Response?

Response?

As the minister highlighted in his leadoff, the bill proposes to add early childhood educators to the list of professionals with a duty to report if they suspect a child is suffering from harm, abuse or neglect.

How do these efforts specifically improve the safety of our children?

I want to thank both parliamentary assistants and my honourable colleague for the question as well.

Madam Speaker, it’s very simple. When we talked about the child welfare redesign—I’ve said this from the day that I was appointed to this ministry: that no child or youth will be left behind and that we will do whatever it takes, which is why, Madam Speaker, we hired 20 more new staff to do inspections, to do unannounced inspections, to make sure—and I want to thank the vast majority of the service providers who are providing care with love for our children and youth in the province.

But we want to make sure that the bad actors are held accountable, Madam Speaker, which is why we hired more inspectors, which is why we are doing more inspections. We’re doing more unannounced inspections and that’s why, through this bill and through this initiative, we’ll be looking at introducing measures that will further hold those bad actors to account, Madam Speaker.

So, when it comes to protecting the children and youth in this province, we will never waver from that commitment, making sure that they’re looked after.

The amendments here clarify, Madam Speaker, that early childhood educators have the duty to be able to report. Again, at its core, this is to make sure that every child and youth is supported, is looked after, and that, for us, is to make sure that those are held to account. The ECEs, just like other professions, like teachers and physicians, counsellors and child care providers, who already have that—we want to make sure that early childhood educators also have the obligation to be able to provide that information to societies, as most of us have the opportunity, Madam Speaker. Everyone can report, but this now clarifies the role of early childhood educators in the bill to make sure that they have an obligation to report, in case there’s a—

Madam Speaker, as I said from day one, we will leave no stone unturned when it comes to protecting children and youth in care. That’s why, through the child welfare redesign, we have looked at every possible solution. That’s why we’ve had consultations with partners, with stakeholders, those with lived experiences: to give us the feedback that we need to implement policies to protect them. Madam Speaker, we will never waver from that commitment.

As I’ve said many, many times on many occasions, children and youth may be a portion of our population, but they’re 100% of our future and we will do everything we can to provide that protection for them.

Well, Madam Speaker, it’s called freedom of expression. It’s a fundamental freedom in our country. Those of us who have grown up, we have the opportunity to be able to talk about our childhood experiences. You and I can talk about our school and where we attended and the interactions that we had with people. Currently, under the CYFSA, individuals who were formally in care are not able to do that Madam Speaker, and it’s just about their right.

Everyone should have the right to be able to express their—talk about their past, good or bad, and be able to fully express themselves. And we want to make sure that’s captured in this bill.

As far as the support, I can tell you, Madam Speaker, the Ready, Set, Go Program, for leaving care, came with $170 million of funding that was provided to societies to make sure that children and youth are supported at the age of 13 with the life skills they need to succeed and thrive. And after they leave care, they will receive that funding right up to their 23rd birthday, because we want to make sure that they are set up for success in every community. And we backed that up with $170 million of funding.

And some of the other fines for the worst kinds of offences are increased to $250,000. At its core, this bill is about protecting children and youth at all aspects. It’s about making sure children and youth that are in care are receiving the supports that they need to make sure they succeed and thrive.

Further to the conversation that just happened opposite, there are many educational workers who should probably also be incorporated into this bill and that’s an amendment that I’m sure we’ll be bringing forward when we get to the committee process.

But it really encompasses Katelynn’s Principle, which was a recommendation into her inquest many years ago and a bill that I brought forward to ensure that children must be at the centre when they are receiving services through the child welfare, justice and/or educational system.

Is the minister interested in actually enacting Katelynn’s Principle during this process?

But one of the things that I want to point to, which would help with children and youth, is funding children’s aid societies in the province of Ontario. Just last year, in the 2021-22 budget year, there was a $15.6-million deficit to children’s aid societies, which the government had to bail them out of. That is no way to be able to keep these working in a proficient way. Can the minister speak to—

It is always a pleasure and an honour to be able to stand in this place to speak on behalf of the people of Hamilton Mountain. And it is always of my utmost honour to be able to stand as the official opposition critic for children, community and social services and to truly raise the voices of children in this province.

I have had the honour of serving mainly in this role since my time of election in 2011, and I had many opportunities to work with youth in various capacities under this role. One of the first things that I did shortly after being elected was to attend youth leaving care hearings. That was one of the most powerful beginnings to my career and to my opportunity as the child critic, to truly witness the voices of young people in care, to witness their ability to use their voices to talk about things that they needed; to talk to their parents, as the government, for things that needed changes, for things that needed to be implemented, for things to make their lives better as young people within the system of children’s aid. They came out with a report called My Real Life Book back in the day, and I believe it was—it was 2011 when I was first elected, and I think it was literally shortly after I was elected that all of that work was being done.

Let’s not forget and give full credit to the child advocate’s office, who empowered young people to have their say, to be able to raise their voice, to have courage to bring their voice in whichever way they found suitable, whether it be through art, whether it be through music, whether it be through spoken words—so many different, various ways that young people were able to bring their voice to adults who were responsible for them during that time. The child advocate’s office had done so much of that amazing work, and I benefited greatly from his office and from the young people whom he served in this province. It was a remarkable office that spanned the entire province, and every child in this province could find themselves seen within his office. Whether it was LGBTQS+, whether it was Indigenous, whether it was a child with a disability, whether it was a child in care, ethnic children—whatever it was, every child could find themselves within that office.

Unfortunately, Speaker, one of the first measures that the Ford government did in 2018 was to close that office—and in such a quick stroke, close that office. The advocate himself found out in an airplane from a news broadcast, a newspaper that he was reading, or something that happened. He was completely caught off guard that the office was going to close and the provincial advocate would be no more.

And then the member from—let me just get the right riding—Nepean was the minister at that time and claimed that she was going to be the child advocate. And that, we have seen, turned into an awful mess and, really, the children of this province were left with no advocate and, really, someone who was in government that had their back.

Once again, I want to remind the government that they are the parents of children in care. It is their responsibility to take care of children in care. They are the only opportunity that a child in care would have to flourish. So when we have children’s aid societies who are the parents, it’s really bad when they don’t have the funding to be able to house them accordingly, when they’re putting kids in hotel rooms because there are no homes for them to be in. We have kids who are coming into care with critical, complex needs, and children’s aid societies are literally putting them in hotel rooms, trying to find places to be able to help them through their journey.

We have parents who are forfeiting their rights of their children to care because they need mental health supports, and parents have gone through everything they possibly can to find those supports in our communities, to no end. As a parent, they think, “Well, if I can’t find it in my community, I will certainly be able to hand over my child or my teenager to the children’s aid societies, and they will be able to get them the help.” But that is not the case.

The Ministry of Children, Community and Social Services does not work hand in hand with the Ministry of Health. The Ministry of Health holds all the purse strings for mental health, and we see a continued growing wait-list for children in the province of Ontario with mental health needs—a wait-list that is booming to, I believe, 30,000 kids waiting for services. And that last number, still pretty high—I think it’s pretty outdated. That was a two-and-a-half-year wait.

And then add COVID on top of that, and the stunt in growth, really, from so many young people, the isolation—everything that came with COVID that we felt as adults. Imagine that compounded on young people in this province who were not able to get the help that they needed. They’re still not able to get that help, and we’re still seeing parents not being able to get what they need for their kids and still forfeiting the rights of their children to the children’s aid societies, who are just not able to get the same services that those parents were looking for too. So there is a lot that goes into a young person being in the child welfare system, typically, of course, of no fault of their own, but really looking to their parents to have those answers for them.

The stuff that’s in this legislation today is a step in the right direction. There is absolutely no doubt about it, and I want to give thanks where thanks is due, to the Child Welfare PAC folks who really have worked hard on this. Jane Kovarikova, who has become the chief of staff for the minister, led that group and, I believe, initiated that group and got it started. Being a former youth in care herself, she knew that there were problems in care. She knew that there were things that could be done if you get on the inside and do the work.

Many people in our communities are out there and they’re banging on doors and they’re banging on windows to talk about the things that are wrong, but Jane found her way in as a very young person, as a student, to a Conservative MPP’s office many years ago and continued to stay in that position, knowing that the way to make change is from the inside out.

So congratulations, Jane, because I know that this legislation is only in front of us because you took your journey and you continued to push and you gathered people around you—all of the amazing advocates; some are smiling down at me right now. I appreciate you and the work that you have done. I thank you for that work, and children in our province will thank you for the work when it’s time to affect them.

I know a big part of the legislation stems around the fact that when you’ve been a youth in care—and the minister went through this—you are not allowed to become an advocate, so you had to sign forms to be able to speak on behalf of yourself, as a former child in care. Part of this legislation is going to change that to ensure that former youth in care can speak for themselves; they are allowed to tell stories, they are allowed to work for change, because they were definitely put under the gun several times when it came to all of the work that they were doing as PAC advocates—I can’t find it; it’s fine. That’s the base of one piece of it.

The other piece is that a children’s aid worker, for whatever reason, could search a former youth in care’s file and have every bit of information accessible to them. This could hurt somebody when they go for a job interview or a police record check, if they want to be a children’s aid worker, if they want to be a social worker, if they want to do any of these things. All of their file would be open to anybody who could just punch in their name within the system, and that is absolutely wrong.

I cannot imagine that anybody could just type my name into a file and find out that I smoked cigarettes on the corner and my mom caught me when I was 12.

Imagine that concept—that a person in their adult years could be held accountable for what the 12-, 13-, 14- 15-year-old child inside them did, how many fights they had with their parent, or if they ran away from home? That should not change the outcome or the fact of who they are as an adult. So I’m happy to see those changes reflected in this bill. People deserve protection. They deserve privacy. They don’t deserve to be dragged through the mud or to be held on a different level for something that they did as a young, teenage person. So I’m really happy to see this legislation that supports that work.

Again, congratulations to the PAC for all of the work, advocating for years. For years, they have been visiting, and I know I’ve been visiting with them for so many years, talking about this work. Jane found herself in the minister’s office once again and was able to push it through and to get it done, so that’s absolutely great.

A declaration—that’s what they had to sign; it was a declaration. I knew I’d find the word eventually. I’ve got a lot of paper over here, because there are definitely a lot of pieces that I want to be able to talk about today.

The other piece that is a really important piece is the group home licences. I just want to go back on a little journey of horrific, horrific situations that we have heard time and time again in this Legislature, that we have read news accounts for, that we have seen in our communities, that have hit our communities, that have torn the hearts out of communities, torn the hearts out of families—the death of young people in group homes in this province—and it has happened much too often and on such severe rates. We see for-profit group homes that are responsible for taking care of our children, who have been, really, fed to the wolves. They have been what has been called cash cows. They have been neglected. They have been abused. They have been drugged. They have been locked in rooms. They have been restrained. They have seen every horror that we can imagine, as a child, and yet they were put there for protection. There can be nothing more tragic than a child who has been taken into protection under the government and has seen that abuse, died by that abuse, or lived to tell about the abuse, with trauma that they must live with day in and day out.

There have been several stories by these for-profit homes that are horrendous. The hardest part is that this has been happening for decades. We have seen these tragedies go on and on and on. In 2017—I was just trying to look up articles for stories to bring to the floor today, because there is nothing more appealing than a true-life story of real lives, of what has happened in these situations. I wanted to bring a few of them to the floor today.

And the dates—2017; we’re seven years later and we’re just getting to this. And if it wasn’t for Jane and PAC really pushing hard to get the legislation that she wanted, would we see this here today? I have to question that.

We’ve been calling this stuff out and begging for help. And a minister who continues to say, “Leave no child behind,” and a minister before him who said the same, and a minister before that who called herself the greatest advocate that this province would ever see—that was in 2018, that that started with this government. Like I said, the first thing they did was get rid of the child’s greatest champion in this province, who was truly the provincial advocate’s office.

May 15, 2017: “Foster Home Fire that Killed Teen, Caregiver Blamed on Bolted Door....

“On a Friday afternoon in February, a raging fire swept through a foster home near Lindsay, Ont., trapping a 14-year-old resident and two caregivers in a second-floor bedroom.

“The teenager, Kassy Finbow, and one of the caregivers, Andrea Reid, were killed.

“‘My daughter was supposed to be in a safe place and, in the end, it’s what took her precious life,’ Kassy’s distraught mother, Chantal Finbow, told the Star. ‘Kassy was a beautiful young lady with so much potential.’

“A sliding glass door in the room in which Kassy and Reid were found was bolted shut, the Star has learned. And the only window—in a gable off the roof—was too small for the surviving caregiver to escape. She was saved by firefighters who smashed through the window’s upper sash, according to the foster home’s operator, Bob Connor....

“The deaths have triggered multiple investigations about lax or non-existent provincial standards governing group homes and foster homes run by private companies. The OPP, Queen’s Park, children’s aid and Ontario’s child and youth advocate are finding plenty of blame to go around.

“The Ministry of Children and Youth Services, responsible for licensing and inspecting these homes, is under fire for failing to adequately monitor and for being slow to improve the quality of care.”

I just want to remind everyone: That was May 2017, seven years ago. There was plenty of blame to go around. We’re just getting to it now.

“Both group homes and foster homes serve children and youth taken for their protection from parents by children’s aid societies, or sent there by parents for treatment due to mental health or behavioural issues.

“The similarities end there. Foster homes are capped at four children, while group homes typically serve eight or more. Foster homes also face far less stringent licensing requirements and fire code regulations.”

This is the next part I’d highlight: Irwin Elman, who was the provincial advocate, said that he considers them a dangerous symbol of the “power and control model” of residential care. “It’s about managing kids’ behaviour,” he said. Elman added that he repeatedly warned the ministry and fire marshal about them, with no result.

“‘It wasn’t safe,’ an exasperated Elman said of the foster home that burned down. ‘For young people, it just all adds up to, “Nobody cares, unless we die.”‘”

That’s from Irwin, and that’s an article from May 15, 2017.

I also found this article that talks about Kassy’s mom. She said, in this article:

“She’s had a lot of aggression, since the age of about five. And as she grew older she became more and more violent, towards myself and her brother as well as a lot of property damage to the home. We had exhausted all agencies for help and nothing got better. By the age of 12 she had became unmanageable at home.

“And so I reached out for help from Durham Children’s Aid Society as other agencies had not helped in the past. Both CAS and I decided maybe it would be best to put her in a group home and have a full assessment done.

“She was in care for a total of two and a half years before the fire. During that time she never got the full assessment that she needed. She continued to get worse, very violent and charged numerous times, and constantly running away—and for those reasons she had to be bounced around in the system.”

Then she ended up in the Connor Homes and they “thought this would be a great opportunity for her to get better as it was a smaller setting and out in the middle of nowhere. She was there for about six months but during that time we had seen great improvement and for the first time ... I had hope that she would return home at some point ...

“I really think the system needs an overhaul. This is why I decided to at least speak out via email. My daughter was supposed to be in a safe place and, in the end, it’s what took her precious life. In my opinion they should have more places for children with mental health and more separate places for violent children or behavioral issues. They are not the same needs and so they should be separate ...

“To make it clear, Kassy was never removed from the home—I reached out to CAS for help.”

She reached out for help, and the system didn’t help her. The government didn’t help her. The system failed her every step of the way. They failed her when she was five. They failed her when she was six. They failed her when she was 10. They failed her when she was 12. And they certainly failed her when she was 16, when she was put into a home owned by a private operator who locked doors and bolted windows.

And a staff person died on the same day. That person worked within a facility, went to work and never came home to her family because she was put into an unsafe working condition.

This is not a system that leaves no child behind. When the minister gets all “no child is left behind”—which he says about every child in this province—it hurts me to know there are so many children left behind in the province.

So a couple of little things within a bill that is seven years too late—it kind of gets me, and we all know that I’m a passionate person and I kind of get emotional about things. But that’s what our jobs are to do—is to protect these kids.

There is nothing more valuable, there is no resource more valuable in this province, in this country, than our children. And when we do not invest proactively in our children, we see children who end up in care—mostly not by their fault or by their parents’ fault or anything other than the fault of the system that they can’t get through. They can’t get mental health supports; they can’t get safe living conditions when they so desperately need them.

No parent wants to give over their kid, but they’re literally forfeiting their children in hopes that they’re going to get services that they can’t get on their own. That’s not okay.

As a province, we really should be leaving no child behind. And as a government that likes to talk a good game, they can do a lot better.

Interruption.

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.

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.

Thank you to my colleague from Hamilton Mountain for her opposition leadoff on the debate this afternoon for Bill 188.

The bill proposes a modern and flexible suite of tools that will empower the ministry inspectors to improve compliance rates among insured providers of out-of-home care to children and youth—at a higher rate of compliance—that would mean young people in out-of-home care receive a consistently higher quality of care that is safe, supportive and responsive to their needs.

Does the member opposite support stronger oversight and accountability for those providing care for Ontario’s most vulnerable young people?

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?