I’m pleased to rise and ask a question of the member of Ottawa South.

One of the features of this legislation is that it creates new tools to ensure compliance, which will apply in every licensed out-of-home care setting. The new tools include orders to return funds, administrative monetary penalties and increased fines to ensure that it simply will not be possible to make a profit by providing poor care to children.

To my question, though, to the member from Ottawa South—Bill 188 proposes to entrench rights for youth overall. How are they doing that—the past relied on the Ombudsman Act. This particular legislation now would put that right within the Child, Youth and Family Services Act to remove any lack of clarity on the rights youth have with respect to the Ombudsman—

Well, I’m sure. I guess you can probably give the Premier a call and ask him about that, because that’s what happened. They axed it.

Interjections.

I know it’s hard to hear, folks, but there’s a remedy. You can fix it. It’s not broken forever. Here’s the reality: We don’t like criticism. I don’t like the criticism I’m hearing right now. Nobody likes to be criticized. No one likes somebody shining a light on us coming up short. But do you want to know what, folks? All governments are going to come up short when it comes to this. We’ll never do enough, ever, ever, ever.

So we need people like an independent child advocate to speak up for children who don’t have a voice, and that’s their only job—not the rest of government. And kudos to the Ombudsman’s office for taking it on, but we need somebody whose job it is just to do that, nothing else. That’s why it was established. That’s why it was important. And that’s why it would be a really good thing, as my colleague from Ottawa Centre said, to re-establish an independent child advocate. I think we could all agree on it. Yes, we’re going to hear some things we don’t want to hear. We’re going to hear some things that will make us uncomfortable—not just the government, but all of us. We need that. We need that because those children don’t have a voice.

The measures in this bill to make sure that children have the language of their choice in terms of being communicated to—that’s great. That’s really important. But what about hearing their voice? How do we hear their voice? We only will be able to hear their voice if we actually are intentional about ensuring that they have one, and that they have an independent one, and it’s one that reports to all of us.

I think what happened with axing the Child Advocate was something that was done in haste. You got rid of the Environmental Commissioner and anyone else who, at the time, would say something that would tell the government what they didn’t really want to hear or anybody else to hear.

It’s healthy to have critics. It’s healthy to have people who shine a light on things. It only makes us better.

I am going to support this bill. We’re going to support it. It’s a good bill.

Two things that the government needs to remember: All these new penalties, all these new laws don’t mean anything if we don’t enforce it, if we don’t put money behind it, if we don’t put money behind preventing the things that are happening from happening, if we don’t pay social workers enough, if we don’t ensure that there’s enough support—I don’t want to use the word “supervision.” We don’t supervise our children growing up, as parents. I don’t know what the right word to use is. Here’s the reality: Children in care—we’re their parents. We’re responsible for them. So if we’re going to put this law forward, we better put something behind it, all of us.

Number two: Children in care across this province need an independent voice. They need an independent child advocate because they don’t have a voice. I shouldn’t say they don’t have a voice. They have a voice, but they’re not heard. They need somebody whose only job is to say, “Here’s what’s happening over here. Here’s what’s happening to kids who are in our care. And here’s what needs to be done.” We may not like what they say. We may not like what we see. But it will only work if we force ourselves to listen and see those things that need to be fixed, even though they make us feel uncomfortable and coming up short.

I’m happy to take any questions.

I thank you for the question.

As I said, we’ll be supporting this bill.

There was something you said that kind of stuck in my head, and that’s that people can’t make a profit from delivering poor care to children. Well, I’m not sure getting a profit in caring for children who are wards of the crown is something that we should be encouraging or doing—and again, that’s all of us. I’m not trying to point a finger over there. Governments have done that—started to do that. I think we have to not do that anymore and ensure that we’re working with people who aren’t making a profit, or we’re delivering the services ourselves.

I thank you for the question and your kind words.

I want to say something about my mom. My dad would not be there all day, so my mom was there. There was a cook, but she had three children under three. At the same time, there were a whole bunch of children who required care and required a parent—like a parent and someone there who was in residence. I sometimes romanticize it, but I’m sure, for my mom, with three kids under three, it was sometimes a lot to handle. I’m glad they did it.

Again, in coming here, there are a lot of things that we have to remember. That’s why the child advocate is important. We need to remember we have these children who are wards of the crown—that’s us, folks. That’s our job, so we have to strive to do better all the time. And as I said earlier, we’ll always come up short.

We have to do more to give families the support with regard to mental health and addictions. Again, it’s something we’ll come up short in.

Yes, it’s heartbreaking when you think that you turn any child over just simply because you couldn’t give them what they needed.

The point I was trying to make about it—and it wouldn’t force me to vote against the bill—is that there are things that are missing in terms of the support that we need to prevent and to enforce. That’s not pointing a finger. It has been the constant problem with governments, not just in here, but across this country. That’s what my point is. We need to do better at that.

And it really would be good for all of us, no matter what side we sit on, to have an independent child advocate. Those children need a voice. Their voices are really hard to hear.

Response?

To my friend from Ottawa South, thank you for the remarks.

I’m wondering if, in this question and answer, we can brainstorm about other ways in which we can encourage people to become foster families, to encourage the creation of non-profit, safe homes for kids interacting with the child protection system.

Just as a thought exercise, I think about our great pension plans that exist in the province of Ontario and the fact that they need more contributors to survive, and that these huge pension plans—be they OMERS or HOOPP or teachers—need more contributors. So instead of having a for-profit element to the child protection system and thinking of incentivizing people to get involved on the basis of a money-making enterprise, what if we told foster families that they could be part of an established pension and benefits program maintained by the province of Ontario? What if we brought that to Indigenous communities so people who made that sacrifice of opening up their family homes could enjoy a dignified retirement, thanks to their service, and the province had their back? That’s a way in which we can reward people who do this kind of caring profession. I’m wondering what the member thought.

I’d like to commend your parents for what they did. It’s wonderful to hear something like that.

This bill proposes a modern and flexible suite of tools that will empower the ministry inspectors to improve compliance rates among licensed providers of out-of-home care to children and youth. A high rate of compliance would mean that young people in out-of-home care receive a consistent, high 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?

Thank you to the member from Ottawa South for his comments.

I appreciate the fact that you said it’s a good bill and you’ll be supporting the bill. We don’t have enough of the support that I would like to see coming from the other side of the Legislature on some of our bills, so I’m glad you like this one and you’re going to work with us.

In that regard, I think that the bill proposes a number of things that are very useful. One is that any appeals of the Licence Appeal Tribunal to the Divisional Court will not automatically result in a stay of decision. The Divisional Court would need to be satisfied that a stay would not pose a risk to the health, safety and welfare of a child. I would imagine the member agrees that the welfare of children and youth must always come first when considering matters of administrative fairness for service providers. I know you said that the money has to be there to make this a reality. But I do think some of these changes, like this one, can also make things better. That’s what we do here in the Legislature—improve the legislation. Would you agree?

Thank you to the member from Ottawa South.

I also want to thank the member from Ottawa Centre for your words earlier.

I want to put out a problem that I’ve encountered. I don’t know whether you can answer this or not. I’m aware of a family who was raising kind of an adopted niece—so it was sort of family. The niece got in trouble eventually, as a teenager, and needed addiction services, but the only way the family could get access to those services was to make her a ward of the crown. They could not access those services as the family who was actually caring for her. I’m wondering if you can speak to that, or perhaps this is something that could be discussed when this goes to committee.

It is now time for questions.

Thank you to the member opposite for your presentation.

I would like to draw attention to some feedback that the Ontario Association of Children’s Aid Societies gave on this bill. While the overall intent of the bill is certainly supportable and there are some wise changes here, the society raised the issue of how we stop children from ending up in this situation in the first place.

What steps is this government looking at taking to ensure that children don’t need to end up in care?

We know that children and youth involved in the child welfare system have already faced a lot of challenges, well before the time that they interact with the children’s aid society. Unfortunately, a lot of these youth often experience worse outcomes as they move through their lives. Our government has put in a year’s worth of work to reverse that trend.

My question to the member is, how will these proposed changes actually help our children and youth?

Thank you for the presentation.

There is an overrepresentation of Indigenous children in the child welfare system in Ontario, but also across Canada.

The federal government of Canada funds First Nations child and family services on-reserve through Indigenous Services Canada. Indigenous Services Canada requires that First Nations child and family service agencies use provincial-territorial child welfare laws as a condition of funding. I know one of the things that is followed is the 1965 Indian Welfare Agreement.

Are there any plans to update the 1965 welfare agreement?

I want to acknowledge what many of the people who live in Kiiwetinoong, 65% of whom are Indigenous, might think of when you mention the child welfare system. Earlier, I asked a question to the other side, to the member who did their 20 minutes—that there is quite a bit of representation of our children, of our people, in this place.

I know, when I see this legislation, to me, growing up, but also the teachings that we have—we’ve always, as First Nations people, as Anishinaabeg, Anishininewuk, had our own laws. Before settlers arrived, as First Nations people, as Anishininewuk, we did not write a lot of things down, but it was through stories; it was through talking to people, that those were our laws. I know that sometimes nowadays we try to create our own laws. And I remember when the minister came to KI last year around February or March, when he became the minister, when he signed off the agreement with the Kitchenuhmaykoosib Inninuwug Onaakonikewin. That was a good trip. It was the first time I saw the feds but also the provincial government, the First Nations—where they recognized Indigenous laws, First Nations laws, on how they are going to take care of their own children. They had their own laws. So I think it’s important to acknowledge that.

Every day, I talk about the impacts of colonialism, the impacts of oppression, the impacts of racism on Indigenous people. Every day, it’s the children who suffer first. I think, when we talk about the First Nations within Ontario, the care system represents the continuation of a history of colonial governments taking our children away, whether to force them to go to Indian residential school or placing them for adoption in mostly non-Indigenous homes.

Speaker, I’d like to remind the House: During the Sixties Scoop, around 16,000 Indigenous children were taken away from their families. They were taken away from the teachings. They were taken away from the ways of life and the ways of being. That is an example of the assimilationist policy that has caused repercussions and intergenerational trauma to this day. I see it. I see it when you see children that go missing.

I remember I was at this chiefs’ meeting one time, and there was First Nation leadership from my riding—they were under the child welfare system. She had five children under the age of four. She had no idea where they were—somewhere in Ontario; that’s all she knew. As a First Nation leader, she had no idea where those children were, and that should not happen—

Further questions?

In this legislation, we’re proposing changes that would, if passed, further restrict access to the child protection records of children and youth formerly involved in the child welfare system.

Could the member from Simcoe–Grey—through you, Speaker—provide more detail about those proposed changes, please?

Thank you to the member opposite for the question.

As we heard in earlier discussion, from the member for Ottawa Centre, these types of issues become very difficult. We know that parenting is not an easy thing and there are many stressors—mental health, addictions, financial—that often compromise families’ abilities to care for their child, so this government is working on supports, through mental health funding in our schools, working on funding other support services.

But ultimately, in the case where a child needs protection and needs be put in foster care, this legislation is designed to ensure that we have a fulsome and robust system.

This is a very critical piece of this legislation. It is enhancing protections of privacy for children who grew up in foster care, while at the same time permitting them the freedom to speak about their lived experience in the system, which is a critical part—and it’s a right that all of us enjoy. So at the same time, we’re increasing the protections to make sure that only those who are authorized have access to records in specific circumstances, while allowing the individual to speak about their lived experience in the system.

I would refer back to the comments of Diana Frances, who was talking about changes in our society through social media and other pressures.

We know in this House that things like human trafficking and sexual exploitation are growing concerns. This government passed all-House legislation to make sure that those suffering, who have been exploited and have been trafficked, are able to have debt released so that they are no longer controlled by the offender, and we have expanded the Victims’ Bill of Rights to allow those to pursue their traffickers. And we are working, through a number of mechanisms, through the Associate Minister of Mental Health, through the Minister of Education, to ensure that there are supports to help those who are at risk deal with their issues, before having to be transitioned into this system.

As I indicated, in parallel with this legislation, we have introduced two new regulations, O. Reg. 155 and O. Reg. 156, that are enhancing these protections and making sure that we are putting in place better application processes to vet those who are applying to be foster parents, that we are better monitoring their actions. And through enhanced inspection procedures through this bill, if passed, we will be making sure that we’re inspecting homes every 30 days, as opposed to every 90, and that we continue to work to monitor.

As has been indicated, while putting these kinds of provisions in place is a good start, without the corollary of enforcement to make sure that people abide by those new measures—we have enhanced penalties significantly to make sure that youth are protected and served properly.

We know, in our past, that those situations were not handled well.

And I know that, currently, the Indigenous children’s aid societies make their own placement decisions without interference from the province, and that the law requires children’s aid societies to place children in safe and culturally appropriate settings.

In response to the question, I can indicate to the member opposite that the Minister of Children, Community and Social Services has indicated that he has been in discussion with chiefs and that they are working on those very issues.

The aspects of this legislation are very far-reaching in terms of—yes, as I indicated—the O. Reg. changes, making sure that the applicants are vetted so that the homes are appropriate and the care that they’re going to receive is constantly monitored, and increasing inspections and increasing the number of inspectors across the province. We’re also enhancing our fines to make sure that there is punishment and consequences for the bad actors. We’ve enhanced the penalties significantly, and we’ve changed the appeal process. So this legislation is doing things right across the spectrum, from vetting applicants, to the care that the child receives while in foster care, as well as making sure that there are enhancements to penalties to punish those bad actors.

I thank the member for his presentation.

Like my colleague said, it is very important to keep people out of the care system in the first place.

The member referred to investments in mental health care as a way of keeping children safe and in a situation where they can stay at home.

Could you tell us what scale of funds are being invested and what results have been seen from the work that you’ve done to this point?

Thank you to the member for the presentation.

I think the point of this bill is that the health, safety and well-being of children is paramount whether they’re in care or not. It’s crucial that as a Legislature and a society, we do everything in our power to ensure that’s the case. This bill proposes to take many steps towards that goal.

Could the member please expand on what regulations are currently in place to ensure those who work with children at risk are qualified to do so?

April is Autism Awareness Month.

According to the Ontario Autism Coalition, there are over 60,000 children waiting for core services. After six years of broken promises, so many children are now aging out of the eligibility requirement for the Ontario Autism Program after receiving no core services.

Just the other week, I spoke to Thorold resident Angelo Dosa, whose autistic son Jonathan, 18 years old, has now aged out of the program. As we sat at Angelo’s kitchen table, he told me that Jonathan was diagnosed with low-functioning autism when he was three years old. He has turned 18, is now considered an adult, but cannot care for himself. Angelo says Jonathan is now on Developmental Services Ontario’s housing list. The waiting period could be anywhere from two to 10 years.

Speaker, the Ontario Autism Coalition is here at Queen’s Park tomorrow. It is my hope that government members will listen and meet with delegates and parents like Angelo to educate themselves on the resources and investments needed to address this crisis. We can do better for Jonathan and his family.

I apologize to the member, but we are out of time right now. It is time for members’ statements.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.