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. Don Fusco
Absolutely. We know that power needs are going to grow in Ontario, and AI data centres are forecasted to require a lot. Our sector requires a lot of power, and ensuring enough clean and affordable industrial power is available will be a key enabler for attracting investment.
Mr. Robert Bailey
I want to say to Mr. Devlin that I met just recently with the president of Lambton College, and he echoed many of the same comments you did. So the story is getting out there—
The Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)
And that is all the time you have to say it. Thank you. We’ll now go to MPP Bell.
Ms. Jessica Bell
My question is to Peter Devlin from Fanshawe College. Thanks so much for coming here. What you were saying about the situation facing colleges is something that we’ve been hearing a lot of, as we’ve been touring around the province. We’ve certainly heard from public colleges about the role public colleges play in providing a really affordable education to students—especially students who live in smaller cities or towns—to learn the skills they need to enter those workforces where we really need workers, like construction, manufacturing, health care and life sciences. Clearly, there’s a huge value in investing in colleges in our economy. It’s pretty concerning to hear about the cuts that you’ve made to Fanshawe already and the decline in the number of students who are eligible to come. If we don’t restore funding to public colleges, what kind of knock-on effects do you see this having on Ontario’s economy?
Mr. Peter Devlin
If the college sector doesn’t receive the funding that is requested, there will be even fewer graduates—graduates in exactly the areas that Ontario needs as part of the Protect Ontario plan; the graduates who drive innovation, who drive economic strength, who drive health care, skilled trades. You’ll also see fewer programs, more staff reductions, and the potential for additional campus closures—more than what have already been made. I think I can also add that there’s a threat of reduced productivity and weakened provincial economies.
Mr. Terence Kernaghan
Thank you to our presenters who are here in person as well as virtually. I would like to begin with MRCSSI. Elyas and Alfredo, I want to thank you for explaining for this committee a model that’s cost-effective and efficient and that meets needs before a crisis occurs. It’s not only the right thing to do, but it actually costs less. I want to also have you talk a little bit about your recommendations on year-over-year or multi-year funding. Can you speak to the issue of the problem with project-based or grant-based funding? What impact does that type of funding have on your organization?
Mr. Alfredo Marroquin
Thank you for your question. Basically, I think one of the main impacts is, the quality of the services is impacted by not having sustainable funding, as this impacts the kind of staff we can hire. It also impacts the quality of the services to the service user, in the sense of having a program for one year and not having the program the following year, even though we know that the needs remain. That also largely impacts society, as less individuals will be at their capacity to become self-sufficient individuals integrated into the school system, integrated into civil society. So I think the impact is great. When we look at the human capacity that is lost by not having those sustainable—because a lot of the people we provide services to come from very difficult environments, but they also have strong resilience. With some of the help we provide, they become self-sufficient individuals.
Mr. Terence Kernaghan
I really appreciate your comments. I’d like to move now to Fanshawe College, with Peter. We see a situation in Ontario that is a decades-long problem, which is the underfunding of post-secondary education. I want to thank you for the statistics and the concerns you’ve outlined. Can you speak to some of the 40 local programs that have been lost because of the funding pressures? Were these programs cut because of a lack of interest in these programs? What did that look like?
Mr. Peter Devlin
There were two elements to it: predominantly, a lack of interest—so, low enrolment—and others that were not eligible for a post-graduate work permit for international students; in fact, that was the real driver for the majority of those programs. Programs that aren’t designated as such by the federal government therefore mean that international students are not interested in those programs. So those were the programs that have been cut first.
Mr. Terence Kernaghan
Thank you for all of the work that Fanshawe does to help build and support and future-proof our economy as well as our society. Apologies to Don for not making it to you for any questions in this round.
Ms. Stephanie Bowman
Thank you for being here this afternoon. As someone who was born in London, raised here, and whose mom is a graduate of Fanshawe, it’s great to be in London today and in your company as well. I think Fanshawe is a great college and certainly, as you’ve outlined here, is a big contributor to the local economy and beyond. I had the chance, actually, this morning, before our pre-budget consultations, to meet with the London Economic Development Corp., and they talked a lot about the value of diversifying the economy here in London, in terms of having a strong manufacturing sector, pharmaceuticals, education etc. They highlighted the importance of education in being able to train that workforce for jobs of today but also for tomorrow. I want, Peter, for you to speak a little bit about the way that Fanshawe has been able to respond to shifts in demand from employers—local employers and beyond—in terms of the programs that you are offering. Certainly, being nimble is part of what we need to do, especially in this time of economic uncertainty. So if you could speak a little bit to that—and maybe how the instability around college and university funding makes it difficult for you to be able to make those plans for the future, in jobs that might be needed in the chemical industry and beyond.
Mr. Peter Devlin
Thank you for that. It’s a wonderful point. I would begin by saying that one of the beauties of the college sector is its connectedness with industry and business partners—in fact, a lot of our faculty come from the industries that they teach in. They have a wealth of current experience. They also alert us to opportunities of how to tweak our programs to make them more relevant, or suggest new programs. We have program advisory councils that support all of our programs. Fanshawe College is one of the provincial leaders in bringing new programming every year. We courageously sunset programs that are less relevant and bring on programs to meet local labour market needs. We work closely with the London Economic Development Corp. as well as those industry partners to be able to ensure that we have graduates who have the skill sets—both the technical skill sets as well as the human skills—to be able to excel in their fields. And to your other question—it’s difficult. If I could do one thing, it’s to underline the fact that there’s a structural deficit, and in 2027, without a response from a budget point of view, we will lose $5,200 for every domestic student who comes to an Ontario public college—and those graduates are the ones the province needs for the Protect Ontario plan and to drive our economy.
Ms. Stephanie Bowman
Thank you, Peter. Donald, I’ll turn to you for a moment. Certainly, manufacturing is an important sector in our economy. The PCs actually promised to bring 300,000 manufacturing jobs back to the province in 2018. They have yet to bring back even 30,000, so they’re over 90% short of their goal. I’m wondering if you could talk about what is needed, from your perspective, in order to increase manufacturing jobs both in your sector and beyond. What more can the government do? Certainly, economists and think tanks are talking about things like corporate tax cuts—not just incentives and “handouts” to various sectors, but to actually bring significant tax reform to be able to attract long-term capital and investments to our province.
Mr. Don Fusco
Manufacturing is a strategic industry. Studies show that for every direct manufacturing job that is employed in Ontario, there are at least seven more jobs in the broader economy. So I’ll start with that. It’s not just one single thing that’s going to drive more investment attraction and job creation in the manufacturing sector.
Mr. Don Fusco
You do need to create the right conditions to attract the investment, but beyond that, then it’s maintaining it and ensuring that it’s viable in the long term—so, consistent and simplified regulatory frameworks, attracting it at the beginning. The fierceness of rivalry for investments is strong internationally; it is even more fierce within companies. Many of Ontario’s manufacturing base are foreign-owned subsidiaries or foreign-owned multinationals. They are trying to win investments from within their organization. The value proposition for Ontario has to be translated to foreign offices to understand that we are —
The Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)
Thank you very much. That concludes the time. MPP Brady.
Ms. Bobbi Ann Brady
Thank you to all of our presenters this afternoon. Don, I’ll start with you. This is a very techy type of presentation that you have here. You noted that while mechanical recycling can only handle about 50% of plastics and that we require advanced recycling for the rest—I do know that critics argue that processes like pyrolysis are significantly more energy-intensive and have a greater greenhouse gas footprint than traditional recycling. So how can the chemical industry guarantee that scaling these technologies in Ontario will actually result in a net positive environmental outcome? What specific guardrails would you be interested in, or what are you proposing to ensure that advanced recycling doesn’t simply become a rebranding of high-carbon incineration?
Mr. Don Fusco
Thank you very much for that question. I’m really happy to address it. Advanced recycling is hard to explain. There are different forms, beyond mechanical, that diverge it into what is considered advanced recycling: pyrolysis, gasification and dissolution. You mentioned pyrolysis, but because there are other forms of recycling technologies that are being developed in Canada and around the world, it’s not a one-size-fits-all approach. And taking the post-use plastics from landfill and diverting it through these mechanisms actually has more environmental benefits than not. There are many studies that show that pyrolysis and gasification—
Mr. Don Fusco
—and dissolution facilities actually are not heavy emitters. In fact, the more carbon you capture to keep within that molecule in order for it to be manufactured again is better. So those facilities are incented to not emit because they want to keep as much of the value of that molecule in order to manufacture it again and again and again. I’ll just say, mechanical recycling—there are certain plastics like PET, plastic water bottles, that can be mechanically recycled easily seven times. But plastics are very complex, and you need these technologies in order to be able to divert it from landfill, keep that molecule in the economy to start producing more products time and time again. There’s actually no limit on how many times you can recycle a molecule under those new, innovative technologies.
Mr. Brian Saunderson
I want to thank all our presenters this afternoon for taking time out of your busy schedules to come and speak to us, and for the incredible work you do in our communities. My questions, to start off, are going to be for the Muslim resource centre. Thank you very much for your submissions. You talk about anti-violence—so I’m imagining that talks about social inclusion and anti-hate. How much of your work focuses on those issues?
Mr. Brian Saunderson
Yes, and social inclusion. In London, four years ago, we had that tragic accident. And we’ve seen, with geopolitical events in the world, anti-Islam hate and anti-Semitism on the rise. I’m just wondering, in your world, what are you seeing of that?
Mr. Elyas Farooqi
Yes, addressing hate and its impact is an important part of our work. It’s not just the stand-alone program siloed—it’s integrated across our broader mandate of family safety, mental health and community stability. We respond to hate-related harm where it intersects with trauma, safety and system access, especially for racialized and newcomer communities. This may include culturally integrative counselling, community outreach, coordination with schools here—we have a strong partnership with the school board—our justice partners as well, and any other services where individuals or families are impacted by hate or Islamophobia. From a systems perspective, our work has recognized that unrelated, untreated hate-related trauma increases risks of mental health crises, more disengagement and, ultimately, escalation into what we call “higher-cost services.” So integrating anti-hate responses into our broader prevention and coordination work is far more effective and far more cost-efficient as well, rather than treating it as a separate issue. It’s kind of embedded into our work as well.
Mr. Brian Saunderson
I appreciate that answer. Yesterday, we heard from B’nai Brith. They were talking about the rise in anti-Semitism. In Canada, the Jewish population is about 1% of our population. Globally, they account for over 70% of our hate crimes. I’m wondering—they had a very similar message—if you have recommendations for the government on how we might make investments to tackle anti-hate in all forms.
Mr. Elyas Farooqi
Really good question. Hate is the same across the board, as you see, whether it’s Islamophobia or anti-Semitism. We are seeing that rise, as well, with our partners that we work with—whether it’s anti-Semitism or Islamophobia. The core issue, I guess, is that it stays the same—hate drives fears, disengagement and trauma, which, again, increases pressure on schools, policy and health systems. The way we look at our work is always that it should combine prevention, protection and post-incident supports; sustain any anti-hate funding as core capacity, not just as one-off projects—so moving away from these short-term pilots; fund stable, community-based capacity for prevention, response and healing—is where, we think, it makes most sense—but also resource a coordinated, local response pathway for incidents and ensure municipalities and communities have a clear “what happens next” protocol; and, finally, invest in any school-based prevention and rapid support as well. To me, a coordinated approach, but investing in organizations that are acting as a coordinated hub to do the work, is really important.
Mr. Brian Saunderson
I appreciate that answer. Thank you. For my next question, I’m going to turn to you, Peter. I have Georgian College in my riding, and I taught at Georgian College for a number of years. My son just graduated from Georgian, in precision machining. So I certainly appreciate all you’ve been saying. It has been a difficult year in your sector, with the federal cutbacks, not only in the number of foreign students, but also in the number of foreign student-eligible programs. It has been a double whammy.
Mr. Brian Saunderson
Would you agree that that really has been the precipitating factor that has sent us into this difficult time for the college sector?
Mr. Peter Devlin
That has certainly been part of the funding challenges. The other significant part is just stagnant provincial funding—but yes, international students have made up the deficit for the past several years in the provincial underfunding, I would agree. And Georgian College is a wonderful college.
Mr. Brian Saunderson
Yes, as is Fanshawe. I went to Western, but I rode by Fanshawe every day, on my way out to Fanshawe Lake. I guess what we’re really confronted with here is working with you to try to reconfigure and re-establish the business plan for colleges across Ontario.
Mr. Peter Devlin
Exactly that. We would have been a college that had about 6,000 more international students than we have currently. We have lost that revenue, yet we’re trying to provide a level of service for all—
The Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)
Thank you very much. That concludes the time. MPP Sattler.
Ms. Peggy Sattler
Thank you to all three of our presenters this afternoon. I’m going to start with MRCSSI. Thank you for being at this presentation today. As you know, I’ve been a big supporter of MRCSSI ever since I was elected and learned about the culturally integrative model and its effectiveness in working with mainstream agencies that weren’t able to connect with families from different cultures—the success you had with the CAS in getting kids out of protection and back with their families. Can you elaborate a bit on the importance of providing multi-year funding for organizations like MRCSSI that use culturally integrated or culturally responsive approaches?
Mr. Elyas Farooqi
Thank you very much, MPP Peggy, for that question, and thank you for being such a staunch supporter and ally in the work that we do. When we talk about a culturally integrative model, we’re not just talking about culturally specific programs layered on top of existing services; we’re talking about integrating culture, family and community realities into how systems assess risk, engage people and coordinate response. I think the model really works on building trust, continuity and coordination across the system. That requires stable, multi-year funding, because trust and safety don’t operate on project timelines and cost avoidance; it only happens when the capacity is sustained. I know folks will say training alone doesn’t change systems, how they respond in real time. Culturally integrative work really requires ongoing implementation, coordination and a trusted presence. Stable funding reduces churn. It reduces duplication of services and any crisis response cost, which, to me, is fiscally more responsible than repeatedly building short-term capacity or short-term projects as well. So it’s really important that we’re focusing on funding organizations that could deliver this type of response—not just in terms of impact, but in terms of cost as well.
Ms. Peggy Sattler
Thank you for that answer. I think that we see that in the requests from the police, the school system and the hospital to work with MRCSSI, because of the uniqueness of the culturally integrative program. I want to now turn to Fanshawe and commend Fanshawe for everything you’ve been able to accomplish for this community, this region, the province, when you are operating with a funding system that provides only 44% of the national average for Ontario colleges. We know that you’ve been able to do this because you’ve had those international student revenues to subsidize the delivery of domestic education. But when you talk about losing $5,200 per domestic student if you don’t get increased funding sources—you can’t make those numbers work; something’s got to give. It sounds to me like there are going to be a lot of domestic students who won’t be able to access college education at one of our 24 colleges or those 200 campuses, without some drastic changes across the college sector. We’ve already seen campuses close. We’ve seen programs being lost. Can you talk about what’s on the table if the government doesn’t come up with a funding solution?
Mr. Peter Devlin
Yes, it’s critical in the college sector right now. I’ve talked about fewer graduates, fewer programs, fewer opportunities. A lot of the programs that are critical to Ontario’s future are ones that are high-cost to deliver.
Mr. Peter Devlin
You look at any of the health care-related programs—the labs are expensive. You look at skilled trades—Ontario colleges deliver over 80% of the skilled trades graduates in this province—those are expensive labs to operate. Funding is essential to bring colleges to the level of just breaking even, with their domestic students. It is central, again, to how we progress as a province.
Ms. Peggy Sattler
With the funding that’s being requested today, and by Colleges Ontario—where will that bring Ontario college funding, in terms of the national average? Will it bring us to the middle? Will it bring us to second-lowest? How will it improve?
Mr. Peter Devlin
I only use that as a comparative. What we’re asking for is just to be able to deliver our programs—
The Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)
Thank you very much. That concludes the time. We’ll go to MPP Shamji.
Mr. Adil Shamji
Peter, I’ll start with you. First, I’d like to begin by acknowledging the important work that educational institutions—notably, colleges—do in setting us up for a bright future. It’s not lost upon me that our Deputy Premier is, in fact, a graduate of your institution. If it’s possible for her—imagine that the next Deputy Premier or Premier may be in your student body right now. We need to set that person up for success. You’ve spoken very broadly about the challenges across Ontario in the college system. Could you speak a little bit more specifically about what the deficit in funding is for your institution and some of the very difficult decisions you’ve been forced to make?
Mr. Peter Devlin
It has been difficult. This year our deficit started at $38 million, and we have brought it down now to $26 million; in the two next out-years, the deficit is in the neighbourhood of $70 million. Fanshawe has eliminated 300 full-time positions, and we are continuing with downsizing efforts. We have permanently eliminated 40 programs. And there are a multitude of intake suspensions that we have initiated for this academic year because there aren’t sufficient numbers of students to pay the bills. There are also student service supports that are and will become even more limited. I talk about mental health support, and recreation and club activities to support students’ growth, to support the development of people skills along with their technical skills. Our labs will stay just the way they are. There will be no investment in labs to keep them current with the needs of local hospitals, the local construction industry, and local advanced manufacturing in the region. So we will do just what we can with the resources that we are given, but there will be fewer graduates and fewer options for Ontarians.
Mr. Adil Shamji
That sounds pretty catastrophic. It would certainly keep me up at night.
Mr. Adil Shamji
I have no doubt about that. I studied in London; I was at Western. I know that the post-secondary institutions in this city also drive the city’s economy. You spoke of job losses, fewer students coming in. As one of the drivers of the local economy, what have you observed may have been some of the ramifications of the very difficult decisions you just described?
Mr. Peter Devlin
I talked about 300 full-time positions that are gone. There is also a host of less-than-full-time positions that no longer exist because of the fewer programs and fewer numbers of sections that are being taught. So it is less resources in the region because of the employees of Fanshawe College—less graduates, and less investment in the important infrastructure that I think Ontarians deserve, to be able to teach young Ontarians.
Mr. Adil Shamji
I’m very, very, very sorry to hear about that. I wonder if I can turn to the Muslim Resource Centre next—if I could invite you to highlight some of your successes in the last few years, and if you could elaborate on what your goals are for 2026 and how additional funding could help you to accomplish those things.
Mr. Elyas Farooqi
Thank you very much for that question. Our success could be measured in different ways. We do a lot of practical outcomes that could demonstrate why stable, community-based capacity matters. We have done quite a bit of work in prevention and early intervention work.
Mr. Elyas Farooqi
One partnership I could highlight, specifically, is our work with child welfare. We’ve had a partnership with them for 17 years. Through this collaborative partnership, we have been able to reduce the number of Muslim children going into care. There was a five-year period that not one Muslim child went into the care of CAS. The cost savings for that, annually—just the conservative value—was a million dollars a year, just for our child protection work that we do. We work beyond child protection work. As was mentioned, we work on coordination with mental health, gender-based violence agencies, policing, justice—and hate as well. That’s just one area of the work. If we had more capacity, we would be able to reach more folks who are underserved, at-risk communities, and be able to do more work at the early intervention—and early prevention work as well. We see the increase in demand for not just—
The Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)
Thank you very much. That concludes the time for that question. We’ll now go to MPP Brady.
Ms. Bobbi Ann Brady
Peter, I will move over to you. I represent the riding of Haldimand–Norfolk. Of course, the James N. Allan campus is in Simcoe, in Norfolk county. We’ve heard in the community and I’ve heard in the community time and time again that the pursuit of international revenue forced the centralization of programs. Norfolk county youth feel a bit abandoned, and they don’t care whose fault it is—that we have moved away from a community college. With what you have presented today, I question whether the James N. Allan campus can remain a community college for Norfolk county. Is it at risk of becoming a financially unviable satellite campus? I will just add that I was sitting at the fall convocation—and I’m born, raised, returned to the area, and I can recognize last names during a ceremony. During that ceremony, I recognized three surnames. I was blown away. Conversations with families following the ceremony proved to me that I was correct—everyone I spoke to was from the greater Toronto area. I’m desperate to know, if we make these funding investments that you are asking for today, whether or not we will be able to save the Simcoe campus.
Mr. Peter Devlin
Fanshawe is very proud of the fact that we have three regional campuses and a number of other delivery sites. It’s critical for the province and for Fanshawe College that we maintain our regional campuses. They offer unique and special programs that cater to that region. You would probably also know that we’re very much engaged in the employment and career supports in that region. We are committed to the region, Bobbi Ann—as we are to the other regional campuses. Our programs are coordinated so that they can be successful.
Mr. Peter Devlin
I was at that graduation ceremony. The graduation ceremonies at our regional campuses are filled with spirit and pride and families—I’d also note there are probably five times more people than the actual graduates, and you only see that at regional campus graduations.
Ms. Bobbi Ann Brady
I will agree that there was a lot of spirit. But there weren’t many local students graduating that day. That is my concern. I’m wondering what rebranding you would have to do. If we could shift to domestic-focused students, what rebranding would Fanshawe College do to attract those kids who feel abandoned?
Mr. Peter Devlin
I think it’s the relevancy of the programs in the local industries that are supported by that region—and I am entirely committed to supporting those programs.
The Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)
Thank you very much. That concludes the time for that question, and it also concludes the time for the panel. I thank all the panellists. Thank you for all the time you took to prepare for your presentation and the able way you presented it to us. I’m sure it will be taken into consideration as we report back, at the end of the trip, to tell the minister what he should be looking at for the budget.
The Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)
The next panel consists of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, the London Cross-Cultural Learner Centre, and the YMCA of Southwestern Ontario. As I expect you heard during the last presentation, you have seven minutes to make your presentation—I will hopefully say, “One minute,” at six minutes, and we go to seven minutes. We ask that each person identify themselves just after you start speaking so we can get the right name for Hansard. With that, the first one we’re going to hear from is the Association of Municipalities of Ontario.
Ms. Lindsay Jones
Thank you so much, committee, for the opportunity to present today. My name is Lindsay Jones. I’m the executive director of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, a non-profit, non-partisan organization that represents the 444 municipal governments of Ontario. Joining me today, virtually, from Niagara Falls is Karen Nesbitt, our director of policy and government relations. We do like to get out and visit the members. As you know, municipalities deliver front-line services that Ontarians use daily, many of which are essential—from safe drinking water to electricity to emergency services, and increasingly, more health and social services. Municipalities’ fiscal capacity to deliver these services affordably and sustainably is reaching a tipping point. As you and your colleagues consider the views and requests gathered as part of the pre-budget consultation process, AMO encourages you and encourages the province to consider three key budgetary requests. First, provide municipalities with long-term and predictable infrastructure funding for housing and the economy. Second, fully fund health and social services that are provincial responsibilities. And third, bring together municipal and federal partners to address the homelessness crisis with new investments. These recommendations will sound familiar. They’re largely consistent with what municipalities across Ontario asked the government to consider and focus on since 2024—the increasing challenge of how to pay for everything that’s asked of municipal governments to support our residents, businesses and communities. Municipal investments in service and infrastructure drive growth and build the communities that make this province a great place to live and a great destination for people and investments. But the fiscal arrangements that enable municipalities to deliver on their responsibilities are not sustainable, with implications for housing supply and affordability, cost of living, economic competitiveness, public safety, and overall quality of life. We know that the entire country faces economic headwinds, but the municipal fiscal challenge is structural, long-term and hurting our ability to weather these kinds of shocks or regular business cycles. For every dollar of tax revenue raised by all three levels of government, the municipal share is 10 cents. Increasing property taxes is not a sustainable option. Ontario property owners are overburdened, and they continue to pay the second-highest property taxes per capita in Canada, at $2,104 a head; this is 34% higher than the Canadian median of $1,569. Provincial grants to Ontario municipalities, on a per capita basis, are some of the lowest in the country. British Columbia, for example, faces similar housing and affordability and homeless challenges as Ontario. In that province, the per capita provincial grant is 31% higher than it is in Ontario. Municipalities across the province have been united in calling on the provincial government to sit down with us to review the provincial and municipal fiscal framework. Almost 200 municipal councils have called for a social and economic prosperity review to jointly look at municipal needs, expenditures, debts and revenues, and work together to generate solutions. We know we need to do things differently. We can’t continue on the way that we are, but we need to work together to figure out how to move forward. We know there are better, fairer and more affordable ways to pay for what communities need to thrive. But we also know that there are many competing priorities at this particular juncture. So we have focused in on our three key areas that we think are driving a lot of this structural imbalance. First, infrastructure funding: Municipalities now own almost $1 trillion in infrastructure. These are new numbers that have been generated by AMO, taking a look at the 2025 asset management plans that now each municipality in Ontario is required to complete. A rapidly growing population, aging assets and the impacts of climate change are all driving an unprecedented need for infrastructure at a time when building costs have skyrocketed. Construction costs have increased at four times the rate of inflation since the start of the COVID pandemic. Municipalities across Ontario are planning for over $250 billion in capital investments and expenditures over the next 10 years, with around $100 billion of that related to growth. Federal and provincial contributions to local infrastructure, which have remained at roughly $3 billion annually for almost a decade, have absolutely not kept pace with the growing needs or rising costs. This is happening despite the well-documented economic benefits of infrastructure investment. Every dollar spent on municipal infrastructure creates an additional $6 in economic activity—something that our economy, at this point in time, urgently needs. That brings me to our second request: fully funding health and social services that are provincial responsibilities. AMO has calculated that municipalities in 2024 spent $5.4 billion more than they received in provincial funding to deliver services that, everywhere else in Canada, are provincial responsibilities. This includes social housing, long-term care, public health, land ambulance, child care, and social services. Every one of the 5.4 billion dollars that municipalities are spending on health and social services that should be funded by the province is a dollar diverted away from core municipal responsibilities, like police costs, like infrastructure. Finally, our third request: The province needs to take urgent and significant action to address the homelessness crisis that is impacting the economy—
Ms. Lindsay Jones
—and quality of life in every community across Ontario. AMO urges the province to use its convening powers to bring municipal and federal partners together to address the homelessness crisis and lead on new investments. Without them, homelessness in Ontario is projected to double by 2035—an outcome that our communities and our economy simply cannot afford. Last January, AMO undertook a comprehensive study of homelessness in Ontario. This January, we’ve updated those numbers. One year later, homelessness has increased, from 80,000 people in 2024 to 85,000 people in 2025. Homelessness in rural communities increased by 30% last year. Homelessness in northern communities increased by 37% last year. The reality is that if we don’t act, homelessness is on a trajectory that will have devastating impacts on families, communities and businesses. We need the province to recognize—
The Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)
Thank you very much. Maybe we can get the rest of it in during the questions. The time is up. Next, we’ll hear from the London Cross-Cultural Learner Centre.
Mr. Valerian Marochko
Thank you for the opportunity to participate. My name is Valerian Marochko. I’m the executive director for the London Cross-Cultural Learner Centre. We are an organization providing support to newcomers through a spectrum of programs, and we are the leading agency in the London area providing help to refugees—government-assisted refugees, but also refugee claimants who arrive in our area. I’m here to bring to your attention a couple of facts that stem from the comprehensive expenditure review that has been done at the federal level and which will impact newcomers arriving in Ontario. One of them is the fact that the Interim Federal Health Program will have a copay, as it was announced—we’re still looking for the details—and the newcomers would have to copay for supplemental services and for medication. We’re deeply concerned about the impact that this will create. The Interim Federal Health Program will no longer cover everything that the newcomer needs. Newcomers do not have bank accounts; they do not have money when they arrive. Many of them will avoid taking the medications, and it will eventually result in an increased load to the emergency services. Government-assisted refugees and privately sponsored refugees are not eligible for Ontario coverage for one year—this is what the Interim Federal Health Program is doing—and they will no longer be covered completely. Eventually, it will come to our local hospitals, it will eventually come up to our local health networks and including—they will come to us for help, and we’re looking for a solution. I believe that it’s necessary to have better consultation—including the Resettlement Assistance Program network in Ontario—about this impact that is coming as of probably May or so, when they will be implementing it. It was announced in the budget. They’re still working on the details. It’s very important to prevent additional burden on the emergency systems. Ultimately, the province will save money if they will support the copay that is required by the federal government. Another area I would like to bring your attention to is the fact that the newcomer settlement program—I’ve been working for this organization for almost 17 years. We are grateful for the Ontario funding for the newcomer settlement program. It helps fill the gaps that the federal funding cannot provide for. For example, the federal funding has eligibility—newcomers have to be permanent residents; they shouldn’t be citizens or they shouldn’t be refugee claimants to be able to have settlement services. The province has been funding a position at our centre for 20 years or so, but it never increased its funding. If you look at inflation—we have to pay better salaries because of just the cost of living, and what was maybe $19 an hour 20 years ago now has to be $29. We are actually running a deficit with the program and doing fundraising to be able to support this provincially funded program. It’s a program that leverages dozens of volunteers, it leverages the community, and so there are no gaps—because the federal eligibility for funding for refugees is very limited. So we really need to look at the history of funding for the newcomer settlement program and look at an increase that would be reasonable. We had additional funding—but they were very short. When we had a big inflow of refugee claimants, we received additional funding, but it was limited in time. And that happened the first time—when Trump started his presidency and we had a big inflow of refugee claimants, which never went down, so to speak, in terms of numbers; now we see a little bit of a slowdown. This program will also help to fund the services, for example, for women who are no longer eligible for federal services. Federal services are available until people become citizens—and now, if you look at the eligibility, time will be reduced, so the federal government will be funding only the first three years or five years. Women prioritize other members of the family, and they don’t access the language training; they don’t access the settlement services, the community connection services—
Mr. Valerian Marochko
Thank you. When their turn comes, because other people in the family have been able to benefit from the services, they will no longer be eligible for federal services. They will come to the newcomer settlement program—and we don’t have the staffing; we don’t have the means to further support that. Thank you for your attention.
The Acting Chair (Mr. Joseph Racinsky)
Thank you very much. Now we’ll hear from the YMCA of Southwestern Ontario.
Ms. Amy Walby
Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, members of the committee. It’s great to see some of our local MPPs joining us for this consultation. My name is Amy Walby. I’m senior vice-president of finance for YMCA of Southwestern Ontario. I’m here with my colleague attending virtually, Andrew Canham, vice-president of children’s educational services. Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today on behalf of YMCA of Southwestern Ontario. With 2,500 employees and supporting more than 240,000 participants, we’re among the largest of the 14 YMCA associations in Ontario. YMCAs are deeply rooted in Ontario’s towns, cities and rural regions and have become, collectively, one of the largest not-for-profit organizations in the province, supporting more than 2.1 million Ontarians every year. We serve infants to seniors, newcomers to long-time residents, low-income families to working parents, and we do so with a simple commitment: No one is ever turned away. We’re a trusted community partner for the province at a time when Ontario faces significant economic, social and workforce pressures. Today, I am here with three clear recommendations for budget 2026—three areas where strategic provincial investment can deliver strong returns, support families, and strengthen the labour force. First: Strengthen and sustain Ontario’s child care system. Ontario’s child care system is one of the most important economic supports for families and for workforce participation, particularly for women. YMCA of Southwestern Ontario has over 100 licensed child care locations, including many in the London, Oxford and Elgin regions. YMCAs in Ontario are, together, the largest not-for-profit provider of child care in the province, operating 77,000 licensed child care spaces. We fully support the goals of the Canada-Wide Early Learning and Child Care system, CWELCC, and the affordability it has offered for families. We are asking the province to: —commit to a long-term CWELCC agreement that gives certainty to operators, municipalities and families; —refine the funding formula so it reflects the real cost of delivering high-quality programs, including regional cost differences and the impacts of reduced school-age fees; —expand the child care compensation framework to include early childhood educator assistants, who are essential to program quality and stability; —increase capital funding so that new child care spaces can be built, and existing ones modernized, in growing and underserved communities; —enhance inclusion funding to ensure children with diverse needs can fully participate without placing pressure on operators; and —streamline municipal reporting requirements through a universal province-wide approach that reduces administrative burden and improves consistency, so more dollars are spent on child care, not administration. The Y is ready to help deliver on Ontario’s goals for CWELCC. With stable funding and appropriate system design, we can support families, expand access and strengthen the early years workforce that Ontario’s economy depends on. Second: Strengthen youth employment pathways. Ontario’s future workforce depends on the success of today’s young people, yet youth unemployment remains more than twice the provincial average. In our communities, our YMCA staff see rising disconnection, anxiety and hopelessness among young people who feel the labour market is out of reach. YMCAs in Ontario provide employment training, pre-employment supports and counselling for tens of thousands of young people every year. We are also one of Ontario’s largest youth employers, offering first-job opportunities in recreation, aquatics, leadership, camps and child care. We recommend that the province: —establish a dedicated youth stream within Ontario’s employment services system, reflecting the unique needs and starting points of young people; —invest in strong pre-employment supports, from financial literacy to soft-skills training to mentoring, so youth gain confidence and workplace readiness; —provide stable, multi-year funding that allows service providers to build sustained employer partnerships and retain skilled staff; and —support wraparound services such as paid work exposure, mentorship, and employer incentives to help youth facing systemic barriers. With targeted investment and partnership, we can help a generation of young people become Ontario’s future labour force. Third: Invest in community recreation infrastructure. Every Ontarian deserves access to safe, modern and inclusive recreation spaces. These facilities are more than gyms or pools; they’re centres of community supporting public health, social cohesion, and local economic development. But many facilities across Ontario are aging, inaccessible, or just too small for rapidly growing populations. Construction costs, as has been noted today, have risen significantly. And demand is far greater than available supply in some communities. We recommend the province: —establish predictable, annualized capital investment in recreation infrastructure, including through the Community Sport and Recreation Infrastructure Fund; —ensure not-for-profits are eligible to apply directly for provincial infrastructure programs; —create or expand funding streams for renewal and modernization, not only new builds; —allow funding stacking between provincial and federal programs to improve project viability; and —encourage municipal non-profit partnerships that leverage charitable and local contributions to maximize public value and minimize duplication of facilities and services.
Ms. Amy Walby
Ontario faces real challenges: workforce shortages, affordability pressures, aging infrastructure, and rising demand for community supports. The YMCA stands ready to partner with the province to strengthen child care, support youth on their path to meaningful employment, and renew and expand the community infrastructure that keeps Ontario healthy, connected and resilient. On behalf of YMCA of Southwestern Ontario and Ys across the province, thank you.
The Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)
Thank you very much for the presentation. We’ll now start with the questions. MPP Bell.
Ms. Jessica Bell
My questions are to Lindsay from AMO. Thanks so much for being here. As you can imagine, I’m extremely worried about the rise in homelessness. I read the original report from AMO—I believe it was about a year ago—outlining the trajectory that we’re on. I was pretty shocked to see that we’re at 85,000 people in 2025—and we’re hitting that economic recession that your report warned about, where if we hit this economic recession, homelessness numbers are going to go up. We have noticed this in the many stops that we’ve made during our pre-budget consultations, from Brockville to Kingston to Pembroke to here. We’re hearing so many people tell us about the high cost of homelessness to communities—libraries saying they’ve become day shelters; businesses saying that they’re losing tourism dollars and customers because they’re having to navigate someone who has a mental health crisis in the middle of business hours; emergency rooms; it goes on and on and on. My question is this: What can the province do better? Clearly, something is not working. What can the province do better to work with municipalities to provide permanent solutions to fix homelessness?
Ms. Lindsay Jones
Thank you so much for the question. It’s true that homelessness continues to be basically the number one issue that we hear from our members about, in terms of what their constituents are asking for and are raising with them. We’ve definitely tried to be solution-focused because we understand how many different priorities are facing the government these days. But the fact of the matter is that the homelessness situation has gotten completely out of control, and there’s a real need for concerted political will and actual collaboration and coordination to be able to move forward. I’ve just come from our Rural Ontario Municipal Association conference in Ontario, where these questions were put to ministers from the floor. Minister Flack has committed to recalibrating the relationship and the approach between the province and municipalities when it comes to homelessness. We are optimistic that we’ll be able to work together, both to figure out how to make sure the dollars that are getting invested—and there are a lot, and we want to give credit to the province for putting in investments in HART hubs over the past year—are going to best use; that we’re looking at the systems like child welfare, like the justice system, to ask how those dollars and how those systems can be recalibrated to address the problem. But then, the simple fact is that we know what the solution is: It is investments in permanent, long-term housing; in supportive housing like Dunn House. The announcement yesterday with the province, the federal government and the city of Toronto to expand that highly successful model—those are the kinds of permanent investments that we need at scale, across the province, in a coordinated way.
Ms. Jessica Bell
I also see a lot of value in identifying some of the reasons why people become homeless in the first place—coming out of hospitals, the child and youth welfare system, the correctional facilities; being evicted because they can’t afford the rent. I’m very pleased with the work that AMO is doing on this issue. I read your reports very closely. Thank you so much. My second and final question is around the need to invest in infrastructure to upgrade aging assets, get us ready for climate change and extreme weather. These are big, big numbers. Who’s going to pay for it? Just looking at this issue of around $100 billion being needed to invest in infrastructure, to pay for growth—very important. But what I’m hearing from my residents is that the property tax base is only going to take so many increases before they say, “Enough.” So if the money is not going to come from the property tax base—
Ms. Lindsay Jones
Well, I know that our social and economic prosperity review idea is sometimes a bit abstract, but the idea is that we need to, as a province and municipalities, start at the same place when it comes to even understanding what the challenge is. There’s so much talking past each other when it comes to the role that debt plays in paying for infrastructure, the potential of new and different models like municipal services corporations, or different approaches to local distribution companies. There is a need to do things differently, but we need to agree first on what the challenges are and what the reality is that we face. We also need to start collectively asking the question of, why it is so expensive to build now and what we can do to bring costs down—
The Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)
Thank you very much. That concludes the time for that question. We will now go to MPP Fairclough.
Ms. Lee Fairclough
Thank you to all three speakers for coming today to speak with us. I want to continue on the theme of homelessness and the work that AMO has done. Thank you again for producing the reports—I was really surprised to see that it has risen another 5,000 over the course of the last year. You’ve talked a little bit about what you see as some of the solutions. There has been no question that a lot of this has been downloaded from the province, including some of the health services that are needed. Can you talk a little bit more specifically about the solutions that the AMO membership is looking for in rural and northern communities, given the increases that we’re seeing there?
Ms. Lindsay Jones
A lot of the challenges in rural communities have to do with the really broad geographic service areas and the relatively small tax base. Again, this is where you really see the challenge of relying on the property tax base to fund social services, because you get geographic disconnects between income levels and needs. That’s really what is showing up in these rural and northern communities. There’s a need for the same type of investments in supportive social housing—there’s also, though, a need for more specific, rural-targeted types of responses, definitely, that look to some of the broader factors and root causes of the challenge. Income security and affordability, we hear a lot about—it manifests in rural communities, a lot in the seniors’ population, who are not able to afford to stay in the homes they have been in for decades. We know that transportation is a huge challenge, as well, in terms of being able to access services. And in the north, there is a particular need for Indigenous, culturally appropriate housing services. A lot of investments have been made, so we are hopeful that it’s just a matter of time before those investments actually hit the ground and come to fruition. With the HART hub model in particular, I think there have been quite a few challenges with rollout in a way that has been very challenging. We’re optimistic that all of these different capital investments—but also operating investments in the type of support services that are needed—will play out. But, really, it’s about scale and commitment and collaboration and truly committing to work together.
Ms. Lee Fairclough
Thank you. I’m going to come back, in the next session, on the early child care, but I’m going to hand it to my colleague MPP Cerjanec.
Mr. Rob Cerjanec
Great. AMO, thank you very much for your presentation. One of the biggest issues that I hear in my riding is property taxes—and then that dovetails into, like you said, capital infrastructure and other needs in the community, like community recreational programming. Does AMO have a preference of what that rebalancing looks like in the province?
Ms. Lindsay Jones
I think we are open to discussion. There are many ways of doing this. We’ve talked about potentially uploading some of the costs that were downloaded onto municipalities—things like social housing. Again, the report that we did—the steep, steep increase in the number of municipal dollars that are going into social housing is really remarkable. We’ve talked about uploading roads and bridges, in particular, in rural Ontario. That’s where 17% of the population is responsible for funding these very expensive 31% of bridges and roads in a way that is not sustainable and creates significant pressures.
Ms. Lindsay Jones
We’ve talked about increasing transfers—more stable, more predictable, with different kinds of requirements on the infrastructure side of things. There has been discussion of revenue tools. Our focus has definitely been more on, can we please not make any more restrictions to the revenue tools that we have, like development charges, until we figure out what the best way forward is? We’ve done quite a bit of work on municipal services corporations, particularly and specifically for small and medium-sized municipalities that don’t have access to the same kind of borrowing capacity at attractive rates that larger municipalities do. These are all the range of solutions that can be examined together, where different priorities and trade-offs can be balanced, and where we can all figure out what belongs where—
The Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)
Thank you very much. We’ll have to figure it out in the next round. MPP Brady.
Ms. Bobbi Ann Brady
Thank you for your presentations this afternoon. Lindsay, I’ll continue with you. I just came from ROMA. Each time I attend AMO or ROMA, I grow more frustrated because, personally, I see a fundamental provincial policy contradiction. Municipalities are being threatened with financial penalties if they don’t hit aggressive housing targets, and many mayors and councillors, when encouraged to push back, are too fearful. But the current fiscal model makes every new door a net financial loss for the existing taxpayer. One mayor recently said to me, “Do you know what, Bobbi Ann? I’m drowning in infrastructure debt just to facilitate growth.” So I’m thinking that we have to stop with the one-time grants. It reeks of desperation, and they just wait and wait and wait and beg for it to be repeated. I’m wondering if we should be moving to more of a growth-linked tax share and how that would work in Ontario. If we don’t want to move to something like that, at what point do municipalities simply have to say no to new growth to protect their current residents from insolvency?
Ms. Lindsay Jones
Thank you so much for the question. These are absolutely the challenges that our members face. With respect to your question about a growth-linked tax share, we’ve definitely advocated for a long-term, predictable infrastructure transfer, but that has an escalator that relates to GDP growth. To try to address that issue of the fact that the municipal revenue does not grow with economic growth, it is important to put into context the current both provincial but also federal dollars that are going into municipal infrastructure. At no other time in history has there been such an imbalance.
Ms. Lindsay Jones
The federal government is absolutely a part of this equation as well. Last year, AMO had done some work around the economic benefit of investing in social housing infrastructure at this particular point in time and the number of jobs that would be created. We proposed an additional $5-billion investment over a five-year period. We estimated that it would create 17,000 jobs, including 5,000 in the construction sector. These are exactly the kind of responses to the economic situation that we currently need. It’s the scope and scale of the infrastructure challenge that is definitely crushing municipalities, but it is then needing to reframe the question—