I want thank my friend from Kiiwetinoong for his remarks. For those tuning in who don’t know what we’re debating, we’re debating Bill 188, the government’s latest effort around child protection law.

The member spoke about Amy Owen. This is a story from our community that broke hearts wide open when we learned of it, because it’s exactly as the member is describing: It is a child discarded to the for-profit foster care system, which disregarded her life. For the record, I want to read in something that Amy wrote on Facebook 11 months before she took her own life. She wrote, “I am just a kid and my life is a nightmare.”

I guess I would ask us, would we allow any child anywhere in the province of Ontario to be housed in a place that did them harm? And are we going to correct that harm—I’m asking the member: Are we going to correct that harm by continuing to fund for-profit operators who, as you say, often refer to the children in their system as “cash cows,” or do we need to move to a non-profit public system, with appropriate staff, that is well run?

I appreciate the member from Kitchener Centre’s speech and her service for her community. You talked about the underfunding of CAS and the programs that support kids to prevent them from being in care. Can you talk about some of the real-life examples of what that underfunding means?

I want to thank the member opposite for her comments and for her lived experience. I know she spoke of the child advocate office. From 2008 to 2019, the office of the child advocate wrote 79 different reports, totalling over 4,600 pages, and that’s just one source.

My question to the member opposite: Would you agree that for 15 years—and you cited this statistic, actually; the number of children that died while in care—that this is long overdue, that these changes are much needed and that this bill, as you indicated in your comments, is moving the needle forward in a very important way?

I will be sharing my time this afternoon with the hard-working MPP from Brampton East.

Madam Speaker, we’re here today on an extremely important topic. I’m a father of three children—well, they’re not children anymore. They’re 30, 28 and 26, which might explain the grey—although I think it was grey when they were five, three and two, as well.

Parenting is a difficult task, Madam Speaker, and ensuring that children that aren’t in the care of their families are in the care of a safe, secure and nurturing environment is essential to making sure that all children have an equal opportunity. We, on this side of the House, support the goals of Katelynn’s Principle, that every child needs to be seen, to be heard and to be respected. Children and youth need to be at the centre of the child welfare system while taking into account their voices around decisions that affect the services they will receive. And that’s enshrined in the preamble of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act and that is why this government is continuing to improve the legislation.

That is why, since 2020, our government has been redesigning Ontario’s child welfare system to enhance early intervention, improve outcomes for children and address barriers to supports. Our government has introduced the Supporting Children’s Futures Act, a bill that proposes changes, including new and enhanced enforcement tools, as well as accountability tools. These changes will support better compliance, with requirements designed to protect the safety and security of children and youth in out-of-home care, and these changes aim to better protect the privacy of children and youth with a history in the child welfare system that would further restrict access by others to their child welfare records while allowing them to disclose and discuss their experiences to enhance the system.

Madam Speaker, the measures proposed in the bill would also enable individuals who grew up in care to speak freely about their lived experience. The changes are one way that we are working to better protect and support children, youth and their families across Ontario to set them up for success.

Why are this legislation and these changes so necessary? From 2008 to 2019, the office of the child advocate wrote 79 reports that total over 4,600 pages, and that is just one source, Madam Speaker. That should have been a spur for the Liberal government of the day to act and it should have been a spur for the NDP to demand action from them. However, it wasn’t. Neither the Liberals nor the NDP pushed this issue forward nor redesigned the system as we are doing now, and so it falls upon this government to take action now to further the legislation that we passed back in 2020. I don’t think anyone on this side of the House, Madam Speaker, needs to take lessons from the opposition on care of our youth and vulnerable.

That is why we are strengthening oversight for out-of-care youth in our communities. All children and youth deserve care, to live safely and securely, and high-quality services that are culturally appropriate and meet their unique needs. That is why, as part of Ontario’s Child Welfare Redesign Strategy, this government is proposing changes to the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, that would allow for a modernized enforcement model. These changes would better support compliance with requirements to protect the safety and security of children and youth in licensed out-of-care homes.

We are proposing amendments to the regulations under the act to further support the safety and oversight of children and youth, including creating 20 new inspector positions. We have boosted the number of unannounced inspections. To increase transparency, we started publicly posting licensing information. We’re improving the quality of the child welfare data to establish a common standard for every children’s aid society across the province. And we’ve introduced this bill to continue that work with proposals that will enhance and improve accountability and oversight in out-of-home care. Through these measures, Ontario will modernize, standardize and improve important safeguards throughout the child welfare system. This will support service providers in delivering high-quality care to children and youth and support their health and safety and ability to reach their full potential.

Our government has worked to support customary and kinship care, which has allowed Ontario to have one of the lowest rates of children in care in Canada. The aim is, wherever possible, to keep children with people they know in communities that they know. We are supporting that through the child welfare redesign, which will improve experiences for children, youth and their families by, among other things, making a new investment of more than $2.9 million to help support kinship service and customary caregivers, adopted parents and caregivers.

We are enhancing child, youth and family well-being through better integration and coordination of services, with diverse cross-sector community-based service providers in all communities; improving the overall quality of out-of-home care, focusing on family-based options like kinship and foster care where possible; and helping to ensure children, youth and families have a strong voice in the decisions about their care, including access to resources and better supports to transition successfully to adulthood.

This work, which has been occurring for years since we’ve taken office, is yet another measure in tandem with this bill of how we are working to improve the well-being of Ontario’s youth and children in care.

We heard earlier from the member opposite about the situation in Indigenous communities. As I indicated in my question to that member, Indigenous children’s aid societies make their own placement decisions without the province interfering or intervening. The law requires children’s aid societies to place children in safe and culturally appropriate settings. If the child is First Nations, Inuit or Métis, the society must place the child with their extended family or community wherever possible. These are not options, Madam Speaker. These are the law.

This bill includes high-impact enforcement tools to ensure operators meet their obligations, including those to provide culturally appropriate care. So I urge the members opposite to support this legislation.

Strengthening the protection of personal information of former children and youth in care is a critical piece of the puzzle here. Prior to this legislation, not only were the records sealed, but the individuals who grew up in child care were unable to speak about their lived experience and talk about their lives through the system. So, while through this legislation we continue to protect the privacy of children and youth once they leave care, this bill will not restrict their ability to speak about their own experiences. The changes aim to better protect the privacy of the individuals who were formerly children or youth involved in care and to better protect the privacy of children and youth with a history in the child welfare system that would further restrict access by others to accessing their records. However, it will allow them to talk about their own lived experience and work towards improving the system. These changes are aimed to better protect the privacy of adults who are former children and youth in care by restricting access by others but allowing them to speak about their lives.

Madam Speaker, our government will always be there to protect the children. That’s what’s driving this legislation and our comprehensive redesign of the child welfare system. Through the redesign, we’re making new initiatives to improve out-of-home care, like improved oversight and accountability. And we’ve launched the Ready, Set, Go Program so that youth leaving care will be set up for success. We’ve backed that work up with investments. In this year’s budget alone, there’s an increase of $76.3 million for child protection services.

Madam Speaker, we know through discussions we’ve had in this House that this is an all-of-government situation. So these changes to the child welfare system, operating in tandem with changes and increases we’re making through the education system to access to mental health, to access to counselling, to restrictions on cellphone use, are all designed to place the interests of our children, whatever their backgrounds and beginnings, on an even playing field so that they get the best foot forward in their futures and that we equip them in the best way possible for their futures.

Parenting is a very difficult task, as I indicated at the outset. As a father of three, I know the challenges, and they are day to day, and they are not consistent, and they are always evolving. This government, on a whole-of-government approach, is doing everything we can to make sure children, regardless of their beginnings, are set up for the best opportunities, the best protections, the best access to care that they need to move themselves forward and be the workers of the future to shape this province and carry us forward.

I want to acknowledge that, in 2018, this government fired the Child and Youth Advocate. One of the people who came to committee with lived experience said she would not be where she was today if it was not for the Child and Youth Advocate, that he became a special member of her support system. And as a social worker, I did experience heartbreak and felt crushed at a government firing the lawyer for kids who have no legal guardian.

We know that the numbers speak to that. We know that, right now, the Ombudsman office only provides investigations for 1,491 cases, whereas with the Child and Youth Advocate, it was 2,790 cases. There were also half as many children dying in care when the Child and Youth Advocate was in office.

That is the request I have: that we reinstate that office. It was vital.

So, I agree; this is a step in the right direction. What I hope the government opposite will see is that we bring forward amendments of good intention from the Ombudsman, Information and Privacy Commissioner, and Indigenous leaders, and we ask for those amendments to be considered so we don’t have to have another conversation in five years. We can get it right.

Yes, we need this accountability, we need these measures, but they have ideas on how we can cut red tape to ensure that that administrative time is really used efficiently, effectively. There’s a lot of red tape we can cut to just shift the amount of time that they’re using on administrative tasks to what we’re asking for today, instead of adding to some levels of administration that we need to address.

I hope when the government comes forward again, they will consult with the CASs and talk about cutting the red tape that they want to cut and optimizing their time so they can be with families.

One agency in Ontario that treats people who sexually offend—these are young people. We know early intervention for those who sexually offend is essential. The place is closed. Shame. Offered their jobs down the street in a non-unionized environment for $10,000 less—now she will work in the for-profit sector. She will work for two days, get the same amount of pay that she was getting for five days. And why did she leave? Because we closed that organization.

I can’t believe it.

Thank you to the member from Kitchener Centre for her words based on her experience. I was interested in what you had to say about red tape and the administrative burden that’s placed on social service workers. I wonder if you’d like to expand on that, given your experience in social services.

Thank you to the member—very passionate.

Moving on, questions?

I guess I just offer the member an opportunity to finish her thought. She was in the middle of a thought.

I recognize the member from Brampton East.

Questions?

Well, I want to thank the member opposite for the question. As he indicated, while we’re here today debating Bill 188, we’re also talking about a whole-of-government approach to making sure that all our children, regardless of their backgrounds, have equal opportunity moving forward.

Just on an interesting and related point, I was at the Ontario Association of Counselling and Attendance Services recently. They were holding their AGM in Collingwood. We were working with that sector and counsellors to make sure that children in school have the best opportunity moving forward, through access to counselling and attendance officers, to address the kids at risk, to come up with a plan to keep them in school. To the extent that children in care fall under those headings, I would hope they would have the opportunity to have those same services.

This is a government that’s invested record amounts since we’ve come into office, a 555% increase in mental health supports in our school system. This is a government that is working across the board to make sure that all children, including the children in our child care and welfare system, have the best opportunity moving forward to get the training skills they need moving forward.

I would like to thank the members from Simcoe–Grey and Brampton East for their presentation today. My question will be for the member from Simcoe–Grey. According to statistics, roughly a thousand teens age out of care every year; 400 of those will drop out of high school and 400 will qualify for post-secondary education. But only 20%—that’s 80 of those kids—who age out of care will pursue post-secondary education. If you follow it along, only eight graduate from post-secondary education.

I want to know if the member can speak about the importance of fully subsidized post-secondary education for kids who age out of care.

Many instances—there have been reports of children being badly treated where I come from, when they come down for service. By “badly treated,” I mean use of restraints; forbidding languages; in one case, being asked to be rescued.

It’s racist and deeply unethical for our children’s lives to be considered in terms of money and profits. I’m not surprised, but I am saddened that I have to say this here: No one should profit off our First Nations children. How does this legislation, Bill 188, stop that?

I thank the member opposite for her question. Yes, children’s aid societies play a pivotal role in making sure that our children at risk have access to the supports they need. That’s why this government has increased investments into child welfare and protection. In this year’s budget, it contained a $76.3-million increase for child protection services. On top of that, the estimates tabled recently show an investment of almost $1.9 billion in child welfare and protection, an increase over last year.

We recognize the importance of stabilizing the child welfare sector as the redesign work continues. My colleague spoke about the ongoing efforts in the review process. The child welfare sector saw a huge increase last year. We continue to look at ways that we can reduce any deficits for the children’s aid societies, and we will continue to work with them to ensure that those children being serviced by them get the best service.

This bill proposes to enable information-sharing between the children’s aid societies and the College of Early Childhood Educators and the Ontario College of Teachers, which will allow for timely action when there is an allegation of a risk to a child involving a teacher or early childhood educator. Currently, Madam Speaker, that obligation to report only applies to the early childhood educators. This broadens the scope of those protections to allow other professionals who see a threat or risk to an individual in care to share that information to ensure that the child is being protected and served in the best way possible.

This question is for the member for Brampton. Thank you for his presentation. We’ve heard that this bill won’t be the last step in improving the lives of children and youth in care. I understand that at the time this bill was introduced, the Ministry of Children, Community and Social Services filed several additional regulations.

To the member: Can you expand on what these regulations do and how they complement Bill 188’s goals?

Thank you to my colleague the member from Markham–Unionville for that question. Our government has been clear that this bill is one step of many, neither the beginning nor the end of the child welfare redesign. That’s why in tandem with introducing this bill, we filed two regulations containing a number of new measures, including mandating information-sharing between children’s aid societies and the ministry about specific health and safety risks to children in licensed and out-of-home care settings. We’re requiring information-sharing between different children’s aid societies as needed and we’re going to continue to do the great work to ensure children are protected and children are safe.

As we continue to move forward, we want to make sure that children are protected, that they’re in a safe space, and we’re going to continue to do that. This bill really allows regulators to move that one step forward to ensure compliance is there.

Thank you very much, Speaker. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today to Bill 188, Supporting Children’s Futures Act, 2024.

There are many things in this act that I’m happy to see: greater privacy protections, the extension of support for people in care up till the age of 23, the Ready, Set, Go Program—although, I have to say, I can’t see any teenager embracing that particular title. It sounds more like elementary school to me. But I do want to take the opportunity today to talk about things that need to be addressed by the Ministry of Children, Community and Social Services that are not addressed in this bill and are not being addressed at any other level either.

As the minister and many members of the House already know, there are continuing problems in group homes, especially for people with disabilities, where parents who raise concerns about the care or living conditions of their children are met with the improper use of the Trespass to Property Act.

This is not a new issue to this government. We’ve raised it several times regarding people being banished from visiting their family members in long-term care, again by the improper use of the Trespass to Property Act. In fact, in 2021, the government unanimously passed motion 129—brought forward by my colleague from Ottawa Centre—called Voula’s Law, and I want to read that now:

“That in the opinion of this House, the Ford government should provide clear direction to operators that the Trespass to Property Act does not permit them to issue trespass notices to exclude substitute decision-makers and guests of the occupants of retirement homes, long-term-care homes and other congregate care accommodations when they raise concerns about their loved ones’ living conditions.”

Now I should say that the House voted unanimously in support of that motion in 2021, but I’m going to carry on a bit:

“The Retirement Homes Act, 2010 ... stipulates that residents have ‘the right to have his or her lifestyle and choices respected and to freely pursue his or her social, cultural, religious, spiritual and other interests as long as the resident’s lifestyle, choices and pursuits do not substantially interfere with the reasonable enjoyment of the home for all usual purposes by the licensee and other residents.’”

Also, “the Ontario Human Rights Code says the same thing: Tenants of care homes have the right to decide who they want to invite into their home, just as homeowners do. If the landlord tries to control who can visit the tenants, this can be considered harassment.”

Now where did this all come from?

When Maria Sardelis mustered up the courage to defy the Trespass to Property Act, she had been banished from visiting her mother for that 316 days. Her mom’s name was Voula.

“She called the Ottawa police and told the person on the other end of the line, ‘I’m going to defy this trespass to property order. I don’t think it’s a lawful order. I’m not going to put up any resistance, but I think what’s happening here is wrong.’ Police were called, and charges were laid.” She went to court. “Guess how long it took for a judge to throw this out of court? Twenty minutes—gone. The judge said, ‘What’s this doing in my courtroom?’”

My point is that, in 2021, the House acknowledged that the Trespass to Property Act should not be used, cannot be used—it’s not legal to be using it to prevent people from visiting somebody who is in care.

The situation seems to arise when a parent or caregiver raises concerns about the quality of care in the home, and then the threat of the Trespass to Property Act is used against that person.

A lot of people don’t actually know that it can’t be used and, unfortunately, many police services don’t know that that’s not the correct use of the act. Now there are some police services that do know. There are some police who specialize in elder abuse and they understand very well how that act can and cannot be used, but unfortunately it’s not the case.

Now, where we get into more of a problem—so I’m going to a letter. I’m going to read from sections of the letter that I wrote to the Minister of Children, Community and Social Services.

We need “a system-wide response from” the “ministry.” Since 2021, I’m aware of 100 cases of this taking place in long-term care and in group homes for children or adult children with disabilities living in group homes.

“There are ... two different violations” actually “taking place” right now. “One is the unlawful misuse of the Trespass to Property Act,” but “the other is also the use of unauthorized evictions.”

So what’s happening first, especially in group homes, is that somebody complains about the care that somebody is getting in the home. The Trespass to Property Act is used to threaten, and if the person says, “No, no, no, you can’t do that,” then they are not only threatening but actually evicting children or adult children with disabilities from these homes.

Now, in some cases, these threats or issuance of trespass and threat or action of eviction are in response to female residents who have asked that only female workers help with their intimate care. That doesn’t sound like it should be a tall order. The homes are refusing this and then threatening trespass or eviction when the resident or family member raises concerns. Requesting a same-sex worker for intimate care seems like a basic human dignity that someone with disabilities deserves to be accommodated for. We know the high rates of sexual abuse for people with disabilities. Staffing shortages cannot be allowed to stand as an excuse to continually re-traumatize residents or deny their requests for dignity by refusing their intimate care done by staff with whom they feel safe.

We have a really basic problem here, and you might say maybe it’s coming down to staffing, maybe there isn’t enough money in the system so that the staff is there to provide the services, but threatening to evict somebody from a home because they want a woman—it’s a young woman who wants to have her toileting done by another woman and not a man; that shouldn’t be a problem, but it is. Once again, we’re seeing the Trespass to Property Act used again and again and again.

I have another example here, and what’s interesting is this case was already used as an example in 2021, only it’s gotten worse since then. Joy Seguin, mother of Andre Seguin, a disabled young man living in an MCCSS facility, was denied his mother’s visits via the unlawful use of the trespass act. When the mother fought back, Andre was evicted without notice and dropped off at his uncle’s rural farm. Several court rulings were in favour of Andre’s legal proceedings. However, the MCCSS agency ignored all the rulings, including the Ontario Superior Court ruling, for the immediate reinstatement of Andre in his group home. Four years later, Andre and his family continue to be victims of unlawfulness by the MCCSS agency. The Seguin family have repeatedly asked for assistance from the parliamentary assistant and from the minister. The last correspondence was October 2, 2023. Nothing has happened. Even though court orders have been made to reinstate this person in his care home, nothing’s happening.

There is another issue here in that when these homes decide to illegally use the Trespass to Property Act and someone decides to take them to court, first of all, it costs a lot of money to go to court; secondly, the homes that are launching these legal problems are being funded by the province, so we are actually paying, through our taxes, to have these homes illegally trespass individuals who then have to pay out of their pocket to defend themselves. That shouldn’t be happening. There is so much case law that says it’s an improper use of the law. It just shouldn’t be happening.

I’ve actually written to this minister, I’ve written to the Minister of Long-Term Care, I’ve written to the housing minister and I’ve written to the Solicitor General. There has been no movement at all. In the correspondence from Parliamentary Assistant Quinn, he wrote, “The ministry does not administer the Trespass to Property Act nor does the ministry provide legal advice to third parties, including licensees, visitors or residents with respect to bans or orders issued under the Trespass to Property Act. If a visitor has been issued a trespass order, independent legal advice may be sought, as required.”

But this answer fails on numerous grounds, and one of the most obvious—this comes from the Ontario Agencies and Appointments Directive: “Ministries must ensure compliance with legislation, directives, accounting, and financial policies.” So the unauthorized abuses of the Trespass to Property Act and unauthorized evictions—which, by the way, are taking place because a person can get evicted, and it should be going before the Landlord and Tenant Board, but it’s not, so there is due process that is not taking place.

But those abuses are not simply interpretations of the law that only a judge can decide. Judges have repeatedly decided, and court rulings are clear: Across all scenarios, the only person who can deny access to a visitor is the occupier of the premises, the occupier of the unit. Notably, our courts have also ruled that neither behaviour, nor occupational health and safety or a pandemic, are grounds to issue trespass orders or to issue access restrictions. If a visitor is disruptive or behaving in a dangerous manner, there are other applicable laws.

The difference, and it’s an important difference: With those other laws—if it’s a disturbance of the peace, for example—there is due process. You’ve got to bring evidence, and there is a process, so a person can at least defend themselves against whatever evidence is brought forward. Also, staff has some means if there’s a person there that really is dangerous, to have them removed, but not the Trespass to Property Act. The problem with the Trespass to Property Act is that there is no due process. There’s no evidence required. It winds up being “he said, she said,” and then the person who has been banned has no other choice but to go to court.

I’ve just been through this with somebody else who went through nine months of not being able to visit his mother because he had raised concerns. It took him nine months. He finally had a court hearing. He was out of there in 10 minutes. He won. But why did he have to go through that? Why was he kept from visiting his mother for nine months? This is something we already agreed on in this House. The abuse is still taking place, so we need action from the government to actually address this.

Actually, I have specific recommendations: We need a clear directive from the office of the minister for MCCSS, pursuant to motion 129, that the Trespass to Property Act does not permit the facility operator to trespass the invited guest of the occupier or a person with legally conferred authority for the care of the occupier. Your agencies must be told by you that they are to abide by, with group homes, the Residential Tenancies Act, and must apply to the Landlord and Tenant Board for a decision to evict or to restrict the visitors of their clients.

Further to written clarification on the Trespass to Property Act and the Residential Tenancies Act, the minister should state unequivocally that if facility operators continue to act above the law, there will be financial and legal consequences. These homes operate under the guidance of various ministries, whether it’s long-term care or the MCCSS. This is Ontario law, and these institutions continually break the law and, as a result, abuse the people living there.

Isolation is deadly. We know that. And keeping people from visiting their loved ones, keeping people who are in care from having visitors, is not acceptable, and it’s not acceptable that raising concerns about living conditions becomes a reason to impose a trespass-to-property order. It’s not right, and as I say, this government agreed to this in 2021, but has been unwilling to actually address what’s really happening on the ground.

Now, I was speaking with a young man earlier today who is living in a supportive living home. It actually comes under long-term care, but what has happened in this case is that he brought up concerns. He brought up concerns, and ever since then, he’s been threatened with eviction.

The workers there are saying, “Well, nobody else is complaining.” But that’s because everybody else is afraid to complain, because when you complain, you get threatened with eviction. This is happening too often. Now, this particular person has cerebral palsy, he’s in a wheelchair, and yet, they’re saying he’s a bed blocker, so they’re trying to find a reason to push him out. He says most of the other people living in the same place are quadriplegic. They just cannot risk raising concerns.

I have somebody in my own riding, also, who has been going through the same thing, and he is constantly being threatened with eviction, mostly because he wants to stay out at night. He’s completely wheelchair-bound, but he works. He has a life. He likes to stay out. But if he comes home past 11, boy, does he get punished, and he’s been left in his wheelchair overnight, obviously not able to relieve himself and so on. And because he has complained, he’s constantly under pressure to be evicted.

As I said, I’ve only got a couple of minutes left. I have one more example that is a slightly different concern. This is a letter from Lori Ann Comeau. “This is my 13th letter”—this is addressed to Minister Parsa—“over the three years since May 2021.” Thirteen letters.

“I express no confidence in the Ontario government’s publicly funded group homes, with institutional abuse rampant, leading to the repeated request for investigation into the care and supportive services at L’Arche Toronto. Drug therapy changes were made at the direction of this ministerial partner, and in a year, there has been no investigation, no service options. However, L’Arche has paid over $240,000 for their poor service since 2023.”

I’ll get to the crux of this: “It has taken DSO 25 months to provide an incomplete file on my vulnerable brother, and I’m his legally appointed guardian. On May 16, 2024”—so that’s 25 months after the request went in—“I received one file on my brother. However, I also received files of seven other DSO recipients.”

So take a moment to think about that. This person has now randomly received private information, the private files of seven residents of this home. So each of these individuals’ families and legal designates now have the grounds to seek legal action against both the DSO and the ministry for breach of privacy, and what’s unfortunate is that there has still been no response to this.

Also, she goes on to say, “It is noted the Residential Tenancies Act governs the MCCSS agencies housing people with disabilities, and yet, I am aware of at least four eviction notices in our family network across Ontario. More so, the DSO information shared with me, three of the DSO recipients are being evicted from their group homes. MCCSS continues to be non-compliant with Ontario laws in their own program and service delivery.”

These are issues that are important. They’re not in this bill. I hope they will be addressed in future bills. In fact, we don’t need any bills to address this. What we need is the government to recognize that they have a role, a responsibility and the power to insist that these agencies actually abide by the law.

I’ll stop there. Thank you.

I want to thank both the speakers for their remarks.

I’m privileged to not have to deal with child and youth services in my career, but I have, as a volunteer with youth, run into a number of individuals who have had issues at home. As volunteers, we have a duty of care to the youth that we help or that we work with. And so, I was hoping to ask—I’ll ask the member for Simcoe–Grey—how the duty of care is being improved upon for practitioners in child and youth services through Bill 188?

I want to say thank you to the member from Brampton East for sharing with us how his grade 8 experience has stimulated him. It is with this vision that he’s now our MPP, doing all the work together with us. This is the importance of us doing the best for our children. Of course, the health, safety and well-being of children is paramount to us.

I would like to know what oversight mechanisms are currently in place for the ministry to hold licensed out-of-home care providers accountable. How does this bill enhance those mechanisms?

While Bill 188 introduces crucial compliance measures, can the government guarantee that it will be accompanied by increased resources for the children’s aid society and other child welfare agencies?

The reason I ask this is the service providers in Niagara and the children’s aid society do so much and have to do a lot of heavy lifting, but they are only as effective as we are able to provide them with the resources to do that hard work. Without proper funding from this government, how can we ensure these measures will be effectively implemented to protect our most vulnerable children?