Legislative Assembly of Ontario · Committee
Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs
The official transcript of the meeting, from Hansard, by heading. Ministers, officials and witnesses appear as the transcript names them; committees have no live transcript, so the record appears once the Assembly publishes it.
Read from the beginning of the meeting
Mr. Rob Cerjanec
Perfect. What do you think needs to—right now, I think the top supercomputer that we have in Canada is 76th; I think they’re out in BC. How important are supercomputing data centres and stuff to the work that you’re doing in quantum?
Mr. Marc Gibson
I’m glad you asked that. It’s one of the things—so, when we talk about quantum, for anyone who doesn’t live and breathe this every day, it’s hard to always understand where different things exist. The quantum sensing that we specialize in is very much about measuring the forces that are out there—like I said, things like magnesium, gravity and whatnot. It’s a very different end of the spectrum. Quantum computing, at the other end of the spectrum, is much more of a large-scale, solving problems that is more about the computational side of things. We’re more about measuring things for the sake of communications and defence applications. At least for our organization, we looked at it and said when there are investments coming from large organizations, we strategically focused on sensing to do the most good we could there.
Mr. Rob Cerjanec
Thank you. Just very quickly, thank you, Richard and Don, from the beef farmers. In terms of the current trade situation with the United States and the new federal deal with China, is there an opportunity for beef farming to grow and expand in Ontario?
Mr. Richard Horne
Thank you for that question. I think absolutely. Trade is incredibly important to our sector. About 40% of the value of every animal produced in Canada, which includes Ontario, is derived from export markets, so the more we can diversify, the better. Those who will pay the most for different cuts and products—
The Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)
Thank you very much. That concludes the answer. I will now go to MPP Brady.
Ms. Bobbi Ann Brady
Fascinating work, Marc. Allan, we’ve heard several times on this committee the challenges that you have highlighted, and I appreciate and share your passion. I am going to turn my attention, though, over to the beef farmers. It’s always wonderful to see you, Richard and Don. I can understand why a breeder loan guarantee would be advantageous to an individual farmer, but can you explain or help us understand what benefit this would have to Ontario farmers on a whole and the beef sector more broadly?
Mr. Richard Horne
Thank you for that question. I think it’s a great question, and yes, from an individual farmer’s perspective, reducing borrowing costs is a major benefit of the ask. But more broadly, I think young farmers—and Don mentioned the percentage that are in these programs, a high percentage of which are under the age of 40. We need to start thinking about doing more from a policy program incentive perspective to support the next generation. If we’re going have food security and food being produced in this province, that would probably be—one barrier to entry is capital and this helps with that. So, young farmers, number one. The second one would be reducing our dependence on US imports, on breeding stock, and from those from other jurisdictions. The third would be to grow our herd and hopefully capitalize on the markets we just talked about and the opportunities in other jurisdictions—so, markets, young farmers and growing our herd.
Ms. Bobbi Ann Brady
Thank you for that. Over the past year, we’ve continually heard about the need to tariff-proof Ontario. Perhaps I’m biased as a farm girl, but I do believe that the best way to tariff-proof and protect Ontario is to further invest in ag food processing. I’m just wondering—I think, at the first week of January of this year, Ontario exported something like 300 head of cattle. Some 70% to 80% of those I believe are headed directly for slaughter and processing. From your perspective, Richard, what are the biggest barriers to expanding beef production here in Ontario and what would the government have to do differently to remove those barriers?
Mr. Richard Horne
I think in terms of expansion, it’s opportunity cost with other things, so loan guarantee programs, like the one we’re talking about here today, give confidence to producers to be able to expand their operations. Of course, there are incentive and grant programs on the processing side or the production side that would help, again, give confidence and limit risk to those operations to make those investments in labour and in their own operations to grow and expand their production base. I’d also mention the Risk Management Program. It’s been an excellent program that the province has put in. More money and accelerated government phasing would really help derisk the current climate, and again, give confidence to producers to expand.
Ms. Bobbi Ann Brady
And we saw the increased investment to RMP prior to the 2025 provincial election, so are we currently outdated at this point with respect to RMP and should we be—
The Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)
Thank you very much. That concludes the time. Next, we’ll hear from MPP Racinsky.
Mr. Joseph Racinsky
Thank you to all the presenters for coming today. I really appreciate it. My question is for the Beef Farmers of Ontario. Richard, it’s great to see you again. I just came straight to this committee from ROMA, the Rural Ontario Municipal Association conference. At ROMA, I was speaking with the Ontario Federation of Agriculture. They shared with me they just recently came back from an international conference of farmer organizations in the States—you might have been there as well; I don’t know. But they shared with me some of the comments that were being made by some of the American organizations, by some of the government officials that were at this conference. They were talking about clear-cutting nationally owned American forests to reduce their reliance on Canadian lumber, turning that land into farmland so that they can be self-sufficient when it comes to food security. I share that because I think it’s important for us to highlight, again, that the international rules, they’re changing. The status quo is no longer the case and big things are happening. It’s important for us to do big things here in Ontario. Like you mentioned, we have been doing some of those things with the Risk Management Program, and really, it’s making sure that we have food security here in Ontario, here in Canada, and we need big action. My question to you: You mentioned reliance on US imports and how the breeder financing program would alleviate that. Could you just share more on how the program would help reduce our reliance on US imports?
Mr. Richard Horne
Sure. Thank you for the question. Our production level in Ontario has remained fairly the same, if not grown somewhat over time. But the number of calves born in Ontario to support our feeders and our processors and ultimately our retail market has done down. We’ve supplemented that with imports from the US and western Canada, so our overall production remains the same but animals born and bred here have declined over time for a variety of reasons. I think this program in particular, the breeder loan program, provides that necessary capital to operations that want to grow their operations, and the backstop by the province gives confidence to lenders to provide more attractive lending terms. It’s really sort of a two-pronged benefit or advantage to producers, again, giving them the confidence and capital required to expand their herd numbers, which ultimately fill the Ontario supply chain. I hope that answers your question. Thank you.
Mr. Joseph Racinsky
It does, Richard. Thanks. To Don: You talked about the barriers for young people getting into farming. I grew up in rural Halton Hills. My first summer job was working on a farm, and I know very well how difficult it is for young people to get into farming, especially if they don’t come from a farming family. Could you just please elaborate on how this program would assist getting more young people into farming?
Mr. Don Badour
The biggest thing is reduced lending costs with a government-backed guarantee. Compared to the feeder program that has the government guarantee—interest rate on a loan is about a half to three quarters of a percent less. As far as the assurance of money that you have to put up yourself, it is 5% compared to 15%, which we currently have to do with the breeder loan. That guarantee would cut down those costs tremendously. I’m a director on our own local breeder co-op and this past year we’ve had a lot of interest in young people, the majority under 40, with cattle prices so high and stable, who are looking to get into the beef and cow business.
Mr. Don Badour
It’s good to see because—these are old statistics, but from my home county, Lanark county, between 2018 and 2021, we lost 26% of our beef cows in our county that went to cash crop or other things. For the local economy, it’s nice to see some cows back in the area, and the type of ground we have, it’s best for raising beef cattle, in our particular area.
Mr. Joseph Racinsky
Well, thank you. I really appreciate that. One of my childhood friends went into beef farming. He didn’t come from a farming family. Unfortunately, he’s doing it in Prince Edward Island, but hopefully we can get more people doing it here in Ontario. Mr. Don Badour: Thank you.
Ms. Peggy Sattler
Thank you to all three of our presenters this morning. I’m going to focus my questions on Extend-A-Family Waterloo Region and Allan Mills. The concerns that you have raised, the letter that you shared from that parent, this has been the reality in Ontario for many, many years. We’ve seen it in consecutive reports from the Auditor General, scathing investigations by the Ombudsman about the number of adults with developmental disabilities waiting for residential services. We hear it as MPPs. We hear it in our constituency offices particularly around the Passport funding and the fact that that $5,500 that people get is nowhere near—it comes nowhere close—to addressing the level of need that these families have. Mr. Mills, can you tell us what you want to see from this government in the 2026 budget that will start to address some of these issues around the lack of residential housing options and also the inadequacy of the money that’s currently allocated to the Passport funding program?
Mr. Allan Mills
Certainly. Thank you for the question. The people that we’re supporting really do need access to whole of government. So the developmental services sector funded by the Ministry of Children, Community and Social Services really ought to be focusing on support hours to help people live successfully. Historically they’ve also been providing the bricks and mortar through group home development within our sector. But really, these folks should have access to affordable housing in the community, the same as everyone else, and these dollars could be focused on support. My suggestion is a 5% increase to the spending on developmental services in the year ahead—$186 million—which would move about 3% of the people who are currently waiting for residential services into care. We can also work better between ministries. It costs about $280,000 a year to keep someone on an extended stay in the hospital. There are well over 100 people in hospital simply because they don’t have anywhere to go. We can support them for less than half that cost and give them a better life if they were supported through developmental service agencies. We just haven’t seen any investment. The service capacity has gone down in the last decade. In 2017-18 we were supporting over 18,000 people residentially, and now we’re supporting under 18,000—about 1,000 people less—because costs have gone up and there’s been no investment in the services, so capacity has gone down.
Ms. Peggy Sattler
Thank you very much for that response. I want to go back to Community Living Ontario’s submission for the pre-budget process and the recommendation for a 3% increase in base funding. Now, that 3% increase in base funding would help compensate staff who work in the developmental services sector. Can you tell us about the reality for those staff who work in developmental services? Is there a lot of turnover? Are the wages appropriate given the important services that these staff provide?
Mr. Allan Mills
First, I’d like the recognize that our sector was included during the pandemic in the $3-an-hour boost that people in direct support received. That was very well received, very much appreciated and, I would say, very needed. Apart from that, there’s been very little invested. We had a 3% cost-of-living increase to our budgets in 2024-25, and the last adjustment, economically, to our budgets, was in 2009-10, when we got 1.4%. So you can imagine the inflationary pressures on our budget in the past 15 years. While we’ve been trying to keep up with other sectors, we lose staff to education, we lose staff to health, we lose staff to long-term care, because those sectors pay better than we do. There are currently labour disruptions all across—well, labour strife across the province. There’s a strike in the Oakville area, and people have been moved back into an institution by that organization to try to manage and care for them during this work stoppage. There are about 70 more collective agreements coming up within the next few months. People are not happy, and the turnover rates are pretty high. Unfortunately, our sector is pretty low-valued in the broader scheme of things.
Ms. Peggy Sattler
And without that increase to base funding, what choice do Community Living agencies have? What kinds of services are we looking at being forced to cut?
Mr. Allan Mills
Sure. Whose service capacities are going down? I mentioned that residential services have gone down by—
The Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)
We’ll have to finish that answer in the next round; we’re out of time. We’ll go to MPP Fairclough.
Ms. Lee Fairclough
Thank you to all the speakers for your presentations. I do have a question for each of you if we can make it through it in the five minutes that we’ve got allocated. I will start with you, Richard, from the Beef Farmers of Ontario. When I look at the previous program that has been invested in, which has been the feeder program, it really is about getting the backing that’s needed to get this off the ground and actually, in fact, was never drawn from in the end, in terms of that backing. So this seems like it makes a lot of sense for the government to invest in something like this. Can you talk maybe just more specifically about how that financial investment will also really help protect us at this moment with the US? What difference would it make in the sector to insulate us from the situation in the US?
Mr. Richard Horne
Thank you for the question. I’ll try to be brief with the three other questions, but I think we have a real opportunity to grow our cow production in Ontario to service local markets in Ontario. That is by far the biggest benefit with respect to market: development and marketing of our products to Ontario consumers. We love having imports from other jurisdictions to feed our sector here and our significant processing industry. We’d prefer to have Ontario-born-and-bred animals, though, to service those markets. So that’s really that in a nutshell.
Ms. Lee Fairclough
Thank you very much. My second question really is to Extend-A-Family Waterloo. Thank you, Allan, for your presentation. I have to admit, the letter that you read at the beginning really resonated for me as an MPP. I’ve had many people coming to my constituency office with the same concern, and particularly older adults with adult children that are also getting older, and really concerned about what will be there to support them should they actually pass away and their adults be on their own. So can you talk a little bit more about the numbers of people waiting and even perhaps comment on that older demographic and what we could be doing to give some of the certainty and reassurance to people that their adults with developmental disabilities will be supported?
Mr. Allan Mills
I wish we could give them that assurance. Right now, the only people that come into service are the people in the greatest crisis in the community. Right now, there are 70 people on that urgent-need list in Waterloo region alone, and there has been no funding made available by the province to address any one of their needs. So, Deborah, who wrote that letter, is in a medical appointment today. If things went very poorly for her, her family would immediately fall into crisis. She’s a 24/7 caregiver. They would be in that list of 70. Now, there’s 71 people in an urgent situation, and we have zero capacity to support them without an investment of new funding into the sector. So there’s currently 741 people receiving residential services of a wide variety of types, but in Waterloo region—and there’s 900 people waiting; 70 of those people are in urgent crisis situations.
Ms. Lee Fairclough
Yes, it really does need to be addressed urgently. I agree with you. My last question is for you, Marc. It was great to have an update, actually, on the Quantum labs. When I worked here in this region, I learned a lot about your organization. You mentioned that really your ask here is to ensure that the CTI funding can continue and continue to support some of the kinds of successes that you’re talking about. Can you talk a little bit more about the fund? Have you got any concerns about decreases that you might see in that fund? It was at the very end of your presentation, so I wanted to hear a little bit more about what you’re hoping for on it.
Mr. Marc Gibson
I think the CTI program has been a fantastic initiative on the part of Ontario. For organizations like ours, when I have a long list of programs we’ve worked with things like defence development—you know, DRDC, national research—there are a lot more programs that exist today than when we started this company.
Mr. Marc Gibson
The thing with things like CTI is that they provide organization-level funding to support them. Whereas a lot of things are programmatic and targeted at specific projects that are being done, CTI and things like that I think are essential to help build organizations so that we can build larger capacity. I think that’s one of the differentiators, whereas something like CTI was a really instrumental program that Ontario put in place and, obviously, why we’d like to see that continue.
Mr. Marc Gibson
I don’t have any concerns right now, but at the end of the day, it was a program that was started with an initial time frame on it. So ultimately, that’s one of the reasons why—
Mr. Marc Gibson
—we’re here today, to let you know how it went and, ultimately, to be able to show you the benefits that the program, in the time that was afforded to it, has already yielded.
Ms. Lee Fairclough
That’s great. And congratulations again on the numbers of innovations and the successful companies that have been launching. It’s very exciting for Canada.
Ms. Aislinn Clancy
I think I need a longer conversation with you, Marc, so I’m going to hopefully reach out shortly to arrange a visit. I think in downtown Kitchener and in the Waterloo region we see too many start-ups—my partner included—leave the province, leave to go to the US, where they’re ready to take more risks and help translate innovation into a marketable product. I’m hopeful that you’ll see those successes. It’s an awesome time to have this innovation there and, in this context, to be able to serve our country by providing a product that’s made in Ontario and in Waterloo region, so I look forward to having a deeper chat. I’m going to turn my attention to Allan. I recently met with Sunbeam, and he shared a story of a gentleman who was deaf and blind and had lived a year in a London hospital. It was just by chance that a nurse at this hospital sought out Sunbeam as one of many residential providers to provide complex care. Because this gentleman was 2 to 1, it cost the health care system a million dollars for that year of care that he received. He was believed to be bedridden and not ambulatory, but he’d been strapped to a bed for that year because of lack of appropriate levels of care or tailored care. Now, he’s living comfortably in a residential setting with way less intensive staff supports—not even one-on-one. He’s walking around. What do you see the impact, not only financially but emotionally, when we aren’t able to provide the proper care for folks with developmental disabilities and other disabilities?
Mr. Allan Mills
Yes, it’s very difficult. I can think of two gentlemen that we were supporting in something called the Host Family Program, or Family Home, where they’re living with a family who is volunteering their time to include these people in their lives. They receive an honorarium for that. Our budget for these two gentlemen, because they came to us so long ago, was $13,000 each. They needed increased supports over time eventually, but they weren’t the most urgent situations in the community, so they ended up in long-term care. Their supports went from $13,000 a year to—long-term care is estimated at at least $110,000 a year. The taxpayer bore that brunt. We could have easily served them well for half of that, but we couldn’t get any more money in developmental services. Also, they were too young; they were in their forties and fifties, moving into long-term care simply because there was no capacity to keep them in the community through developmental services. There are all kinds of horrible stories like that. It’s great to hear the success story from Brian and Sunbeam. There are some of those as well, but unfortunately, they’re rare. It sounds like Sunbeam would have been spending less money than the hospital was. So ultimately, again, with better coordination and a deeper investment in developmental services, the taxpayer saves money overall.
The Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)
Thank you very much. That concludes the time for that question. MPP Saunderson.
Mr. Brian Saunderson
I want to thank each of our presenters today, not only for coming to share your input on the upcoming budget but also for the great work that you do in our communities. I’d like to start off quickly with you, Allan, and Extend-A-Family Waterloo Region. I served on our community care and community living board in Collingwood for 12 years, so the story I hear from you today, sadly, is not new. I think you indicated in your comments that the last major funding increase you got was in 2009-10. My recollection from the sector you serve is that program funding tends to be very siloed and restricted. I’m wondering if giving flexibility in a number of the funding envelopes your organization receives might help to ease some of the pressures you’re speaking about.
Mr. Allan Mills
Sometimes that can help. We have seen funding flexibility. For example, I mentioned our Host Family Program. We’ve had people that aged out of the child welfare system, stayed with their former foster parents but were supported by us in host family. Then they’ve eventually transitioned into supported independent living, where they have their own place, and we provide support for them to live there successfully. That’s a different funding bucket, technically, but the ministry has allowed us to move funding from one to another, so there is some funding flexibility internally like that. But if they were to have to leave us and go to another organization, that would be a lot more complicated. What we don’t see is interministerial co-operation the way we could between health and MCCSS or between housing and MCCSS. You can be on a wait-list for affordable housing with the municipality, but the supports to provide you that care to live there are, with us, provincially funded, and the gateway is through Developmental Services Ontario. There’s not a lot of connection between the municipality and Developmental Services Ontario. That has improved somewhat. But you could get off one of those lists but not have access to housing—say, if you’re off our list—or if you get housing but you don’t have supports, like Hayden’s parents, who bought a house for him but couldn’t get funds to provide him support there. You have to be in a crisis, and then we end up with expensive supports rather than proactive, preplanned supports. That’s the other part of the problem.
Mr. Brian Saunderson
Thank you for that. Marc, as one of the parliamentary assistants for Minister Fedeli, it’s great to hear your story. I know that your organization benefited from a CTI grant. I wanted to talk with you because two years ago, I was over in Taiwan on a business trip, and I saw their organic system for innovation hubs and accelerators and how they connect not just the research and some funding there but also connect with angel investors and the investment network. I wanted to get your sense from this program. Does that open doors for your ability, then, to tap into other forms of investment in the area to expand your business and your options?
Mr. Marc Gibson
Absolutely. Having that connection from working so closely with the CTI program and knowing the other initiatives that the province of Ontario has with things like the Invest Ontario programs going on, I think there’s a natural, organic relationship there for organizations like ours that are spinning out companies to then be directed towards other programs that the province is supporting to help ensure that we are investing in our homegrown companies. I don’t know that those linkages are necessarily quite there yet, but I can absolutely see a case for why that should be something that we should be moving towards.
Mr. Brian Saunderson
Thank you for that. Just with everything that’s going on geopolitically and with tariffs, we’ve heard some comments about some drain to the south. With what’s going on in the world, are we seeing more of a focus on developing our own local Canadian and Ontario knowledge-based sector and investing in that, given the geopolitics of the day?
Mr. Marc Gibson
I would have to say yes. As I mentioned, I’ve been working with this organization since 2018, and I think we can all agree that the world has changed considerably in those years. I’ve had the privilege of speaking with some of the highest-ranking officials in organizations like NORAD and places like that and talking to them about what they’re looking for in the next several years in terms of making sure that we are able to monitor things like our Arctic and whatnot.
Mr. Marc Gibson
With the technologies that we’re developing, when I speak to people in those roles, they’re saying, “I would love to see things like that produced in Canada.” That’s why organizations like Defence Research and Development Canada in Ottawa—we have a prototype device that we’ve produced through the ISC program that is in Ottawa, in the Shirleys Bay laboratory right now. We might be one of the few in this pilot program there that actually has a working quantum technology made in Ontario, in Canada’s federal lab up in Ottawa, so that when members of the CAF, the Canadian Armed Forces, come through, they can see what a homegrown product could yield. That creates that pull to then help these technologies get deployed, as I said in my comments, to support our sovereignty.
Mr. Brian Saunderson
As you know—you’ve been in this space—this government as well is attracting $46 billion in manufacturing. In foreign investment, we’ve attracted tens of billions in tech, in that we’re actually becoming, sort of, the Silicon Valley of the north. So do you see these investments dovetailing with the type of investments and loans that the grants program that the government is doing to make sure—
The Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)
Thank you very much. That concludes the time. We’ll now go to MPP Bell.
Ms. Jessica Bell
Thank you to the presenters for coming in and sharing your expertise and your knowledge today. I have some questions for Richard and Don from the Beef Farmers of Ontario. It’s slightly different than what you mentioned, so if it’s not your area of expertise, that’s fine; just pass. Given the economic turbulence we’re seeing right now—the rise of tariffs across Canada—we are hearing a lot of calls from the agricultural sector to really do more to encourage consumers, businesses and institutions, from schools to municipalities, to buy local. Do you have specific recommendations on what Ontario could do to encourage consumers, businesses and institutions to buy more of your product?
Mr. Richard Horne
Thank you for the question. I think it’s a broad response, but it’s probably the most effective one, and it resonates most with what’s going on currently, but shoring up our supply chain. So investment into things like breeder loans and the Risk Management Program for domestic production to weather market volatility and increase our domestic production across the board. MPP Brady mentioned processing capacity and supports for strengthening small- and medium- and larger-sized processors; things like that. And then on the farm side, we’ve talked about farm insurance and risk management, breeder loans etc.—all those things go hand in hand with the current trade situation that we find ourselves in.
Ms. Jessica Bell
Thank you for that. We’ve been advocating for stronger Buy Ontario/Build Ontario policies for some time. The government has introduced a new Buy Ontario bill. It’s our opinion that that bill needs to include some kind of practical measures to support the agricultural sector, so this is really a good opportunity for that. The second question I have is to Allan Mills from Extend-A-Family Waterloo Region. Thanks so much for coming here. I just had some clarifying questions. You mentioned that there are many individuals—adult children—who are waiting for that additional support. You mentioned that there are 70 adults who are in crisis out of 900 people who are on the wait-list. Can you describe what “crisis” means for the adult children and their families? Can you paint a picture for us?
Mr. Allan Mills
Sure, I can try, and those numbers are specific to Waterloo region; obviously much higher if we think provincially. Those families are at risk of breakdown. There’s either been a death of a primary caregiver or a hospitalization of a primary caregiver. The family has broken down and parted ways, but the single parent that’s left is not able to fully support the person on their own, or there’s been mental health breakdowns within the home—either the person with a developmental or intellectual disability or perhaps one of their caregivers; that kind of thing. People have been at risk of homelessness. It’s estimated that about 20% of people in the shelter system are people who have a developmental or intellectual disability, so there’s people that are there. We’re supporting some people that can’t find housing, so they’re couch surfing, they’re living with friends or they’re on the street sometimes, and our capacity to support them is limited to their Passport funding, which is really to help them with daytime activities. We don’t have residential capacity for some of those folks at all. Those are some of the situations that people are in that would be on that short list of 70. Some of them also will be in hospital; some of the folks that have been left in hospital for an extended stay because they simply can’t go back home and there’s nowhere else for them to go.
Ms. Jessica Bell
Thank you for providing that clarity. I think we’ve heard many times in committee that having someone live in a supportive home or is provided support is certainly a lot cheaper than having someone stay in an ALC bed, a hospital bed—
Ms. Jessica Bell
—a long-term-care-home bed, or being in prison or living in the shelter system, even. So thank you for that. I had just some clarifying questions around Passport funding. We do get some requests from mainly families who want their adult children to access that Passport funding.
Ms. Jessica Bell
Can you just give me some details—how long do people typically have to wait to get access to their Passport funding when they turn 18? Does it come immediately, or is there a wait time there?
Mr. Allan Mills
Within a few months, they should be able to get the minimum amount, which is $5,500 a year or $98 a week by my math. But they would also have an assessment completed through the DSO that would indicate a much higher value. It takes them years before they actually get from that placeholder $5,500 to what it could or should be. And even then, that is, I would suggest, inadequate. The highest amount is $45,000. That can’t pay—for example, if somebody needed one-to-one support, which most people don’t—but if somebody needed that, you can’t get that throughout the week to compensate for what used to be their time in school. The family is still on their own outside of that. The family that I shared a letter from, they have the maximum amount of Passport funding, but they’re still struggling—
The Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)
Thank you very much. That concludes the time for that question. It also concludes the time for this panel. I want to thank all the people on the panel. Thank you very much for the time you took to prepare and to ably present your presentation here today. I’m sure it will be of great assistance to this committee as we move forward in our consultation process. With that, the committee now is in recess until 1 o’clock.
The committee recessed from 1216 to 1300.
The Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)
Good afternoon, everyone. We’ll now resume our 2026 pre-budget consultation— Interjections.
The Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)
And we will cease the general conversations for a few moments.
The Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)
As a reminder, each presenter will have seven minutes for their presentation. After we’ve heard from all three presenters, the remaining 39 minutes of 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 members of the committee. We have the first panel at the table. We will provide a verbal reminder to notify you when you have one minute left for your presentation or allotted speaking time. Please wait until you are recognized by the Chair before speaking. As always, all comments should go through the Chair. And now we will welcome our first panel: B’nai Brith Canada, Greater Kitchener Waterloo Chamber of Commerce and the Ontario School Library Association. I believe we’re all at the table. We have the B’nai Brith Canada as the first speaker. With that, you can correct me on the pronunciation. The floor is yours.
Mr. Richard Robertson
Honourable committee members, my name is Richard Robertson. I am B’nai Brith Canada’s director of research and advocacy. Our organization is the voice of Canada’s grassroots Jewish community. We are dedicated to eradicating racism, anti-Semitism and hatred in all its forms, and to championing the rights of the marginalized. The 2026 budget consultations are occurring during a national crisis of anti-Semitism. Ontario’s Jewish community continues to be subjected to unacceptable and rising levels of anti-Semitism. In our 2024 audit of anti-Semitic incidents, B’nai Brith Canada recorded a 124% increase in anti-Semitism from 2022 to 2024. Jewish Ontarians presently face substantial threats to their security and well-being, and the continued vitality of Jewish life in this province remains in jeopardy as a result. Confronting the anti-Semitism and hate plaguing our society requires immediate actions from all levels of government. As B’nai Brith Canada stated in our own submissions to the committee and Ontario Ministry of Finance in advance of the 2025 budget, government and opposition parties alike must work together with stakeholders across Ontario to actively confront hate and injustice wherever they arise. With this is mind, B’nai Brith Canada urges the committee to endorse the following recommendations for inclusion in the 2026 provincial budget. Our first recommendation is that the government of Ontario dedicate funding for the creation and implementation of two new five-year programs to enhance familiarization of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition of “anti-Semitism” among secondary and post-secondary students in the province. B’nai Brith Canada is a proponent of the government of Ontario’s anti-racism strategy. The strategy is a proactive plan that empowers all of Ontario’s marginalized and minority communities and includes the Jewish community’s chosen definition of “anti-Semitism,” the IHRA definition of “anti-Semitism,” a definition that was adopted by the government of Ontario in October 2020. B’nai Brith Canada recommends that the funding be allocated to enable the Minister of Citizenship and Multiculturalism, who is responsible for the anti-racism strategy, to work with the Minister of Education and Minister of Colleges, Universities, Research Excellence and Security to create two new programs aimed at increasing secondary and post-secondary students’ literacy in relation to the IHRA definition. The rationale behind the creation of these programs is simple: We cannot expect the next generation of Ontario’s leaders to contribute to the fight against anti-Semitism if they do not understand the nuances of what constitutes contemporary anti-Semitism. B’nai Brith Canada has heard from Ontarians, specifically youth and adolescents, that they are unfamiliar with the province’s definition of “anti-Semitism.” The programs proposed by B’nai Brith Canada would serve as proactive measures to rectify this knowledge gap among secondary and post-secondary students across the province. In doing so they would be empowered with the information needed to become stakeholders in the fight against anti-Semitism. Our next recommendation is founded on the same principle. It is that government of Ontario invests in a mandatory training program on the IHRA definition of “anti-Semitism” for all provincial public servants. The government of Ontario can demonstrate leadership in the fight against anti-Semitism by equipping provincial public servants with a comprehensive understanding of the IHRA definition. Implementing such an initiative across the entirety of Ontario’s public service would ensure that public servants are able to identify and respond to incidents of anti-Semitism that they encounter in the course of their public service. The government of Ontario’s adoption of the IHRA definition marked an important step in the commitment to combatting anti-Semitism. To turn this commitment into tangible action, the government must implement mandatory anti-Semitism training for the provincial public service grounded in the IHRA definition. Our third recommendation is that the government of Ontario review provincial grant programs to ensure that all provincially funded programming is in alignment with Ontario’s anti-racism strategy. Currently there is no guarantee that ensures the recipients of funding for Ontario’s grant programs will operate in alignment with the anti-racism strategy. As a result, B’nai Brith Canada recommends that the Minister of Citizenship and Multiculturalism and the Anti-Racism Directorate work to ensure that all projects and organizations that are recipients of provincial grants are aligned with the anti-racism strategy. Such a guarantee could take the form of an attestation to be signed by all funding recipients. Such an attestation has been implemented by the federal Department of Canadian Heritage and could be replicated by provincial granters of funding. Such a guarantee would assure Ontarians that no provincial funding will be allocated to recipients of projects that have the propensity to contribute to the further division or injury of Ontario’s social fabric. Our final recommendation is that the government of Ontario allocates funding to develop a digital literacy program addressing online harms within the K-12 curriculum and to support B’nai Brith Canada’s call the creation of a national youth digital literacy program. Simply put, the kids are not all right. Our youth are exposed daily to dangerous content and situations online. Exploitation, sexploitation, indoctrination, explicit content, misinformation, disinformation and extremist content are just some of what children are routinely exposed to on social media and in the digital realm. B’nai Brith Canada has witnessed the increased frequency of anti-Semitic and hate-based incidents and youth radicalization online. A 2024 report published by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police indicated that violent extremists have adopted the Internet as an avenue through which they indoctrinate minors and adolescents to recruit them to participate in their activities. Ontario’s curriculum includes general digital literacy in anti-hate education. While this is commendable, there’s no mandatory program designed to protect Ontario’s K-12 students from online harms. We must accept that our youth, as digital natives, will be exposed to online harms. It is our societal responsibility to prepare them for such. Presently we have left them to fend for themselves, flying blind through a storm. Thank you.
The Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)
Thank you very much for the presentation. Our next presentation is Greater Kitchener Waterloo Chamber of Commerce.
Mr. Ian McLean
Good afternoon and thank you to the committee for the opportunity to present to you today, Chair Hardeman and the committee. I see friends—Aislinn and Jess and Lee Fairclough, so it’s nice to be here to present today. I’m Ian McLean, president and CEO of the Greater Kitchener Waterloo Chamber of Commerce, but I also bring greetings on behalf of my colleague Greg Durocher who is the president and CEO of the Cambridge Chamber of Commerce. We work closely together on everything from advocacy issues, events and programming and also host the number one business show on 570 NewsRadio at noon on Sundays—you have to say all of that together for it to be factually correct. It’s called Business to Business—yes, it has to be all together. I want to just maybe start here this afternoon: Last week, the Business and Economics Support Team of Waterloo Region—which is the two chambers, Communitech, Waterloo Economic Development Corp. and Explore Waterloo, the five major business organizations released the second in our regular update for the community called Vision 1 Million: Are We Ready? that’s recognizing that our community is growing fast. We’ll be somewhere between 900,000 and a million people within 20 to 25 years and there is lots of work for us to be doing so that we’re ready with the infrastructure, services, programs that we need to be successful as a community of a million people. I encourage you to—I can provide this for you—the score card is available at bestwr.org. It’s a full report on all the things that are required for us to be a successful community of a million. I’d take some liberty and say the number-one budget priority for business, our chamber members, but also, I think, the community more broadly as a whole, is the firm commitment and inclusion of funding for the new Waterloo Regional Health Network facility in the spring budget. It has been 60 years since a new hospital was built here in Waterloo region. Our community is 700,000 or 720,000 now and headed towards a million. We can’t create jobs, we can’t get investment, we can’t secure a thriving community without health care that our citizens should expect and need. We also need the infrastructure, and so this is the second part of this. As we grow, we’ll need somewhere in the order of not only a new hospital, but we need our LRT phase 2 to be funded between the federal government and the provincial government—because we won’t be able to build the 50,000, 60,000 new homes for the citizens we’ll be moving in here. So for housing and to create the jobs—we’re looking at somewhere in the order of 70,000 to 100,000 new jobs that don’t exist right now—it rests on the infrastructure here in the community. The government deserves credit, to be fair, for investments like all-day, two-way GO and the improvements that are happening there, and the transit hub announcement that recently came, but we’ll need the federal and provincial governments to fund phase 2 of the LRT project, which is foundational to our success as a community and is an engine for the province’s economic growth. I’m going to pivot a little bit. Chamber members, as you all know, in your communities represent businesses of all sizes and types, but the backbone of chambers and businesses across Ontario are small businesses. When I say “small,” this is what it means: I have almost 1,500 members; 90% of them have less than 50 employees. That will be the same in all of your communities. It’s small businesses that drive our local economies and the province’s economy. The government’s continued focus in making government procurement easier to navigate and accessible for small business is really important. You should not need to know what the secret handshake is or pay a consultant to be able to deliver products and services in the province of Ontario. The last comment I would make—and it has been in the news; I’m sure you’re aware of it—is that there’s a water crisis here in Waterloo region. My colleague Greg and I sent a letter to the regional council, and the reason it’s important for this committee is, not only do we need to fix it and fix it fast—because investment is frozen now. We’re not accepting development applications. So we need to fix it and fix it fast, and it’s going to require provincial leadership—provincial leadership to get the facts straight. Everyone can agree on what the facts are and what the solutions are, and the province will need to be part of that. We need to look forward and not back. We’re not going to accept finger pointing from anybody, partisan or not. We need to fix this and move forward, and we need to lift the pause. When I talked to my colleague Tony La Mantia from Waterloo Region Economic Development Corp.—there is going to be no investment in new jobs for direct investment or growth in this community until this is solved. So it’s not directly here, but I wanted to put it on the table—that the province stepping in and helping this community through this immediately, if not sooner, is going to be essential to the economic growth not only of this region, but the oversized role that this region plays in the provincial economy. Thank you.
The Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)
Thank you. We’ll now hear from the Ontario School Library Association.
Ms. Anita Brooks Kirkland
Thank you, Mr. Chair and the standing committee, for the opportunity to participate in this consultation. My name is Anita Brooks Kirkland. I am the past chair of the national non-profit organization Canadian School Libraries. Prior to my retirement from the Waterloo Region District School Board, I was its program consultant for K-to-12 libraries. I am a former president of the Ontario Library Association and of its division, the Ontario School Library Association. I am here representing the Ontario School Library Association, or OSLA. OSLA provides a common voice for school library professionals’ needs and interests through advocacy, leadership and continuing education, representing over 1,300 elementary and secondary school teacher-librarians, library technicians and school board consultants. I’m proud to work alongside passionate school librarians and school library staff who make an impact for the millions of students who rely on school libraries every day. Ontario has made it clear that improving foundational skills in reading, writing and math are central goals. School libraries and teacher librarians are essential partners in achieving these goals. The evidence is consistent and long-standing: When students have access to a well-resourced school library and trained library staff, literacy improves, research skills strengthen and outcomes on assessments like EQAO rise. Teacher librarians serve as literacy leaders and provide support and expertise to the entire school. They work directly with classroom teachers to achieve literacy and curriculum objectives, helping to build vocabulary, strengthen comprehension and develop the research and critical thinking skills students need to succeed. These skills are not nice to have, they are foundational to STEM learning, data literacy and mathematical reasoning. STEM subjects rely on understanding graphs, tables, data sources and evidence. Teacher librarians explicitly teach how to interpret information, question claims and evaluate sources—skills that support data literacy and mathematical reasoning. School libraries also play a unique role in fostering reading for pleasure, which, research shows, is one of the strongest predictors of overall academic success, including in math. School libraries are also the one place in the school where students can find what truly interests them, sparking a love of reading. Developing literacy through enjoyable reading prepares students with skills that they will use in school and beyond. School libraries serve as an inclusive and equitable space for all learners, especially for those who may lack materials and books at home. For those students, the school library is essential. Despite this, Ontario school boards have dramatically reduced school library staffing and resources; some have eliminated school libraries altogether. The introduction of the core education funding model in 2024 has exacerbated these challenges by removing enveloped funding dedicated for school libraries and library staff, as well as eliminating reporting measures on how school boards are spending funds intended for school libraries, if at all. This is reflected in ongoing trends, indicating that fewer and fewer Ontario students are meeting the provincial standard in reading and writing. Last year’s grade-3 and grade-6 EQAO scores indicated slow progress in improving reading, writing and math scores. This is happening at the very moment when Ontario is trying to strengthen literacy and math outcomes. The Ontario School Library Association’s recommendation today is straightforward and aligned with the government’s stated priorities: Restore and enhance protection of provincial funding for school libraries and library staff under the core education funding model, as well as accountability for school boards about how these funds are used, in recognition of their importance for meeting Ontario’s student literacy goals and supporting student achievement. Three actions the government of Ontario could take to achieve this would include: —creating a defined suballocation within the funding model for school libraries and staffing consistent with the provincial per student formula; —fully protect this allocation so it cannot be diverted to unrelated expenses; and —restoring annual reporting requirements for school boards. These changes directly support the government’s focus on strengthening reading, writing and math skills. School libraries are not an add-on. They are a core component of student success. When students have access to books, resources and trained literacy staff, achievement improves. When those supports disappear, outcomes decline. Ontario has an opportunity in budget 2026 to reinforce the foundations of learning, support educators and give students the tools that they need to succeed. Restoring and protecting school library funding is one of the most effective and evidence-based ways to do this.
Ms. Anita Brooks Kirkland
Good timing. Thank you for your time and for your commitment to improving student achievement across the province. I would be pleased to answer any questions.
The Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)
Thank you. Thank you very much for the presentations. That concludes the presentations. We’ll start with MPP Clancy.
Ms. Aislinn Clancy
I do appreciate all the comments that were shared today. As a former education worker, I know that those school libraries are such sacred places, if I may say. They’re the most beautiful parts of the building, and we need to see them animated, and you can only do that with well-trained staff. So I’ll be keeping an eye on that and advocating for that, as well. I’d like to direct some attention to Ian. I wonder if you could talk a little bit about the vision forward when it comes to our water issue. We are seeing so many layers that have led us to this moment in time. We’re freezing building permits, which is a tragedy for a region that’s growing, and we need to build more housing as soon as possible to meet our targets, to meet the demands of our population and serve our community. I hear about permits to draw water from the Ministry of the Environment, challenges with how we count new development, having missed pieces here, and I think it speaks to a need for greater coordination. I know you’ve been part of that, trying to bring together regional elected officials in the chamber. Can you speak to how we can right this in terms of working together across sectors, including the environment and levels of government and the chamber and the home builders, to ensure that the path forward is sustainable and well-informed?
Mr. Ian McLean
Thank you for a simple question. Okay. I’m sure I can answer it in two minutes. I would say that there has been a lot that has led to this point. Again, trying to do the TikTok on how we got here is not where we want to focus our efforts. I would say that—if I go back, and maybe I’ll position this: There is a pipe that comes out of Lake Erie that’s in Simcoe or somewhere down there. That was the plan to make sure that we had enough water in Waterloo region, recognizing that we were using groundwater and supplementing from the Grand River—
Mr. Ian McLean
Oh, sorry. The history is that we always knew we would need to supplement water supply. Now, we’ve gotten this far—40 years, we’ve never had to do it—because of technology: low-flush toilets, faucets, conservation. But now we’re where we are, which is that there was some miscalculation of infill—and we’re doing a lot of infill. Again, nothing is going to get built. The hospital isn’t getting built. The mega-site so that we can have the next anchor employer, that’s not getting built. Homes aren’t getting built until we solve this. My guess is—and I’m not the expert—that the remedial in the short term will be, do we have to drill some new wells? How do we divert water where there’s more in Cambridge than in the Mannheim site? The fact of the matter is that we have to get the short term dealt with and then have an honest discussion—
The Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)
Thank you very much. That concludes the time. We will now go to MPP Smith.
Mr. Dave Smith
Thanks, Chair. I appreciate that. I’m going to start with Richard, from B’nai Brith. Do you mind if I call you Richard?
Mr. Dave Smith
The suggestions that you put in, some of them are much easier to deal with than others. I’m going to jump on one in particular. The request about providing IHRA training to public servants—CUPE represents a large portion of it. Fred Hahn has been very active in his protests that have been described as being anti-Semitic. How do we navigate that, to provide that level of training to Ontario public servants when you have the head of CUPE who is very vocal in opposition to that type of acceptable training?
Mr. Richard Robertson
It’s a great question, and my response to that is that it’s still within the realm of the province to determine what training public servants receive. The 2020 adoption of the IHRA definition of “anti-Semitism” posited the province of Ontario as a leader in the fight against anti-Semitism. What’s been sorely missing since then is implementation. A tone is set when public servants receive training on the IHRA definition. It will hopefully create a domino and trickle-down effect throughout our society. The provincial government does not control the training of all Ontarians; however, they do have a say in the training of our public servants. The Jewish community has been clear: The IHRA definition of “anti-Semitism” is the Jewish community’s definition of “anti-Semitism.” It is the most comprehensive vehicle. It’s a working definition through which to appreciate contemporary anti-Semitism. It puts the Jewish community in a difficult position when our public servants aren’t aware of the nuances, as front-line workers interacting with the Jewish community on a regular basis, of contemporary anti-Semitism. So to set a tone to show its commitment to the implementation, it is imperative that from the top down, we see the implementation of the IHRA definition—an easy solution, so it’s well within the government’s purview, is the training of our public servants utilizing the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism. There might be some in the various unions that don’t like that, but quite frankly, this is the submission of my organization. It’s the submission of the Jewish community. It’s in the best interests of our community. It’s in the best interests of our province. It’s aligned with our anti-racism strategy. I believe that if it’s framed in that manner, there’s enough of a backbone to go ahead with this. To speak negatively of the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism is to speak negatively of our anti-racism strategy as a whole. If you don’t support our anti-racism strategy and the commendable efforts of the province of Ontario to fight racism and hatred, I think that speaks volume.
Mr. Dave Smith
I’m in 100% agreement with you on it. I think this is something that should very much be done. I do recognize that any time we try to implement something, especially when we’re talking about a unionized staff, we do have to have negotiations with it. Let’s face facts: CUPE protested out front of Mount Sinai Hospital in Toronto. There is absolutely no defensible position that CUPE could ever take for doing that, and yet they did. So I recognize that we are going to have some significant challenges dealing specifically with Fred Hahn and CUPE on something like this. I welcome the opportunity for B’nai Brith, and the Jewish community in general, to come forward and support us if we’re able to move forward with something like that. I will turn it over to one of my colleagues.
Mr. Aris Babikian
Okay. A quick question to B’nai Brith: In 2022, our government allocated $300,000 to schools to educate parents and students on anti-Semitism—how to combat it online and in the school. From your experience, how effective was that program or that year in fighting anti-Semitism?
Mr. Richard Robertson
Anti-Semitism as part of the curriculum, specifically focusing on the Holocaust, has had a tremendous impact. We saw—
Mr. Richard Robertson
We saw numbers that were absolutely horrifying in terms of misinformation, disinformation about the Holocaust, within our youth. That is necessary education, but sadly, it’s not enough. We need the education to go beyond the historic realm of anti-Semitism—teaching about the Holocaust, learning from the past—to focus on contemporary anti-Semitism as well, because as I said in my submission, we hear from Canadians across the province: They do not understand what constitutes contemporary anti-Semitism. We’re setting ourselves up for failure if we don’t invest in literacy amongst our youth, our next generation of Canadians, on contemporary anti-Semitism, as defined by the province.
Ms. Jessica Bell
Thank you to all the presenters for coming in today and sharing your expertise and your knowledge. My first questions are to Ian McLean, the Greater Kitchener Waterloo Chamber of Commerce president. Thank you so much for being here. One question I had was around your mention about making government procurement easier to access for small business, so that they can get those government contracts. My colleague MPP Fife introduced a bill to make it easier for small and medium-sized businesses to get those contracts, and we also have this really good opportunity where the government has introduced a “Buy Ontario” bill, and they’re writing regulations now. What I do not see in the regulations just yet is specific measures on how to get those small- and medium-sized businesses those contracts they need to thrive in this climate. Do you have regulations or recommendations that you think should be included in the government’s new “Buy Ontario” bill which would help your members, especially the smaller ones?
Mr. Ian McLean
I didn’t come prepared with a specific one, but I would say I’ve been president of the chamber of commerce for 16 years—I know, I look far too young, but it has been 16 years. Minister Milloy started with how we could do red tape reduction in those early days. Everyone struggled with this, and part of it is when you go to procurement, it always naturally defaults to lowest cost. I would say, I was a city councillor; obviously that’s one of the things that needs to be there. The other, however: If you’re going to have “Buy Local” and “Buy Ontario,” there needs to be—and this is what needs to be worked on. How do you let that small business who can provide the service well enough, can partner with others, can do the work, but they won’t be able to compete with huge, global or large multinationals that can get their costs down because they’ve got economies of scale—so you’ve got to pick what you’re going to do. If you’re going to support the small business community and say it’s important for small businesses in every part of the province to be able to be part of the procurement process, I think one of the places to start is to say, “Lowest cost isn’t always the best option.” I’m not advocating to be way out of whack, but lowest cost always is the default. We saw this, frankly, during COVID. We saw this during COVID, where we got what we needed, and as soon as things got back to—and I’m talking about masks and gowns and all those sorts of things, and I was in the middle of that here, providing 2.5 million screening kits to chamber members across the province. As soon as the markets came back, the procurement went back to large companies. That’s a problem, because it doesn’t support the action of helping small businesses. We see this in the tech community too—my friends at Communitech. The best thing you can do to get a business, a start-up that has new technology is that first contract with the government is the best calling card they have. They will say, “I sold to the Ontario government,” and that’s where they can get more investment for their company and start to scale. So I’m not sure exactly what it looks like but I think there has to be something in there that says—if you want to get at small businesses, that’s one part that needs to be reviewed in detail, that allows both bureaucrats and ministers or others that are making those procurement decisions—give them more flexibility to say, “We want to support our local businesses in every community across the province of Ontario.”
Ms. Jessica Bell
Thanks for that. Anita Brooks Kirkland, from the Ontario School Library Association: I have kids in the public school system in the TDSB. I follow pretty closely what’s happening to the libraries in local schools. Often the librarian is taken out to teach. Libraries aren’t open for most of the day. There’s a whole lot more going on there. Can you help me understand here: If we wanted to get to a situation where libraries play that critical role that they’re supposed to play in schools, what would that cost? Is there an estimate on how much that would cost?