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?

Further questions?

Interjection.

Questions?

I want to truly thank the member from Thunder Bay–Superior North for her comments and really getting into some subjects that are tough for us to discuss and really indicating where the rubber hits the road for a lot of these cases.

I mentioned I’m a scout leader on the side and the duty to report is something that I know is hammered into me as someone who is responsible for youth. Professionals in Ontario have an ongoing duty to report directly to authorities any information about a child suspected to be in need of protection, and that could include being harmed or neglected by their parents or their caregivers or suspected to be at risk of being trafficked or exploited.

And so Bill 188 does look to address this by expanding the responsibility and the obligation to apply these rules to early childhood educators and adding to the overall number of professionals that have this duty to report and are looking out for children who are at risk of being harmed.

My question to the member opposite is whether she supports having the inclusion of the early childhood educators within the auspices of the duty to report?

Yes. People who have that responsibility generally do have that duty to report. Hopefully they’re being paid well enough to do their job well, but what’s missing in the bill is actually protection for parents who also report. They are kind of missing from the duty to report; in fact, they’re kind of excluded. That’s fine. But when they do report, there’s punishment happening. So they are being faced with this abuse of the Trespass to Property Act or their children are being threatened with eviction.

So there are some loopholes there where abuses are going to be able to continue to take place.

We don’t have the resources, nor should we be putting that money to line stockholders’ or shareholders’ pockets, so I absolutely would like these to have no for-profit care involved.

In addition to that, no matter how well a system of care operates, we know that we are a long way from having a well-functioning system in place, even with this bill moving significantly in that direction. Any child or youth in care has been traumatized and needs to know there is someone outside the system who is proactively listening and proactively looking out for their best interest—communication, but we need that child and youth advocate to support those kids.

It’s a long-standing problem that there are so many children who are in care who shouldn’t be in care, or who are in care but don’t have enough support or their families don’t have enough support. I’m very good friends with a kid who used to be in care. She now has three children. Well, she’s got us to help, but actually, she needs a lot more help than that. There are so many effects that have come out of colonization and those damages. There needs to be a recognition of those specific kinds of supports needed for those Indigenous kids.

Further questions?

I want to thank my colleague for really enlightening different parts of this bill.

I just want to say, given the tragic and well-documented abuses in the for-profit group homes, isn’t it long, long overdue that a government prioritizes people and the services over profit? The record of this government across the board on the matter has been very grim, and I’m sure you’ll agree.

How important is it that not-for-profit systems prioritize the well-being of our children over profits?

Any bill, every bill, that pertains to our children is important for all of us. Children, and especially those that are at risk of harm or are already in care come to many different professionals in their lives. This bill proposes to strengthen information-sharing practices when individuals providing service and care to the children are suspected of posing a risk to children. It would create an all-hands-on-deck approach, with professional colleges, like the Ontario College of Social Workers and Social Service Workers, ensuring that their members are working in the best interests of our young people and that those professional colleges are working together with children’s aid societies to do that.

My question is very simple to the member: Does the member support timely coordination between our professionals and professional colleges when there are opportunities to make services safer for our children?

My question is very simple, Madam Speaker: Does the member opposite support having a law on the books that would deter and punish individuals who harm children in their care? Is she going to support this bill?

Before I ask my question, I just want to acknowledge that we have young people in the House here—students—who are watching the debate. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Okay. So, the member from Thunder Bay–Superior North—thank you so much for your presentation. You’ve talked about some really difficult topics, but it is something that needs to be brought to the attention of the House so that we can right these wrongs in our communities.

I know that in the member’s riding there are many Indigenous communities, First Nations groups. As we heard earlier from the member from Kiiwetinoong, the Indigenous people, First Nations people have the right to be able to determine for their own communities, especially when it comes to children, to be able to raise them in their communities and in their culture. But there are many, many challenges that they’re experiencing, particularly when dealing with children in foster care.

Could you please share your insights, based on what you see happening in your riding?

I recognize the member from Windsor–Tecumseh.

Thank you, Speaker. Certainly it’s a privilege to rise today in support of Bill 188. Even though I’m not present on the committee, certainly in reading the transcripts I certainly got the sense that there are heartbreaking stories from all across Ontario. I know many are in my own community. My constituency office certainly receives a number of them.

I’ve taken the opportunity to sit down with Derrick Drouillard, who’s the executive director of our local children’s aid society in Windsor-Essex county, and he has given me a lot to think about, a lot of feedback, particularly about the limitations that exist in the system. That’s exactly why we need to pursue a redesign of the system.

Some of the issues that have been brought to my attention locally have been a number of gaps in terms of service delivery. Organizations are doing their utmost to do what they do best, and sometimes that means that their mandates change, but, ultimately, gaps then get bigger and bigger and bigger as mandates are refined. We know we have to keep the child at the centre of everything we do. That includes safety, stability and access to the resources that can help them succeed and to thrive. Sometimes that means caring and love that they hadn’t received from others, it could be skills development, but, ultimately, we want to have a system in which a young person in Ontario knows they can achieve anything that they put their mind to. If they have a dream, they should be able to realize it.

We have so much potential in our young people, and it’s heartbreaking to see when there’s trouble at home. Actually my wife and I spoke last night—and I remember a child who was in my scout group; they actually ran into each other out in the community. She had gotten something to eat with some friends of mine, and this former youth had covered her bill. I don’t think he had ever met my wife, but he knew who she was. That’s a great youth, and it’s a youth who came from a place that I knew was difficult. His mom worked really hard to keep him on the right track, and ultimately, he developed into a remarkable young man.

This is exactly the kind of potential that exists in our youth and why the government introduced the Supporting Children’s Futures Act, which includes new and enhanced enforcement tools for those who are being victimized and those who need some support in order to get them to a place where they can look back at themselves and see the potential inside them.

I know that the changes are intended to support compliance by the different practitioners with requirements designed to protect the safety and security of children and youth in out-of-home care. In many cases, being at home is the best medicine, but there are cases when it is not. It’s not just among children and youth; I think of the victims of intimate partner violence, as an example. They should not be left with a spot where their only option is to go back to a horrible situation.

The changes in this bill also aim to protect the privacy of children. We do not want a child’s future to really be ruined or harmed by casual or careless distribution of their personal information. We want to know that their information is not going to be accessible to just about anybody. One of the great things about the information age is we can actually find out a great deal of information. Someone actually is watching us right now, and they may be screen-capping it and archiving it, and that’s a great thing to shed some light. But sometimes, there’s a need for protection.

We all have made decisions I think we’d like to change, and we also sometimes have stories that we really don’t want to have told. In cases like these involving children and youth, especially in care, it’s not their fault, but they feel it’s their fault that they’re in that situation. This can be incredibly demoralizing to them.

The measures in the bill look like—it actually opens up an opportunity to share an experience. There’s nothing better for a youth than to open up and not feel a stigma if they do and say, “You know what? It’s important that I tell my story.” Certainly, the committee heard instances in the past where youth felt that they had to keep everything quiet, even though probably the best remedy would have been daylight. So these changes as a whole are intended to better protect and support children, youth and their families and set them up for success.

Protection services are mandated and legislated under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017. They’re provided by children’s aid societies all across Ontario. I’ve got to tip my hat to everyone who’s working in this sector. I can’t even imagine how difficult it is to be knowledgeable of a situation in which you know you may not have a caring family or a family that cannot provide for the members of the family. Perhaps it’s deliberate; perhaps it’s not. But ultimately, you must get a sense of hopelessness for certain situations that you run across.

I tip my hat to the many boards of directors of children’s aid societies across the province. There are 50, and there are also 13 Indigenous children’s aid societies. I would like to give a special shout-out, should he be watching, to Adam Coates, who’s one of my former colleagues who sits on the Windsor-Essex Children’s Aid Society board. He’s a professional planner. I worked with him at the city of Windsor. The fact that he is committing his time to helping support youth in our community is truly, truly commendable.

Looking at the investments in children’s aid societies—$1.5 billion this year—it’s really a steady increase. I know we can have an amount that increases and may not see the immediate results, but the investment is worth it. And the increased investment in child protection is $14 million, approximately, and that builds on last year’s increase of $76.3 million. And there’s $109 million for children and youth services, which had been increased the year prior by $92.4 million.

And so, we have a number of practitioners in this sector. We’ve got out-of-home care for those children who are not staying at home. That includes accommodation. It could include supervision and a specialized program for special needs. I know that we have a shortage of practitioners. Parents are certainly telling me that.

We have an interesting situation down in our neck of the woods, because we have Michigan and Detroit metro just 15 minutes away. Because of that international border, even though there are practitioners able to practise, that international border is precluding us. That’s maybe one of the things I’d like to work on on a broader scale for us in border communities: that we have some access that could be out there, just in Michigan; that, perhaps, our families could have those services covered as if they were delivered by Canadian practitioners.

Care is also provided in foster homes, children’s residences and staff model homes. Previous remarks have also mentioned kin families, and certainly I’m aware of many in our community. I appreciate the government’s tremendous investment in kin families. It didn’t exist before. There are still some challenges with the set-up there, and while there are solutions, they may not always be considered to be in the best interest of the child.

Looking at Bill 188, it was developed through widespread consultation. There was lots of testimony at committee. There were 35 written submissions, 30 virtual engagements, and really, the feedback was, I’d say, positive. I see that I just have a minute and 30 left to relay a few, but just in general: “Bill 188 is a fantastic piece of legislation” was one of the items heard. “As a former youth in care, I cannot overstate” the importance of this bill.

There was comment about progress in the past, such as Ready, Set, Go; that the enhancements are key; that inspectors have increased and penalties have increased. One of the children who had been in care said one of the sections was “groundbreaking” and that the status quo had been a “stigma that young people in care are problem kids,” and this helps to address that and give hope and optimism for the future. And really, that optimism that you can be something better, something that you can dream about, is the best opportunity that we can give to our young people in Ontario.

So Bill 188 is a tremendously progressive bill that helps us get there and helps our young people who are being served by care agencies to realize the potential in themselves. It’s important they see that value. Bill 188 gets us to where they can feel that inside them. I’m delighted to support it, and I want to thank the minister for bringing it forward and the Legislature for getting this through to third reading today.

I want to thank the member for Windsor–Tecumseh for those remarks. I particularly enjoyed your comments when you were talking about the staff, and the burden on the staff when they are aware of an unsafe situation for a youth and how that must weigh on them. I completely agree. That has been my experience meeting with workers for the children’s aid society in Ottawa.

I wonder if the member could elaborate on what this House could do, empowering this legislation even more to be mindful of making sure we hold on to those talented children’s-aid-worker staff? The member for Kitchener Centre said it earlier in debate this afternoon, and she comes from this particular sector, so she should know that, at the moment, in some cases, for-profit group homes and for-profit foster homes are pulling some of the children’s aid workers, paid non-profit, publicly, out of that system, because it’s difficult to compete. It’s difficult to retain talented people.

Do you think it would make sense—my question to the member—for us to make sure that there was proper funding for children’s aid societies so they can maintain the staff, the competence they have and reward those hard-working people?

I recognize the member from Ottawa Centre.

Good afternoon, Speaker. On a point of order, please.

I was sorry to hear from the Minister of Colleges and Universities yesterday that the government does not support a return of the Child and Youth Advocate. The work being done by that advocate cannot be replaced by the Ombudsman. An ombudsman is complaint-based, and an advocate is there to be proactive.

But the implication was that with this new bill, everything would be fixed right away. So my question is, how long do you think it will take to bring staffing levels up to the point where it is actually possible to implement the programs suggested by the bill and protect the children as we know they need to be protected?

I thank the member from Ottawa Centre for his question. Certainly, one thing that I have noticed in my discussions is that staff have to feel that they’re empowered and that they’re supported. That’s a big piece of this where responsibilities are more clearly defined in this legislation in terms of your duty to report, in terms of your obligations or the expectations for the protection of young people that you work with.

So I think instilling that confidence that, “Hey, the staff are there. Their management has their back” is a terrific way—it’s just being established in this bill and reinforced in this bill. The funding has continued to increase over the last number of years while serving relatively fewer children. So we’re getting there with this bill. I see lots of hope on the horizon as a result of this bill.

That’s a $68-million program, and it helps children’s aid societies focus on helping children plan their futures at an earlier age. Basically, it allows you to remain in care until the age of 23, up from the age of 21, which was what happened before. And funding increased $850 per month to $1,800 for age 18, $1,500 for age 19 and $1,000 for age 20. So, these are some supports that can help under Ready, Set, Go. It really gives our youth an opportunity for a better path for the future.

The Ombudsman being part of the amount of information given to children and youth as an option—there’s nothing that’s brand new. That awareness is something that’s important, that they know that they have an ally in the Ontario Ombudsman that is looking out for them.