Mr. Hsu is seeking unanimous consent that, in the opinion of the House, the Legislative Assembly of Ontario calls on the Ontario government to listen to the concerns of residents in Milton and stop the Campbellville quarry expansion today. Agreed? I heard a no.

Further debate?

My phone is buzzing, I’m told. Sorry about that. Sorry, broadcast.

I really lost where I was now.

Interjection.

Oh, I know where I was. I raised it during questions to the minister—of the underfunding of children’s aid societies. The funding formula has never been right. The funding formula was based on how many kids in care—and now the systemic work that’s supposed to be happening is keeping families together, right? So we know this, and children’s aid knows this, and the OACAS knows this—everybody knows this. Everybody is working towards that. But now we have less kids in care, and we’re supporting more kids at home, within their families. That’s good money. That’s a good way to do it. But the funding is not there now.

In 2022-23, a $15.6-million deficit—the government had to pony up to help those children’s aids that were in deficits. And from 2023-24, they’re already projecting a $15-million deficit.

How can we possibly keep kids safe in their homes if we’re not providing the proactive work, like mental health supports, like affordable housing, like affordable groceries? These are the kinds of things that break down families—mental health and addictions. This is where families fall through the cracks.

If we’re not providing that front-end money, then, sure, we’re going to have to pay all that at the back end—which is more inspectors to get into homes to make sure that they’re not abusing kids.

It’s like building more jails instead of stopping crime. We need to be preventing the crimes. We need to be helping youth, making sure they have resources, making sure they have access to sports and to school clubs and to things that help them be healthy. Mental health supports—front end. The back end is the cleanup. The back end is the jail and more jail guards. That’s not what we need to be doing.

And within the children’s aid sector, it’s the exact same thing—keeping families together, providing them the supports, making sure that they have food in the fridge and that they can keep the lights on and that everybody is in a safe environment takes us away from these for-profit group homes that are, decade after decade, abusing our kids.

There are, in this bill, further licensing restrictions, making it more stringent, making sure that things are built into legislation, so when an inspector does go there, they can see that there can’t be—I don’t know. What does the bill say? I’ll look for it while I’m talking—that there are things in place that are further restrictions and that there is further implementation to keep kids safe from abuse, from suppression, from racism, from all of these things. They’re now going to be built into the bill, which is great, and it does put heftier fines on these licensees—I believe it goes from $1,000 to $250,000. So there will be no mistake. The $1,000 they blew off because the cash cows provided them that money already, so they didn’t care about the $1,000. But now, the $250,000 is going to be a stark difference.

I wish I could find that article that talks about kids being cash cows, because—what a disgraceful article. When the providers are living it up to the life in all their big beach homes and cottages and vacation homes and they’re talking about kids as if they’re cash cows within the system and calling the kids “paycheques.” Can you imagine that this is a system that this government and the Liberal government before them supported, and that we have been calling out for years and years to do better by?

Devon Freeman was a young Indigenous man—I believe he was from Hamilton. He was put into a group home. He was an unhappy young man. He had some mental health issues. He did not get the supports that he needed, and he went missing. Nobody reported him missing for quite some time. Nobody really did much of a look for him to find out where he was. I don’t even believe that his grandmother, who was his family, knew that he was missing for quite some time. He died by suicide. They found him six months after the fact in a tree not far from the group home—six months.

There was a great inquest that went into that case. I believe there were 80-some-odd recommendations to do better. I’m still looking into what recommendations have been enacted and which ones have not. There are various groups that have been called into that—Hamilton police, I know the ones that they were asked. I didn’t have to ask, because I knew the one recommendation for them was to start a missing persons department, which they have done. I know that for a fact, so I know that part has been done. There are several inquest recommendations there that, like I said, we’re having a deeper look into to try to find out which ones have been done and which ones haven’t.

Again, that young man was let down by a system where his grandmother thought that he was safe and that he was going to be taken care of, and yet he was not.

This article is from November 24, 2022, two years ago:

“Ontario’s official opposition is calling on the Doug Ford government to investigate one of the province’s largest operators of kids’ group homes following an investigation on Global News.

“The NDP demanded action on the ‘abusive’ conditions some kids are facing inside the for-profit company Hatts Off, which operates nine children’s group homes and more than two dozen foster homes across southern Ontario.

“A Global News investigation revealed allegations of human trafficking that went ignored—kids who say they were overmedicated, underqualified staff and violent physical restraints, according to 70 interviews with current and former workers and youth who worked or lived in Hatts Off homes.”

I’m just going to skip through to a couple of places.

“The reporting also profiled the story of Cassidy Franck, who was 16 years old when she lived at a girls-only group home on the outskirts of Hamilton, Ontario, in 2021. Franck alleged that the conditions of the home were ‘terrible’ and that she managed to leave the home by going to live with a staff member.”

It gets better—a staff member from the group home.

“After arriving at the apartment, Franck said she was forced to sell drugs and was ultimately rescued by Hamilton Police Service’s human trafficking division.”

This is a staff person who lived in one of these unregulated group homes that really had no business being there. What qualifications did she have to be taking care of young people?

I’ve heard horror stories from other group homes in my riding, years ago—Hatts Off in particular—that had young women taking care of these teenage boys. The clothing was inappropriate, the behaviours were inappropriate. The neighbourhood was so concerned about what was happening there. We were able to file some complaints through the community and had things cleaned up a bit there—but this is just the unregulated, awful business of our child and youth sector.

“Global News also uncovered a trail of documents, including a secret draft report, an expert review for the Ontario coroner, and countless ministry inspections, which for years pointed to signs of concern at Hatts Off. The reporting also revealed a lack of accountability and oversight.”

It’s absolutely horrific what has been happening in these homes for so many years, with no direction from the government. This many years, this many deaths, this many occurrences—and now we’re starting to see some changes within the system. Is it going to be enough?

I asked the minister about the inspection levels. I’m happy to hear that there are going to be uninvited and unnotified inspections. I hope that they’re at night, when the young people are home, and not during the day, when they’re in school—because that happens a lot. Inspectors go up—“Oh, and everything is fine. Everybody was at school, and everything was fine and dandy and looked great.” How about going there when young people are home and making sure that you are seeing these young people, that they are home and that they are accounted for and they are not drugged?

We have definitely heard about the drugging incidents—the young people who state that sometimes they were getting five pills a day, just keeping them sedated all day long, where they couldn’t even function and be able to go to school, probably, and the aggression that came from that kind of restraint.

And there are many physical restraint complaints that came in about these homes that just went undone—and hopefully, some of this legislation will help fix that.

What I would truly like to see is public group homes. Take away the for-profit group homes that are currently in the system that are allowing these kids to be used as cash cows, that are creating income for private profit. We should be doing nothing but focusing on the well-being and health of our kids who are in care to make sure that they get the services that they need, and regulating the group homes to make sure that there is oversight, that there are bodies that will ensure that young people have the support that they need and that they are in happy and healthy homes. There can be nothing more important than making sure that that happens.

The Ombudsman is another piece that’s being added to this bill. Back when the government took out the provincial advocate for children and youth—when he fired the child advocate, quite frankly, closed down the office—the Ombudsman was given the powers to be able to speak up for children and youth in care. I did have a conversation with the Ombudsman the other day—asking him his insight. He believes that he is able to keep up. He thinks that at the rate that currently exists in his office, they’re fine and they will not need the extra expansion of funding, but he promises me that once that gets out of control and he does need that extra support, he will be making sure the government has that.

What is happening in this legislation? I know that it was something that we talked about with the child advocate when we did the new child and family services act—one of their recommendations was that every child have access to the information, to be able to contact the child advocate. So I guess that now this is being put in for the Ombudsman—that the kids have access to information about the Ombudsman.

My concern is, what has been happening for the past six years, since the child advocate was fired and the Ombudsman was put in place to take on this role of supporting young people when they feel that the system has treated them unfairly? The Ombudsman will tell us that they’ve had, I believe, 200-plus complaints come into their office from child welfare. That is the part that concerns me. There were 2,000-plus complaints that went into the child advocate’s office from child welfare. So that’s a big difference in numbers. I don’t know whether it’s because this piece has been followed through, whether the information for the Ombudsman has already been there, but now, it’s going to be forced to be there, so it will be interesting to see if those numbers increase or not and what that will do to the Ombudsman’s office. It will also come in regulations, I’m told—how this is going to be communicated to young people, ensuring that every young person knows when they enter the system that they have the right to access the Ombudsman, and to make sure that they have privacy to be able to talk to the Ombudsman without people hearing their stories. Of course, they wouldn’t want the same people they’re complaining about to hear their concerns. They would want and need privacy. So I’m hoping that’s going to be in there, to ensure that they do know their rights and they know where to go when they need help. That’s an important piece.

Bill 188 adds a requirement that a person who is employed in the care of children’s aid, as defined in the act, needs to report instances of immediate danger to the well-being of a child or youth in care when that danger is caused by a licensee or provider. That essentially creates a whistle-blower requirement that remains a requirement even when there have been previous reports relating to the child. This actually wraps in the need to be able to speak freely.

I brought forward a bill previously, in previous governments, on whistle-blower protection, to open up the Employment Standards Act to ensure that people did have the ability to speak freely and without fear of reprisal, for the benefit of the kids and for the benefit of that person working within the system—to know that when they had something that they had seen was wrong, they weren’t scared to tell, which is another way of keeping kids safe. So I’m happy to see that this is here and that that’s now being looked at, because it’s an important piece. I think it was in 2015 that I brought that legislation forward, so I’m glad to see it in this legislation today.

The other thing I mentioned which I was happy to see in the legislation, which I brought up to the minister earlier through the question portion of his debate, was Katelynn’s Principle. The bill talks about the child being the centre and that every person has a responsibility—and that’s where he wanted to add the educational assistants. I think that we could be adding educational workers—that any adult who comes in contact with that child and who is in a place of responsibility has a responsibility to do that.

Katelynn’s Principle was another bill I brought forward many years ago, in 2016, which was a recommendation from Katelynn’s inquest. Katelynn, unfortunately, died in the hands of the people who were, again, through children’s aid, supposed to be taking care of her. They had been friends of her mother, who was not capable of taking care of Katelynn, and these people—it was all through children’s aid. They had been looked at, and everything was supposed to be fine. They abused Katelynn so terribly that she died. The number one recommendation from her inquest was Katelynn’s Principle—to enshrine it as the guiding principle for decisions affecting children. During the new Child and Family Services Act, we tried to get them to implement Katelynn’s Principle again, at that time, but they did not do it. What they did was, they added it to the preamble of the Child and Family Services Act.

Seeing what’s before us today, talking about adults who are in responsible positions to take care of and be there to speak out on behalf of children—to have that whistle-blower protection, but to also understand that the child is the centre of all decisions, is, I think, a really important piece that needs to be looked at.

So I would ask once again—here it is. It says, “The first recommendation, referred to as Katelynn’s Principle, places children at the centre of decisions affecting them. The jury requested that all parties to the coroner’s inquest ensure that Katelynn’s Principle apply to all services, policies, legislation and decision-making affecting children.”

This would ensure that every decision that is made is always child-centred and that individual rights—“The child must always be seen, the child’s voice must be heard, and the child must be listened to and respected.”

“The child’s heritage must be taken into consideration and respected. Attention must be paid to the broad and diverse communities the child identifies with, including communities defined by matters such as race, ethnicity, religion, language, and sexual orientation.”

“Actions must be taken to ensure that a child who is capable of forming their own views is able to express those views freely and safely about matters affecting them.”

“The child’s views must be given due weight in accordance with the child’s age and maturity.”

“In accordance with the child’s age and maturity, the child must be given the opportunity to participate before any decisions affecting the child are made, whether the participation is direct or through a support person or representative.”

“In accordance with the child’s age and maturity, the child must be engaged through honest and respectful dialogue about how and why decisions affecting them are made.”

“Every person who provides services to children or services affecting children is a child advocate. Advocacy may be a child’s lifeline and it must occur from the point of first contact and on a continuous basis thereafter.”

Just reading those words after so many years—it still rings true. There is nothing about what I just read that could not be put into legislation today. There’s nothing that we can do here that shouldn’t be put through the lens of a child.

Like I said earlier, our most valuable resource is our children. They are the ones we are nurturing today to care for us later. They will be our doctors. They will be our lawyers. They will be our teachers. They will be our legislators. They will be our Premier. They will fill every role that we see in our community today. Our children of today will eventually fill those roles. If we don’t nurture those children, if we don’t maintain those children’s mental health, if we don’t help support them when they need support, then we are failing them and we are failing ourselves; we’re failing our generations to come.

That is the basis of everything, and what I just read to you in Katelynn Sampson’s principle could not ring more true today than it did the day that I did that reading in 2015 and the day that the inquest recommended that recommendation for Katelynn and for children, going forward.

This is an ample opportunity to actually introduce that legislation again and to embed it into what we’re seeing before us under Bill 188. There’s always room for improvement, and I know that the folks who worked on this bill probably pushed for a lot of things to be put into this legislation today and they had to settle for what they got, but they also know that settling for what they got was still a win. I’ll never take that away from them. I think it’s fantastic that they were able to get to this point, because we have definitely seen years of neglect when it comes to our child welfare system and supports serving our children so they’re not in the child welfare system. They have to go hand in hand. We can’t talk about one system without talking about the other. We can’t support children without supporting our health care system to ensure that they have what they need. How many complex-care kids are in care today because the health system denies them, because they don’t have nurses in their homes, because they can’t afford it, because now the private nurses cost more than what they’re allotted through their critical care funding? This is a reality.

I’m not sure if the members across know these realities. I don’t know if they’ve had the opportunity to speak to parents, like I have. I’ve only had that opportunity mainly, probably, because I am the critic on this file. Have they talked to parents with kids who have complex critical care needs and who are not able to maintain those 24-hour nurses like they need? And what happens is the kids then become—the children’s aid stepping in and saying, “We’re taking these kids because you can’t care for the kids.” But I’ll tell you, they end up in the children’s aid and they still can’t get the same services, so it’s a revolving door. Is it in the best interests of children? Definitely not. Can we fix it? Yes. We can ensure that there’s proper funding into children’s mental health services. We can ensure there’s proper funding into complex care needs. We can ensure there’s proper funding for autism services. We can ensure there’s proper funding to really allow children’s aid services to proactively keep families supported at home. We can actively ensure that we have enough children’s aid, like, care homes, not group homes—family homes.

I remember, as a child, my parents were always foster parents, and how many kids we had in our house sometimes. My dad would be loading up—he had a deal with the grocery store. It’s how we got more bread and how we got more of this and more of that, so my parents could take care of all these kids. I remember them so clearly. They were my brothers and my sisters. I still speak to some of them today, and when I do see them, the emotion that I have for them is overwhelming, because now, as an adult, and being in the role that I’ve been in, I’ve learned the trials and tribulations and struggles that I would never have known about when I was a kid. Now I know and understand, and I see and I think about it differently, and I can talk to them differently about their experiences in the children’s aid societies. I remember very clearly the happy times that we had and the sad times, when they would leave and they had to go back to their homes or their families. It was such an exciting time for them, of course. They were going back to their families. But it was sad for us—because that was my brother, and now he’s gone.

We have to do better. We don’t have these foster homes to be able to care for these kids anymore. Indigenous homes—how hard is it to be able to get them into the system to be able to support them? We’re not even helping kinship families. So if they’re my family member, no one is going to help support me, even though I don’t have money to buy a crib or I don’t have money to buy all the extra clothes and the extra food and the extra everything that it costs to be able to raise a child. I’m just expected to do it now, because they’re kin, they’re family. Well, that’s great. I really want to be able to help my family, but I need the financial support to be able to do that because I’m struggling already just to be able to support my own family. This is the reality of today’s day and age. So if we don’t put in this work to get more families into the systems, to attract Muslim families and Black families and families from everywhere so that children can see themselves reflected in the families they’re actually put into—these are the kinds of initiatives that we still need to do.

This bill today isn’t going to fix the system. It’s going to fix a couple of little things. Hopefully, it’s going to fix some things in the group home licensing, but it’s really not going to be the bottom line for the children’s aid societies, which are begging for funding. They’re running deficits, which they’re not allowed to do. The government had to bail them out in the last year, and they’re going to have to bail them out again. They can’t continue to function like this. They have to be able to proactively be ready to support those families coming in, be able to attract families to support kids—Black families, Indigenous families, Muslim families.

The work doesn’t happen on its own, and it doesn’t happen for free. It actually takes a fully funded system to save money.

And for Conservatives—you would think that they would understand the fact that they want to save money, but they don’t. They just talk about it, and then they just say that everybody else wants to raise taxes. Well, it’s the same taxpayer who is footing the bill, regardless of what level of government you’re paying it to. And by making sure that our kids are supported—there can be absolutely nothing more important than doing that.

I want to say, once again, these homes should not be for-profit. They need to be not-for-profit. It will save money. It will ensure there’s proper care. They need to be regulated. We need to ensure that we have ongoing inspections—day, night, all the time. Make sure those kids are home when those inspections are happening—not showing up when all the kids are in school and expecting that everything is fine and dandy, when we don’t know that. We need to ensure that’s the case.

We need to get these kids off of being drugged all the time. There’s actual therapy that could happen, instead of drugging them with drugs to calm them down. No. Give them proper therapy. Make sure they have actual recreational sport and supports and other things that they need to live functional lives, like everybody else’s kids. They should have access to these things, but they don’t.

When they’re cash cows and when they’re doing nothing but putting a paycheque, then they’re not—we can’t expect them to not fail. We’re setting them up for failure. That’s not okay. It’s not good enough. We live in a very, very prosperous, very rich province. But it’s a province where people are struggling, and our kids who are in care—who are literally our kids; they are the government’s kids. As the government, you are required to take care of them. It’s your responsibility. You have to make sure that more legislation comes before this House quick.

Keep pushing, Jane. Push them hard. I know that you have the ability to do so and that you have the ear of the government, and that you’ve worked so hard to get to this position. You’ve put yourself on the inside, because that’s the only way that change happens. It never happens from banging on a window from the outside. It happens from the inside. And you put yourself in a good position to do that.

Kids are counting on us to do the right thing. They’re counting on us to ensure that there’s legislation to protect them, to keep them safe; that parents aren’t giving up their children to group homes that are failing them; that parents can know, for once, they will be able to trust a system and say, “If I’m giving up my kid, I know they’re going to be safe. They’re not being abused, they’re not getting drugged, they’re not being locked up, and they’re not dying by suicide”—because that’s the actual reality.

We can do better. It’s up to you to do better. This bill is a good start. It’s a small start. It’s a little thing that’s happening. Let’s get it done. Let’s work through it. Let’s work on some really good amendments and, hopefully, strengthen it up as best as we can. And then let’s get on to the next bill that is actually going to do more and ensure that children’s aid societies in this province have the ability to proactively keep families together—kids at home, happy and healthy, with the supports that they need to flourish and thrive.

The member for Hamilton Mountain spoke about what previous governments did or didn’t do. I was wondering if she could speak about the Ontario Child Advocate’s office, an independent office of this Legislature. It was created in 2008 under the previous government and was cancelled by this government. I was wondering if she could speak about that fact and its connection to the needs that she has spoken about eloquently in her speech and the need for this bill.

I want to thank the member for Hamilton Mountain for her work, for a very long time, as our child critic.

I want to read into the record and just get the member’s response to remarks made by the great Cindy Blackstock, who, in 2016, when the federal government lost a human rights tribunal case, said the following—I’m wondering if there’s an echo in her remarks this afternoon.

Ms. Blackstock said, “Nothing the government can do can make up for the wrongs it consciously perpetrated against kids. And I want to emphasize that it was conscious. It wasn’t an accident.”

The report went on to say that while the federal government may be responsible, “funding at least 93% of on-reserve child welfare, the Ontario government created the system where these children died and provides the law within which the child welfare agencies operate.”

I’m just wondering if the member for Hamilton Mountain has any reaction to that.

Questions?

The bill proposes improving protections for the privacy of individuals who have a history of involvement with child protection, by restricting access to files by others once a young person leaves care. Children who grow up in the care of their birth parents don’t need to worry that a written record about their childhood would be used to stigmatize them later in life. After all, kids will be kids. I think it’s wrong that a child would have that worry just because they were in care.

Does the opposition support including enhanced protections for the privacy of children and youth leaving care in the CYFSA?

Yes, I support it. I’ve been fighting for it for years. I’m happy to see that the compliance levels are raising—from $1,000 to $250,000. Like I said, this should have been done a long time ago, but we’re here now.

I’m still concerned about the amount of inspectors and when the inspectors will be visiting. Will those inspections be thorough, and will young people be talked to—to know that they feel safe, that they are able to use their voice about whether this extra legislation is working on their behalf?

Now we’re seeing, year after year, more children fall into a disrepaired state of affairs within our child welfare sector.

Yes, as I have said throughout my debate portion as well as for years, I have been supporting that call being put into legislation. I’m happy to see that it is here today.

I agree with the member that it is absolutely not fair for someone to be judged as an adult for what they did when they were 12, 13, 14 in care and in a bad place in life as a child. Neither he nor I would want our time in school—I think the example was smoking in the parking lot when my parents catch me. That shouldn’t be put into my file for the rest of my life. That is what is happening with these crown wards when they age out.

I’m happy to see these revisions put into place. I think it’s a long time coming. I congratulate the welfare PAC for all of their hard work in making sure it’s here today in legislation.

By moving to a not-for-profit system, ensuring that we truly become the parents of these kids and have people in position with education and requirements and regulations to actually manage how the group homes are going to be run, it would be a much better outcome for the kids who have no choice but to live in these group homes.

As Ontarians, I truly believe that we can do better in making sure that—a not-for-profit system would save us from allowing kids to end up as cash cows.

I want to thank the member from Hamilton Mountain for her debate on Bill 188, Supporting Children’s Futures Act, 2024.

It’s no secret that these private, for-profit group homes call their clients, the children in their care, cash cows. That is, quite frankly, revealing of what kind of intention there is when businesses are actually caring for children—it’s a business.

One of the examples I want to bring forward is Expanding Horizons. Back in 2021, the company’s legal counsel surrendered its law licence to the Law Society of Ontario after admitting to a tribunal in 2018 they had misappropriated nearly $500,000 from clients.

How can strengthening the oversight in a non-profit system for group homes help this kind of financial abuse be stopped?

Speaker, if I may, to start off, I’d like to thank the Minister of Children, Community and Social Services and the staff for the work that has gone into Bill 188, the Supporting Children’s Futures Act.

I also want to acknowledge and express my appreciation that a lot of the preliminary work for this was completed by the now Minister of Energy and the now Minister of Colleges and Universities in their previous roles within the Ministry of Children, Community and Social Services.

Speaker, if I may, I’m going to take a few moments to digress, because I need to express my personal appreciation for all the wonderful, caring and compassionate parents and pseudo-parents who make the decision to take good care of a child.

As members of this provincial Parliament, all of us are heavily involved in our communities. Unfortunately, I think we have all been aware of a situation that turned out to be a bad situation for a particular family, a difficult time for a child and, more specifically or more likely, a highly tumultuous time between a teenager and a parent. Over 40 years ago, I was one of those kids.

I will be open with this House in saying that at the age of 15, yes, I was definitely one of those teenagers. I had come from a family situation that included divorce, alcohol and violence. I was not innocent in this; at the age of 15—actually, just shy of my 16th birthday—you might say I was a difficult child, a challenging teenager perhaps, in a house that simply could not handle that. It became untenable. There was violence; there was police involvement. But at that time—again, this was over 40 years ago—abuse was measured by broken bones, which I did not have. Being under 16, apparently it couldn’t be defined as assault either. I was living with my father; unfortunately, my mother at that point did not have the capacity to support us and especially did not have the capacity to deal with the challenges presented by my alcoholic father.

At that particular time, custody was pretty much defined by age with a hard line in the sand. For a 15-year-old, which I was, if you left, it was the duty of the police to return you to the very place that caused the problem in the first place. Once you turned 16, you were a free agent, and the parent at that particular time could decline all responsibility. So a week later, on the date of my 16th birthday, I left that house. I left that house with no plan and no place to go.

But I was rescued. The parents of a very close friend of mine knew how I had been struggling for years at that point, and they took me in. For much of the next year, that household provided me refuge. They cared for me like I was one of their own. I will be forever grateful to them for saving me from being homeless and, more importantly, for showing me what strong and caring parents could be like. They were my pseudo-parents, and I would like to take the opportunity just to say thank you to John and Gaylia Prytulka.

I also need to say that after a time, my father got the help he needed, and he found an amazing partner in his second wife, Barb. Eventually, that all led to a situation that my father and I did reconcile, and we became close again until he passed when I was 31.

I want to take this opportunity to thank all the pseudo-parents out there for that unofficial caring and compassionate help that they are providing. Across the province, there will be families like that. I want to thank them all, because their work has saved so many children from the struggles they face.

Speaker, I thank you for allowing the digression. I will return to the bill, a bill that works on improving the out-of-home care system, sometimes described as foster care. Certainly many children across this province need a safe place to stay for a variety of reasons, from needing basic accommodations and supervision to assistance with some very complex special needs. Some of those children need to be placed in out-of-home care for their own protection, and they end up being placed in foster care.

Speaker, let me be very clear to the out-of-home care parents who are out there. There are a great many excellent caregivers in the out-of-home care system. The vast majority are exactly as I was just describing before: caring, compassionate care providers, and I want them to note that this bill does not take aim at them. This bill is to address those that would misuse the system and fail the children in their care. That small minority of bad actors within that system may be a small number but they definitely need to be addressed, and that is what this bill, if passed, will do.

Speaker, there are three main directives to this bill. If Bill 188 is passed, it will strengthen oversight and provide enforcement tools for out-of-home care, protect the privacy of youth formerly in care and update the Child, Youth and Family Services Act with the lessons that have been learned since it became law.

So the first: The bill proposes a rigorous application process for potential care providers. This measure aims to sift out those that are not fit to offer that quality care, with the ultimate goal of safeguarding public interest. For children in care, accountability is paramount. The bill seeks to increase oversight of care operators, empowering inspectors to take decisive action in cases of non-compliance. This includes the implementation of a range of penalties, from compliance orders to administrative fines, to ensure adherence to the law. That’s the purpose.

We’ve all witnessed, unfortunately, incidents where care providers have fallen short of delivering the quality of care that our children deserve. As a government, we stand firm in the stance that there is no room for such negligence within the province.

To tackle these issues head on, the bill introduces a set of robust enforcement tools. These include orders to reclaim misused funds, the appointment of new management where necessary and restraining orders in cases of imminent threats to the child’s well-being.

Additionally, this bill outlines new provincial offences for violations against a young person’s rights and significantly increased penalties designed to deter any misconduct. These penalties, including fines of up to $250,000 and imprisonment, underscore our unwavering commitment to protecting our children.

Bill 188 proposes streamlined processes for inspectors, ensuring thorough documentation of findings and empowering them to conduct investigations with warrants where necessary. Changes to the appeal process aim to expedite decisions while ensuring transparency and accountability. This includes stricter requirements for evidence and clarity on tribunal orders.

In essence, these measures represent a monumental step forward in holding service providers accountable to the standards of care that our youth deserve—that they need. By providing inspectors with a comprehensive tool kit and implementing stringent penalties, we are sending a clear message: The safety and well-being of our children are non-negotiable.

The Supporting Children’s Futures Act marks a significant stride towards safeguarding the privacy and the dignity of our children and youth who have experienced the child welfare system. It’s imperative that we enact measures to protect their rights, even after they’ve left care.

Speaker, this bill introduces restrictions on access to records held by the children’s aid societies, concerning children and youth who are no longer in their care. This crucial step aims to shield privacy and ensure that their past involvement with the child welfare system does not impact them indefinitely. These changes are designed to provide additional layers of protection for the privacy of individuals with a history within the child welfare system. Regulations will be developed to further limit access to their records by third parties, again strengthening their right to privacy.

And within this bill is the empowerment of adults with a history of child protection involvement to publicly disclose their own experiences. It corrects a previous oversight within the CYFSA that could be interpreted as a breach of privacy for former children and youth in care who wish to tell their own stories. By implementing these changes, our government aims to create a supportive environment that respects the privacy of adults who were once children in care, while also empowering them to speak openly about their lived experiences, if they so choose.

These amendments seek to ensure that youth in care are afforded the same rights and freedoms as every other member of society. It’s our duty to uphold their dignity and protect their privacy as they navigate their life, their journey beyond the child welfare system.

Within Bill 181 is the establishment of robust information-sharing mechanisms between children’s aid societies and professional bodies such as the College of Early Childhood Educators and the Ontario College of Teachers. This vital step will help to enable timely action in cases where there’s an allegation or a risk to children involving a teacher or an early childhood educator, thereby safeguarding our children’s well-being.

The Supporting Children’s Futures Act seeks to broaden the scope of professions authorized to receive personal information from children’s aid societies, now including teachers and early childhood educators. If passed, this bill will clarify the duty of early childhood educators to report children in need of protection and introduce penalties for those who fail to do so.

Another significant aspect of this bill is empowering the College of Social Workers and Social Service Workers to share information about its members with relevant bodies, including children’s aid societies. This change will align their practices more closely with other health professionals, enhancing the efficiency of investigations and helping to mitigate risks of harm.

We also aim to clarify the rights of children and youth in care to complain to the Office of the Ombudsman. By outlining these obligations within CYFSA, we seek to ensure that all service providers and children are fully aware of their rights, bridging potential gaps in that awareness.

Enabling offence declarations by sector workers will ensure that employers are promptly informed of any changes in the criminal records of their employees, strengthening safety measures within our institutions.

The bill embodies our unwavering commitment to the safety, well-being and rights of our children and youth. By establishing clear, consistent practices, enhancing information-sharing mechanisms and clarifying rights and responsibilities, we’ve paved the way for a brighter future, a safer future, for the most vulnerable members of our society.

It is essential to recognize that the bill before us is just one component of a larger, ongoing effort by this ministry. Our commitment to redesigning the child welfare landscape extends far beyond the pages of just this bill. In conjunction with the introduction of the bill, our government has taken additional actions by filing regulations that contain a multitude of new measures aimed at bolstering the safety and the well-being of children in our care. These regulations include mandates for enhanced information-sharing between children’s aid societies and the ministry regarding specific health and safety risks faced by children in licensed out-of-home care settings. This initiative will ensure that no child falls through the cracks and that any risks are swiftly identified and addressed.

Furthermore, these regulations require increased collaboration between different children’s aid societies to support service planning for children placed across jurisdictions, promoting seamless transitions and continuity of care. These are kids; they deserve continuity of care.

We’re taking concrete steps to enhance oversight and monitoring by mandating more frequent visits to children in out-of-home care systems, as well as requiring unannounced visits in certain circumstances to ensure the well-being of every child is prioritized. These regulations clarify and strengthen rules surrounding discipline in licensed settings, emphasizing the prohibition of derogatory or racist language and requiring immediate reporting of any suspected prohibited methods of discipline. We’re ensuring that licensees uphold their commitments by requiring adherence to program descriptions and enhanced financial record-keeping.

Additionally, provisions are being put in place to guarantee privacy and dignity for children in residence settings, including the requirement for bedroom doors and physical barriers in foster homes. These regulations will provide clarity in cases of conflict between regulations and health recommendations. They will enhance financial reporting requirements and clarify rules governing the use of restraints.

Through the ongoing work of the Minister of Children, Community and Social Services, under the leadership of our Premier, this continues to demonstrate our unwavering dedication to a continuous improvement and our commitment to ensuring that every child receives the support, care and protection that they deserve.

There’s not enough time for another round of questions. Further debate?

I think it is very clear that we do care about the children and we’re trying to find the best path forward. This minister has committed to ensuring that we will continue to move, continue to improve the system. This is one piece of that. We will continue to get better.

We need to continue working with the minister, with all of the stakeholders, listening to the people that are providing the services, listening to the children. As the member from Kingston and the Islands actually knows, my sister is a foster mom and has been for about 30 years. I’m not even sure if he knows that she is my sister, because she has a different last name, but he does know her certainly.

So no, we will continue to improve the system through whatever means necessary. I’ve got great confidence that the minister will do that.

First of all, I just want to thank the member for Hastings–Lennox and Addington for adding his personal story to this debate. And I wanted to give him another chance to answer the question from the member for Niagara Falls, because I don’t understand why this government cancelled the Ontario child advocate’s office. It was created under the previous Liberal government in 2008 and cancelled in 2018. What was the rationale for cancelling that office? And I hope it wasn’t just because it was created under a different government.

Thank you very much to my colleague for that great set of remarks. I was very touched by your initial story. I moved out when I was 16 as well for slightly different reasons, but something close enough so I kind of recognize some of that story. It’s wonderful that there are these great people that are willing to stand up and help those, especially young people, in need so that they can get off on a better footing for the rest of their lives.

We’ve heard a lot about what we’re not doing as usual from the other side, but I did hear the member from Hamilton Mountain say a number of good things about this legislation. We’re starting to see some changes after years of neglect, that it’s a good start and that these are things that are in the bill. There are some things in the bill she supports. She answered a couple of questions saying she does support those things.

Can you tell me why you think this is a good piece of legislation to be bringing forward at this time?

I always like to listen about how much you care about children, so I think it should be easy, quite frankly, to answer this question: Why is the government still not committing to reinstating the provincial Child and Youth Advocate role that it removed? Do you not believe that the organization had positive impacts on the lives of the children in this province that we care about so dearly?

Questions?

Response, please.

Question?

I would like to thank the member from Toronto Centre for the question. I’m going to start with the last half of the question first: What are we doing? We are working towards having more housing and helping with the affordability crisis. We are and have been incredibly successful at making sure there are more jobs for people, because that is the absolute best way to support a family: for people to have good-paying jobs and be able to manage that.

But more specifically, we have invested $3.8 billion in the Roadmap to Wellness. That has an increased focus on children’s mental health, and that continues. We will continue to help to improve. Some of that is education. Some of that is working with the kids directly. All of it is to try to improve the overall situation for children across the province.

One the most egregious things that we learn about is when people that are empowered and entrusted to take care of a child have abused that. This bill will help to address that because of the regulations, because of the monitoring requirements that are built into this particular bill. This is not a particular funding bill. Our budget was a particular funding bill, and we continue to provide more and more funding into these programs to make sure that they are supported. I hope the members opposite would consider supporting the budget to make sure that that funding that they keep asking about is there.

I first want to thank the member from Hastings–Lennox and Addington for sharing his experience of when he was a youth growing up in his family, and I think what I got from that, and many of us over time, is that everyone of us has a story of where we come from, our challenges, our successes. And I congratulate you that your father did overcome his challenges of alcoholism and was able to repair a relationship in your youth, because it’s so important, those bonds that children develop with parents.

I’ve talked in the House about my family experience. My parents came here from Portugal. I was born in Portugal. They came here when I was six years old, with five kids, five children: three brothers and my sister and myself. One of the things that my dad wanted to come to Canada for, first of all, was because my mom was very, very, very ill, and her mother had the same illness, and he wanted to seek treatment for my mom. So as a young child, I never really had my mother as a role model, but she was the sweetest, kindest, gentlest person that could you ever meet.

Now, saying that, the roles in our family were vastly different from what we were used to culturally, because, coming from Portugal, there are set roles in that culture. So my dad, God rest his soul, he was an amazing individual, as my mom was. She was an incredible person, but my father stepped up to the role of being the mother and the father, the provider, the caretaker, the whole gamut. What is so awesome about that particular experience, from my perspective, is that, in my culture, that is not normally—that a father would take that role on. And so, he was obviously so adaptable to making sure our family stayed together, because it’s so easy that a family could fall through the cracks, and that’s, I think, what I’m trying to express.

So, while we were in Canada, my brother Steve was born, so there was number four, four brothers and one sister and myself, so we ended up to be six. When my mother was gravely ill, for decades, quite frankly, my sister, Nelia, she was the older sister of the two of us, by two years, and so, because of her ranking, her position in the family, she, again, was kind of selected to be the mother, the head of the household, literally at eight years old, because when we came here, as I said, my mother was sick. She became the person who translated for my father, took my mother to medical appointments. As a young girl, as she was older, if the principal called, she would be dealing with my brothers if there was a little bit of turmoil, which wasn’t at all a bad thing. But the nice part was we had a support system in the school. It was very, very comforting. We had a support system in the school.

The interesting part is my father never hid my mother’s illness. None of us ever hid my mother’s illness. There was nothing, really, to be ashamed of, and maybe that’s because of our ignorance; I don’t know. Or maybe we just loved our mother so much we felt that she should belong and we shouldn’t have any stigma because she’s our mother, regardless of what her situation was.

So, going to school, we had a lot of support. I’ll never forget my kindergarten teacher, Mrs. Bladek. She and Mrs. Weaver, they took me under their wing. Mrs. Bladek, in particular, knew our situation. I’m sure all the teachers did. If one did, I’m sure that they all talked about the situation. But she would come over to our home and have dinner with us, and she’d come over and give us Christmas presents. She’d socialize with us outside of school. She would take me to the local diner back then, when Simpsons had a lunch counter, and she would take me out for lunch when lunch hour was. You could you do that back then.

We were very fortunate, and I think that what I’m trying to illustrate here is that if we didn’t have the help—from our extended family, by the way. I have to thank my aunts and my uncles. They all knew about my mom’s situation. They all helped out, and my cousins. It was a very strange way to have an upbringing because, if I talk about the story, you’ll hear in my voice that it was a very positive experience that I had, but in a very odd circumstance, where your mother was ill for decades. But because of the people who were around us, helped us, didn’t see it as something to be ashamed of, something to be disgusted by—because my mother did have very, very frequently, daily, regularly, episodes that made it hard on all of us.

But again, the upbringing that I had, the people who were in my life—I’m so fortunate and grateful that they were there, because we as a family and each of my individual siblings—no one strayed, thank goodness. I listened to the member from Hastings–Lennox and Addington, what happened with him and how he had to leave his home at 16. Depending on the situation, maybe I would have had to have left because of the conditions. But because of my father and my sister and my brothers, it was a good home. It was a stable home, and we all knew the predictability and what to expect. It was nothing tragic that traumatized me growing up, because I was raised with that illness, and the expectation to support each other was, I guess, an underlined, known, unspoken thing. So we did that.

But if that wasn’t the case, I reflect on the story I heard earlier from that member, that things could have gone sideways. My father could have turned to alcoholism. My father could have been an abusive person. I mean, he had six children; that’s stressful. He worked full time as a labourer and then had to come home and make dinner and account for all of us. So it was quite remarkable, I have to say, that we are not a story that we’re discussing today.

The bill does make some headway in ways. There’s strengthening in licensing. There’s strengthening inspectors. But one thing I should tell you I think should be in here is that the for-profit private group home piece should be removed, because I think that goes a long way. We had some history; we all know what the history is of these group homes, and I’ll talk about something that’s current in my riding in a short piece. But the history that has happened, all the cases that have come forward in the media: Those for-profit homes did not have the oversight required to protect our children.

This is part of the reason why I think we need to—it doesn’t matter what government, but there’s always the financial piece that we forget. And once there’s a private home or a private long-term-care home or a private child care or daycare centre, the oversight, the transparency and the accountability just isn’t there like if it was a non-profit-run organization. That, to me, is a very important piece that should be in here.

Like I say, this bill is supportable. There are lots of good things that are happening. But the history how we led up to here is really devastating. As everyone knows right now, back a few years ago—in 2012, actually—there was a class action lawsuit by crown wards because of the treatment from CAS, and so the government of Ontario agreed to a proposed settlement for all persons who were alive as of January 22, 2012, who were crown wards in Ontario at any time from the period on or after January 1, 1966, until March 30, 2017, and suffered physical or sexual assault before or while a crown ward, and the court approved a notice of settlement approving hearing available etc. So these things go back to 1966.

And do you know what? We’ve heard articles about calling these kids or clients, these residents, “cash cows.” When we’re talking about 1966, and still today we’re hearing horrible stories in the news about the Conner Homes, about Expanding Horizons, about the Johnson Children’s Services—these are for-profit homes who have really created these issues in their homes because they were worrying about the profit and not the service delivery, not looking after the best interests of the children. There were various other things, too, the government—which I’m surprised that we’re still talking about today: training and education for people who worked in these for-profit private homes.

Quite frankly, the Expanding Horizons home is one of the—they’re all horrific. But a young man, around 14 years old, David Roman, was murdered in that home. If that doesn’t move you to understand that this is not a business, this is not a for-profit enterprise, we need to really do some more digging in making changes to how we perceive and how we are setting policies when it comes to financial intent when it comes to our children.

And I can tell you what happened was that, because this went before the courts, the person who had the children in their home, they said that they did not have any training whatsoever. They were 24 years old, by the way, and I believe they had four high-risk residents. The person that was in charge of the home explained to Expanding Horizons that he didn’t have any training, had never had interaction with children, but that didn’t stop that business transaction from happening, and that is what the problem is, I think, when we talk about making things better, and we forget that it’s not a business. Human resources, human beings, are not businesses.

That leads me to talk about, in London—so this is a very recent article. I’m hoping I can get through it so I can actually talk about what currently happened yesterday.

This was on November 15, 2023. It’s an article written about the London CAS and that they’re saying that they currently have no beds available for some of the city’s most vulnerable youth. Because of pre-existing gaps in services, they’ve only grown wider and wider in the city and across the province, according to Gerry Healy, and there’s no space to place high-needs children who require special treatment and aren’t able to return home for a variety of reasons.

That’s the other thing: There’s a lot of high-needs children here whose parents cannot continue to care for, because the resources aren’t there for them to be supported at home. I actually talked to a family and the whole team at the time about how they adopted a child, a young girl. Now she’s 12 years old, and her behaviours have gotten so bad that they need help, and the children’s aid society is not able to place her because of her needs. This is another family who is in crisis, who can fall apart at any time. We don’t want children to be the victims or the outcome of the fact that we don’t have the right supports for these children. But what’s happening—that’s a high-risk situation. Again, they want to be placed, and CAS doesn’t have the capability of placing those children in specialized homes where people have that training.

But what is also happening here in London is—“‘When you’re putting a teenager or a child as young as 11 in hotel rooms and calling that home, I’d say [the situation] is significantly dire,’ said Healy.”

That’s what’s happening, like I say, in November 2023, and during the pandemic that was also happening. But what is more alarming, Speaker, is that it’s still happening today. Just yesterday, I was speaking to someone that I know, who’s very close to me, and their 15-year-old niece was in a London hotel room through the custody being in CAS. This is a huge, huge inadequacy and can lead to so many problems.

One of the things in the article—and I’m sure we can all connect the dots when it comes to a young person in a hotel room, isolated from connecting with other people—you’ve got social media. The 401 is on the hub of human trafficking, because there are so many hotels on the highway. So, of course, you’ve got these youth, very impressionable, come from a family—in her case, her parents, unfortunately, are addicts, and they can’t place her. And the other thing is they separated her from her younger siblings, which is very traumatic for her. This is a story that continues to happen.

One of the things that CAS had said is that they’re on the verge of filing bankruptcy because they have such high deficits. And I know government had at one time bailed out or funded those deficits, but we need to make sure that we actually provide the funds to the CASs that are supposed to be in charge or overseeing our children. Bills like this are a good step, but if the mechanisms and the instruments are not in place to actually deliver what this bill promises, then really, we’re not doing anything. It’s not justice for our children. We’re not giving them the opportunity to thrive. We’re not giving them the opportunity to live in a safe home and access all the basic needs that they have.

One of the things that this person told me that their niece was experiencing was a lack of food, believe it or not. So at one point, they were in school and they fainted because they didn’t get anything to eat. A growing teenager—this is not the kind of nourishment that we should be offering, having a granola bar for breakfast. When her parents were in a bad way, they left the home for a month. and nobody found out. Do you know how they found out that she was the one that was looking after her younger siblings? It was because she was actually stealing snacks from school and bringing them home so that the children could have something to eat. This is a true story, and it’s not exaggerated. I don’t like exaggerating. People who know me here—I don’t make things up to get attention. This actually is from someone who I know, very close to me, telling me what they’re experiencing now.

So I really implore the government, maybe in committee, that when you’re in committee, really think about making sure that all these rules have a purpose, all these rules will actually mean something and create the outcomes that we need. Because we can create all the rules we want, but when we have a system that isn’t transparent, that isn’t accountable and that doesn’t have the right oversight, we’re failing the children that we are protecting.

There are inspections here, which great, they’re on site; you don’t have to call anymore. There are fines of $250,000 and a year in jail. But that isn’t going to help the victims. That isn’t going to help the children that were offended, that were taken advantage of by those people that work there or by those operators. That’s too late. So we need to make sure that when there’s the non-profit piece for our kids, they’re not a cheque for the care system. These are human beings. They’re the most vulnerable.

There is a piece in here now that they can go to the Ombudsman, but we have to remember the child advocate was really the strongest voice for our children in care. I understand that since the Ombudsman has taken over—I had down here that there were 200 complaints in one year as opposed to 2,000 when there was a child advocate. So it’s not getting out there, if a child needs to speak out on their behalf. And it shouldn’t be their responsibility, quite frankly. Imagine being a child, an eight- or nine-year-old, and you’re supposed to seek out where you’re going to report what’s happening to you. It’s good that the list has been expanded for reporting; that’s good. But again, there’s so many other things that need to be strengthened in this legislation.

I know that early childhood educators are one of the ones in here dedicated to report, and that’s really important because, again, they look after the youngest populations. That’s why it’s so important, when we are talking about child care in this province, that we respect the workers that work in those spaces. We want to make sure that there is that retention because continuity is how you catch some of these reports of abuse. It’s the continuity of care. You know, the same person, perhaps, is looking after that little child that comes in. But if you have an overturn on staff all the time, you’re going to miss those signs of what the child might be going through. So having a strong early childhood educator workforce is so important.

We have to make sure that we create it as a career and pay early childhood workers, registered ECEs and all staff a wage that makes them want to be in that career, and it’s not a revolving door for a step up to another job. I’ve advocated for that in this Legislature, and I’m going to bring a private member’s bill. I’m very passionate about that because we need, again, to look to the future, that if we’re building these child care spaces and we want to have early childhood educators understand and report, that we need to create the workforce. We need to have the training and the proper workforce environment to make sure that these professionals get the respect that they deserve, because we owe them that, because we owe it to our children, if we’re going to have people who are supposed to care for them, give them the best care.

We owe it to the children and we owe it to the workers to have the training and the education, and we need to make sure that these agencies are non-profit. It shouldn’t be a for-profit business; it should be a not-for-profit so we can have the proper care and oversight to look after our most vulnerable children.

Thank you very much to my friend for his presentation. I’m just wondering if he has any reflections on the fact that at the rate that I’m seeing, with the evidence we have, we have a situation where, with every week, we have a few kids who are passing away in one way or another in care. He’s lived it. I’ve grown up with friends who have had a similar experience. While I acknowledge the positive things in this bill, we have youth in our province we’re losing. So how could this bill be amended to make sure that we get the services and the supports, as my friend from Hamilton Mountain was saying, into these homes to make sure that the kids who are in crisis get the help they need?