funding program that was announced late last year to ensure safe and reliable access to public forests for communities, for First Nations, for recreationalists, for first responders and other resource industries, including the forest products industry. This level of funding must continue in order to realize the full benefits of the program and improve and maintain legacy forest road infrastructure across Ontario’s forests. Our industry is highly integrated: sawdust, wood chips and bark produced at sawmills making a round log into a square piece of lumber becomes feed stock for the pulp-and-paper and bioenergy facilities across the province. With the consolidation and evolution of the pulp-and-paper sector across North America and the globe and in Ontario, this market has shrunk dramatically, leading to the material being stockpiled, landfilled or shipped further away, adding additional costs to solid-wood producers. We’re very thankful for the government’s sawmill chip program, which helps solid-wood producers manage these additional costs. We’re asking for that to continue into the future. The challenges facing the sector are spurring incredible innovation and advancements in technology and new markets in the bioeconomy: biofuels, such as biodiesel and sustainable aviation fuel; biochar for making green steel; biochemicals; food products as well; the list goes on. There are all kinds of amazing innovations that are happening in the sector. The Forest Biomass Program and the Forest Sector Investment and Innovation Program, or FSIIP, have done a tremendous job at incubating these new technologies and new markets. The FSIIP alone has leveraged nearly $6 of private investment for every public dollar, driving innovation, job creation and regional growth. In 2025, major announcements underscored this momentum: —$10 million from the FSIIP program supported a $70-million project in Huntsville, launching a world-class wood panel product; —$9.1 million was invested into eastern Ontario in five projects to boost productivity, open new markets and strengthen resilience against tariffs; and —$8 million from the Invest Ontario Fund enabled a $107-million expansion in St. Thomas, Ontario, for Element5, a leading mass timber producer, creating 150 jobs and doubling the capacity of that facility. We can build on this amazing wood product sector—solid-wood product sector—that we have here Ontario. But, of course, the best consumer, the best customer that we have, is ourselves. We’re going to play a central role in meeting ambitious housing targets of 1.5 million homes in Ontario by 2030, and developing some word-class and iconic mass timber projects, like the Canadian Nuclear Laboratories, just north of here; the George Brown Limberlost mass timber project, which is, I believe, Canada’s tallest institutional mass timber building; U of T’s academic wood tower; the list goes on.

Official source

The Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)

One minute.

Official source

Mr. Ian Dunn

In the process, what we are asking for and what we believe is that every publicly funded building in the province should be wood-first, supporting domestic businesses and building with a green, low-carbon and sustainable material. In response, the province has also introduced the advanced wood construction plan and updated the building code to permit 18-storey mass timber buildings, aligning with federal priorities such as the Build Canada Homes program. Looking ahead, in our budget submission, it’s going to reinforce the phenomenal work being done in Ontario and how the province is emerging as a national and international leader in the forest product sector. Ontario can continue to partner with the forest product sector to diversify, remain a premier destination for investment, achieve ambitious housing targets and maintain resilience in the face of unreliable and unpredictable trading partners. Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.

Official source

The Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)

Thank you very much for the presentation. Now we will go to Sustain.

Official source

Ms. Moe Garahan

Good morning, everyone. My name is Moe Garahan and I’m speaking as a board director at Sustain. Sustain is a province-wide, cross-sectoral alliance that, since 2007, has provided coordination across groups and organizations for a productive, equitable and sustainable food and farming sector to support not just health and well-being, but also economic livelihoods in all of our regions—rural, urban and remote—in Ontario through collective and collaborative action. Since 2024, we have had a renewed policy process, vetting over 100 groups in Ontario towards building a more sustained provincial food system policy. And so, we’re excited to see things like your buy-local or Buy Ontario Act that came out in 2025, and we see this as a really strong opportunity, given the food price inflations that we’re seeing right now, in addition to the retaliatory Canadian tariffs. People in Ontario and in Canada are really reeling with unprecedented, spiralling rates of food. And so, we’re seeing increased food insecurity as well as increased concern in our farming and food, agri-food sectors. While we need to invest in expanding and diversifying non-US export markets, we really believe that this is tied to your “buy Ontario” moment, to invest in a game-changing investment into the food system resilience in this province, in addition to supporting this coast to coast to coast. I want to just identify that Sustain was a key actor in your earlier buy-local act, where we really identified that food has to be identified and supported at a regional level, not just with a definition of Ontario. We want to see those economic benefits strengthen all the regions across Ontario. And so, that investment into regional food infrastructure has to be looked at from a riding-to-riding element, from a community-to-community element. We’re looking to increase that access to regional infrastructure, and by January 30, we’ll bring to you a costed-out strategy for doing that. So this is just a teaser as to what’s to come in more detail. Along with that buy-local element is the need to address the new-entrants issue into our food and farming sectors. Our definition of “new entrant” is focused on Indigenous food producers and harvesters. It’s focused on rural and urban young people who do not have access to a farm in their family. It’s looking at second-careerists who are over 30 and looking to invest. It’s looking at new Canadians who are bringing substantial agriculture experience. It’s looking at temporary foreign workers and seeking pathways to citizenship through this. What we’re going to deliver to you for January 30, vetted across these organizations and groups in Ontario, is a “supporting new farmers” strategy. We’re looking for you to heavily invest in that over the next few years but, starting in this budget, to focus on training, research and knowledge but also land access as two key barriers that people are experiencing, that are preventing hundreds of people in Ontario who want to deliver food to residents from doing such. Along with that, in 2020, when COVID hit, Ontario, your Premier and government identified community food production as an essential service—so that’s non-commercial community food production. While that tends to be more at a community and municipal level, there’s a really strong role that you can take at the Ontario government to support municipal work in this area. So we’re looking for you to invest in an FTE in this area to help support municipalities on some of the key targets like zoning issues, budget implications and residential poultry issues that some communities have and some don’t, beekeeping elements, incentives for that community food production that really can make a difference. So we would like to see you invest in that. You have invested heavily into the school food. That’s happening, but we are asking for an increase of Ontario’s investment by $210 million per year to expand the school nutrition program so that children and youth across Ontario can not just have a snack but have a fulsome, nutritious meal each school day. That’s obviously a shared partnership with the federal government, but we are looking for Ontario to really champion this and showcase how to do this right within this province, as a champion to showcase that to other provinces and territories. We also think that connecting school food to the buy local production and processing is a key opportunity to drive demand and local food procurement policies that your provincial entity can champion. Like I said, we’ll be presenting to you a more complete, costed-out element to these pieces, but I wanted to highlight some of the pieces for you to consider today. Thanks so much.

Official source

The Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)

Thank you very much for that presentation. That concludes the presentations. We now will start with MPP Pasma.

Official source

Ms. Chandra Pasma

Thank you so much to all of our witnesses for being here this morning. We really appreciate you taking the time and sharing some really important issues with us. Ms. Richardson, I’m going to start with you. The issue of retention of RECEs is unfortunately something that we hear about on a regular basis, and I’m wondering if you can explain to the community the difference that a wage grid makes. Why is it important to have a grid and not just a good salary?

Official source

Ms. Benita Richardson

We did some research with regard to grids, and grids are years of experience in addition to qualifications. The Ontario government has put a wage floor into place for RECEs at $25.86, and that’s it. So there’s nowhere to go for these RECEs, whether you’ve been there one year, two, three or four—or whatever your education may be after your RECE. If we had something to look forward to and if could build from $25.86 upwards, like the school boards have, we would give our RECEs something to look forward to and would help them continue to be with us, then, in the field of child care, knowing that next year, they would make more, and then more and more. Right now, it’s at $25.86. That’s all we are receiving—money to bring their wages up to $25.86 and nothing further than that, so they have nothing to look forward to.

Official source

Ms. Chandra Pasma

Right. So there’s literally no way to make a progression, whether you’re there for five years, 10 years, 20 years, except to leave for another sector?

Official source

Ms. Benita Richardson

If each individual centre chose then to create a wage grid, that would be possible, but we can’t afford that. We don’t have the dollars to create wage grids.

Official source

Ms. Chandra Pasma

Right. And you also mentioned the challenges of the cost-based model, which I think is part of that challenge of not having funding for a wage grid. Can you expand on that for the committee? How does that model work and what challenges is it creating for operators?

Official source

Ms. Benita Richardson

It’s a very good question, because we are just now in the middle of reconciling our first year, which would be 2025, based upon the two models—the cost-based funding that has just been recreated for the zero-to-six-year age group. We are in the middle of trying to figure those things out, so we haven’t fully faced it. We know that we need to keep our fees for that age group at a frozen level. If our expenses are more, then we can’t raise fees. We actually have been also told that we can no longer apply other fees for field trips or registration fees and so on. Everything has been frozen so that our families pay, at the most, $22 a day. When it comes to this frozen way of funding, it is cost-based. But say, for example, something happens within our centres that we haven’t accounted for. We don’t have the money for those unusual expenditures. Again, it’s a good question, because we’re just facing reconciliation for our first year.

Official source

Ms. Chandra Pasma

Okay. I would assume, to tie your presentation with Moe’s presentation, the rising cost of food, which is above just the base rate of inflation, is part of that cost structure, right?

Official source

Ms. Benita Richardson

Exactly.

Official source

Ms. Chandra Pasma

You can’t just not provide your children with food during the day.

Official source

Ms. Benita Richardson

And for the six- to 12-year-old age group, we can raise fees. If we did have expenses, we have the ability do to that; they aren’t frozen under CWELCC. It’s much more affordable for us to have a revenue-based model, which we’ve been used to now for many years. We have two models that we are trying to now balance.

Official source

Ms. Chandra Pasma

Right. But also, if you’re also trying to use the two models to balance, you could, in effect, be asking the parents of six- to 12-year-olds to be subsidizing the parents of zero- to six-year-olds.

Official source

Ms. Benita Richardson

That’s an issue, isn’t it?

Official source

Ms. Chandra Pasma

Yes.

Official source

Ms. Benita Richardson

It’s an unfair issue for the six- to 12-year-olds families, right?

Official source

Ms. Chandra Pasma

Yes. Thank you. And Moe, very nice to see you again. I was glad you mentioned the school food program and the opportunities for supporting local farmers. We heard the other day in Brockville about the urgency of a food program, the insecurity among families for buying food and the shockingly low amount that is being provided by the provincial government right now.

Official source

The Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)

One minute.

Official source

Ms. Chandra Pasma

Can you expand on what the opportunities are for local procurement? How can we tie these together so that we’re actually supporting Buy Ontario and helping our local farmers if we are supporting a robust school program?

Official source

Ms. Moe Garahan

I think that this opportunity allows for one procurement element for the provincial government to support. There are others, but in this one—because schools are throughout our entire province and because we have different levels of production and processing through our entire province, you would attach targets that were relevant to that specific region. That would help strengthen and drive economic development in that particular region and adjust targets according to supply so that the targets would have Canadian, Ontario, local and regional. If you look at your Foodland Ontario website, it does not actually link to the over 50 local-food initiatives that are largely municipally driven. There is an opportunity for us to tie these together—

Official source

The Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)

Thank you very much. That concludes the time for that question. We now go to MPP Collard.

Official source

Mme Lucille Collard

Thank you to all the presenters for making it here. Hopefully you won’t have a problem getting back home, wherever it is, with the weather we have today. I’m just going to start with Ian, because I’m intrigued—I worked on the trade dispute. I was working at the NAFTA Secretariat during the softwood lumber dispute under chapter 19. I went to Washington when they had the extraordinary challenge committee address the fact that the Americans were not even implementing the measures that the panel had decided upon to protect their softwood lumber industry. You’ve talked about the need for Ontario to step in to support the industries, and you’ve mentioned different things. I’m just wondering if you could summarize for us your specific ask for the Ontario government to look at for the next budget.

Official source

Mr. Ian Dunn

Trade disputes and border measures are a federal issue primarily. We are working very closely with Minister LeBlanc and Minister Hodgson to ensure that the forest product sector and the softwood lumber dispute remain top of mind in their discussions with Washington. At a provincial level, what we are asking for is a continued implementation of the programs that exist. I mentioned the forest access roads funding program: It’s now funded at $79 million per year. We’re asking for that to continue into multiple subsequent years—a multi-year commitment to that level of funding. There is a sawmill chip program I mentioned to help offset the costs due to consolidation of the pulp and paper sector—that’s $10 million per year. The true demand for that exceeds $30 million per year. At a minimum, we’d like to see that continue—again, a multi-year commitment—and potentially grow it to meet the demand of the program. And then the forest biomass program: Looking at diversifying markets, getting away from the US, despite us sending 97% of our exports to the United States in the forest product industry in Ontario. We need to diversify. We’ve got to find new markets, new products. So that biomass fund is very important as well—again, multi-year commitment to that. On the domestic opportunity side, we mentioned homebuilding, procurement, looking at public funding of buildings. I should have mentioned the hospital in Picton. It’s going to be a mass timber project as well. So we’re looking at public funding, how we can use more wood in construction and domestic energy opportunities. The province needs 75% more electricity by 2050, and there’s real opportunity to grow renewable, green, low-carbon, forest biomass electrical generation to meet that demand.

Official source

Mme Lucille Collard

Okay. It’s worth repeating. There’s a lot of information that’s being shared, and we need to have clarity. You talked about diversification. Have you made headways into being able to diversify to the point that you can reduce the amount of exportation that you have to rely on to the US?

Official source

Mr. Ian Dunn

I would say that individually our members are very actively trying to. I think of Ben Hokum and Son, a local company. They ship to many different Asian, European and Middle Eastern countries. It is very challenging. It’s an issue of geography for Ontario. For the coastal provinces, transportation costs are a driving factor for those markets, and it’s easier to access for BC and the Maritimes. We are so close to the major American markets, and the Americans pay a lot of money for our products. The product that they make in the US is primarily southern yellow pine. We make SPF lumber, and home builders in the US prefer product that comes from northern Canada and Ontario.

Official source

Mme Lucille Collard

Because it’s better.

Official source

Mr. Ian Dunn

Yes, it’s better. It’s better in certain applications. It’s better for homebuilding, absolutely. Southern yellow pine is better for pressure treating, but it’s heavier and it’s more difficult to work with compared to SPF that we produce. It’s the same with their tissue manufacturers. So, tissue and paper towelling—going to big-box retailers like a Costco or Walmart, there are big companies in the US that purchase a lot of northern bleached softwood kraft from northern Canada, and they depend on that.

Official source

The Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)

One minute.

Official source

Mme Lucille Collard

So, despite the tariffs, it’s still worth it to export to the States.

Official source

Mr. Ian Dunn

One hundred per cent. The really challenging thing right now is the market condition and the low homebuilding that we’re seeing on both sides of the border. If that was to come back it would be more manageable, but a 45% plus weak market conditions is a very, very challenging recipe for lumber producers.

Official source

Mme Lucille Collard

Okay. And do you have an issue with skilled workers?

Official source

Mr. Ian Dunn

Yes. We saw that primarily during the pandemic when the prices for our product were very high. It was very challenging to find workers. It continues to a certain degree. Licensed truck divers, millwrights, electricians, welders, forestry technicians, foresters—across the board, there is a shortage.

Official source

Mme Lucille Collard

Really?

Official source

Mr. Ian Dunn

For sure. We have members that would not be operating if it were not for new Canadians and—

Official source

The Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)

Thank you very much. That concludes the time for that question. MPP Brady.

Official source

Ms. Bobbi Ann Brady

Thank you to all three of our presenters this morning. I’ll start with you, Benita. I want to thank you so much for your presentation, because it’s the first of its kind we’ve heard here at finance committee. But I do get a lot of calls to my constituency office in my rural riding of Haldimand–Norfolk with respect to daycare, and I’ve had a very difficult time deciphering what is actually happening. So I appreciate your comments. I have heard from operators, and I’ve heard from families who say that it’s difficult finding daycare in rural and remote areas. There are times where the family has to decide whether or not mom or dad or somebody in the family unit is going to stay home and watch the kids. I think, in a time when we’re facing so many labour gaps, it’s important that we get everybody out there working. My question is with respect to CWELCC. Providers have told me that it has reduced flexibility, it has increased administrative burden and made it harder, not easier, to operate. I’m wondering if you can—aside from retention of staff, if we can set that aside—clearly detail for us which specific design choices this government could make that would actually improve the outcomes of the program.

Official source

Ms. Benita Richardson

Again, we have two models that we are now using to reconcile. If it was changed to one model—so one of the first ones, which is now covered in the last year under CWELCC, is a cost-based funding model, and we’re just learning about that now. There was a meeting in Renfrew county yesterday in regard to how to do it, what to do, what to include and so on. So we’re learning about that. If it was reduced to one funding model—we really liked the old model because, for example, if there were expenses that just pushed us above our budget, then we could—

Official source

The Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)

One minute.

Official source

Ms. Benita Richardson

—talk about raising our fees. Now, with CWELCC, we’re not allowed to touch the fees of the children aged zero to six. They are frozen. We can’t add any kind of expenses to our families and that puts those preschool programs—sub-zero to six—and nursery school programs, kinder programs and so on into jeopardy. We just can’t move, right? That would be the biggest issue, I would think. Everything is frozen under the cost-based model.

Official source

Ms. Bobbi Ann Brady

Yes, and I’ve heard from operators who are in that jeopardy situation. Again, I go back to the fact that that’s the last thing we need in rural Ontario when people need to get out and work, is to have local operators close their doors. I really appreciate you coming here today. Thank you.

Official source

Ms. Benita Richardson

You’re welcome.

Official source

The Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)

Thank you. We’ll go to the government side. MPP Denault.

Official source

MPP Billy Denault

Thank you, everybody. First of all, I want to say thank you to my colleagues for coming to Pembroke and taking the opportunity to listen to some of the issues in our riding as we make the 2026 budget and thank the presenters for bringing their issues forward. My first question is for Ian. I understand my predecessor, John Yakabuski, when he was the Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry, released Sustainable Growth: Ontario Forest Sector Strategy. It’s provided a framework for strategy and provincial programs to continue to support the forestry sector in the face of tariffs, as well. I’m just wondering if you could speak on that strategy—what you liked about it and areas that are worth listening to.

Official source

Mr. Ian Dunn

Yes, that’s a great question. We worked very closely with John Yakabuski on developing that, along with his predecessor at MNR. Actually, during the 2018 election, we went to all three parties with a concept of a forest sector strategy, because we looked at what Scandinavian countries were doing with their resource, and Finland was really the example that we turned to. It’s a country with fairly similar forest and climate conditions, very different forest ownership—primarily private land forestry there—but it’s a third of the size of Ontario and they harvest approximately 80 million cubic metres of wood per year, and in Ontario we harvest about 12 million to 14 million cubic metres per year. So that’s a real example of what you can do with a forest economy. That spurred the development of a great strategy which a lot of my colleagues across Canada looked at with a lot of jealousy. Things have changed since that was approved—I believe it was in 2020. I think it was ahead of its time in that it was anticipating this evolution of the pulp and paper sector. I don’t think we anticipated how quickly we would see changes in operations at some of these facilities—I think of Espanola, Terrace Bay, Trenton etc.—and so it’s really driven the need for innovation in forest biomass. That’s where the biomass action plan has come into play and we’ve seen, like I said, some really great investments in this region and across the province. Of course, the 45% combined duty and tariff changes thing: There’s a group, an advisory committee to that strategy, and they’re continually working with Minister Holland to advise him on the implementation, but overall, we’re very excited to implement that strategy.

Official source

MPP Billy Denault

I’m glad you mentioned some of those local examples. I’m pretty sure that Jamie McRae told me that exact story about Finland and the comparison, so it’s good to hear it again. We made an announcement here in the riding on that forest biomass program—some great investments. I don’t know if you can speak to some of those investments that have been made in both the riding and the province as well through the forest biomass and the other funding programs and why they’re so important.

Official source

Mr. Ian Dunn

Sure. So like I said, the industry is highly integrated. We have a challenge right now with the solid wood producers in terms of stockpiling residuals, primarily wood chips, which would typically have gone to a pulp and paper complex. There are some really interesting and innovative companies working with virtually every one of our member companies, including many of the family-run businesses in the Ottawa Valley and eastern Ontario looking at something like bio-carbon, bio-coal or biochar that can be used as a soil amendment in agriculture. It can be used as an addition to the steelmaking process. I’m not an expert—I’m a forester; I’m not a steelmaker—but they can use biochar to decarbonize their operations at a steel mill. Char Technologies is a member of ours. They received funding through the biomass program to expand their operations in Thorold—which is a former paper recycling plant.

Official source

The Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)

One minute.

Official source

Mr. Ian Dunn

It’s really exciting, and I really do think Ontarians are at the leading edge of this across the country.

Official source

MPP Billy Denault

All right, perfect. And just for Ms. Richardson: I just want to give you as a local representative an opportunity to speak about if there’s anything in the local community that’s a challenge that prevents the provision of child care and give you the opportunity to be able to share it with us.

Official source

Ms. Benita Richardson

I’m sorry?

Official source

MPP Billy Denault

If there’s any challenges locally that you want to share with us and the committee on provision of child care.

Official source

Ms. Benita Richardson

Challenges, beyond the four that I mentioned in my presentation—one of the things that we’re really grateful for is that we have received from the province more opportunities to provide the CWELCC spaces. We were only given so many within so many years. In this past year, we were given an additional several hundred spaces so that we could then have more children, ages zero to six—

Official source

The Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)

Thank you very much. You didn’t leave much time for the challenges. MPP Bell.

Official source

Ms. Jessica Bell

Thank you to the presenters for coming today and sharing your expertise. I have questions for all three of you. My first question is to Ms. Richardson. Thank you for your work in the child care sector. I have two children in child care. They’re in that six-to-12 range, so I can tell you we’re paying a lot in fees. The child care workers—we love them. Our children love them. They’re helping us raise our children. I wouldn’t have this job if I didn’t have child care available to support me and my kids. I also know that child care is key to workforce participation. A lot of parents cannot work full-time if they do not have child care, especially women. If the government does not respond to your recommendations and invest in child care in the manner that you’re suggesting, what should parents expect in 2026-27? What’s in store for them?

Official source

Ms. Benita Richardson

I think that parents have choices. They can also use private care. The issue with that is, of course, there is no funding available for those families who provide care beyond the licensed system, so they can expect to be paying more. Maybe there will be people in the communities who will provide child care, and they will charge more, so bigger expenses. I think it’s over $10,000, perhaps, a year in child care fees. I’m hoping that colleges will be able to continue to graduate students. Apparently, there are enough students being graduated to meet the demand. As we share our love of being with young children, being partners and raising your children with you or helping you to, I’m hoping that there will be more ECEs staying in the field. That’s what I see will be key in keeping some of those rooms open, because there are lots of empty spaces across Ontario. Work towards that too.

Official source

Ms. Jessica Bell

Thank you for that. I don’t know many parents who can easily afford $10,000 on child care. It is essential. The next question is for Mr. Dunn from the Ontario Forest Industries Association. Thank you so much for being here. I recently met with Unifor, representing forestry workers. They shared a lot of concerns about the future of the forestry industry, very worried about job losses. They also had some really interesting recommendations that they were hoping the Ontario government could move forward on. What really struck me is their interest in getting Ontario wood products to Ontario markets, especially in the home construction industry. We have this real opportunity here with the budget, as well as the government’s new Buy Ontario initiative, to make that happen. What kind of investments, policy changes would you be recommending to get more Ontario wood products—a greater diversity of wood products—into Ontario home construction? What do we need to do?

Official source

Mr. Ian Dunn

That’s a great question, and like you said—I think you’re hinting at it—there’s a variety of products. There’s lumber to be used in typical, standard single-detached family homes. There’s panelling for floors, there are decorative finishes, and there’s also energy that is produced by the forest products sector that can heat and power homes and multi-family unit dwellings as well. A big challenge is actually getting products to the market. Like I mentioned, there’s a shortage of transport drivers that are willing to work in northern Ontario and deliver that product to the major markets. And the market conditions right now for home building are really poor, as we know. So I think, to the extent that the provincial government can control the market for home building, I think that is the biggest driving factor for uptake of Ontario-made forest products in Ontario, and just right now, the market is quite weak.

Official source

Ms. Jessica Bell

I agree. I follow housing stats very closely. They’re very low right now. Other provinces’ housing stats are much higher. There’s a lot we can do, and we’ll continue to advocate for those kinds of measures, from zoning changes to increasing access to construction on public land.

Official source

The Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)

One minute.

Official source

Ms. Jessica Bell

My final question is to Moe Garahan from Sustain. I’ve followed Sustain’s work for many years; thank you very much. I was interested in your recommendations to expand the food nutrition program. We had an individual come and speak about the value of increasing access to food in schools. She talked about kids eating a whole lot of food on Friday and coming to school really hungry on Monday because they don’t have access to food at home. You’ve spoken a little bit about some of the measures that you’d like the Ontario government to do to expand access, get Ontario food products into Ontario schools. What other measures do you suggest that we could take to expand those kinds of programs?

Official source

Ms. Moe Garahan

I’m going to say that Sustain facilitates the Ontario chapter of the healthy school food coalition—that’s across Canada. So in their submission that will happen for January 30, there will be very explicit recommendations—

Official source

The Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)

Thank you very much. That concludes the time for that question. MPP Collard.

Official source

Mme Lucille Collard

I was actually interested in a response, so I’ll give you the time.

Official source

Ms. Moe Garahan

That’s okay, because Sustain is covering every element within the food and farming sector, so I’m going to leave that to my colleagues through the Ontario chapter, and then we have a really concise and well-articulated plan to put forward on that. So that’s coming to you in writing.

Official source

Mme Lucille Collard

Okay, very good. I had a general question, actually, for you. I’m wondering what your take is on what Ontario could do better to increase local food production generally. What are the avenues we need to be looking at or investing in?

Official source

Ms. Moe Garahan

We have a long history of particularly regionally led new-farmer programs, and we do need to support those. We are very behind on supporting a comprehensive strategy for supporting new entrants. Oftentimes I think that, in an effort to try and do this through general farm organizations, for example—general farm organizations don’t have new farmers in their midst. So we need to be supporting organizations that understand the barriers that range from land access, that range from specific regional business planning, for new entrants that aren’t available through more traditional educational institutions. We need to have mentorship programs that match seasoned farmers with new entrants in a particular commodity, in a particular industry, in a particular region. We need to have access to microfinancing and larger financing to help capitalize really capital-intensive production in a way that is still affordable and accessible to new entrants, many of whom are not inheriting a farm. We have to have strategies that look at succession. OMAF is very good at looking at succession within a family, but the majority of families do not have a successor; they’re looking for an extra-family successor, and we need more supports to do that.

Official source

Mme Lucille Collard

What can we do to reduce our need to import the food? Like, if I go to the market, for example, I’m looking at strawberries. Strawberries from the United States are cheaper than the strawberries that are produced in Ontario. I can understand that people have to make that difficult choice. Is the greenhouse industry something that we need to invest in, or do you have other pistes of solutions?

Official source

Ms. Moe Garahan

Yes, one of the things I want to list that people aren’t—our missing middle is really key. There has been a lack of investments throughout Canada and including Ontario in the missing middle. That’s meat processing. That’s family abattoirs that have closed because of non-scale-appropriate regulations—have forced many mom-and-pop shops to close. It’s non-meat processing. It’s value added for fruit and vegetables. It’s innovation that is possible for a small and medium-scale farms to process freeze-dried that allows for greater shelf life, which then can enable more access to greater markets even across Ontario, not just immediate time-sensitive markets. Picking up on the trucking industry: It’s refrigerated trucks. It’s hub-and-spoke activity as opposed to just one food terminal in Toronto. It’s looking at a more regional emphasis and sharing what grows faster or is raised best in those areas. I’m from northern Ontario. We can do a lot of stuff that isn’t being invested in. In OMAFRA, there’s a real focus particularly in the southern markets. So I really believe that that investment into the missing middle but looking at a regional plan is what will really drive economic development in this province.

Official source

Mme Lucille Collard

Okay. Thank you. I’ll go to Benita, because I think child care is so important. I have four kids. I had to deal with that when they were very young, and I was considering quitting my job because child care was just becoming too expensive. What is your biggest expense as a child care operator?

Official source

Ms. Benita Richardson

I think probably facilities—

Official source

The Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)

One minute.

Official source

Ms. Benita Richardson

—the price of facilities, the price of rent, and the soaring costs for fuel for heating food is huge, I think, and trying to keep salaries at a level. Again, there is a floor wage right now—but trying to keep our staff in our centres with any kind of possible benefits that we can offer to them.

Official source

Mme Lucille Collard

Okay. What’s your wait-list right now for spaces?

Official source

Ms. Benita Richardson

I have a number of programs. In my preschool program, in one room, there are 170 on that particular wait-list. In my school-aged programs, anywhere from 40 to 100—I have three school-aged programs. In the nursery school program: no wait-list. Nursery schools are starting to become like a white elephant. These are part-time programs, play-based programs, probably schools running these kinds of programs. There’s less need for that now.

Official source

The Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)

Thank you very much. That concludes the time. MPP Brady.

Official source

Ms. Bobbi Ann Brady

I’m trying to be quick here, because I have a question for Ian, but I’m going to turn to Moe first. As a member who represents a very rural and agriculturally based riding, I really appreciate the efforts of Sustain in encouraging the incredible work of our Ontario farm families. But I might be as popular as a snake at a garden party for maybe making these comments or asking you this question. I’m not sure if you’ll want to answer this or you just want to take it as a comment: $210 million is a lot of money. I worry that we are feeding children at school that don’t necessarily need to be fed. I guess my suggestion is to take back to the groups that you work with that maybe we need to look at meaningful approaches to child hunger that are rooted in policy and system design, not simply feeding children at school as the primary strategy, because we all know that hunger is driven by economic shortfalls rather than that lack of food supply.

Official source

Ms. Moe Garahan

Thank you for that question. What I would just say is the Student Nutrition Program is not simply a food insecurity response; it is also looking at food literacy. There’s been a lot of work, especially in European countries, that shows the benefit of integrating education into such school nutrition programs for better eating outcomes in general and that a lot of barriers to good health, to access is not strictly with lower-income families. It is a cross-class issue. So even families that might even have enough money to have a good breakfast might not be finding the time to generate that. So I share your concern that we need clear distinction and policies that actually target the real root causes of poverty, which then is a key driver of food insecurity, but our food insecurity issues extend beyond this primary issue of—

Official source

Ms. Bobbi Ann Brady

It would be more of an education component.

Official source

Ms. Moe Garahan

Yes.

Official source

Ms. Bobbi Ann Brady

Thank you. Ian, I’ll follow up on some of the line of questioning with respect to procurement. Can you drill down on what policy tools or procurement reforms Ontario could adopt to ensure that publicly funded buildings prioritize the use of Ontario-produced forest products?

Official source

Mr. Ian Dunn

The province has an advance wood construction plan. They have the Buy Ontario Act. I think it’s relatively simple that—and we can see in other jurisdictions like BC that there is a wood-first policy that, on any publicly funded building project, there has to be very careful consideration about, if you’re not going to use wood, why is that? I think it’s a relatively simple change to either regulation, legislation or policy, but there are other jurisdictions that we can learn from on that.

Official source

Ms. Bobbi Ann Brady

Great. Thanks, Ian.

Official source

The Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)

Thank you very much. We will now go to MPP Rosenberg.

Official source

MPP Bill Rosenberg

Thank you, members of the panel. I would like to thank Ian, too, for being here today. Coming from the background of forestry, I know the challenges in the Algoma–Manitoulin district. I know that with Espanola—we see some exciting news coming from Espanola for the biochar and start-up at that pulp mill again. Thank you for all you guys do. My question is going to go to Moe today. In 2025, in July, Canada and Ontario announced an investment of up to $4.4 million under the Sustainable Canadian Agricultural Partnership to help small businesses in the agri-food industry grow their businesses, enhance their food safety and traceability systems. Funding from this will support 90 projects across the province through Ontario’s Food Safety and Growth Initiative. These investments build on the Grow Ontario Strategy to strengthen agri-food business, increase agri-food innovation and adoption through close collaboration with agribusiness, research organizations and industry partners. Do you believe this is a good long-term strategy to address food insecurity?

Official source

Ms. Moe Garahan

Thanks for that. I do think that that investment is a strong one. The concern that we’ve seen with funding that comes from the agricultural partnership is it tends to be at a scale that favours the largest producers in our country. We want that to continue. What we’re looking for is an attendant investment into small and medium-scale farming and agri-food processing. I was part of supporting a food hub traceability initiative in Ottawa that cost hundreds of thousands of dollars for that medium-sized aggregator and distributor to actually meet those traceability compliance regulations. What we’re looking for is scale-appropriate regulations that then allow for smaller to medium-sized processing businesses, which are needed in more rural and remote areas as well as smaller towns and larger centres, to have the same types of access to these processing and missing middle pieces. A number of these projects will serve but it’s increasingly only serving a particular part of our food and farming sectors.

Official source

MPP Bill Rosenberg

I’ve seen the opportunity in the dairy business to get the farmers in. They’ve opened that quota system up to new dairy farmers to help with what you were talking about before, about new farmers and stuff. I know at the government, we look forward to being part of the solutions and to be successful. I guess my question is: How can we better collaborate with organizations like yours to ensure equitable access to nutritious food across urban, rural and northern communities?

Official source

Ms. Moe Garahan

We’re excited to be able to partner more. We have a bit more capacity and that’s also thanks to—I look to Ernie, who used to be at OMAFA. But in terms of some supports, to actually identify the need to have systems facilitators that bring together the expertise across our province that isn’t organizationally tied, not farmer-union tied. It’s bringing all of that expertise together in a neutral space so that we can build consensus on these issues. We have a lot of low-hanging fruit that we can achieve together in partnership with the Ontario government, as well as some longer-term investments that will pay off well. So we really encourage that ongoing conversation, and we’re looking to have some particular FTE assignments within your government to work more clearly together on these policy initiatives.

Official source

MPP Bill Rosenberg

Thank you, Moe. Thank you, Chair.

Official source

The Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)

MPP Smith.

Official source