00:00:00Official transcript
The committee met at 1000 in DoubleTree by Hilton Fallsview Resort and Spa, Niagara Falls.
Legislative Assembly of Ontario · Committee
Thursday, January 22, 2026
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.
Pre-budget consultations
00:00:00Official transcript
The Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)
Good morning, everyone. Welcome to Niagara Falls. I call this meeting of the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs to order. We’re meeting today to conduct public hearings on the 2026 pre-budget consultations. Please wait until you are recognized by the Chair before speaking. As always, all comments should go through the Chair. The Clerk of the Committee has distributed committee documents, including written submissions, to the committee members via SharePoint. To ensure that everyone who speaks is heard and understood, it is important that all participants speak slowly and clearly. As a reminder, each presenter will have seven minutes for their presentation. After we’ve heard all three presenters, the remaining 39 minutes of this time slot will be used for questions from the members of the committee. This time for questions will be divided into two rounds of five minutes and 30 seconds for the government members, two rounds of five minutes and 30 seconds for the official opposition members, two rounds of five minutes and 30 seconds for the recognized third party members and two rounds of three minutes for the independent member of the committee. I will provide a verbal reminder to notify you when you have one minute left for your presentation or the allotted time to speak. And by the fumbling of going through it, you realize that just because you repeat it many times, doesn’t mean you will do it right. So we’ll keep working on that.
Ontario Craft Cider Association; Canadian Cancer Society; WeRPN
00:00:00Official transcript
The Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)
With that, we thank you, the first panel, for being here. The first panel is the Ontario Craft Cider Association, Canadian Cancer Society and Registered Practical Nurses Association of Ontario. As you heard the rules of the game, one added one is, please introduce yourself before you make the presentation. We will start with the Ontario Craft Cider Association. The floor is yours.
00:00:00Official transcript
Ms. Janice Ruddock
Good morning. My name is Janice Ruddock, and I’m the executive director of the Ontario Craft Cider Association. Ontario craft cider is a good-news story rooted in Ontario soil. The industry would like to formally acknowledge and thank the government of Ontario and OMAFA for its meaningful impact support through the cider marketing fund, and for the important direction under way to recognize cider as a legitimate and growing economic contributor. This progress is a critical step toward achieving long-overdue parity with our colleagues in the wine and beer sectors, and it demonstrates a clear commitment to a fair and competitive beverage alcohol marketplace in Ontario. We also wish to make a distinct and heartfelt acknowledgement of the 43 MPPs who have Ontario craft cideries in their ridings. All are champions of this 100% Ontario industry rooted in Ontario soil. There was a wise person that said to me a month ago, “Show us the numbers. How are you growing?” The Ontario craft cider industry has experienced a 33% increase in LCBO sales and now commands a 28% market share, representing 75% growth over the past two years, up from a 16% market share. This growth significantly outpaces VQA wines, which currently hold a 10% market share. VQA wines were at 6% prior to the removal of US competition from shelves, reflecting a 60% increase overall market share. With very little US cider on the shelves, the category has proven it can thrive independently. However, achieving tax parity with wine and beer is essential to sustain this momentum and position. Ontario craft cider is a standout success story for beverage alcohol and tourism for the people of Ontario. When we sell 100% Ontario, 100% of the funds stay in Ontario. We are confident the Ontario craft cider industry has significant untapped potential. However, its growth is dependent on a fair and effective tax model. Without this, there’s a real risk of unintended consequences, including undermining the very objectives of the Small Cidery Program, which was designed to strengthen the competitiveness and support the expansion of Ontario craft cider producers. With respect to the Small Cidery Program, through its history, the program has faced structural challenges that weaken its impact. While payments are now issued twice per year, they continue to be delayed by as much as six to nine months after expenses are incurred, creating cash flow pressures that limit the program’s ability to deliver timely and meaningful support. As a result, Ontario craft cideries, agriculture businesses that operate on tight cash flows, are left carrying significant government receivables. Our proposal is straightforward: Transition the Small Cidery Program to a monthly payout model, issued as a rebate through the mandatory J10 paperwork that cideries already complete. It is truly inconsistent to trust producers to self-assess amounts owing on the J10 while denying them the ability to apply an allowable rebate. The second issue relates to the structural design of the Small Cidery Program itself. The fund is capped at $3 million, with 10% allocated to administration, leaving only a net of $2.7 million to the producers. This fixed cap creates a direct disincentive to growth. As the industry expands, the value of the rebate invariably declines. As a result, the cider industry continues to outgrow the fund, with producers receiving 59%, 66% and 76% of expected rebates. This uncertainty makes it extremely difficult for Ontario craft cider producers to plan for job creation, capital investment or facility expansion without confidence in the per-litre rate they can receive. When the fund was increased from $2 million to $3 million, it temporarily restored stability. However, as we have consistently demonstrated through our submissions and presentations, the industry has once again reached the cap, and structural strain has emerged. For context, the VQA wine support program operates without a funding cap. If removing the cap from this program is viewed as beneficial and necessary to support growth in the wine sector, the same rationale logically should be extended to the Small Cidery Program. This is especially notable as cider’s share of sales continues to grow at a faster percentage rate than both wine and craft beer, further underscoring the need for a funding model that scales with industrial growth. Estimated costs to the Ontario government of these changes would be minimal. Removing the reliance on a third party to calculate payments will reimburse the additional cost of uncapping the program. The benefits will be substantial. If the current growth trajectory continues, the industry is poised to double both its job creation and economic impact by 2033. Ontario craft cider producers produce award-winning ciders. Renowned for our professionalism and commitment to excellence, we craft some of the finest ciders, earning numerous awards each year at the cider competitions in Flint, Michigan. As well, Ontario’s cider is starting to play a growing role in driving tourism across the province, especially in rural and agricultural regions. Rooted in local orchards and communities, cideries attract visitors seeking authentic farm-based experiences that connect food, beverage and place. Through tastings, tours, festivals and seasonal events, they draw domestic and international tourists extending beyond urban centres. This growth supports local jobs, strengthens agri-tourism and boosts regional economies while showcasing Ontario’s apple-growing heritage and reputation as a world-class culinary destination. A recent survey of our members found that 93% of them have a tourism component, and a few of them are welcoming 30,000 visitors annually. The last portion of our 2026 budget submission actually includes why cider needs—
00:00:00Official transcript
00:00:00Official transcript
Ms. Janice Ruddock
One minute? Okay. In summary, we recommend that the 2026 Ontario spring budget transition the Small Cidery Program to a monthly rebate model and eliminate its cap. This change would provide critical cash flow support to small cider producers, creating jobs and fostering growth in long-term economic impact. Thank you for giving us the opportunity to deliver in person at this standing committee. We feel we’ve earned it.
00:00:00Official transcript
The Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)
Thank you very much for the presentation. We now go to the Canadian Cancer Society.
00:00:00Official transcript
Ms. Hillary Buchan-Terrell
Good morning. My name is Hillary Buchan-Terrell, and I’m the Ontario advocacy manager with the Canadian Cancer Society. Thank you for the opportunity to present today on behalf of the more than 97,000 Ontarians who will be diagnosed with cancer this year, as well as the over 65,000 Canadians who signed our cost of cancer petition for relief from the financial burden. Cancer remains a leading cause of death in Ontario. While survival has improved, its financial impact remains a significant and often overwhelming part of the cancer experience for patients and caregivers. The Canadian Cancer Society’s research shows that people living with cancer and their caregivers now shoulder $33,000 in out-of-pocket costs over their lifetime, totalling about 20% of all cancer-related costs in Canada, which is about $7.5 billion last year alone. These costs hit people precisely when they are least able to absorb them. Nearly 80% of working-age Ontarians fear they would struggle financially if diagnosed with cancer, and those in rural and remote areas face even higher costs due to travel, accommodation and parking. Today, I want to focus on three urgent and tangible actions the province can take to immediately reduce the cost of cancer for patients and families, followed by a brief overview or our other recommendations that strengthen prevention and care. Our advocacy for universal public coverage of take-home cancer drugs is not new. For years, I and the Canadian Cancer Society have consistently raised this issue with MPPs during our pre-budget consultations, committee hearings and one-on-one meetings with you. More than half of new cancer drugs today are taken at home, not in hospital. Yet, unlike these hospital-administered treatments, take-home cancer drugs are not covered by OHIP automatically. These medications can cost upwards of $7,500 for a single 28-day cycle—more than the average household’s monthly net income in Ontario. Ontario’s current patchwork of private insurance requirements, patient assistance programs and the Trillium Drug Program forces patients to endure weeks or months of paperwork before starting the treatment their oncologist has already determined they need. Delays and financial barriers mean avoidable suffering and worse outcomes for patients. We are calling on the government to close the gap in drug coverage by providing universal public coverage for take-home cancer drugs, just as we do in the rest of Canada, outside of Ontario and the Atlantic, aligning with the direction signalled in the Ontario Cancer Plan, patients before paperwork, and with systems in other Canadian provinces as a guide. This would reduce red tape, free up hospital capacity and ensure people receive the most effective treatment regardless of how it’s delivered. Improving affordability must also extend to early detection. Prostate cancer is the most commonly diagnosed cancer among Canadian men and one of the least preventable. Early detection saves lives, but in Ontario and BC, men must currently pay around $41 to $45 out of pocket for a PSA test unless they already show symptoms, and in this case, LifeLabs charges the government just $9.50. This cost may seem modest but can deter timely testing, especially for those already managing other financial pressures. We’re not asking for an organized screening program. We’re asking for public coverage of the PSA test when recommended by a physician. We need the minister to first prioritize a health technology assessment that reflects today’s evidence, in particular on alternative diagnostic pathways that complement the PSA test and mitigate those false positive risks. As one of our patient advocates, Dr. Anthony Dixon, put it: “The only difference between my story and” another man’s was that “I had $40 in my back pocket.” Cancer detection should never depend on the ability to pay. Thirdly, another cost that hits people at a time when they’re already stretched financially is parking. Parking may seem small, but for many patients it’s a major barrier. Cancer care can require daily or weekly visits for months. For people already on reduced income during treatment, these costs add up quickly, and studies show Canadians spend almost $100 a month on parking alone during cancer treatment. Ontarians pay significantly more. Ontario has some of the highest parking costs in Canada, working out to around $17 a day or, on average, $230 a month, even with discounted passes. We are asking the government to launch a pilot project providing free parking at all 14 regional cancer centres, following models already in place in BC, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island. This is a straightforward way to remove a financial barrier to care and demonstrate compassion for Ontario families. Beyond these three affordability measures, our full pre-budget submission includes other essential recommendations that strengthen prevention, equity and the sustainability of cancer care. We’re urging government to direct a portion of Ontario’s $7.3-billion tobacco settlement fund into strengthening the Smoke-Free Ontario Strategy and investing in five core areas: enhancing enforcement and compliance, increased funding for cessation programs, investing in mass public awareness campaigns, research and policy development, and Indigenous initiatives. We are also asking the government to raise the minimum age of sale for tobacco and vaping products to 21 so that youth are less likely to pick up the habit and addiction in the first place. Another prevention measure would be expanding HPV vaccination coverage. Ontario and Canada as a whole are falling behind on HPV vaccination coverage, now below 50% in some cohorts. We recommend a “once eligible, always eligible” policy and public funding to eliminate the out-of-pocket costs. Cervical cancer is one of the only cancers that we can entirely eliminate by vaccination and testing. Finally, Ontario currently has half the recommended hospice capacity that it needs, and funding gaps are jeopardizing sustainability. We urge investments to fully fund the clinical costs of hospice care, support in-home visiting hospice programs, expand grief and bereavement services and increase the number of hospice beds to meet population needs. These measures ensure that people can receive high-quality care in the right place at the right time. Cancer is not only a health crisis; it is a financial crisis for too many people in Ontario. The three costs of cancer recommendations I have highlighted today are practical, affordable and aligned with the government’s goals of delivering connected and community care.
00:07:14Official transcript
00:07:15Official transcript
Ms. Hillary Buchan-Terrell
Reducing burdens on hospitals and improving outcomes helps everyone. By acting now, Ontario can meaningfully reduce the financial hardship of cancer, support caregivers and build a more equitable system of care. On behalf of the Canadian Cancer Society and the many patients, caregivers, advocates and survivors we represent, thank you for your time and your leadership, and I welcome your questions.
00:07:26Official transcript
The Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)
Thank you very much for the presentation. We now will go to the Registered Practical Nurses Association of Ontario.
00:07:30Official transcript
Ms. Dianne Martin
Hello. My name is Dianne Martin, and I’m the CEO at the Registered Practical Nurses Association of Ontario, otherwise known as WeRPN. Thank you for this opportunity to share our recommendations for this year’s Ontario budget. Every day, more than 61,000 registered practical nurses go to work across the province to ensure Ontarians receive timely, high-quality, patient-centred care. RPNs are found in every corner of our health care system, supporting Ontarians through every stage of their lives. In home and community, RPNs travel from client to client, delivering compassionate care in people’s homes and helping them age safely in place. In long-term care, RPNs represent more than two thirds of the nurses and provide most of the nursing care, supporting residents with increasingly complex needs. In our hospitals, RPNs distinguish themselves with expertise in nursing care of stable patients, including mental health and therapeutic interventions. Their contributions are also noteworthy in primary care, where they support health promotion and disease management. WeRPN is the essential conduit between these nurses on the front lines and the decision-makers like you, ensuring that RPNs’ expertise, challenges and solutions inform the investments that will shape Ontario’s health future. RPNs continue to face significant challenges at work, stagnant wages, high workloads and unsafe staffing levels, and unequal access to education and growth opportunities. These pressures are taking a toll. Our most recent survey revealed that 75% of RPNs are burnt out and that 91% have witnessed patient care being negatively impacted by staffing shortages. As a result, more than 48% of RPNs are actively considering leaving nursing or health care altogether. From an educational perspective, programs like the Bridging Educational Grant In Nursing, or BEGIN, program, and the Nursing Education Initiative, or NEI, are working, but demand consistently exceeds available funding, leaving many RPNs unable to pursue the advanced education they need to stay, and grow, in the system. Unfair compensation: RPN wages are often very close to or fall below that of PSWs, despite their education and responsibilities being much closer to that of the RN. This wage compression is a key reason that RPNs are considering leaving the profession. Patient safety is jeopardized by the pervasive nursing understaffing, compounded by a critical lack of transparent, standardized reporting on staffing levels needed to guide policy and build public trust. RPNs are shouldering the burden of understaffing, with some even facing legal issues for unsafe staffing levels that they are completely unable to control. At the same time, Ontario spent almost $1 billion in 2023 on agency nurses and PSWs—a 63% increase from 2022—underscoring a financially unsustainable reliance on temporary solutions. We must prioritize further action to mitigate the threat of losing more knowledgeable and experienced nurses who offer invaluable expertise and insights to our health care system. While the province does extremely well when it comes to recruiting new nurses, we need to do more to retain the experienced ones we already have. The solution lies in three critical actions. First, retention starts with affordable, accessible pathways so PSWs can become RPNs and RPNs can advance to RNs while staying in Ontario’s system. WeRPN’s BEGIN and NEI programs are already doing this work, supporting nurses to specialize and expand knowledge. The BEGIN program currently faces overwhelming demand, as evidenced by a wait-list of eligible applicants eager to advance their skills and commit to the profession but who are hindered by a lack of financial support. We urge the government of Ontario to establish BEGIN and NEI as permanent funding streams and expand their budgets to ensure that all eligible nurses can access these vital programs that retain them in the system. RPNs also require compensation that appropriately aligns with their specialized expertise, extensive responsibilities and role in the system. We’re calling for a clear plan to harmonize RPN wages across sectors and to address wage compression among RPNs, PSWs and RNs so that nurses are not penalized for working in high-need areas like long-term care and home care. There is a clear opportunity to reinvest a significant portion of spending on agency nurses and PSWs into competitive compensation for permanent RPNs, thereby building a more stable and sustainable workforce. Additionally, RPNs cannot provide the care they are educated to deliver if staffing levels are unsafe or unpredictable. We recommend standardized public reporting of nurse staffing data across hospitals, long-term care and home and community care so that government, employers, nurses and the public have a clear picture of where the gaps are and can use that data to guide evidence-based staffing standards and nurse-to-patient ratios. WeRPN has a proven track record of successful collaboration with this government, serving as a trusted partner in delivering significant nursing support programs such as BEGIN and NEI.
00:10:00Official transcript
00:10:00Official transcript
Ms. Dianne Martin
To ensure optimal impact, we advocate for the continued formal collaboration with the government as strategic partners in co-designing, implementing and evaluating nursing workforce initiatives. This partnership is vital to guarantee that every dollar invested in nursing effectively reaches the right nurses in the right settings at the right time.
00:10:24Official transcript
The Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)
Thank you very much. That concludes the presentations. We’ll start the first round of questions with the official opposition. MPP Bell.
00:10:33Official transcript
Ms. Jessica Bell
Thank you to the presenters for coming in here today and sharing your expertise. My first questions are for Hillary Buchan-Terrell from the Canadian Cancer Society. You gave us a whole slew of very practical recommendations that would make cancer care more affordable for people. Certainly, some of these we’ve been advocating for for some time: allowing take-home cancer drugs to be covered, ensuring public coverage of the PSA test and making parking free at hospitals so that people don’t have to worry about the bill when they’re going in to get care or to care for someone who’s getting care. My first question is, if we are going to move to cover home cancer drugs, what’s your estimate on the cost of that for Ontario?
00:11:22Official transcript
Ms. Hillary Buchan-Terrell
I’m happy to answer that. We did a study in 2021—I’ve cited it here before, at this committee—a PDCI report on that cost, around $40 million a year. It’s really minimal in the grand scheme of things in terms of Ontario Health’s overall budget, so it wouldn’t really cost very much. But again, the cost savings also come to government as well because we’re talking about less time in hospital. There’s less care that’s needed to be provided, for example, by nurses. Of course, we love and support the work that they do. But any time somebody can be in the comfort of their own home, not having to travel, not having to pay for accommodations or daycare or doggy care or whatever it is that they need to cover while they’re out of the home—those things really add up for the patient. The cost in hospital is always more than it’s going to be at home. Really, this is not an issue of convenience. This is not somebody choosing to take their drugs at home because they have a choice between sitting in hospital and being at home. This is the treatment as recommended by the oncologist. When the oncologist says you need surgery, radiation or chemotherapy, those are the treatments. So it’s not asking the patient to make a choice between the more convenient option and the less convenient option in having to stay in hospital. It’s really about the most effective treatment for their cancer in order for them to be able to get that treatment, recover and be able to get back to their lives.
00:13:02Official transcript
Ms. Jessica Bell
Around $40 million—okay. Thank you. You raised the issue of vaping as well. We are seeing significant increases in the use of vaping, including flavoured products, in middle school and high school. There are many vaping stores that are located near middle schools and high schools, and they’re offering, as I mentioned, flavoured products. So I think a lot of these companies are actually actively targeting children to encourage them to take up vaping. We already know that the consequences of vaping can cause serious long-term damage to lungs. You mentioned here the request to limit vaping to people over—20, you said?
00:13:44Official transcript
00:13:45Official transcript
Ms. Jessica Bell
Over 21, yes. Do you have other recommendations around regulating the vaping industry as an association?
00:13:52Official transcript
Ms. Hillary Buchan-Terrell
Absolutely. We’ve talked about flavours before. It’s something we address as an organization on the national level as well, but there are other provinces and jurisdictions in Canada that have eliminated flavours. Many, many years ago, when there was advocacy on tobacco products, we advocated for getting rid of flavoured cigarettes, and that was very successful. Again, these are, as you have mentioned, marketing to kids. The flavours are enticing to kids. And it wasn’t that long ago—just in the last year—when we were finally able to get nicotine pouches, which have been addicting children to nicotine, behind pharmacy counters, where they should be, so that only those who need them can access them. Previously, there was a loophole, and they were being sold to children and could be sold to children. From our reporting, in terms of the enforcement that we hear from public health units, those are still being sold. Things that are not legal are being sold behind the counter. Enforcement officers have seen this and are catching it, so we know that these flavours are enticing to kids. We know that retailers, tobacco producers and nicotine product producers know this, and that’s why they lobbied so hard to keep those in there. It’s the same thing with flavoured vaping products.
00:15:18Official transcript
00:15:19Official transcript
Ms. Jessica Bell
I have one minute. I want to ask my final question to Dianne Martin from the Registered Practical Nurses Association of Ontario. Thank you for your work. We are also very concerned about the rise of the bill that hospitals and long-term-care homes are paying for agency nurses. We have been advocating for some restrictions on that, including that if a hospital is going to use agency nurses, it needs to come from a non-profit agency so that we’re not seeing price-gouging and, essentially, profiteering from the health care system. My question to you is: What else can we do to encourage hospitals in particular to move away from spending an astonishing amount of money on agency nurses?
00:16:06Official transcript
Ms. Dianne Martin
The big concern that we have isn’t just cost. I will put that out right up front. It’s tempting for staff to want to experience a—
00:16:14Official transcript
The Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)
Thank you very much. That concludes the time for the question. We now go to MPP Cerjanec.
00:16:20Official transcript
Mr. Rob Cerjanec
Through you, Chair: I appreciate the presentations today. Hillary, you presented a lot of, I would say, common-sense ideas to tackle issues in our health care system, especially as it impacts individuals, as it impacts patients, as it impacts families. We think of parking, for example. You’re going to the hospital to go visit your loved one, or you might actually be going for an appointment, and then to get just dinged with parking at the hospital, frankly, in my view, is ridiculous. It’s actually a tax. That’s what it is. It’s an added tax. It’s not just a tax, a fee at the hospital; it is a tax, and it’s one way that I think, for a very long time, we’ve been nickel-and-diming people. Should we be getting rid of those parking costs everywhere in the province?
00:17:12Official transcript
Ms. Hillary Buchan-Terrell
Ultimately, that would be ideal if we could, but I know that hospitals are constrained with their budgets, and I think this would be a good preliminary step to move towards eliminating some of those costs. I mean, primarily, cancer patients are going to cancer centres—not to say they aren’t attending hospitals, but that could be one really significant way that we could help reduce those costs, by starting at the cancer centres.
00:17:41Official transcript
Mr. Rob Cerjanec
Around the take-home cancer drugs: I’m reminded of my grandmother. She passed away, now many years ago, but she was sick. She had cancer, and she was able to have a few extra years of her life—and a really good life—because of a take-home cancer drug that she took. Because of her age, and because she was able to be in the seniors’ program around it, it didn’t really cost her very much, but it does cost other people money, maybe if you’re a bit younger. I think, again, this is a common-sense solution that reduces red tape, increases hospital capacity and helps people. At the end of the day, why do you think the province hasn’t done this yet?
00:18:25Official transcript
Ms. Hillary Buchan-Terrell
It’s a good question. I will say that this has not been a thing done by successive governments. It’s the way that our drug system evolved, I guess, in order in hospitals. But that’s something that I can’t really answer. I think that’s up for the officials and the ministry to respond to, in terms of why it hasn’t been done. But we think it makes common sense—just to reiterate that—to cover them in the same way that other provinces do. When you have all of western Canada and Quebec covering these drugs—you go into hospital and you walk out—it’s no different. You don’t pay any bills or anything like that. I think that’s what people are used to. Just out of fairness, across jurisdictions across Canada—the health care system obviously looks very different across Canada, from province to province. Having that singular thing at least be the same across the board, just out of complete fairness—that if you walk into Manitoba to get your cancer treatment, it’s going to be covered no matter what. It doesn’t matter what route it’s going, whether it’s orally or administered. I think it’s just only a matter of fairness that we need to consider this. As I mentioned, the costs, for sure, from that study in 2021 are probably more, just like most things are today, as we’ve gone through the pandemic and health costs expand. But we’re still talking a drop in the bucket in terms of Ontario Health.
00:20:00Official transcript
Mr. Rob Cerjanec
If it’s going to cost $40 million a year—we look at some of the other priorities of the government right now: spending $10 million on a second feasibility study for a fantasy tunnel under the 401 as opposed to, “Let’s fund cancer care. Let’s ensure that you can get a take-home cancer drug.” Janice, I appreciate your presentation today about cider. There’s some really great cideries in the province. I know of one in Prince Edward county called Cold Creek Vineyards. They’re an award-winning cidery, I believe, two years in a row now. They do really, really great work and have an exceptional product that also drives tourism, that drives other folks to be able to travel the province, to go into rural areas and experience something a little bit different and have some fun while they’re at it. What you’re proposing here, in terms of supporting the craft cider industry—the vineyards don’t have this cap, is that correct?
00:21:06Official transcript
00:21:09Official transcript
00:21:10Official transcript
00:21:13Official transcript
00:21:14Official transcript
Mr. Rob Cerjanec
And I don’t think we’re necessarily saying that if we lift the cap for cideries it’s going to be direct competition in that way.
00:21:23Official transcript
Ms. Janice Ruddock
No, not at all. I think that’s where there’s always been this hesitation, we have found—is that if we do this for one, we do it for the other, but that’s not what we’re asking. We’re asking for fairness.
00:21:38Official transcript
Mr. Rob Cerjanec
I think, in our current trade environment right now—have you noticed any changes so far when it comes to interprovincial trade? What are you hoping to see take place?
00:21:50Official transcript
Ms. Janice Ruddock
Interprovincial trade will apply to higher-value items. We are $3.85 a can and we do bottles as well, so it does make more sense to ship bottles because it’s a higher value. When it is cans, the shipping costs overtake what it is to ship the product. Is there opportunity there? Always. I’m not saying there’s not, but the numbers of it just don’t work on the cans.
00:22:17Official transcript
00:22:19Official transcript
The Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)
Thank you very much. That concludes the time. MPP Brady.
00:22:23Official transcript
Ms. Bobbi Ann Brady
Thank you to all three of our presenters. I have questions for you all, but I have very limited time. I’ll go first to you, Janice, because I have the privilege of representing a riding that is home to so many hard-working, generational apple-growing families. They’ve stewarded the land for a long time. They’re not only the economic backbone of our local economy, but they’re also the foundation of Ontario’s vibrant craft cider industry, as you very clearly articulated. I’m a strong supporter of the industry, and we know what you had to—Ontario, the farmgate sales, rural jobs—and, my goodness, we need those rural jobs—and tourism. My riding has seen an increase in tourism with respect to craft sales. My question, though, to you is following up on the market reduction from August 1 of last year: How much of that saved capital is actually staying with the producers to combat things like inflation, or is it being absorbed by new listing fees?
00:23:32Official transcript
Ms. Janice Ruddock
No, it is not being absorbed by new listing fees, but the headwinds are still very strong. Even though there was the reduction in the markup on August 1, they were up now against product costs. The cost of apples is definitely going up. It shouldn’t be a secret; it shouldn’t be something we sweep under. A lot of our apples—four of our five growers are sending apples to the US, because our apples are very high-quality, number one. Number two is the fact that they can pay in American dollars and it’s still covered under CUSMA, or whatever they decide to call it today. They buy them for jams and pies and purées and things like that. They’ve had a 30% increase in raw product and juice costs for this year already.
00:24:24Official transcript
00:24:25Official transcript
Ms. Bobbi Ann Brady
And my second question: The government mandated a 20% shelf space requirement for local craft beer and cider. How are you guys monitoring compliance at the independent convenience store level? What supports do small cideries need from the province to manage the logistics of distributing to thousands of individual storefronts rather than just to the LCBO?
00:24:51Official transcript
Ms. Janice Ruddock
Right. First of all, it is a very difficult number to manage. It’s a guardrail only. There is no way to go into the Circle K and say, “Wait a minute—it’s 5%.” There are no mechanisms. We can go in. We can say it. We can ask nicely. We can go to Circle K; we can go wherever. But there’s no mechanism to make sure that changes. Number two: Distribution costs are certainly—
00:25:17Official transcript
The Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)
Thank you very much. That concludes that question. MPP Smith.
00:25:22Official transcript
Mr. Dave Smith
Quickly, before I ask my question, I just wanted to point out the power of this committee, because this morning, the Clerk turned on the TV and The Littlest Hobo was on for her. So I just want to point out the power that this kind of committee actually has. Janice, I want to jump to you. Obviously, we’ve had lots of conversations about a lot of different things, but I’m going to bring up something that wasn’t part of your presentation, because sometimes there are non-monetary things that we can do that can actually make a difference for producers. When I look at the cider industry, some of those are beautiful, beautiful farms. I know that a number of those farms also sometimes have weddings on them. And one of the restrictions that we have with the SOP, the permit for special occasions, is that you have to buy the product from the LCBO. We have a situation, then, where we might have this fantastic cidery that has 15 to 20 different ciders and only one of them is listed with the LCBO, and they host a wedding and they can’t sell their other 20 products at that wedding. There’s no cost associated with making a change like this. Is that something that would be beneficial to the cider producers, if we allowed them and made a change to the SOP so that they could sell all of their own product on their own location when they’re doing these special events?
00:27:01Official transcript
Ms. Janice Ruddock
Yes. Some of these regulations that are in the SOP you really shake your head at. Yes, of course, it is going to definitely help if they don’t have to buy through the LCBO with the one listing that they have and they can supply all of their own product. Weddings are huge on cideries. It’s growing every day. There are actually some cideries that make their money in weddings versus selling cider; they have the cider business along with it. Those are the types of things where, yes, it just doesn’t make sense. Why couldn’t they sell all their products?
00:27:41Official transcript
Mr. Dave Smith
Further to that, the way that we do our licensing on it is with a manufacturer’s licence. They can sell their own product outside of the special event, they can sell their own product at their location, but they can’t sell anyone else’s product under the manufacturing licence. But the reality is that sometimes, when someone is coming to the cidery for the tour, they’re coming with multiple family members. In my case, if I go with my wife, she’s not a big fan of cider, but she loves craft beer and she likes wine. But the cidery can’t sell that. Would it beneficial for us to make that change on the licensing? Again, it’s a non-monetary change; it doesn’t cost the government anything. But would it be beneficial so that if you’re a manufacturer of a craft product you could sell other craft products? And you as the producer then have the opportunity of making the deal with perhaps a craft brewery, a craft winery or whatever that may be in your area. Would that be beneficial to your organization?
00:28:54Official transcript
Ms. Janice Ruddock
In all honesty, that would have been more beneficial than opening up convenience stores, to be truthful with you. The convenience store business model does not lend itself to craft that much, because they’re in and out—fast in, fast out. But if they could sell VQA wines—again, it’s another distribution point. It also—and I know this government wants to do this—puts the consumer in the centre of the decision. For the convenience, to have the consumer go in and say, “Oh, whatever I want?”—yes, that is a resounding yes.
00:29:32Official transcript
Mr. Dave Smith
So it’s one of those cases where we get in our own way when we try and get out of the way on it. Because we trust you to make the product. We trust you to sell the product. We trust your colleagues to make the product, and we trust them to sell it. But we don’t trust you to sell their product that we’ve laid all of this trust in. It really doesn’t make an awful lot of sense, does it?
00:30:00Official transcript
00:30:04Official transcript
Mr. Dave Smith
Now, on the J10—I know we’ve had lots of conversations about this as well: If we were to switch so that the rebate was instant on the J10 when you fill in the J10—we’re going through the process right now. We audit to you on it, we get your financial statements at the end of the year when you do your tax returns, so there’s lots of checks and balances in place on that. And you pointed this one out—
00:30:30Official transcript
00:30:31Official transcript
Mr. Dave Smith
—and I want to come back to it. The 10% that gets paid to Agricorp to administer this: There wouldn’t be any additional administrative costs to the government if we were to do this instant rebate on the J10, would there?
00:30:45Official transcript
00:30:46Official transcript
00:30:51Official transcript
Ms. Janice Ruddock
And that’s how we did the model. We put it as the costing in—this is not a spend; this is a recapture and making money, so yes.
00:30:59Official transcript
00:31:01Official transcript
00:31:02Official transcript
00:31:03Official transcript
00:31:04Official transcript
MPP Wayne Gates
To Janice, I just want to say quickly that you’ve had a lot of questions. We only get five minutes here. Your industry is very important to Niagara, very important to tourism, so I want to say that. But because of the way this only gives us five minutes, it’s not enough time to talk to everybody. One of the issues that I’ve been fighting for since I got to Queen’s Park is to have the testing for prostate cancer covered. I looked around the room today; there’s 13 men here today. That’s how many men are going to die today from prostate cancer. But if there was early detection, 95% of them would live at least five years. I’ve raised this. I want to thank the Liberals, the Greens, the independents, but I’m really looking at my colleagues. If there’s one thing that should be done, it’s you guys should support that bill. How many more men have to die before we cover this? And I’ve met with you a number of times. I’ve talked to the Premier about this. I’ve talked to the health care minister about this. I’m tired of talking. I’m tired of watching my friends die of prostate cancer. One of the dealerships here, well known in Niagara—I talked to him last week, and he told me he’s going to St. Joe’s to have the new surgery. The reason why I mention that is because he’s having it done by robotics. The last time we did this test, to say whether we should cover it or not, was about 10 years ago. I couldn’t bank on my phone 10 years ago. We didn’t have robotic surgeries. Times have changed. I know you sent a letter asking them to take another look at this, take another study. I’ve sent a letter. I’m saying to my colleagues—I’m actually begging you. I’m tired of my friends dying. So I really appreciate you coming today and talking about it. It is so important. The other issues around parking fees: It is a tax. All it does is hurt people. We’re already paying our taxes; we’re already paying a health tax. The only reason why hospitals are charging parking, quite frankly, is because you’re not funding our hospitals properly and they’ve got to find revenue. That’s what’s going on. So I want to say to you guys, thanks for everything you’re doing. Thanks for highlighting the prostate cancer. There are other cancers, too, that are important. The take-home cancer drugs have changed—because it used to be done in the hospitals; now it’s being done at home. I just want to say, really, thank you. I want to say to Dianne, what’s going on with agency nurses and that kind of money being directed away from our hospitals, away from retention—so I’m going to ask you, how has the government failure to implement staffing ratios most directly compromised patients’ safety? Because that’s important.
00:34:02Official transcript
Ms. Dianne Martin
Multiple ways—first of all, familiarity with patients and environment are incredibly important to providing quality patient care. Secondly, nurses have suffered, because in agencies they tend to not have access to benefits—pension plans etc. They give up a lot for the flexibility of being able to attend their own weddings. That sort of thing will drive a nurse to a nursing agency. What we need to do in our organizations is create fair, quality working conditions. Nurses are very motivated by being able to make a difference in someone’s life. So adequate staffing, adequate compensation and some control over the hours that you work—if you have earned four weeks’ vacation in a year, you should be able to take four weeks’ vacation in a year. Some nurses take zero—not that they don’t ask every week to take vacation, but they are declined. All of these working conditions lead people to risk their own benefits by going to work for an agency just to manage their life and our patients are paying the price for that.
00:35:09Official transcript
MPP Wayne Gates
I appreciate that answer and I do appreciate you all being here. I wish we had more time, I’ll be very honest with you. This is for Dianne again: What consequences will patients face if the government continues to ignore retention in the 2026 budget?
00:35:25Official transcript
Ms. Dianne Martin
The thing I’m hearing about most today is that we’re actually graduating good numbers of nurses finally—this is the first year where nursing numbers of practical nurses have gone up and not down. What we’re hearing from the workplace, though, is we are now missing the experienced, knowledgeable nurses who take those novice nurses and turn them into experts in their field.
00:35:50Official transcript
00:35:50Official transcript
Ms. Dianne Martin
When I graduated many, many years ago, we would never see a new graduate in an intensive care program, working in intensive care straight out of school, without a background to support the knowledge required. But now, we have no choice but to have new nurses in all of those areas, and the experienced nurse helping them learn the job might be on the job for six months. So one of the biggest reasons is quality of patient care, but also, the cost to educate a nurse is very expensive, to retain them quite a bit less expensive, and what I’ve spoken about today in my presentation are ideas on how to keep RPNs in this province.
00:36:31Official transcript
00:36:33Official transcript
00:36:35Official transcript
MPP Stephanie Smyth
It’s nice to be here today. Thank you, all of you, for your presentations and shining the light on some very critical issues in health care and industry and with nurses. There’s sort of a common theme here I hear, at least when it comes to health care. You’re dealing with people at their most vulnerable state when we’re talking about dealing with cancer care, talking about nurses in long-term-care homes dealing with the elderly, people who are vulnerable. I think that I have to impress the concern about the parking issue which has been talked about—we know—and not acted on by the government for quite some time. And when we’re talking about parking, I think that—even coming down to retention for the RPNs. I know many work in long-term care, but how much, when it comes to retention and when it comes to pay, is parking impacting how likely they are to stay in the industry?
00:37:33Official transcript
Ms. Dianne Martin
I know that very few nurses that have to pay for parking, which is all of them, are actually parking on site. Many of them are parking blocks away in parking lots and then paying for the ability to do that. That was really unheard of early in my career. My daughter is a registered nurse; it’s just a big part of her life every day, finding that parking spot that she’s paying for and then trudging the long way to her hospital. I think it’s one of many of the small but mounting pressures that nurses face that aren’t even related to patient care.
00:38:09Official transcript
00:38:11Official transcript
00:38:11Official transcript
MPP Stephanie Smyth
So talk to us about relocating the existing health care funding to expand the RPN scope of practice and improve the system efficiency and the value for the money.
00:38:22Official transcript
Ms. Dianne Martin
It’s most common question I’m getting these days. What we have to understand about nurses is that RNs and RPNs—I am both an RN and an RPN—we study from the same body of knowledge, just to a greater depth and breadth as we move along. RN education has moved forward substantially and so has practical nursing education, so RNs are taking on roles that physicians used to do. RPNs are taking on roles that RNs used to do. It’s a common-sense approach, and we’re working hard with everybody that we can find to help them understand the extent to which the practical nurse is a stable workforce, especially for your less complex and more predictable outcome patients in every single sector. The legislation for our scope of practice is actually very good. We don’t need a legislative change; we need a greater understanding across the health care environment. But also, we need to have wages the same across all sectors so that a nurse who loves working with the elderly doesn’t have to give up his or her pension plan or income in order to take care of our wonderful long-term-care residents.
00:39:33Official transcript
MPP Stephanie Smyth
Thank you for that. I wanted to move on, Hillary, to a question for you. You talk about cancer screening—we all know how critical it is. But we also know that people are vulnerable in rural communities in northern Ontario, and having that access to cancer screening and through supports for marginalized communities as well—what would you say? Is there an urgent call for this in those communities?
00:40:00Official transcript
Ms. Hillary Buchan-Terrell
Absolutely. If I can even swing it back to take-home cancer drugs as well: You know, if somebody living in a rural area isn’t close to a cancer centre where they would be able to get their IV treatment, that’s going to cost them to travel to get there. When they are given a take-home cancer drug, they are going to be able to take that home. In other provinces, for example, when they’re prescribed a take-home cancer drug, they will be able to pick it up from their place of treatment initially, when they’re meeting with their doctor. And then thereafter, they can get their prescription mailed to them, which really increases that convenience factor for them and ensures they get it on time without a lot of undue hardship and paying those costs of parking just to pick up a prescription or whatever, so really, really key in that sense. We know that cancer affects people differently—
00:40:55Official transcript
00:40:56Official transcript
Ms. Hillary Buchan-Terrell
—so it’s going to affect somebody in rural and remote areas a lot differently than it’s going to affect somebody in an urban setting, and there are lots of different ways across the cancer spectrum that that is the case.
00:41:10Official transcript
MPP Stephanie Smyth
Okay. Thank you. And quickly, for Janice: We know some major retailers are pushing to have the government allow large grocery stores to stock their own brands of wine and beer—essentially big box, no?
00:41:22Official transcript
Ms. Janice Ruddock
Those are category killers. Like, if we’re talking a place—a Costco private label—category killers. It would kill our craft industry, and we are very vehement about that. We’ve been talking—that just can’t come. The only places they are popular is where they do not produce—so Alberta. Alberta does not really have a wine or cider industry—no, no.
00:41:44Official transcript
00:41:45Official transcript
00:41:46Official transcript
Ms. Bobbi Ann Brady
Hillary, you mentioned Dr. Anthony Dixon. He joined MPP Gates and I at Queen’s Park a few months ago. His words were extremely impactful. Just like MPP Gates, I will continue to push for expanded PSA coverage. I will move over, though, to what you said with respect to tobacco products. I’m curious why the Canadian Cancer Society supports safe supply access for things like opiates and narcotics while demanding that safer nicotine alternatives like pouches and cigarettes be accessible only through a pharmacy.
00:42:18Official transcript
Ms. Hillary Buchan-Terrell
Just to correct the last part: I think you’re thinking specifically of vaping products. We don’t advocate, right now, currently, for them to be in a pharmacy or anything like that, but tobacco products are the number one cause of preventable death in Ontario and in Canada. So that is why we advocate so hard; they are the number one cause. Tobacco costs the health system $2.2 billion in health care costs per year, and that is growing. The tobacco industry has been addicting people for decades. Their modus operandi is to make money. Our modus operandi—the reason that we exist—is to help prevent people from getting sick from cancer and dying. We know that cancer is preventable in terms of tobacco and smoking and vaping products. People who pick up vaping products are four times as likely to pick up smoking. That is a statistic that is backed up. We see 21% of grade 10 to grade 12 students who are vaping—a fifth of grade 10 to grade 12 students are vaping. Never in my lifetime would I have thought this to be the case. I grew up with a lot of Ontario regulations that were about getting rid of smoking in restaurants. But nowadays, the kids are picking up vaping and it is easy to get vaping products. If we move that age to 21—I think we can all agree here at this committee that we do not want kids to start vaping or smoking. It is not good for you. There are a lot of studies that show—
00:43:46Official transcript
00:43:47Official transcript
Ms. Hillary Buchan-Terrell
—in brain development, so we really need to stop it before it starts.
00:43:51Official transcript
Ms. Bobbi Ann Brady
Thank you, Hillary. I have a question for Dianne, actually. You described RPNs as the glue that holds our system together. I agree with that. My daughter is a registered nurse and she tells me how they’re such a connected team in the workplace. I’m just wondering, though: One of the things that really bothers me—and she was talking to me about it over dinner—is the $415 licensing fee that RPNs and RNs pay on an annual basis. I know that’s the College of Nurses, but is there something that we can do as policy-makers at this level of government to ensure that we keep those fees reasonable? I mean, we need all the health care workers on the front lines now. Why are we gouging them?
00:44:34Official transcript
Ms. Dianne Martin
Yes. As a nurse who has two registrations, I pay that times two. For us as members, we support that group that protects the public, so we feel like—
00:44:43Official transcript
The Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)
That’s the end of the question. We’ll now go to MPP Racinsky.
00:44:47Official transcript
Mr. Joseph Racinsky
Thank you to all the presenters for coming out this morning. I really appreciate all your feedback. Janice, it’s great to see you again. It was nice to have you in Erin at the Heartwood Farm and orchards. I also want to give a shout-out to Fallbrook Farms, Wheelbarrow Orchards and, of course, Chudleigh’s—great orchards and cideries in my area. I see you and thank you for advocating for the sector, which is so important to rural Ontario. But for the sake of time, I’m going to go to Hillary with my questions. I want to talk to you about the Funding Accelerated for Specific Treatments program, which is a bit of a mouthful, so we call it the FAST program. It was announced last year, and today, Minister Jones announced that six cancer treatments have been approved through that program—treatments like Nubeqa, Calquence and Scemblix for leukemia, prostate cancer and lymphoma. These are treatments that have been approved through Project Orbis, which is an international drug approval organization. I just wanted to know your thoughts on the FAST program and making sure that we’re getting these state-of-the-art drugs to cancer patients faster.
00:45:59Official transcript
Ms. Hillary Buchan-Terrell
I appreciate you mentioning that. We certainly welcome that drug pilot program. Obviously, this is a good first step we’re talking about from industry through those approval processes. I think we can look at these as complementary policies to cover take-home cancer drugs for patients in Ontario. We can get those drugs faster—those better, more innovative treatments that have come onto the market and that people are hopeful about and can help add years to their lives, potentially. But we need to be able to get it to the patient. So, if it’s approved in Canada and it’s approved in Ontario faster, that’s fantastic, but the reality is, if that’s a take-home cancer drug rather than an IV treatment, then the person is going to be drowning in paperwork to get access to that. So it’s not enough that it’s brought to Ontario faster; we need to make sure that patients actually have access. And so, these are two pieces of the same pie. We just need to bring them together. So I absolutely support that, but we need to make sure all the financial and administrative barriers are reduced for patients. It can be about a month for people to get that. Imagine waiting a month for your treatment. If you got chemotherapy in hospital, your doctor might say, “I’d like you to start tomorrow.” That’s just untenable, so we really need to change that.
00:47:24Official transcript
Mr. Joseph Racinsky
Thank you, Hillary. I also want to, at this time, give a big shout-out to Cancer Assistance Halton Hills. It’s a great not-for-profit organization that receives zero government funding, but they drive folks to the hospital. They make sure that they are taken care of in those ways. It’s a great organization in Halton Hills that takes care of cancer patients, so I want to give them a shout-out. But Hillary, turning to life-saving medical isotopes, something that’s very important to our government, a very important tool to treat and diagnose cancer: Last year, in September our government announced $18 million to increase production of medical isotopes at the McMaster nuclear reactor. They’re now operating 24 hours a day, seven days a week, creating over 84,000 treatments each year, so we’ve got a real nuclear advantage here in Ontario and we’re leveraging that to support cancer. Can you speak to how important it is to leverage our nuclear advantage to support cancer treatment and how important those medical isotopes are for cancer treatment in Ontario?
00:48:30Official transcript
Ms. Hillary Buchan-Terrell
For sure. I mean, look at prostate cancer. There’s certainly treatment. I think the one you’re referring to is one that came on the market recently for that, and Ontario approved that and is covering that. I think that’s really, really important. But again, if we can get to cancer before it even happens or gets worse, the better it is. So, when it comes to prostate cancer, a PSA test is the first step. That would be much more cost-effective than if we had to invest a lot more millions and billions of dollars in nuclear energy. It’s great—we need both—but if we can detect those cancers before they develop into later-stage cancers that require more treatment, more time in hospitals, that’s going to be key to reducing that cost for government. Again, in terms of cost, we did a study around the same time as our take-home cancer drug: $3 million a year annually to cover PSA testing for men in Ontario, a very small drop in the bucket.
00:49:29Official transcript
00:49:30Official transcript
00:49:33Official transcript
Mr. Logan Kanapathi
I don’t have that much time. Continuing with cancer, my question to Hillary: I know that it’s a deadly disease—
00:49:40Official transcript
00:49:40Official transcript
Mr. Logan Kanapathi
—and early detection, early diagnosis, saves lives. What else could our government do to help you to prevent this deadly disease? We’re embarking on so many initiatives. For breast cancer screening, we lowered the age limit from 50 to 40. These are the great initiatives we are doing. What else could we do?