Wednesday, January 21, 2026

Ms. Maureen Cassidy

Good afternoon, Chair Hardeman and committee members. Thanks for the opportunity to appear before you today to make some recommendations on behalf of the non-profit sector. My name is Maureen Cassidy. I’m the CEO of Pillar Nonprofit Network, which is an intermediary organization supporting over 2,000 non-profits, charities and social impact organizations across southwestern Ontario. I’m here to share why Ontario’s non-profit sector must be recognized as essential economic infrastructure and why the 2026 budget is a critical opportunity to act. Ontario’s non-profit sector is sometimes referred to by policy-makers as “nice to have,” but the data tells a very different story. The sector contributes over $65 billion annually, representing almost 8% of Ontario’s GDP, and employs over 844,000 people. This is one of the most diverse workforces in the province, delivering services that keep people housed, fed, employed and supported. In times of economic uncertainty like now, non-profits don’t pull back; rather, they step in where systems are strained or failing. Despite this economic contribution, non-profits are under unprecedented strain right now. According to the ONN—the Ontario Nonprofit Network—2025 state of Ontario’s non-profit sector survey, 85% of non-profits saw increased demand last year; two thirds scaled back their services; 17% discontinued programs entirely; and half reported longer wait-lists, which is a 15% increase from the previous year. These aren’t abstract numbers. When non-profits scale back, communities lose access to food programs, housing supports, mental health services, youth programs, and care for seniors and people with disabilities. This is not a sector efficiency problem; it’s a structural funding problem. Today I’m coming to you with five recommendations. The first one is: Treat non-profits as essential to economic protection. Ontario has committed over $40 billion to protect the economy from trade disruption and economic fallout, but there is no clear plan for non-profits within these investments. Our first recommendation is simple: Ensure non-profits can access trade-related and economic hardship funding quickly and fairly. Shift away from short-term, project-based funding and move to stable, multi-year operational funding that reflects real costs and inflation. Non-profits cannot stabilize communities if they themselves are unstable. Recommendation number 2: Invest in capacity—upstream, not just crisis. Ontario’s non-profit sector is core social infrastructure, yet it’s funded as discretionary. That approach is no longer sustainable. We are recommending a provincial capacity-building funding initiative modelled on Alberta’s Enhanced Capacity Advancement Program. This would provide multi-year funding to non-profit intermediary organizations like Pillar and ONN. These organizations train non-profit leaders, provide shared services, and strengthen governance and financial sustainability. Investing in intermediaries is cost-effective. It strengthens thousands of front-line organizations at once. Alberta has shown that this works, and Ontario can and should adapt this model at scale. Recommendation number 3 is one I’ve brought to you before: Create an office or a home in government for non-profits. Despite the size and impact of the sector, Ontario has no single point of access to government for non-profits. This leads to fragmented policy, inconsistent engagement, and unnecessary strain on non-profit organizations. We recommend appointing an associate minister within the Ministry of Economic Development, Job Creation and Trade, supported by a deputy or ADM focused on non-profits, charities and social innovation. British Columbia has already done this. Jurisdictions that integrate non-profits into economic development planning are better positioned to stabilize labour markets and respond to shocks. Without a coordinated approach, Ontario risks slower recovery and higher downstream costs. Recommendation number 4: Address workforce volunteers and immigration barriers. Workforce shortages are one of the most serious threats facing non-profits today. Nearly two thirds of organizations report recruitment and retention challenges. We recommend a coordinated workforce strategy with the Ontario Nonprofit Network and volunteer centres; action on wage parity, benefit stability and training; and removing fees for vulnerable sector police checks, a small change with a really big impact. Immigration is also very critical to our sector. Non-profit professionals are often excluded by wage thresholds and point systems, yet they deliver essential services across the province. Immigration systems must recognize social value, not just salary levels. Recommendation number 5: Protect affordable housing through non-profits. In just five years, Ontario lost nearly 50,000 deeply affordable rental units. Non-profits and co-ops are uniquely positioned to preserve affordability, but they lack access to capital. We recommend a non-profit housing-acquisition fund; expanding Infrastructure Ontario’s Loan Program to all public benefit non-profits; and a dedicated stream for Indigenous-led housing solutions. This is prevention, not reaction, and it’s far more cost-effective.

Official source

The Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)

One minute.

Official source

Ms. Maureen Cassidy

In closing: The non-profit sector is not asking for special treatment. We’re asking for recognition, partnership and smart investment. Non-profits already complement government capacity every single day. The 2026 budget is an opportunity to future-proof Ontario’s social and economic resilience. We urge you to seize it. Thank you for your time, and I look forward to any questions you may have.

Official source

The Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)

Thank you very much for the presentation. We now will hear from the London Family Court Clinic.

Official source

Mr. Stewart Blair

Chair and members of the committee, thank you very much for braving the weather to be with us today. I’m Stewart Blair, and I’m the vice-chair of the board for the London Family Court Clinic. I’m presenting on their behalf, along with Joelene Bamford, the executive director, on Zoom here. The London Family Court Clinic is a non-profit charitable organization in London that has supported children, youth and families involved with the justice system since 1974. We work at the intersection of mental health, justice and youth. From March to December 2025, LFCC has provided service to 935 children and families, exceeding our initial budget target of 675. The critical services that are offered at the court clinic include Beacon House—this is our child and youth advocacy centre, a dedicated space for children as young as four who are victims of abuse, violence or exploitation. They come here to meet with police, children’s aid, counsellors. It provides an area for coordinated forensic interviews, jury documentation, and family support. From March to December, Beacon House had seen 174 children. This area is used to reduce the harm and trauma of taking children to a police station after these events have happened. We offer alternative dispute resolution. This link program, managed by LFCC, offers services assisting families involved in child protection cases in resolving disputes before or during court proceedings. We have a child witness/victim program, supporting youth who are victims or witnesses of crime, commonly in cases of abuse, peer assault or domestic violence. This is trauma-informed court preparation. We do section 34 youth justice assessments. These assessments of a youth’s mental health and risk assist courts in considering accountability, along with the youth’s maturity and mental health needs, before sentencing. We have a youth therapeutic court program, which is intensive, coordinated support to justice-involved youth from our youth mental health court worker, to make the trauma of attending court a little easier. Of note, almost 15% of our funding is in the form of grants which are set to expire in the coming months or year. Beacon House itself will have to cease operations on March 28, without continued funding. Of our funding, 74% is spent on budget, staffing, benefits, and our link brokerage fees; 11% is capital costs. LFCC has taken steps to establish a new fund-development committee to enhance our community giving, and to try to fill the gaps where we can. The critical needs and the ask that we have for your consideration: secure and stable long-term funding for Beacon House; secure and stable long-term funding so that we can establish a remote testimony suite within Beacon House, to allow children to participate in court proceedings without ever having to enter the physical courthouse. I haven’t spent much time in a courthouse—I’m sure none of you have either—but what is not uncommon here is that youth who are victims of abuse will have to wait in the same waiting areas as their abusers. Establishing a remote court clinic would stop that from happening. In addition to stability in our current funding, we’re respectfully requesting up to $150,000 per year to maintain operations in Beacon House, with a one-time investment of up to $25,000 to initiate the remote testimony suite within that unit. Thank you for your time.

Official source

The Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)

Thank you very much. That concludes the presentations. We now will start the first round of questioning with the independent. MPP Brady.

Official source

Ms. Bobbi Ann Brady

Thank you so much to all three of you for your presentations. Maureen, I’ll start with you. You went over it quickly, but it made my ears stand up: police background checks. I’m happy to hear that Pillar continues to advocate for the removal of barriers created by these police background checks. I see them as a primary obstacle to rebuilding Ontario’s volunteer base on the heels of COVID, and I’ve talked to so many people who have actually lost jobs because they are waiting on a background check. How do we reconcile the heavy reliance on these police background checks, which often disproportionately flag marginalized individuals for non-violent or historical incidents, with the sector’s need for safety? And then the follow-up question on that would be, is Pillar developing an alternative screening framework to help non-profits move beyond the check box of police background checks?

Official source

Ms. Maureen Cassidy

Because so many non-profits are—Stewart’s organization could be an example. A lot of these non-profit organizations are serving vulnerable individuals, and so that’s how these people are—one way to help them to maintain safety for these individuals is to ensure that background checks take place. What we would like to see is a recognition of the non-profit sector, of those kinds of organizations that require volunteers, that volunteers are their lifeblood—50% of non-profit organizations either have only one employee, which would be the executive director, or no paid employees; it’s all volunteer-led. So we’re recommending that fees be reduced or removed for non-profit sector volunteers, to remove those barriers.

Official source

The Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)

One minute.

Official source

Ms. Maureen Cassidy

A lot of times—going back to my comments on immigration—a lot of the folks who are newcomers to Canada, who are coming in as temporary workers, or some other kind of student visa, things like that, they’re all volunteering as well. They’re giving back of their time, to the new community where they want to make their home, by being volunteers. Police background checks are just one more obstacle that’s in their way, as newcomers to Canada. So we’d like to see—not removing police background checks, but removing the barriers that aren’t allowing people to volunteer. Nobody should lose their job because they can’t afford the fee to do a police background check.

Official source

Ms. Bobbi Ann Brady

Exactly. Thank you. How much time there, Chair?

Official source

The Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)

You have 29 seconds.

Official source

Ms. Bobbi Ann Brady

Okay. We’ve lost, nationally, something like 377 registered charities throughout 2025. The losses are outpacing the new registrants. Is this a matter of the taxpayer saying, “I don’t have money to support all these charities”—or is it the lack of government funding, or is it a combination of both?

Official source

Ms. Maureen Cassidy

It’s a combination of everything. We get told often, “Act like a business.” Non-profits—

Official source

The Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)

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

Official source

Mr. Dave Smith

Kelly, I’m going to start with you. I worked with your organization in another lifetime, it seems, before I was ever involved in politics. I thought at the time that we needed to have HIEC, or the model of HIEC, move across the entire province. It was when I was doing some software for the Grand Erie District School Board. One of the things that jumped out at me was your ApprenticeSearch.com. You’ve got about 2,500 employers. There are just over 70 school boards. It works out to about 35 employers per board; I know that’s not actually the case, because certain school boards are much larger than others, and the reality is that the coterminous boards work together on it. How do we find a way to help you promote that to more employers so that there is a much larger bank for those apprenticeship students to find things in? The reality is, we have about 150 trades, and if we only have 35 employers for each of those boards, we’re not hitting on somebody in each of the different trades. We want to make sure that there are opportunities for every student going through an OYAP program.

Official source

Ms. Kelly Hoey

It’s great to see you again. I know you’ve always been a fan. Just to let you know, HIEC has expanded. We are province-wide, and so that’s why we go by HIEC rather than Halton Industry Education Council. That’s where we were born out of. I threw a lot of numbers at you, and I’ll just give you a couple of clarifications on that. With the Ontario Career Lab, we have more than 3,000 volunteers who are going in and coaching in the schools, and those are fabulous, half-hour opportunities for students to talk to employers, many of which are in the skilled trades, to learn about areas of growth and need. So we are always looking for new employers as a new initiative. We actually have about 33,000 users on ApprenticeSearch.com across Ontario, and we have about—Meghan, help me with the most recent number so I don’t make it up. It was in my notes here somewhere—6,000 employers—

Official source

Ms. Meghan Paton

About 8,000.

Official source

Ms. Kelly Hoey

Is that right?

Official source

Ms. Meghan Paton

Yes.

Official source

Ms. Kelly Hoey

—across Ontario, and it changes all the time. These are folks who have an active account on ApprenticeSearch.com and they’re hiring and training, and they come back to us; same with our users—our 33,000 job seekers. Scalability is our biggest challenge—consistent funding and scalability. We have great brand recognition after 35 years, but we’re always knitting together funding pockets to keep things going. So I would echo a lot of what my colleagues are saying: that if we could have multi-year funding—if we could have consistent funding—we can keep our volunteers engaged, we can scale the impact of our work and we can have consistent offerings. I think those are all really important things. The skilled trades regional networks that we’re running throughout the province are to help school boards find experiential learning with those employers so that they can learn about the great jobs that are in the skilled trades. We just need more exposure. Mentorship and speed mentoring and guidance—education can’t do it alone. We have to help them extend learning beyond the classroom.

Official source

Mr. Dave Smith

I will sing the praises of your organization until the end of the day because I think you do fantastic, fantastic work. This is the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs, though, and it is budget consultations. Give me a dollar amount that you’re looking for.

Official source

Ms. Kelly Hoey

Oh, I’m happy to. We need the additional $12 million a year to run the Ontario Career Lab for all 73 school boards. It’s a small investment of $35 per student—less than—for them to have these incredible opportunities and build these relationships. For ApprenticeSearch.com, we need $1 million to $2 million to operate so that we can get young people who are going into the skilled trades the resources, the mentorship, the financial and math therapy that they need to get those jobs and be successful.

Official source

The Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)

One minute.

Official source

Mr. Dave Smith

Thank you. I greatly appreciate that. Because we only have a minute or so left, I’m going to jump over to Pillar. You have given us a few requests on it, but you haven’t given me a dollar amount on it. Can you give me a dollar amount that you’re looking for? I’ll be a bit sarcastic, facetious, however you want to describe it: I could say, “I’ll give you $4 more—a dollar for each of those programs,” and I will have met your request of additional funding. That’s why I’m asking.

Official source

Ms. Maureen Cassidy

We’ve provided a written submission as well for the committee, but we align our requests with Ontario Nonprofit Network. So for Pillar alone to have adequate, ongoing funding, knowing we have other funding sources as well—

Official source

The Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)

Thank you very much. That concludes the time. We will now go to MPP Sattler.

Official source

Ms. Peggy Sattler

Thank you very much to all three of our presenters this afternoon. I want to begin with the London Family Court Clinic. Your description of the incredibly important services provided by Beacon House for children who have experienced unimaginable trauma, I think, really touched all of us around this table. The ask that you have, the $150,000 a year to provide the stable and secure long-term funding that Beacon House would need, and then the additional $25,000—have you brought that request to the government before, or how is it that you’re coming to this budget committee to make this ask? Have you made the government aware of the services that you provide and the need to continue those services and to enhance those services?

Official source

Mr. Stewart Blair

We have a new executive director: Joelene. We have a new board, and part of our new mandate has been this outreach. We have met with Minister Flack, but just at the end of last year. I’m not sure that this direct ask has been made before this committee, no.

Official source

Ms. Peggy Sattler

So you’re just putting this on the radar for the government, that this is what is needed. If you don’t get the $150,000, Beacon House will close. What happens to those 174 children who have had to access those services?

Official source

Mr. Stewart Blair

Within our region, they won’t have anywhere else to go. They would have to—Joelene, you can correct me if I’m wrong. So the incident would happen. They would be taken by the police to a police station. They might then have to go to a CAS office. They might then have to go to the hospital. Beacon House just allows it all to happen in the same place. I invite anyone who is in London at any time to reach out. You are welcome to come and visit, because nothing sends the message home quicker than standing in a room that is set up with cameras and a screen and a doctor’s table—and you know that as young as four years old, they’re having their injuries documented in the room.

Official source

Ms. Peggy Sattler

You also started out by saying that you served 935 children and families between March and December, but you had only budgeted for 675. How do you accommodate that increased demand for service from children and families in the region?

Official source

Mr. Stewart Blair

Our cycle runs from March to March—which is why it’s March to December. I’ll maybe let Joelene step in there, but my understanding is that everyone basically just pushes their sleeves up and gets it done.

Official source

Ms. Peggy Sattler

Okay. I’ll turn to Maureen from Pillar [inaudible] Maureen for being here today and for advocating on behalf of the sector. I want to go back to the vulnerable sector police checks and the very simple request to remove the fees that non-profits have to pay. What is the dollar amount for the removal of the fees? How much would that cost the government?

Official source

Ms. Maureen Cassidy

I’m sorry, Peggy; I don’t know that number. That is one of our advocacy and policy priorities going back many years, and again, it mirrors what ONN is advocating for as well. It’s a significant barrier for some voluntary organizations.

Official source

Ms. Peggy Sattler

Yes, for sure, and particularly when—you said 50% of volunteer organizations only have one employee or none, which means they rely entirely on volunteers, who have to get those checks. Can you talk to us a little bit more about the importance of creating a home in government for the non-profit sector? And what are the implications of not having that kind of access?

Official source

Ms. Maureen Cassidy

Right now, different non-profits—if they want to get a policy priority or some kind of initiative before government, they may have to access multiple ministries and multiple individuals across the government. By having one point of access, it would ensure that the lens of the non-profit sector is there no matter what ministry would be connected to that particular policy or initiative. It streamlines things. We hear that overcapacity in the sector is an ongoing problem; you just get the work done somehow. Adding multiple visits to different ministries is just increasing that overload that’s on the non-profit sector. It streamlines it for both the government and for the non-profit sector.

Official source

Ms. Peggy Sattler

And finally, the figure you gave us, that 50,000 affordable units were lost last year in the non-profit sector—can you elaborate a bit about what the government can do to protect and make sure that we have those units back and expand?

Official source

Ms. Maureen Cassidy

It’s across the board; across housing, affordable units have been lost for different reasons. Service agreements expire, and things like that. Focusing on the non-profit sector ensures that community lens around housing—housing as a human right rather than a way to turn a profit. Pillar works directly with the city of London. They support 63 non-profit housing operations that are providing some of these units—

Official source

The Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)

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

Official source

Mr. Adil Shamji

Maureen, I want to come back to you. Earlier, you had been responding to my colleague MPP Smith. He asked for a specific dollar amount. You just started to give us the number, but your microphone got cut off. It’s important to get that on the record. Could you repeat for us the kind of funding that could really make a difference for your organization and how it could make that difference?

Official source

Ms. Maureen Cassidy

Pillar, as an intermediary organization, could benefit greatly from ongoing funding of about $250,000 a year. The way that an intermediary organization like Pillar or Ontario Nonprofit Network or other organizations around the province—we amplify the effect of funding. So rather than funding individual organizations—which still need funding; I’m not saying to forgo funding altogether to organizations like Stewart’s that are serving critical services. But Pillar serves to strengthen the capacity of those organizations. There is limited access, for non-profits, to leadership development, for succession planning, for board governance training, which is essential, because—the board chair is here—the strength of an organization is based on the strength of that governance structure, which is their board. So we amplify the funding by helping to build capacity across the non-profit sector, strengthen their leadership, strengthen their staff supports, their learning and development—things like that.

Official source

Mr. Adil Shamji

This has already come up at least once before, but I did want to circle back to it: In regard to your comments about having a single place for not-for-profits to turn to within government, to access services and that kind of thing, can you help me understand what exactly that looks like? Are we talking about a single person, a division within a ministry, a separate ministry unto itself? Having a clear idea of that will help us to know what to advocate for.

Official source

Ms. Maureen Cassidy

We recommend an office within the Ministry of Economic Development. That would be an associate minister or an associate deputy minister—something like that, so not in and of itself a separate ministry, but an office within a ministry. The reason we think it should be economic development rather than social services is because of the importance to the economy that the non-profit sector is. People don’t realize we are one of the largest—if not the largest—employers across the country.

Official source

Mr. Adil Shamji

Next, I want to ask some questions in relation to the London Family Court Clinic. You had some very specific asks. Actually, I was hoping to take a little bit of a step back and just invite you—from your bird’s-eye view perspective, what are challenges you may be seeing in the court system, in access to justice and delays to access to justice, especially as it relates to children?

Official source

Mr. Stewart Blair

I’m going to defer to Joelene. She was a clinician for a number of years as well.

Official source

Ms. Joelene Bamford

There are definitely many challenges when it comes to access to justice, especially in London; we are experiencing, I think, double what the rest of the province is, just in terms of youth justice. Timeliness has always been an issue when it comes to managing and processing cases, and COVID has certainly had a pretty big impact on our court system, with backlogs etc. It’s not a secret that London has had several programs reduced. Our supports and our resources to the community have diminished. Our youth justice facilities or detention facilities have now been moved to other places in the province, which has left major gaps for the youth and others in London. So it has definitely been an area that needs to be revisited.

Official source

Mr. Adil Shamji

Do you have any sense as to what the biggest drivers have been for these delays and shortcomings in access to justice?

Official source

Ms. Joelene Bamford

Yes. I think COVID has had an impact, but the reduction of resources and the reduction of programs and staffing also has had a big impact on that. The courts really are backed up. When it comes to our youth and children who need to provide testimony as witnesses or victims, oftentimes trials are being stacked, so we have five in a day. There are constant delays; there are constant adjournments, which creates anxiety and all sorts of issues.

Official source

Mr. Adil Shamji

I understand. Finally, I want to turn to Kelly. I know that your organization is engaged in work around skilled trades, apprenticeships and that kind of thing. I’ve heard that apprenticeships are becoming more and more difficult to find because of construction slowdowns and that kind of thing. Has that been your observation as well?

Official source

Ms. Kelly Hoey

Oh, I have lots of observations. I’m so glad that you asked. I really do believe, when the volume of people that we see come to us who are interested in working in the skilled trades, that it is not a shortage; it’s a mismatch, and that a lot of people come to us—and I’ll use an example that people identify with. They come and—

Official source

The Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)

That concludes the time for that question. The next question goes to MPP Brady.

Official source

Ms. Bobbi Ann Brady

Maureen, I’ll go back to you. I asked whether this was a sign of the times, of taxpayers choosing between where they’re going to put their dollars with respect to charities. Is this a government problem? Is this a taxpayer decision? I think you are going down the road where you are expected to act like a business but perhaps you are not being treated like a business. There is this mindset that maybe if you are acting like a business—businesses come and go; they thrive or survive. Is this the same or different when we’re talking about charities?

Official source

Ms. Maureen Cassidy

It’s slightly different. In an economic crisis, the non-profit sector often sees a spike in demand. At the same time, that’s when revenues go down, because people are tightening their belts. What happens is—we have a good example right here—service is going up, funding is going down, and non-profits can very easily work themselves out of business. They can’t keep up with demand, and then the more they are spending and using their resources to deliver their services, their resources go down. They go bankrupt—not because nobody wants their product. They are going bankrupt because too many people need their product and there isn’t funding to support.

Official source

Ms. Bobbi Ann Brady

Thank you. I will turn to Kelly. I appreciate that career planning is a journey, not a destination. I want to follow up on a response to MPP Smith with respect to the 68,000 employers having an active account. That is heartening to hear, but I often hear on the ground that employers are afraid of taking on apprentices for fear of training them and then losing them to someone who might be able to offer that employee something bigger and better. How do we incentivize employers? A lot of them, in my riding, are saying no to apprentices. So how do we actually incentivize all employers to raise that number so that they say yes instead of no in 2026?

Official source

Ms. Kelly Hoey

I think there are a number of reasons why the retention can be an issue. It’s not always just related to dollars and cents and pay. What we hear—and we’ve done a number of studies in our 26 years of work with the system. It comes down to workplace culture. I think when you build a strong workplace culture—a place where people feel that they can grow, that they can complete their apprenticeship, that they can have growth opportunities and training opportunities—they tend to stay. I think we have some real workplace culture issues in our skilled trades environment—predominantly, sometimes, in our areas like construction that have had some real challenges. I think some of the work we’re doing and programs we’re doing with workplace culture—

Official source

The Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)

Thank you very much. That concludes the time. We will now go to MPP Saunderson.

Official source

Mr. Brian Saunderson

I want to thank all of our presenters this afternoon for taking time in your busy schedules to come here and for the important work that you do in our community. This is probably our fifth or sixth day for this committee, and we also do these hearings locally, to talk to our own local stakeholders. I’m wondering if we can get a general agreement that since the pandemic the need has increased more dramatically than ever before in our history. Would you agree with that? Maureen, you’ve talked about volunteerism, but also the cost of doing business—meaning the demands that are becoming increasingly more difficult too. We are kind of in a perfect storm in the private sector and, also, as you point out, in the public sector and in the not-for-profit. I appreciate the important work that our not-for-profit sector does; I see it every day in my community. Finding that sustainability point is really the challenge I’m hearing. Maureen, you put an interesting spin on it or lens on it when you said the not-for-profit sector is a huge employer and GDP producer of critical services that are otherwise difficult to support. I’m the parliamentary assistant to Minister Fedeli in economic development, job creation and trade, so I’m very interested in your suggestion. When we do grant programs for private sector businesses, there are usually matching funds that are required—there’s a grant or a loan and then they pay it back—and their operating dollars are part of their business model. I’m wondering if you could walk me through what the metrics will be and how we would then assess and look at our not-for-profit sector, because I think you make an excellent point about workforce sustainability and service providing.

Official source

Ms. Maureen Cassidy

The way funding generally works right now is project-based, so it’s temporary. Once that funding goes away, the program generally goes away. So what the non-profit sector needs—not only Pillar, but other non-profits, as we’ve heard today—is that core operational funding, for paying salaries, keeping the lights on. A lot of times, project funding will limit administrative costs to a small percentage and want to just pay the incidentals or the program itself. But how do you run the program without the people? How would KPIs and all of that be reported? It would vary amongst the non-profits that you’re looking at funding. An intermediary organization like Pillar could report on the number of learning opportunities that we provided and the number of non-profits that came through the door and benefited from those kinds of learning opportunities. Stewart’s organization would report on the number of children they serve, the number of families they serve through their programs. A lot of reporting, right now, when it’s project-based, is often also output reporting. There is opportunity to provide outcome reporting—how many non-profits were able to access a certain program and what they actually learned from that program; if they went on to develop new policies around human rights or around human resources or around whatever. Right now, non-profits struggle with even creating basic policies within their organization to help them run their organization efficiently and effectively. So it would be different for each non-profit. But it’s that core operational funding that is really necessary.

Official source

Mr. Brian Saunderson

This morning, we’ve heard from different interest groups, like CMHA. We are trying to implement things provincially, but there’s local expertise and programs that have started, like the COAST program here for linking mental health issues with police and taking that off the police docket. In my area, we have mental health professionals who travel with police cruisers five days a week and are able to stream, and we’ve seen our 911 calls for those types of issues go down dramatically.

Official source

The Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)

One minute.

Official source

Mr. Brian Saunderson

So you raise good points. I’m going to switch, Stewart, to you for the last little bit. I was a small-town lawyer. I did family law, and it is a very difficult process. When you talk about the programs that you provide, what’s the division between criminal—if you’re dealing with victims of crime, I would imagine that’s the criminal system, so it’s either the Ontario provincial court or Superior Court. In family cases, when you might be involved with allegations of abuse or sexual abuse in a family law context—can you walk me through the division there?

Official source

Mr. Stewart Blair

Joelene would be able to.

Official source

Ms. Joelene Bamford

Predominantly, we work with families and people who are navigating the criminal justice system. Our ADR program does work within the Family Court’s child protection matters, predominantly, I would say—

Official source

The Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)

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

Official source

Mr. Terence Kernaghan

Thank you to our presenters who are here in person as well as virtually today. I’d like to begin my questions with Stewart and Joelene. You spoke about the problems with sustainability in funding and the incredibly rising demands. It’s pretty jarring to learn that you’ve served 935 youth and families since March, and that number was only set to increase until the closure of your fiscal year. What is the impact of the London Family Court Clinic’s reliance on grant-based funding, and how difficult is it to plan, to staff or to respond to community needs with that grant-based funding?

Official source

Mr. Stewart Blair

It’s difficult. I can speak to a governance point of view. We see first-hand the incredible service that Beacon House offers. We are trying to strengthen partnerships with London police, with CAS, but the conversation, ultimately, is going to come around to how strong we can make these partnerships when we know that the funding is going to end and we’ll just have to shut down.

Official source

Mr. Terence Kernaghan

I want to thank you, as well, for identifying that massive structural, organizational issue. It’s unthinkable that a young person would have to face someone they’ve accused in the hallway, in the courtroom, or have to give testimony in that same space, considering they’ve already shown the strength and the courage to stand up and speak about it. It’s incumbent upon this committee as well as the government to support young people at Beacon House, both with ongoing funding and the remote testimony suite. What’s the effect on a young person and, by extension, what can happen to their testimony if they do have to see this person in the hallway or see them within the courtroom while delivering testimony? How can that impact their testimony?

Official source

Mr. Stewart Blair

As a clinician, Joelene would probably be in a better place to answer. I know that these kids are already going through a devastating process, so I can imagine that this is just an absolutely abhorrent set of circumstances that they have to face.

Official source

Mr. Terence Kernaghan

Joelene?

Official source

Ms. Joelene Bamford

Quite frankly, MPP Kernaghan, it shuts it down. It can really change the trajectory for a trial, for the outcome, because this is a really traumatic situation. While we’ve been in business, doing the same work with these child and youth victims and witnesses—we do not have a dedicated space in the courthouse. This has been a long-standing issue for us, so I thank you for bringing that up today.

Official source

Mr. Terence Kernaghan

Thank you very much. I’d like to move over to Pillar with Maureen. I want to thank you for your comments about how non-profits are essential to the economy, to the social services, and how they fill that gaps that the government has ignored. It’s pretty clear that the government doesn’t understand the quality and breadth of services that non-profits provide. I want to ask about the problem that you’ve identified, of project-based funding or program-based funding. How are these limiting and problematic in terms of a funding regime? What happens to people who use the programs when the programs then disappear?

Official source

Ms. Maureen Cassidy

Yes, exactly—they’re just gone. At Pillar, when we’ve ended projects that were based on specific funding, we’ve tried to absorb that learning and the take-aways from the project. But we often have staff who are affiliated with that project, and those staff have to go away because we just don’t have the room in our budget. And that’s the case for many non-profits. I don’t necessarily think that the government doesn’t understand the importance of the non-profit sector. We’re like the nice sector, right? We go along, we get along, all the while scraping through. We’re extremely efficient. We can make a dollar go 10 times further. We heard it here today—that somehow we make it happen and somehow we keep delivering the service we can. But the stats I gave you about cutting services—many non-profits have cut services over the last few years, and the pandemic was especially devastating to the sector.

Official source

Mr. Terence Kernaghan

How would that home in government that you as well as the Ontario Nonprofit Network are recommending serve not just non-profits, but also help the government? Would it avoid the duplication of efforts? Would it actually save time and promote efficiency for the government themselves?

Official source

Ms. Maureen Cassidy

Absolutely.

Official source

The Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)

One minute.

Official source

Ms. Maureen Cassidy

In different programs, when the government is preparing policy, one ministry might not see what effect that policy could have on the non-profit sector. Having a dedicated staff person, a deputy minister or something like that, with that lens and constantly looking—that would be their job: to consider the viewpoint of the non-profit sector and how every single policy could have an effect on that sector.

Official source

Mr. Terence Kernaghan

Wonderful. And thank you for your comments about how so many affordable units were lost and how non-profits, with an acquisition fund, could help maintain and create yet more truly deeply affordable housing that will stand the test of time.

Official source

The Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)

We will now go to MPP Bowman.

Official source

Ms. Stephanie Bowman

Thank you for being here today. I certainly want to also thank all the volunteers. It sounds like all of your organizations have a significant number of volunteers who are contributing in very meaningful ways—including yourself, Stewart, as a volunteer board member. Thank you. I want to talk a little bit about the not-for-profit sector. The government often talks about—as you said, Maureen—that not-for-profits should be operating like a business. The government members often talk about how they run the government like a business, despite the fact that they’ve been running deficits and they’ve added $100 billion of debt in the last few years. Finding some funds that could help the not-for-profit sector, which is such an important part of our economy and our social infrastructure—they fill the gaps along the continuum of service from government services. When government services stop or don’t exist, they fill that gap. So I wonder if you could talk about why government should make funding your sector a priority, instead of spending money on things like a tunnel under the 401 or spending money on helping friends and family, so to speak, via the Skills Development Fund, which is—again, the purpose is a good idea, but we’re seeing things that are actually problematic in how they’re spending that money—a lack of accountability, transparency, according to the Auditor General. Could you talk a bit about why it’s important to prioritize your sector and how accountable you are for every dollar that you spend?

Official source

Ms. Maureen Cassidy

A big part of the work that non-profits do—as you said, we fill gaps. We’re often the first line of support that the government turns to. We saw it during the pandemic, and even at times like now, in the kinds of things and supports that people need. When we have to scale back our services, which is what has been happening, those needs don’t go away. The cost is simply shifted. If we’re not going to provide housing supports to individuals, they’re going to go to jail or they’re going to go to the emergency room. London is a really good example of some of the stuff that’s going on in deeply supportive or highly supportive housing. We have case studies here in London that are actual and going on right now, in seeing individuals—their interactions with police, their interactions or admissions to hospital, their visits to emergency room go down incredibly, hundreds of per cents. One individual I remember they tracked, as an example—their police visits in one month were something like over 30, so more than one per day interactions with police; they went down to less than a dozen. Their emergency room visits, which leads to the wait times that other people are experiencing because they don’t have a doctor—if they choose to get health care, they have no choice but to go to the emergency room, or they’re taken there by EMS. So there is a societal cost that we are all paying. Some of the most expensive forms of health care are emergency room or being treated in hospital. A lot of times, these people are admitted to hospital, and they keep using a bed because they have nowhere else to go. These are huge costs.

Official source

Ms. Stephanie Bowman

Thank you very much, Maureen. Stewart, I want to turn to your organization for a moment. I’m not sure if you’re aware, but the last budget from the government showed that spending in the justice sector is forecast to go down both next year and the year after that. Of course, that raises a whole bunch of concerns about access to justice; safe jails; the number of courts; timely trials for people, including for dangerous offenders. So I certainly hope your organization isn’t affected by that. Certainly, your ask is very small. Your budget is modest, and yet you’re doing incredible work to help young people, in particular, who are very vulnerable, especially with youth unemployment rates of over 15% right now in Ontario. We want to make sure kids are supported—

Official source

The Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)

One minute.

Official source

Ms. Stephanie Bowman

—especially as they’re facing issues in the justice system. Could you just, again, talk about the size of your ask in relation to your overall budget and how it’s modest but it would make a significant difference to the youth living here in London and the surrounding area?

Official source

Mr. Stewart Blair

Our total funded revenue is just over $1.8 million from various ministries. We are just seeking an additional $150,000 a year to keep Beacon House stable, with the initial $25,000 investment, also, to let us set up a remote testimony suite. In terms of the accountability, we work closely with our ministry funders, who are very detailed in what they ask for. Every dollar is accounted for. I’m a business person. I have an MBA. If I could make a dollar turn into two with the magic of a spreadsheet, I’d happily do it, but that’s just not how it works.

Official source

Ms. Stephanie Bowman

Right. Again, when do you need that money by in order to keep Beacon House open?

Official source

The Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)

Thank you very much. That concludes the time for the question. It also concludes the time for this panel. I want to thank all of you for the time you spent preparing for this presentation and the great job you did of getting your message across. Thank you very much for being here. We very much appreciate it and wish you all well.

Official source

The Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)

Our next panel: Chemistry Industry Association of Canada, Muslim Resource Centre for Social Support and Integration, and Fanshawe College. As they’re coming forward, I would remind them that the rules are the same: seven minutes for the presentation and—hopefully, most of them—I’ll give you a one-minute notice if there’s one minute left, and then we’ll carry on with that. We ask each one to identify yourself as you start your presentation. The first one is Chemistry Industry Association of Canada. Welcome.

Official source

Mr. Don Fusco

Thank you. My name is Don Fusco, and I’m speaking on behalf of the Chemistry Industry Association of Canada. We represent leaders across Ontario’s chemistry and plastic sectors. We appreciate the Ontario government’s continued focus on competitiveness, investment attraction, and long-term economic growth. Our message today is straightforward: Chemistry and plastics are foundational to Ontario’s economy, to its clean growth ambitions, and to the success of every priority manufacturing sector in this province. Chemistry manufacturing is not short-term or mobile. These facilities have life cycles exceeding 30 years. When Ontario wins at chemistry investment, it secures decades of high-quality jobs, tax revenues, infrastructure and community benefits. When we lose one, those benefits are gone for a generation. I’ll just note that the average wage for a chemistry production operator exceeds $100,000 a year. That’s nearly 50% more than the industrial manufacturing average. Today, Ontario’s chemistry sector is valued at $35 billion, plastics manufacturing at $17.1 billion, with over 90,000 Ontarians directly employed, and $40 billion in exports in 2024 alone. Chemistry remains the third-largest manufacturing sector by value-added output in Ontario. Importantly, more than 95% of all manufactured products rely on chemistry in one form or another, and global demand is rising for low-carbon, circular and advanced materials. Our submission focuses on five practical recommendations to ensure Ontario remains competitive in attracting and retaining this investment. First, we must fully integrate chemistry and plastics into priority sector strategies, including automotive, EVs, defence and critical minerals. Chemistry companies supply the materials that make these sectors possible: battery separators, composites, polymers, lubricants, specialty chemicals and advanced rubbers. Ontario-based firms already support critical mineral extraction and processing, battery components and light weighting materials that reduce emissions across transportation and manufacturing. To strengthen these supply chains, we are asking the province to maintain chemistry and plastics as explicit priority sectors for investment attraction, engage multinational investors proactively, and advocate federally to ensure chemistry is fully eligible under the clean manufacturing investment tax credit, particularly in critical mineral processing, where the production of solvents and surfactants for mineral processing is currently not eligible. Second, Ontario must enable Invest Ontario to compete for world-scale investment. Large chemistry, plastics and recycling projects increasingly flow to jurisdictions offering predictable policy environments, competitive incentives, and streamlined permitting. Alberta is an example, with its Alberta Petrochemicals Incentive Program, that Invest Ontario should model. Ontario should expand Invest Ontario’s mandate and introduce a modern, transparent investment attraction framework—one that is long-term, technology-neutral and outcomes-based, tied directly to innovation and economic impact. Third, Ontario must continue to advocate strongly for business interests in federal trade and tariff discussions. We heard this already. Chemistry and plastics are deeply integrated into North American supply chains. With the upcoming CUSMA 2026 review and increasing uncertainty around US policies, Ontario’s voice matters. Fourth, Ontario must reduce red tape and modernize regulatory processes. Our sector is capital-intensive and highly regulated. While we support strong environmental and safety outcomes, duplicative requirements, unclear guidance and unpredictable timelines deter investment. We recommend: —clear, multi-year carbon policy trajectories with revenue recycling that improves competitiveness; —streamlined environmental compliance approval processes with predictable timelines; —a strengthened, one-window approach across ministries; and —greater recognition of industry-led systems like Responsible Care and Operation Clean Sweep, which already meet or exceed regulatory objectives. Reducing red tape does not mean reducing protection; it means regulating smarter. Finally, Ontario has a real opportunity to become a North American leader in the circular economy, particularly for plastics. Ontario’s manufacturing base, population scale and standardized blue box system give it a competitive advantage. To unlock investment, the province must recognize advanced recycling technologies, modernize waste classifications so materials are treated as resources, and support recycling hubs through coordinated provincial-federal financing and public-private partnerships. In closing, chemistry and plastics are not peripheral industries. They are enablers of every major modern environmental, economic and industrial objective that Ontario has set itself. With the right policy signals on investment attraction and regulation, trade, and circularity, Ontario can secure decades of sustainable growth, good jobs and emission reductions. We look forward to working with the government and our community stakeholders as constructive partners in building that future.

Official source

The Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)

Thank you for the presentation. We now will hear from the Muslim Resource Centre for Social Support and Integration. I believe that’s a virtual one. The floor is yours. You have seven minutes to make your presentation. Mr. Elyas Farooqi: My name is Elyas Farooqi, and I’m the executive director here at the Muslim Resource Centre for Social Support and Integration, based here in London. We’re not a faith-based organization; we’re an anti-violence and a social service agency. Alfredo, did you want to introduce yourself?

Official source

Mr. Alfredo Marroquin

My name is Alfredo Marroquin. I am the manager of programs and services at the Muslim Resource Centre for Social Support and Integration.

Official source

Mr. Elyas Farooqi

For over two decades, the Muslim resource centre has worked at the intersections of mental health, family violence, newcomer integration and stabilization of families, in close partnership with school boards, health care, justice policy, policing, and settlement and community agencies. I’m here today, alongside my colleague Alfredo, not to speak about social services in the abstract, but how Ontario can reduce high-cost system pressures by investing earlier, smarter and closer to the community. Across Ontario, including right here in London, we’re seeing a growing pattern. Families, women, girls and youth reach systems too late, in crisis and at maximum cost. When culturally diverse and newcomer families cannot access timely, trusted family supports, the result is not no service; it’s ER visits, police response, school disengagement, homelessness, labour inefficiencies, and justice involvement. These are not hypothetical costs. These show up in provincial budgets across health care, justice, education and social services. What we’re seeing on the ground is not a lack of programs; it’s a lack of coordination, trust and family-inclusive interventions early enough to change the trajectory of intensive costs. We operate a culturally integrative, family-inclusive model here in London that mostly focuses on prevention, early intervention and coordinated care, not just crisis response. Practically, what does this mean? Practically, it means supporting vulnerable groups—underserved, at-risk groups and their families, supporting them with family violence, mental health, but also stabilization supports. It means strong partnership with trusted community spaces, whether that is schools, community centres, culture groups; sometimes, faith spaces and partner agencies. It also means coordinating across systems so that families and individuals are not bounced around between disconnected services that are not just duplicated but also inefficient. This model is what we call the culturally integrative model. This model works because when the engagement happens earlier, risks are identified sooner and families stay connected to care earlier. The outcome is really reducing escalation into high-cost emergency enforcement-based responses—whether it’s child welfare, police, hospitals and justice. From a fiscal perspective, this is where the value lies. Lower-intensity prevention and early intervention work will cost far less than repeated crisis response later. This culturally integrative model is also scalable. It has been selected as a prototype to help the Ontario government redesign its child welfare system, and it was funded to be shared in six communities across Ontario. The federal government has also funded our model in the context of gender-based violence, to be shared in two communities across Ontario. What it is still missing is the stabilization of the model, here in London, with sustainable multi-year funding. When it comes to recommendations, based on our experience, we would like to offer three concrete recommendations for the 2026 provincial budget. First, establish or expand multi-year funding for community-based, culturally integrative navigation hubs, starting in high-need regions like London. These hubs stabilize individuals and families earlier. They reduce system duplication and prevent escalation into higher-cost systems. Recommendation number two: Invest in early intervention and prevention programs, addressing family violence in high-risk situations, including working with men and the entire family before justice and child protection systems become the default response. This approach directly reduces pressures on courts, policing, shelters and hospitals. The final recommendation is funding cross-sector implementation and coordination, not just short-term training. This will help education, justice, settlement and community services actually work together effectively. System efficiency requires infrastructure, not just goodwill, and each of these investments is modest compared to the long-term cost that they help avoid. In closing, I just want to emphasize once again that this is not optional social spending we’re talking about. This is about reducing fiscal risk, supporting workforce participation, and using public dollars more efficiently by intervening earlier and closer to the community itself. MRC stands as a ready partner with Ontario to demonstrate how strategic, community-based interventions in investments can prevent far more expensive outcomes down the line. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. Alfredo and I welcome any questions that the committee has.

Official source

The Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)

Thank you for your presentation. Our next presenter will be Fanshawe College.

Official source

Mr. Peter Devlin

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs. My name is Peter Devlin. I’m the president of Fanshawe College, and I’m here to advocate on the urgent need for more robust and reliable funding for Ontario’s colleges. All 24 public colleges across Ontario share a common concern: The choices made today will shape Ontario’s workforce and communities for years to come. Colleges are central to Ontario’s economy. By 2035, the province will need one million college graduates in skilled trades, health care, energy, and advanced manufacturing. Colleges supply more than half of the workforce in these sectors. Here in our region, our students are training for high-demand sectors, including health sciences, skilled trades, technology and aviation through hands-on programs such as nursing, electrical techniques and aircraft maintenance engineering—all stepping directly into jobs Ontario needs. Colleges also have a profound impact on local communities. Fanshawe’s regional campuses in Simcoe/Norfolk, St. Thomas/Elgin and Woodstock/Oxford as well as regional delivery sites in Huron/Bruce play an important economic development role by sustaining local health care, skilled trades and small business ecosystems. Overall, Fanshawe’s economic contribution to the communities we serve is $1.9 billion each year, with the greatest impact coming from graduates’ incomes, which add close to $1.5 billion to the region. Despite this essential role, colleges face mounting financial pressures. Tuition was reduced by 10%, then frozen in 2019. Costs per student increased by $600 each year due to inflation. Without increased funding sources, by 2027, colleges will lose, on average, $5,200 per domestic student. With 200,000 domestic students, that’s a shortfall of $1.5 billion. Ontario colleges are the poorest-funded in the country. Operating grants are just 44%—or $7,700 below national average per-student funding. Previous funding announcements represent 10% of what the sector needs, were time-limited, and have not been adequately allocated to the college sector to enable colleges to keep pace with inflation or address the structural deficit. Fanshawe has acted responsibly, cutting costs and reducing our workforce, so far, by 300 employees and suspending more than 40 programs in 2025. Overall, the 24 public colleges have cut $1.4 billion in costs, suspended 600 programs and eliminated more than 8,000 positions. These measures have been felt deeply by our communities, yet they are insufficient. Without additional support, program closures will continue; fewer students will graduate; labour shortages in key sectors like construction, health care, technology, life sciences and the trades will worsen. In fact, because of funding pressures, in just the last 16 months, Ontario has graduated 2,000 fewer students in the very programs the Protect Ontario plan relies on. The public is noticing and weighing in. According to a recent Abacus poll, nearly eight in 10 believe Ontario cannot build the skilled workforce it needs without expanding and modernizing college programs; more than eight in 10 say post-secondary education is critical to protecting the province’s long-term prosperity; and seven in 10 say it is urgent for the provincial government to increase funding for colleges so Ontario can prepare for a future shaped by AI, automation and global competition. To address this, Colleges Ontario has worked closely with all 24 colleges, including Fanshawe, to identify clear, achievable solutions. Today, we ask the provincial government to take four key actions. With Colleges Ontario, we respectfully ask the provincial government to: (1) Close the structural deficit by providing $1.1 billion through operating grants and tuition adjustments to ensure that programs remain sustainable; (2) Support high-priority programs by investing $200 million to create 20,000 additional seats in trades, technology, health care and advanced manufacturing; (3) Maintain regional access by committing $200 million annually for small, northern, rural and French-language colleges; and (4) Reinforce collaboration and innovation by establishing a $100-million fund for shared services, cyber security and sector-wide partnerships. Every dollar invested in colleges generates jobs, skills and stronger communities. Stronger, well-supported colleges mean a strong Ontario—competitive, growing, and ready to meet the challenges of the future. Thank you. I look forward to your questions.

Official source

The Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)

Thank you very much for the presentation. We’ll now start the first round of questions with the government. MPP Bailey.

Official source

Mr. Robert Bailey

Welcome to all the presenters today, both online and in person here. I would like to start with a question I had after Mr. Fusco’s presentation earlier this afternoon. I know the province, through innovative technology and rules they’ve put in place, have created somewhere—I think the number is over one million new jobs, or well-paying. What other programs could we do to keep the momentum going, Don?

Official source

Mr. Don Fusco

We live in a global, competitive environment. As I mentioned, attracting investment is—unfortunately, it’s not like the Winter Olympics coming up; there’s no silver or bronze medal. If you don’t win the gold, you lose. It’s a matter of an all-of-government approach to attracting investment, from the standpoint of looking at competitive offerings of other jurisdictions and what they’re doing to attract investments—creating the right environment that is supportive of not only bringing a facility here for the first time, but for allowing it and giving it the opportunity to expand over time. That is predictable regulation—when I said “smart regulations.” Some argue that Ontario is still one of the most complex jurisdictions in which to operate a manufacturing facility, because of red tape. That, I think, needs to be reviewed and looked at. I’ve got a few examples. If you talk about decarbonization and circularity—circularity, right now, plastics. Post-use plastics are classified as a waste, but they shouldn’t be classified as a waste if they’re used to recycle, to produce more products. If you want a new advanced recycling facility in Ontario, you have to go through the same process that a landfill site has to go through. You don’t need to do that in many US jurisdictions. In fact, you don’t have to do that in Alberta. So we shouldn’t do it in Ontario. Those are certain examples.

Official source

Mr. Robert Bailey

I think you told me once, a number of years ago, and maybe you can speak to that, that the expansion by Nova Chemicals—Nova, at the time; I don’t know what they’re called today. That was a real vote of confidence in the Ontario chemistry industry. If they hadn’t built that plant in my riding, for example, it would have been a long-term loss to the industry as a whole. Can you speak to that, about foresight and—

Official source

Mr. Don Fusco

Those are anchor investments that ensure that a sector will continue to function and employ high-skilled workers in Ontario. That was, roughly, close to a $3-billion investment that was announced in 2017, and it was completed a few years ago. There has not been another chemistry facility of that scale since. There have been smaller investments. We applaud Ontario for supporting Jungbunzlauer Canada in Port Colborne. Asahi Kasei is building its battery separator plant there, as well. But nothing that you would say—like Nova, has come since. There have been many large investments being made in Alberta, the US Gulf coast and the Midwest, in our sector. We hope that we can turn the tide and bring more certainty and clarity to Ontario for attracting investment, with focus on competitiveness at home and, of course, access to global markets.

Official source

Mr. Robert Bailey

Minister Lecce—I was just thinking of some of the presentations I’ve seen him make. Of course, I follow the American news a lot, about artificial intelligence and how—

Official source