Wednesday, January 21, 2026

The committee met at 1001 in the DoubleTree by Hilton Hotel London Ontario, London.

Official source

The Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)

Good morning, everyone, and welcome to London. I call this meeting of the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs to order. We’re 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. Each presenter will have seven minutes for their presentation. After we’ve heard from all three presenters, the remaining 39 minutes of this time slot will be used for the questions from the members of the 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 speaking. With that, we are ready to go. Are there any questions from the committee?

Official source

The Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)

We’ll go to our first panel: London St. Thomas Association of Realtors, Middlesex-London Health Unit, and Council of Ontario Universities. You’ve heard the rules of engagement, so I would just say we will start the presentations with the London St. Thomas Association of Realtors.

Official source

Mr. Adam Miller

Thank you, Chair, and members of the committee. My name is Adam Miller. I’m here to represent the London St. Thomas Association of Realtors, Chatham-Kent Association of Realtors, Sarnia-Lambton Association of Realtors, and Woodstock Ingersoll Tillsonburg and Area Association of Realtors. Together, we want to flag a homelessness emergency facing southwestern Ontario, including in communities like London, St. Thomas, Chatham-Kent, Sarnia and Woodstock. Shelters are strained, encampments are growing, and numbers are rising across the region. Ontario-wide, more than 80,000 people were known to be homeless in 2024, with a sharp increase in recent years. We recommend providing provincial leadership through a dedicated regional homelessness task force focused on scaling supportive housing and rental supply, strengthening community-based response models like the HART hubs, and supporting coordinated encampment transition and moving people into stable housing with the right support. In addition, we want to draw the community’s attention to the challenge facing Ontario’s rental housing. It’s clear that there has been a buildup over time and no single action, other than maybe COVID, will fix the problem overnight. But taken together, modernizing the Residential Tenancies Act, expanding mediation, incentivizing new supply, and acting urgently on homelessness can restore balance and build systems that work for tenants, landlords and communities. Ontario’s rental market needs rebalancing. The reality is that the current framework is not delivering for either side. Recent polling by the Ontario Real Estate Association conducted by Abacus Data found that seven out of 10 landlords and tenants support updating rental rules to reflect today’s realities in achieving a fair balance. We recognize that the province worked through Bill 60, the Fighting Delays, Building Faster Act, 2025, to improve efficiency, fairness and accessibility at the Landlord and Tenant Board. First, the Residential Tenancies Act needs a comprehensive, evidence-based update and has not been fully reviewed in nearly two decades. The Ontario rental landscape has changed dramatically in that time. The system often treats very different housing situations the same way, and that drives confusion and conflict and disrupts that ability to move through the system quickly. We recommend a structured review process that is practical and credible, including an expert advisory panel, meaningful stakeholder engagement and citizen referral groups so that reform reflects real-life experience on both sides of the lease. Substantially, we proceed to—a tiered approach to tenant protections based on housing style. Purpose-built rental buildings should have the strongest protection. Small independent landlords should have moderate protection that still ensures fairness. Units within owner-occupied homes should have lighter regulation because the relationship and risks are different. This would make rules clearer, reduce preventable disruptions, and better align policies realistically in a community like ours. Second, Ontario should expand and formalize mediation in the landlord-tenant act. While there have been improvements, delays and backlogs still create uncertainty for tenants and landlords. The backlog was over 53,000 cases in 2024; by September 2025, it has improved to 37,000, a roughly 30% reduction. Still, wait times remain lengthy, and new applications keep arriving. We recommend using British Columbia’s model as a guide, screening cases for eligibility and directing suitable disputes into mandatory third-party mediation before a hearing is scheduled. This matches public sentiment. Polling shows 71% of Ontario supports broader access to mediation before hearings. Faster resolution benefits tenants, landlords and the tribunal alike. Third, Ontario should help unlock new rental supply by supporting small landlords who have units in areas of the highest demand. Small-scale landlords provide essential rental options, especially throughout secondary suites and accessory units. High borrowing costs and economic uncertainty have reduced new investment. Polling suggests nearly one in five Ontario owners have space to rent in their home. We propose a targeted income tax credit for small landlords who have five or fewer rentals, are in good standing with the tribunal and add new rental units in high-demand municipalities. Thank you for your time. I appreciate it.

Official source

The Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)

Thank you very much. Our next presenter will be Middlesex-London Health Unit.

Official source

Ms. Emily Williams

Thank you. Through you, Mr. Chair: Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today. I’m Emily Williams, the CEO of the Middlesex-London Health Unit, a local public health agency. Growth in the population of London and Middlesex continues to outpace the provincial average, and we are now responsible to promote and protect the health of over half a million people who call our region home. A healthy economy is not possible without healthy people. As a foundational component of Ontario’s health care system, we prevent illness, protect communities, and promote long-term health. Local public health contributes to higher productivity, reduced health care costs and a strong economy, and must be supported in the 2026 budget through sufficient, equitable and sustained funding to ensure its long-term stability. Unfortunately, funding for local public health agencies is currently not equitable across the province when population size is factored in. As of 2024, the Middlesex-London Health Unit was the third-lowest-funded health unit in the province. Ministry data from that year noted that the MLHU received $50 per resident in our region in provincial funding and the average health unit received $57 per resident. That $7 difference represents over $4.7 million less in funding for our health unit. Provincial funding capped at a 1% increase in 2024, 2025 and 2026 has not kept pace with either population growth or inflationary pressures. The MLHU has been forced to reduce 22.5 full-time equivalent positions of public health professionals over the last two years. This includes significant decreases in public health nursing positions, as well as dietitians, health promotions staff, and leadership. This comes with significant reductions in the public health programs and services we provide to our region, including: — the discontinuation of most chronic disease and injury prevention strategies, including no ongoing work on obesity, heart disease, cancer, sun safety, motor vehicle collisions, or poverty; —reductions in support for vulnerably housed individuals, including support for bedbugs; —reductions in home visiting support for young families. We are currently only screening approximately 70% of births in our region for risk factors; —significant reductions in prenatal support for the general population; —a complete retreat from public health nurse presence in schools, except for immunization, oral health screening, and tobacco enforcement; —reduced capacity for tobacco enforcement, and a limited ability to address the increase in cannabis consumption; —limited ability to support municipalities with public health expertise; and —a significant reduction in vaccine clinics for the general public. Despite historically contributing less than other municipalities, the city of London and Middlesex county have increased their support of the health unit significantly over the past two years, with 6% and 8.9% increases to their contributions in 2025 and 2026. This year, they have also each committed to assisting us in paying down debt we incurred when moving to a new location. No capital funding was approved by the province. This $2.8-million investment has enabled us to redirect almost $250,000 from debt repayment to public health programs and services. Despite these increases from the municipal contributions, MLHU is still not able to keep up, maintain or evolve to the ongoing public health needs of our community without a change in the provincial funding formula. According to the Bank of Canada, inflation has averaged nearly 4% over the past five years. During this same period, public health funding increases of approximately 1% annually have effectively amounted to year-over-year funding cuts, as I have outlined. The majority of our costs are related to staffing, and our union contracts have been negotiated with 3% increases to wages for the next two years. The Ministry of Health funding review for local public health originally scheduled to occur in 2025 has been delayed until this year. One of our concerns is that further loss of public health professionals and important services for the Middlesex-London community will occur while we await the outcome of that process. As you build the next budget for our province, I am here asking for your consideration of consistent, sustained and sufficient funding for the Middlesex-London Health Unit. The MLHU, like all other local public health agencies, is a foundation of economic strength. A healthy population is more productive, incurs lower health care costs, and contributes to long-term economic resilience and prosperity. With sufficient funding, we can be a strong partner in the provincial government’s commitment to protect Ontarians. Thank you for your time today. I look forward to any questions.

Official source

The Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)

Thank you very much for that presentation. Our next presenter will be the Council of Ontario Universities.

Official source

Mr. Steve Orsini

My name is Steve Orsini. I’m the president and CEO of the Council of Ontario Universities. On behalf of Ontario universities, I want to thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. As you’re all aware, we’re facing historic challenges, whether it’s geopolitical tensions and tariffs, supply chain disruptions, escalating technological change, or intensifying global competition. The question we need to ask ourselves is, what do we need to do to protect and grow our economy? Building a strong foundation for talent and innovation is key. Ontario universities are helping to build a strong province by generating the talent our employers need, driving the research and innovation to boost our productivity, and supporting community economic development throughout the province. We don’t just want to help Ontario get through these tough times; we want to support a strong province. The ability to compete and succeed both at home and on the global stage depends on its people, its ideas, and universities are committed to working with the province to protect and grow our economy. Every year, more than 135,000 university graduates enter the labour force equipped with the skills and ideas and resilience to power our economy. Universities are responding to changing labour market needs. Since 2010, STEM enrolment at Ontario universities has increased by 76%; enrolment in health care programs by 40%. And students are voting with their feet. Since 2020, we have seen an 18.5% increase in the number of Ontario high school students applying to an Ontario university. However, domestic student demand far exceeds funded spaces. Nearly 28,000 Ontario students are currently unfunded due to the provincial funding cap on domestic enrolment. As you hear every year, top students across the province are having more difficulty getting into a program of their choice. Without raising the funding cap, students will face even more difficulty, and we estimate that there will be a lack of funded spaces to accommodate the additional 77,000 Ontario high school students expected to apply to an Ontario university by 2030, limiting the province’s ability to grow our highly skilled workforce for the future. Ontario universities are working hard to boost our economy. Last year, they conducted $4.1 billion in research, focused on innovative and applied solutions that support Ontario companies, industries and economy. Between 2021 and 2024, university-led research generated more than 3,000 invention disclosures and launched 185 start-ups in critical industries such as AI, life sciences and advanced manufacturing. We welcome the government’s investments to date, including the $1.3 billion over three years for colleges and universities—funding, I should add, that is scheduled to end in just over a year—and the $150 million a year to support STEM enrolment. However, the combined impact of the tuition cut and freeze, along with the federal reductions to international students, which alone are predicted to result in a cumulative revenue loss of $5.4 billion by 2028-29, far exceeds the additional funding we have received. Universities have taken considerable steps to drive greater efficiencies and have already absorbed significant cost pressures. Nearly $1.28 billion in cuts and deferrals have been implemented across the system over the past three years. Despite these cuts, the sector faces deficits of $265 million this year, and the funding gap is expected to grow to $1.3 billion by 2028-29. The consequences are real: reduced spaces; cuts to student services, such as work-integrated learning, career coaching, student mental health; and reduced support for commercialization and start-up programs which are driving our innovative economy. Cuts such as these weaken the very foundation that helps Ontario adapt, grow and compete. Ontario universities are committed to growing this province, but they need the province to ensure they have the resources to deliver the talent and innovation that our economy needs. That’s why we’re calling on the province to increase operating funding by $1.2 billion starting in 2026-27, growing to $1.6 billion by 2028-29, to enrol more students, to drive more research and innovation, and to support more community economic development. Together, we can protect and grow Ontario for our students, for our community and for our economy. This is an investment in our future. Thank you.

Official source

The Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)

Thank you very much. That concludes the presentations. We will start the first round of questions with the official opposition. MPP Sattler.

Official source

Ms. Peggy Sattler

Thank you to our three presenters today. I want to begin with the Middlesex-London Health Unit. Certainly, the reduction in programs and services you described that you have been forced to make because of the inequitable funding model that the province currently has in place has significant consequences for the health of our population. You talked about the need for consistent, sustained and sufficient funding to enable the health unit to continue to provide the services—even the reduced services—that you currently offer. Can you tell this committee, at a minimum, what kind of annual increase you would need to see to your budgets from the province in order to be able to maintain the services that you currently provide?

Official source

Ms. Emily Williams

Thank you for the question. Through you, Mr. Chair: At a minimum, 3% annually would enable us to maintain current services. However, that wouldn’t address the cuts and reductions of services that have had to occur over the last 10 years. A minimum of 5% for the next three years would ensure that we’re able to keep up with the growing pressures and the growth in our community, ensuring we can provide vaccination services, prepare for emergencies, talk to young mothers and support them, as well as address youth vaping. If we want to tackle those problems, which are growing in our community, then we would need 5% annually, at a minimum.

Official source

Ms. Peggy Sattler

And what is at risk if you don’t get the 3% or 5%?

Official source

Ms. Emily Williams

Further reductions, essentially, is what we’re faced with, and putting our board of health in the position of needing to make difficult decisions, prioritizing services. I can tell you, through this year’s budget process, one of the things that—if our municipalities had not stepped in with the increase they did, we would have had to cut our family planning services; those clinics that we provide to folks who don’t have primary care access, who are highly vulnerable. They would have been cut if our municipalities hadn’t stepped in with their increase. So services like that would need to be reduced.

Official source

Ms. Peggy Sattler

Thank you very much. I now want to turn to Steve Orsini from Council of Ontario Universities. Again, the numbers that you have provided should certainly sound the alarm for the government, when we’re looking at over 100,000 domestic students in this province who won’t be able to get access to Ontario university programs that they want to get into and that our province needs graduates from in order to grow our economy. Your budget asks for the $1.2 billion in increased operating funding. Can you talk about the difference between the three-year funding that the government made that’s going to end next year—tuition revenues—versus the base operating funding that the university system needs to be able to continue to function in this province?

Official source

Mr. Steve Orsini

Thank you for the question. Right now, Ontario universities are the lowest-funded in the country when you look at it, per student; we are funded at 55% of the rest of Canada on a per-student basis. The $1.3 billion that the provincial government announced a little over two years ago essentially was addressing funding that hadn’t occurred for the sector. There hasn’t been an increase in operating funding for over a decade, and their expert panel made this point. And that funding is scheduled to end in just over a year. That will plummet the sector into deep financial challenges, if that funding is not renewed and increased. For us to even get close to the national average—we’re at 55% now, to the rest of Canada—we would need to double our operating funding. We’re really looking for financial support because universities are facing a perfect storm: the cut, freeze to tuition—

Official source

The Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)

One minute.

Official source

Mr. Steve Orsini

—operating grants that haven’t kept up and scheduled to end, and cuts to international students. That’s going to have deep, deep implications for the university sector. Universities acted responsibly. They had modest growth—international students only representing 90%. We are facing a perfect storm right now.

Official source

Ms. Peggy Sattler

You talked about the $1.28 billion in cuts and deferrals that have already been made by universities over the last three years. Do you have a sense of how many universities are facing deficits as we move into the coming fiscal year?

Official source

Mr. Steve Orsini

Well, we needed, just for the—

Official source

The Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)

We’ll have to wait for that answer in the next round. The time is up. MPP Bowman.

Official source

Ms. Stephanie Bowman

Thank you all for being here this morning. I’m going to share this round with my colleague from Etobicoke–Lakeshore. A quick question—and then hopefully a quick answer—to Mr. Orsini from the Council of Ontario Universities: You talked about some of the shifts that students are making in terms of their choices, like going into STEM and into health care because they see that’s where the opportunities are. I wonder if you could talk a bit about how your universities are responding to that changing demand for programs—how nimble you’ve been in doing that. Back to the shortfall: It’s interesting that the $1.2 billion is about the same as what’s being spent on the Skills Development Fund, and I would certainly argue that investing in our educational institutions would be a better use of that money. I wonder if you could comment on what you’ll do with that money when you get it, what it allows you to do.

Official source

Mr. Steve Orsini

Universities are responding to changing labour market needs. We’re also responding to student demand. Even though we had an 18.5% increase in the number of Ontario high school students applying since 2020, we’ve had a 39% increase in applications for STEM since 2020. For health care, because of the shortage of health care professionals, we’ve had a 93% increase in applications. Universities are capped on their ability to enrol these students. So demand for STEM is up, demand for health care professionals is up, and universities are capped. We have 28,000 already that are unfunded, and 77,000 more that will not have a funded space at an Ontario university, reducing access for these students. In terms of the use of the funds, we spend $1.8 billion in student services, which includes mental health, career counselling—$1.8 billion. That will almost equal our entire shortfall by 2028-29, plunging students into very difficult circumstances—the lack of supports. Students need supports in a very uncertain world. They need the career counselling. They need work-integrated learning. These are the things that universities invest in that we won’t be able to invest in to the same degree in the future.

Official source

The Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)

MPP Shamji.

Official source

Mr. Adil Shamji

Emily, my question is for you. In the last year, we’ve seen the resurgence of pathogens like measles. We have seen a particularly brutal flu and respiratory season this fall and winter. We’ve seen hospitals over capacity to the tune of 110%, 120%. I understand that you’re doing everything you can, but in some areas you have had to, to use your own words, signal a complete retreat from some of your health promotion and public health activities. If you were funded adequately, in what ways could you have prevented some of the consequences that we have witnessed in the last year in Ontario, and here in London?

Official source

Ms. Emily Williams

Through you, Mr. Chair: One of those important prevention strategies, particularly around the pathogens you mentioned, would be vaccination. At the moment, we are currently limited in our ability to vaccinate for the general public. We rely on the pharmacy model to promote that. I think the other is our reduced presence in schools. Our nurses are completely removed now from the schools in Middlesex and London. So those upstream conversations around contraceptive support, smoking cessation, vaccination—we’re not able to provide those. I think all of our health promotion at the far upstream end, in terms of municipal policy, provincial policy in tobacco cessation and vaping—all of those have downstream effects of preventing health care visits. If you fund public health appropriately, you can avoid health care costs.

Official source

Mr. Adil Shamji

Most Ontarians have been subjected to self-promotional advertising about the Ring of Fire and Ontario Place, which I’m sure is very relevant to the people of London. If you had had a fraction of that funding, what could you have done in terms of health promotion activities?

Official source

Ms. Emily Williams

We would have focused on, as I said, tobacco and vaping cessation, which is a rising problem amongst our youth, and, certainly, promoting vaccination. There is a surge in misinformation and disinformation, particularly around vaccines, which directly contributed to the measles outbreak in the region surrounding Middlesex and London. So we’re wanting to do some comprehensive work on vaccines, in reminding our public that they are very safe and effective. We would also want to partner with primary care through Ontario health teams, because one of our roles is promoting access for primary care—

Official source

The Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)

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

Official source

Ms. Bobbi Ann Brady

Thank you to all our presenters this morning. Adam, I don’t want you to feel left out, so I’m going to start with you. You said seven out of 10 landlords support creating a balance at the LTB, and we’ve heard that a number of times on this committee as we’ve been travelling. I represent a very rural riding, and I often hear from small landlords who become very frustrated with the game that’s played by some of their tenants. They can’t get them out. They wait a long, long time to go to the LTB. They’re not collecting rent, and they say to me, “It doesn’t pay for me to actually be a landlord.” Housing supply, we know, depends on landlords being willing to remain in the market. From your perspective, Adam, what practical reforms could actually streamline the removal of truly bad-faith tenants while still protecting responsible renters, so that we can keep those small and medium-sized landlords encouraged to continue providing rental housing?

Official source

Mr. Adam Miller

Through the Chair: I’ve been at this a couple of times, so I usually don’t get a lot of questions when we have these guys up here. I appreciate your question. We do talk about this—that there is a difference in landlords. When we talk about small business and how it’s the engine—it’s the same thing with landlords: Small landlords are the engine of the rental supply.

Official source

The Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)

One minute.

Official source

Mr. Adam Miller

We have the exact same rules for the large renters that are coming in and doing the wrong things—where we have the local mom-and-pop shop being treated exactly the same way. When we talk about streamlining—it will make a huge difference if we can get to a quick mediation, so they don’t have to go through the entire process. As you were saying, some of these tenants know this system extremely well. If we could go to mediation and say, “We know this is the rule that’s going to be broken; we need to change this right away before it has to go all the way through the entire process,” it will bring those wait times way down, and also dial back a little bit of the negativity of being a landlord. There’s a lot of “Landlords are bad. Tenants are good.” If we could treat them differently, I think we would see a lot of quicker mediation to get those tenants out.

Official source

Ms. Bobbi Ann Brady

So maybe some common sense and discretion?

Official source

Mr. Adam Miller

Absolutely.

Official source

The Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)

MPP Saunderson.

Official source

Mr. Brian Saunderson

I want to thank all of our panel this morning, not only for taking time to share your expertise and comments with us, but also for the important work you do in our communities. Adam, I’m going to pick up with you as well; you might feel like you’re getting more attention than normal. Hopefully that encourages you to come back next year. In my past role, I was parliamentary assistant to the Ministry of the Attorney General and was working specifically on this file. The Landlord and Tenant Board has been an issue. It went through significant process changes, obviously, over the COVID pandemic, moving to virtual hearings and then having to change the entire platform to support it—so significant IT expenses. I want to delve a bit into the numbers to clear up some issues and then get your opinion on others. You talked about the backlog. At its peak, it was over 53,000, but there are about 7,000 or 8,000 files coming in on a monthly basis, and the gold standard would be to clear those in three months—so 90 days from filing your claim or application to getting an order. That’s three months, so your stasis, then, is approximately 21,000 to 24,000 files, given the number of 7,000 or 8,000 intakes on a monthly basis. So getting down to 38,000 now is quite a considerable reduction. And there’s still work to do; you’re right. We’ve doubled the number of both full-time and part-time adjudicators. There are about 85 full-time adjudicators right now, and 56 part-time. As I said, we’re working to the idea of 90 days from filing your application to getting your resolution. Pre-pandemic, it was about 75% that were rental arrears or nonpayment—we call those simple cases, and the hope is that we can get those done in six weeks. We’re finding that we are able to get that done now, but we’re seeing a rise in complex cases that have issues other than just rental payments. So we’re looking at streaming, to try having the simple cases move forward as quickly as possible, to help our landlords and our tenants get resolutions. I agree with you—and the minister has said this many times: We want to have a balanced system that recognizes the issues on both sides of the table. What would your thoughts be, then, on streaming applications so that simple applications like rental arrears and nonpayment would be dealt with expeditiously?

Official source

Mr. Adam Miller

Absolutely, we 100% support that. That has been similar to the problem in what I was just saying: that simple cases are running on the same timeline as the complex cases. So if you could go through the process and say, “Great. Here we can subsection these guys. These guys can go into a quick mediation”—and some of them do get complex, because the reason they’re not paying rent is certain things that the landlord does. But a lot of times, we can go through the simple cases quickly and move that. The problem is that, yes, they’re going through quickly, but tenants are still, even if losing at the Landlord and Tenant Board, refusing to leave. So the other aspect of it is having the sheriff come in, removing them from the property. There’s the one side that says, “Yes, it would be fantastic. We can get them quickly out”—through the easy ones. But once we come to a decision, the system is helping it through the process as well. Especially with smaller landlords—they don’t understand the process. They’ve won at the landlord tenancy act, and they say to the tenant, “We won. You’re supposed to be out.” And they say, “Good luck.” So we still have that issue of almost a continuing service needs to allow—because what’s happening is, then that is resurfacing as another application of, “I’ve won, but I’m still having issues with them getting out.” Some of those cases can be then dealt with quickly that way.

Official source

Mr. Brian Saunderson

You raise a good point when it comes to enforcement. We’ve been looking at ways to expand—

Official source

The Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)

One minute.

Official source

Mr. Brian Saunderson

One minute. Right now, it’s just limited to sheriffs. We’re looking to expand that, to have other services that you can get to help enforce it. You were talking about rental units. While our housing starts have stopped over the last two years, we’ve had about a 17% increase in rental units being built. I think that’s in large part as a result of the 25% reduction in DCs for rental units. In 2023—that was the high across Ontario. I think you’re right, in terms of protecting smaller landlords. With the housing affordability crisis, we’d like to see additional rental units going in, to first-time homebuyers, so that they can help pay their bills. Are you seeing, in your practice or across the region, first-time homebuyers looking at having a rental unit to help them pay their bills?

Official source

Mr. Adam Miller

Yes. It’s a massive—

Official source

The Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)

We’ll never know. Time is up. MPP Kernaghan.

Official source

Mr. Terence Kernaghan

Thank you to all our presenters for coming here today. I would like to begin with Adam. Adam, in December 2024, in terms of our health and homelessness whole-of-community response, there was a review and analysis conducted by CRHESI and Ivey Business School, where 180 students from Ivey analyzed the direct and indirect costs of homelessness, including emergency health care, policing, incarceration, shelter use and social services. They estimated that each individual would cost around $100,000 in system costs, whereas correctional facilities cost $132,000 per year, in-patient mental health care is $204,000, and psychiatric hospitals is $378,000. My question is, would you like to see the province take a more active and responsible role when it comes to alleviating homelessness?

Official source

Mr. Adam Miller

That’s a great question. Thank you. There’s an old saying, especially in real estate: It’s that most people say they have 100 issues when they’re homeless and 94 of them are taken care of with shelter. That’s where I try to hit the right supports with homeless shelters, when we have encampments. You need to take the homeless from an encampment into a situation where they’re getting the support. Shelter takes care of quite a bit. And we know that absolutely one of the most affordable ways to get the homeless off the streets is providing them with stable shelter. Tiny homes are starting to pop up. A lot of individuals are seeing them as a great solution because it is that stability that they’re looking for. They have a door, so they’re safe. They have heat. They have a roof. The rest of the systems can be easily brought to them once they know where they’re going to be seven days a week—through the system that way.

Official source

Mr. Terence Kernaghan

Thank you very much. I would like to move over next to Emily with MLHU. Emily, in your presentation, you spoke about preventive models. Can you speak to the cost-effectiveness of prevention in terms of chronic disease as well as injury?

Official source

Ms. Emily Williams

Through you, Mr. Chair: Thank you for the question. We’ve done some early analysis on return on investment for public health services. We were talking about vaccination in particular, or our early intervention with young parents, new parents, who are vulnerable. Partnering with our nurse-family partnership program, for example, can prevent early preterm births, complications—less substance use in teenagers, less involvement with youth justice. So that nurse-family partnership program is a great example of how upstream intervention with new parents and vulnerable individuals can prevent long-term impacts not just for health but also for social injustice systems. In the case of vaccination; for example, vaccination for measles—we were talking about the outbreak earlier. Preventing an admission to a pediatric in-patient bed, as an example—having formerly worked in the acute-care sector, it can run between $500 and $1,000 a day for those types of stays. So those are some of the numbers that we talk about when we talk about upstream prevention minimizing those costs to other parts of the system.

Official source

Mr. Terence Kernaghan

It would be a wise fiscal expenditure, wouldn’t it? I noticed, from your notes, that the MLHU was forced into a situation because of underfunding—to close the Strathroy location. Can you speak to the impacts for that community in terms of that closure?

Official source

Ms. Emily Williams

We were a presence in the Strathroy community for over 30 years, with our main office. We have retained our dental office and clinic there. However, we now are pivoting to mobile services as well as leveraging the dental clinic to provide other services, like vaccination, like sexual health clinics, in the dental clinic—

Official source

The Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)

One minute.

Official source

Ms. Emily Williams

It has impacted our visibility in the Strathroy location. As I said, we are attempting to pivot to mobile clinics, which will then further our reach out into the county. But certainly, we’ve had feedback from the mayor and residents there that they miss us in that space.

Official source

Mr. Terence Kernaghan

Thank you very much. Lastly, I’d like to move over to Steve. Ontario is dead last when it comes to post-secondary funding and has been for decades; in fact, it has been described as the bottom of the barrel. With your request for operational funding increases of $1.2 billion and $1.6 billion, where would that place Ontario in comparison to other provinces?

Official source

Mr. Steve Orsini

It would go a long way to close the gap. It wouldn’t close the gap. At 55% funded, compared to the rest of Canada on a per-student basis, it would require to almost double the operating funding we get, so more than—

Official source

The Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)

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

Official source

Ms. Lee Fairclough

I’m going to be splitting my time with my colleague MPP Cerjanec. First of all, thank you all for coming to present today. They’re all very important topics. I was pleased to hear the leadoff on homelessness and some of the suggestions that you’ve got to address that, especially in this community; I know that it has been rising. This week, the report said it’s now up to 85,000 across Ontario. And having visited here in the summer, I saw it first-hand. I support your asks around really doing a comprehensive review of the legislation, and I’m also quite compelled by the data that seven out of 10—both tenants and landlords—would like to see these kinds of changes. With three out of five people, though, worried about losing their housing if their financial situation were to change tomorrow, are there other recommendations that you’ve got for how we can help people hold on to their housing, so that we can actually start to really address this homelessness crisis further upstream?

Official source

Mr. Adam Miller

We talked about it at the end of the presentation. A tax incentive would be a great idea for people who are in their home now, to create a secondary suite. Across southwestern Ontario, a lot of people are living in homes that are 2,500 to 2,700 square feet, where they probably could be down to 1,200. They’re the first to admit—“I live in a big home, and I could do a basement unit. But what’s in it for me?” We’re seeing more and more of the struggling with the bad markets the last couple of times, with equity sort of lowering houses—the houses aren’t there, the bank accounts that they have been. So people are looking at incentives to creating secondary units, garden suites; even secondary units that are not attached to the house, so in the backyard—things like that. It’s slow-going, because a lot of times, they want to see them before they get there. But we are starting to see more and more people who are getting into that situation, looking at alternatives to renting basements and parts of their homes.

Official source

The Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)

MPP Cerjanec.

Official source

Mr. Rob Cerjanec

Through you, Chair: Thank you, Steve from Council of Ontario Universities, for your presentation today. It’s very clear that our universities need a lot more support if we’re going to not just keep the lights on but be able to grow our economy and drive innovation and create new jobs and opportunities and deal with things like AI. From your perspective, what does the provincial government need to do—focusing around new job creation, businesses, enterprises coming out of our universities—in order to deal with the challenges that we have coming in the future?

Official source

Mr. Steve Orsini

Thank you for the question. There are a number of things the province can do. They’re currently reviewing the funding formula, which hasn’t been reviewed for some time. It’s a chance for the province to put universities on a sustainable, predictable track; address the funding shortfall so we can maintain enrolment for talent our communities need, so we can invest in research and innovation, and we can support communities throughout the province. There was a recent study done looking at Canada’s innovation economy. They said the bright spot for our economy was universities. Both the talent and innovation, and the invention disclosures, the research and innovation, the cutting-edge technology—whether it’s AI, quantum computing, advanced manufacturing, nuclear energy, our future economy depends on the skills, talent and research that universities are generating. Failing to have those funds undermines our economic future.

Official source

Mr. Rob Cerjanec

If we’re able to do some of the things that you’re saying—

Official source

The Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)

One minute.

Official source

Mr. Rob Cerjanec

—we would very likely see new businesses, new companies, new enterprises supporting things in agriculture, supporting health care, coming up with solutions in our education system. What would be the impact if we don’t make those investments?

Official source

Mr. Steve Orsini

One of our challenges is lack of productivity. We can’t scale up companies. We need to attract investment—not big anchor projects, which we welcome, but the small scaling up of innovative companies which will become dominant players in the future. Our innovation ecosystem is essential to take those ideas and bring them to market. So we need the resources to commercialize technology. Our tech transfer offices are unfunded. We need resources from our revenues to put aside, to commercialize. That is an unfunded area that’s holding us back. So by providing the funding, allowing universities to—

Official source

The Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)

Thank you very much. MPP Brady.

Official source

Ms. Bobbi Ann Brady

Steve, let’s just recap here. The council has called for an end to the ongoing domestic tuition freeze which has been in place since 2019. Correct?

Official source

Mr. Steve Orsini

The cut and freeze.

Official source

Ms. Bobbi Ann Brady

And you said that domestic applications have surged by something like 17% since 2020. We know that universities are projecting a $265-million deficit this year, despite this record demand for domestic students. So please forgive me for asking this, but I think it’s an important question and answer to actually have on the record, because I hear from people in my travels who believe that universities might be holding the domestic student spots hostage to force the province to end the 10% tuition cut and freeze. What would you say to those people?

Official source

Mr. Steve Orsini

We have 28,000 Ontario students above the corridor. In other words, we are doing our best to support Ontario students; otherwise, they wouldn’t get into a university in Ontario and may have to leave the province. We would like to enrol more. We’ve had an 18.5% increase in the number of high school students since 2020; we expect 77,000 more. We don’t have the resources to enrol those students. In fact, we’re cutting back. We’ve cut nearly $1.28 billion. We’ve reduced employment by 2,500. We’ve cut 2,700 programs and courses. We’re not growing to meet demand, which undermines our economic objectives to grow and protect the economy. We need to grow to meet that demand. Universities are doing their best to enrol them, but when they’re not funded—

Official source

The Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)

One minute.

Official source

Mr. Steve Orsini

It’s impossible to expand when the funding is not keeping up with the pressures that universities face, and when you add to that the reduction in international students that impacted all post-secondary, universities acted responsibly. International students represented 19% of our students. We didn’t overrely on them. But when the federal government announced the cuts, they admitted they took a blunt instrument, so we’re getting impacted—not the ones that the federal government wanted to target, but we’re all being impacted, and we need provincial support to come in, wanting to address the complete underfunding of our universities compared to the rest of Canada. And they need to support our students, generate the talent and innovation our economy needs. We’re under economic threat right now. We should be investing in our foundation of talent—

Official source

The Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)

Thank you very much. MPP Racinsky.

Official source

Mr. Joseph Racinsky

Thank you to all the presenters for coming out this morning and sharing your expertise with us. I really appreciate it. My question is to Adam. I’m going to ask a bit of a multi-part question here, so bear with me. In your professional opinion, in the province of Ontario, do we need more rental housing? Please summarize for us: What is the primary barrier you see to getting more landlords, that one third of homeowners we have in the province of Ontario who have the space—what is the barrier to them creating that rental housing. And how would more rental housing in the province of Ontario assist tenants like my peers?

Official source

Mr. Adam Miller

Through the Chair: Great questions. Do we need more purpose-built rentals? Is that what you’re asking there?

Official source

Mr. Joseph Racinsky

All types of rentals.

Official source

Mr. Adam Miller

We do need a diverse increase in all type of rentals. We have seen decent growth in purpose-built rental units in the last couple of years, just with some incentive dollars. We’re probably on the healthy side of purpose-built rentals—larger apartment buildings, larger structures that way. I would say we’re probably very healthy on that side. What is stopping people getting into rental is fear; I don’t know if it’s necessarily all called for. But media hasn’t been super helpful on promoting the benefits of rentals—it’s more of bad tenants and bad landlords get the top story. So 1% of the tenants are bad, 1% of the landlords are bad, but we don’t hear about 99%—of the good side. Everybody has a horror story of a tenant who won’t get out, or of a landlord. I think that’s the number one barrier. I know that sounds ridiculous, when I could say interest rates and costs to create units would probably be there too. But our biggest barrier is fear.

Official source

Mr. Joseph Racinsky

Again, how would getting that one third of people who have the space, who are afraid right now, giving them confidence—what is it going to take to give them confidence? And if they do and they create that housing themselves—the small mom-and-pop landlords you talked about—how would that benefit tenants?

Official source

Mr. Adam Miller

I think the thing is creating a system that is a tiered system, so the mom and pop get treated differently with the landlord and tenant act; having a media that is saying, “If you only have one unit or two units, you are not going through the same system. So here is a quick way.” BC does it really, really well. They have a very quick system. If the tenant is not paying, it can be a quick system—to get them into the system, get a mediation, “Why are you not paying?” If they refuse, if they’re not going to continue to pay, the system moves them out quickly. We need to have a system that is made for what kind of landlord you are, instead of painting them all with the same brush.

Official source

Mr. Joseph Racinsky

As you know, our government recently passed the Fighting Delays, Building Faster Act, which made a lot of changes to the Landlord and Tenant Board and the rules around it, trying to bring some fairness back into the system, to build that confidence. I know there is more to do, like you said in your presentation, but how have those changes helped the situation, in your mind?

Official source

Mr. Adam Miller

Absolutely. We do give credit where credit is due. We saw a pretty steep decrease from—we were seeing 57,000 cases down to 37,000. When we first heard these numbers, my thing was, “Are we processing 25,000 cases a month?” If that is the case, then the backlog is nothing. The problem is when you throw giant numbers out there—like there are 37,000 in the backlog. How long does that take?

Official source

The Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)

One minute.

Official source

Mr. Adam Miller

We have seen improvements in the system and have supported seeing that we’re moving in the right direction, for sure.

Official source

Mr. Joseph Racinsky

Shifting gears a little bit—our government recently announced that we’re rebating 8% of the provincial portion of HST for first-time buyers of new homes. How do you think that will help young people like myself, people who have no equity, the first-time homebuyers, get into the housing market and also provide more incentive to build?

Official source

Mr. Adam Miller

Yes, we certainly don’t want to take away from it. It’s a great plan; I would love to see it given to everybody. The problem with first-time homebuyers is that they’re not the driving force in or the purchasers of new builds. So it would be great to expand that program to all candidates looking to buy a new build.

Official source

The Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)

Thank you very much. That concludes the time for that question and for that panel. We want to thank all the panellists for a great job. Thank you for taking the time to prepare and come here and help us with our deliberations. I’m sure it will be quite welcome.

Official source

The Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)

We will now ask the next panel to come forward: myStoria Inc., CMHA Thames Valley Addiction and Mental Health Services, and the city of St. Thomas. We will start the panel. I understand one of the panellists is still keeping the city intact, in St. Thomas, but hopefully he’ll be here before we get to him. He’s last on the list. As you heard, with the presentations, your seven minutes—a notice at six, and then at seven we cut it off. With that, thank you very much for being here. We’ll start with myStoria Inc.

Official source

Ms. Holly Tiessen

Thank you to the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs for the opportunity to be here today. My name is Holly Tiessen. I’m the co-founder and CRO of myStoria. We’re an Ontario-based women’s health company focused on supporting families through one of the most emotionally and financially difficult journeys there is: trying to conceive. I’m joined by myStoria founder and CEO Jessica Chalk on video, as you see there. Jess started myStoria after six years of fertility treatments, over $100,000 spent, and no baby. Together, we’re here today on behalf of thousands of Ontario families who are quietly struggling, often for years, without support, guidance or a clear path forward. Ontario has taken an important step by investing $250 million to expand in vitro fertilization treatments. For families who need this advanced reproductive technology, that investment is life-changing. But IVF is the end of the road, not the beginning. And today I want to speak to the long, unsupported stretch before families ever reach that point. Infertility affects one in six people globally. In Ontario alone, over 100,000 family-building units are struggling right now, with tens of thousands more entering the journey every year. Yet, when most families first ask for help, the answer they receive is painfully simple: “Try for 12 months, and then we’ll talk.” For families in their mid-thirties, for families without a GP, for families already noticing something isn’t right, that year can be the difference between success and heartbreak. During that waiting period, there is no coordinated support, no guidance, no monitoring, no navigation. Families are left alone at the exact moment when early actions matter most. Here’s the reality: 85% to 90% of infertility cases are not treated with IVF. They are treated with medications, minor interventions, or lifestyle and health optimization, if they are identified early enough. But Ontario’s system offers nothing to families during this early window. Instead, families are pushed into limbo that can last 12 to 18 months, while waiting for referrals, specialist appointments, spending thousands of dollars out of pocket on treatments they may not even need, and often blaming themselves along the way. For those who can afford it, this journey costs an average of $20,000; for those who can’t, it often ends quietly, and not because they don’t want children, but because the system made it impossible. This gap hits hardest for families without a family doctor. Members of this committee know very well that 2.5 million Ontarians do not have access to primary care. For them, there literally is nowhere to turn for human guidance; no one to ask if their symptoms are normal, or to advise on next steps. Even for those with a family doctor, the system isn’t designed for this level of care. Most family physicians simply do not have the time or specialized training to provide ongoing fertility guidance. And that’s not a failure of doctors. That’s a failure of system design. This is where our proposal comes in. myStoria is asking the province to fund a $500,000, one-year pilot program to provide proactive preconception support to 2,000 Ontario families who have been trying to conceive for six months or more. This program fills the gap between primary care and specialist fertility treatment. It would provide families with nurse-led assessment and ongoing personalized support from our care team. We would provide evidence-based fertility education and guide them to mental health support during what is often an isolating and deeply emotional experience. The program would be inclusive across 2SLGBTQ+ families and single parents by choice, and it would be delivered digitally, accessible anywhere in Ontario, serving urban, rural and remote families, addressing what are often referred to as fertility deserts. Why does this matter? Through our pilot, we estimate that 300 to 400 families could avoid treatment entirely; an estimated 600 to 800 will navigate more efficiently to appropriate care in our system, avoiding trial-and-error spending on wrong treatments and, most importantly, get to their root cause faster. At least 200 families will optimize their health before IVF, increasing their success rates, reducing both emotional and financial strain. We will help them get to the right care faster, with better outcomes and less spending. This is better for families. It’s better for our health care system. And it’s better for Ontario’s economy. According to the McKinsey Health Institute, women’s health conditions are projected to cost the Canadian economy $37 billion in lost productivity by 2040. Every dollar invested in closing the women’s health gap returns $3 in economic value. Supporting families during their fertility journey keeps people healthier, happier, and allows them to keep working and contributing during peak career years. This pilot is modest by design. At $500,000, it represents just 0.2% of Ontario’s IVF investment. It has clear success metrics, and it will generate the data Ontario needs to decide whether to scale. If it works—when it works—Ontario will become a national leader in proactive reproductive health.

Official source

The Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)

One minute.

Official source

Ms. Holly Tiessen

Doing nothing guarantees the status quo continues: families waiting and waiting, spending, suffering, and aging out of their chances to build the families they want, our next generation of Ontarians. I want to leave you with this one thought: Infertility is one of the most common health challenges facing people in their 20s, 30s and 40s, and yet we ask families to face it alone until they reach crisis. This pilot is about meeting families before that moment. It’s about saying Ontario sees them, supports them and understands that family-building is foundational to the future of this province. We would respectfully urge the committee to recommend funding this pilot in Ontario’s 2026 budget. Thank you for your time and the opportunity to speak today.

Official source

The Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)

Thank you very much for your presentation. We now will go to CMHA Thames Valley Addiction and Mental Health Services.

Official source

Ms. Pam Tobin

Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today. My name is Pam Tobin. I’m the CEO of Canadian Mental Health Association Thames Valley Addiction and Mental Health Services. We are the region’s leading community-based provider of mental health, addiction, crisis and supportive housing services. We work across rural and urban communities, in close partnership with municipalities, hospitals, police services and community organizations. I would like to thank the Ontario government for last year’s base funding increase for the community mental health and addictions sector. That investment mattered. It helped support a move towards stabilization, at a time when demand and cost pressures are accelerating. It helped organizations like ours maintain services and manage immediate pressures related to inflation, wages and operating costs. However, stabilization is central to my message today. Mental health and addiction care depends on stability. People need stability to engage in care, to recover and to remain housed. Staff need stability to stay in their work. Organizations need stability to plan responsibly, to retain skilled teams, and to deliver consistent services in the community. Across Ontario, one in four people experience moderate to severe psychological distress. Crisis service use has increased by 30%, and youth hospitalization for mental health has risen by more than 136% since the pandemic. Here in Thames Valley, we’re seeing that same pressure reflected in higher acuity, longer service involvement, and increasingly complex needs. At the same time, we continue to operate under long-standing structural underfunding. Over the past 11 years, sector funding has increased by roughly 9% while inflation has risen by more than 30%. That gap has real consequences in our work. Across the CMHA network, nearly 200 positions remain vacant, simply to balance budgets. That translates into approximately 8,000 Ontarians who do not receive community-based support. That’s 8,000 people who are more likely to end up in emergency departments, shelters, or in the justice system instead. This is not their workforce issue in isolation, alone. Community mental health workers earn up to 20% less than their hospital counterparts, while doing highly complex, emotionally demanding work. Retention is becoming increasingly difficult, and turnover disrupts continuity of care for people who need consistency the most. Despite these pressures, we continue to deliver strong outcomes and system value. At CMHA Thames Valley, we work closely with municipal partners, hospitals, police and social services to reduce system strain and to improve outcomes. We operate crisis services, mobile crisis teams, rapid access addiction medicine clinics, assertive community treatment teams, early psychosis intervention programs, and supportive housing. We recently opened a HART hub, a Homelessness and Addiction Recovery Treatment Hub, in London, working collaboratively across sectors to integrate recovery and treatment, housing and wraparound supports. While it’s too early to measure full support or full impact, we are confident this model will strengthen coordination and improve access for people with complex needs. Supportive housing is a critical part of this system. CMHA is one of the province’s largest supportive housing providers, with more than 6,000 units across Ontario. More than 800 of those units are supported by our branch alone. Supportive housing delivers better outcomes at a lower cost. A month in supportive housing costs $4,000; compare that to $6,000 in a shelter, $12,000 in jail, nearly $30,000 in hospital care. These programs are a part of an integrated community-based system that prevents crisis, reduces pressure on emergency services, and delivers care where people live. That’s why CMHA Thames Valley is asking for a 4% base funding increase in the 2026 provincial budget, along with a commitment to sustained stabilization funding in future years. This year’s increase is essential in supporting the maintenance of current services and staffing, while long-term stabilization is needed to address ongoing demand and rising costs. A 4% base increase would support us in maintaining current services, stabilizing the workforce, and protecting access to care. It aligns with the Financial Accountability Office’s assessment that mental health and addiction spending must grow by at least 5% just to maintain existing service levels. Sustained base increases would help retain skilled staff and allow us to continue supporting our clients in need. It would reduce pressure on emergency departments, pressures on policing and corrections, and advance the province’s Roadmap to Wellness by strengthening care in the community. CMHA Thames Valley is a trusted partner in this province. We deliver on provincial priorities. We’re innovative, in collaboration with health, with housing and municipal partners—

Official source

The Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)

One minute.

Official source

Ms. Pam Tobin

—and we’re committed to being accountable stewards of public investment. With a 4% base increase this year and sustained base increases in future years, we can preserve continuity for people accessing care, strengthen partnerships across the system, and ensure that community mental health and addiction services remain reliable, effective and accessible. Thank you for your time and your consideration. I’d be pleased to answer any questions you have.

Official source

The Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)

Thank you very much for the presentation. That concludes the presentations, as number three was unable to make it. We will now start with the first round of questioning. The third party: MPP Fairclough.

Official source

Ms. Lee Fairclough

Thank you for your presentations this morning. I want to direct my question to Pam Tobin. The picture that you’ve painted here is one of the community mental health sector working hard to meet the demands in this community and actively trying to expand. Certainly, when I visited some of the different locations, your RAAM clinic and the 24/7 urgent care centre—I see it as a leading model, provincially. So I get very concerned when you’re describing the implications of the funding levels, of denying up to 8,000 people of their care. I’ve got two questions. Can you (1) describe that model that you’ve got—the urgent care model, with the paramedic and police drop-off—because I think it’s important for people to know what that investment could look like; and then (2) can you tell us a little more about the decision to lean in more to supportive housing at this time?

Official source

Ms. Pam Tobin

Thanks for those questions. Our urgent care model is a best practice within the province. It’s 24/7. We have drop-off for any crisis, at our centre. I often use an example that a police officer shared with me of a neighbouring nation—he said he can drop off a client at our centre and be back into his community to police within half an hour. We’ll see somebody within 10 to 15 minutes, as soon as they arrive at our crisis centre. We can often support somebody and have them back in the community or have wraparound supports provided to them within a very short period of time. If that same police officer didn’t have our service and had to drop that client at the emergency room—they’re often waiting with that client for up to eight hours or more, unable to police their community. So that’s the difference that our model makes. We often provide supports to our first responders as well. First responders also need supports. They’re on the front lines; they see things every day that they need supports with, and we support those as well. We have stabilization beds at our crisis centre. Those stabilization beds—we can keep clients there for up to 72 hours, to provide them supports. We have psychiatry. We have physicians. We have registered nurses. We have regulated staff. We have 24-hour crisis lines as well, available at that site, providing supports to our whole region. It is a best practice, and it’s a model that’s working really well in our community. Leaning into supportive housing is the thing to do. Everybody is well aware of the homelessness situation in London and throughout our region that we serve. Supportive housing provides people with dignity, compassion and support, and it’s a model that helps to keep people housed. Affordable housing can provide housing for individuals, but without the supports. And oftentimes, with the complexity of clients that we see, of mental health and addiction challenges—they need those wraparound supports, to keep individuals housed. And that’s where we provide an exceptional model of support for supportive housing—where we’re scaling up the supports that we provide in the community because we see it as a sustainable model.

Official source

Ms. Lee Fairclough

How many more minutes of the time?

Official source

The Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)

You have 1.4 minutes.

Official source

Ms. Lee Fairclough

Go ahead.

Official source

The Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)

MPP Bowman.

Official source

Ms. Stephanie Bowman

Thank you for your comments this morning. I would also like to talk about mental health in London. I know that it has been a crisis for a number of years. I know that in Toronto, Dunn House has been a very effective model of supportive housing. There have been some announcements that there will be a second one like that very soon in Parkdale. I’m wondering if you could talk about any progress around that kind of model happening here in London and what your role could be in terms of, again, facilitating that, working with the clientele who might be eligible for that kind of program.

Official source

The Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)

One minute.

Official source