It’s my great honour to rise today to discuss Bill 188, Supporting Children’s Futures Act.

I’d like to being with a story. Back in September 2019, I had the opportunity to meet a really inspirational individual, somebody who had founded and created the Child Welfare Political Action Committee. Her name is Jane Kovarikova. It was interesting because when we first met, she informed me, “Oh, I’m a card-carrying Conservative.” I said, “What does that matter?” We continued to do some pretty phenomenal work which culminated in a really wonderful event for a number of young kids. You see, Jane told me about her background, and her background was as a former crown ward who had aged out of the system without having been adopted. She shared some very disturbing statistics. Some of the statistics she shared included that 1,000 Ontario teens each year age out of care without having been adopted. About 400 of those teens will qualify for post-secondary education and 400 will drop out of high school. Of those 400 who do qualify for post-secondary education, only 20%—20%, Speaker; that’s 80 per year—will pursue post-secondary education.

But another unfortunate aspect of that is, even of that 80, only eight end up graduating from post-secondary education. It is an enormous loss of human potential, of brilliance of innovation, of some ideas that we may never know because the state has not supported these young people in their dreams and their pursuits for higher education.

Jane discussed many people whom she’s had the privilege to work with and how teens in the foster care system have a number of different intersectional barriers, including things like poverty. They may have moved around quite a bit as a young person. They might have, as a result of that, fallen behind in school. Some might just simply not be ready because of these arbitrary age-limit caps that are placed upon post-secondary education. They might be ready after the arbitrarily low age-limit for child welfare support. You see, many also might have other barriers, such as psychological barriers, logistical barriers, where they live, where they want to pursue their studies. They might even run into the barriers of the OSAP application itself, which asks them questions such as, “What are your parents’ names and what are their incomes?” I don’t know that children who are aging out of the child welfare system are really able to answer that question in a correct way.

From 18 to 21, youth will have an allowance of approximately $875 per month and after that—and I know there have been changes from this government—unfortunately, these individuals are expected to be ready to enter society and ready to enter the job market. They have to be fully independent. They have to have their credentials. They have to be career-ready for life as fully functioning adults, and I don’t think that is necessarily possible. You see, the state is what many have described as a truly terrible parent.

Now, I was inspired after having met Jane because of her work with the MPP for Sudbury Jamie West, and she had indicated that, along with the MPP for Sudbury, they were able to convince Laurentian to offer free post-secondary education for five young people who had aged out of the crown ward system and had not been adopted. It was phenomenal work, life-changing work, and I was really incredibly inspired.

I want to read a quotation from Laurentian from that time. It states, “Jane Kovarikova, a graduate of Laurentian and currently a doctoral candidate in political science at Western University, grew up in foster care in Ontario. She founded the Child Welfare Political Action Committee, a not-for-profit organization that advocates for change in the child welfare system. It was thanks in part to her advocacy, with the support of Jamie West, the MPP for Sudbury and also a Laurentian alumnus, that Laurentian reinstituted its tuition-waiver program this year.” Phenomenal, phenomenal work. The Child Welfare Political Action Committee has gone on. There are at least 71 institute options for children who are exiting the crown ward system to pursue that free post-secondary education.

Jane also goes on to state: “Education levels the playing field for people like me. I am grateful that financial access to university education will no longer be a barrier to social mobility for even more people who were raised in Ontario’s foster care system....” She goes on to state, “If you were or are in foster care, know that Huron, Brescia, King’s and Western, believe in you.”

You see, Speaker, after that initial September 19 meeting in 2019, Jane and I were able to get meetings with Dr. Barry Craig and Dr. David Malloy, and Jane went on meet with Dr. Alan Shepard, and Huron, Brescia and King’s were each able to offer five positions each for children who had aged out of the crown ward system. Then, main campus ended up offering 15 spots, bringing it to a total of 30.

I want to quote Dr. Barry Craig, who provided some information when they made this announcement on October 27, 2020. Dr. Craig said, “At Huron, we believe everyone, no matter background or socio-economic status, deserves access to education. It’s what defines Huron’s mission of delivering elite, yet accessible education, while challenging our students to be leaders with heart. Having this partnership will ensure a clearer path to education for those crown wards. Now more than ever, our hearts need to be in everything we do, and we must always enable success and opportunities for those in less than ideal situations.”

It was a powerful meeting for me, because, as it turns out, I was a joint student of both Huron University College and Western University. It was really amazing that the leader there, Dr. Barry Craig, was able to see the value in this initiative. It was really inspirational to me.

Jane and I also had a phenomenal meeting with Dr. David Malloy from King’s University College, who stated, “A basic moral test is how our most vulnerable members are faring. All of us at King’s are dedicated to improving the life of the poor by breaking down barriers to education. We are humbled to help enable former crown wards to be fully part of society by aiding them with a King’s education rooted in social justice, equality and the education of the whole person.”

It was yet again another powerful meeting. It was amazing to see, when brilliant minds come together, united in purpose, how they can change the lives of young people who deserve our care.

Dr. Alan Shepard states, “Jane’s success and leadership are inspiring—we want to encourage others to follow in her footsteps. We’re proud to join the growing number of schools committed to helping crown wards achieve their academic goals.”

At the time, I stated, “I am incredibly thankful to Huron, Brescia, King’s and Western for their commitment to our community. This historic leadership illustrates how Londoners care about one another and promote a kinder, more just and brighter community. My heartfelt thanks to the community-building vision and compassion of Drs. Craig, Jensen, Malloy and Shepard, as well as a true leader whose desire to reach backwards brings others forward, PhD candidate Jane Kovarikova. This is life-changing work.”

It was truly an honour to participate in this, and I just want to go over some of the other places where the Child Welfare Political Action Committee was able to secure free post-secondary education. They managed to have work done with the University of Toronto. Université Sainte-Anne created a youth-in-care bursary. Wilfred Laurier announced an updated Learners from Care Academic Success Program. They also were working in Manitoba to try to bring forward tuition-free post-secondary education opportunities.

IBT, I believe, is the first career college to offer tuition waivers to current and former crown wards. The University of Ottawa introduced a financial support program for youth leaving care. Sheridan had also offered a tuition bursary for current and former youth in care. Northern College offered educational opportunities. Nipissing University and Canadore College offered tuition waivers to youth in care. Lakehead University offered a tuition waiver for youth in care. CBU has a tuition waiver program. We also have Seneca.

We also have New Brunswick Community College. It’s the first post-secondary institution in New Brunswick. I could go on and on. It’s across Canada. It is phenomenal. Holland College; McMaster; NSCC, the first college in Atlantic Canada; MSVU; Loyalist—it is truly phenomenal, the work that has happened, and again, this is life-changing work.

So, Speaker, as we look towards Bill 188, I am just so thankful for the work that was able to be achieved and so happy that we were able to cross party lines and were able to work together. We were able to focus on one purpose, and that was to make sure that kids have the support that they need to change their lives because education is the greatest democratizing force. It’s unfortunate, though, that kids in care facing difficulties, facing potentially an incredibly problematic background that we could never possibly understand, for many of us—we should be making sure that the state, as a parent, is providing them with those opportunities to escape cycles of poverty, to really live to their true potential.

When we look at Bill 188, it is interesting: I believe it is something that should be supportable, but it does raise some questions for us in the official opposition. One of the concerns that we had back when the Conservatives first formed government was how the child and youth advocate was removed as an independent officer of this Legislature, and it does beg the question: Why was this done, and does the government now see the value in reinstating that officer, to make sure that those kids have a contact, have a person—a voice within the Legislature—who is independent? That is incredibly important.

I also think to some testimony that we heard at the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs as we travelled across the province. We heard from the London and Middlesex children’s aid society that there were six children whose parents had to put them into care because there weren’t spots within the community for them to receive the mental health assistance they required. Since the number was reported in February of this year—it was six—and I believe that number has grown to nine, last I checked, and could potentially be yet more. I can’t think of the moral difficulty of a parent who loves their children and wants to give their child every opportunity that this world has to offer, and yet is faced with this situation where they simply can’t help their child anymore, because there’s no access to mental health supports. Imagine that, Speaker—imagine being in that scenario, where there’s no other option for you but to put your child into care. Now, those children aren’t necessarily in need of care, which is really the problem here, Speaker. What they’re in need of is mental health supports.

Yesterday, the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs, in its consideration of Bill 180, the budget bill, heard about how there can be up to a two-and-a-half-year wait for children accessing mental health care. Now, if you think about that alone, in and of itself, that a child who has a mental health need may have to wait two and a half years—that amount of time for an adult is an incredibly lengthy amount of time, but for a young person who is passing developmental milestones, who has an enormous amount of pressure, whether it be from school, whether it be from friends, social media, any number of things—that two-and-a-half-year gap is enormous, especially when one considers the intersection of mental health.

If we do not deal with the root cause of an issue, it ends up growing, it ends up ballooning, it ends up creating yet more issues and, unfortunately, at that point we’re not dealing with the root cause, we’re dealing with a number of after-effects. Why we don’t simply make sure that kids have access to care within 30 days is beyond me.

In discussing this bill, Bill 188 adds a new section to the Child, Youth and Family Services Act. It creates offences and penalties for a child services provider who contravenes sections of the act around restraints of wards, confinement of wards or use of corporal punishment. It makes good sense. Providers can face elevated fines—up to $250,000—one year of imprisonment or both. Providers that are not an individual, such as group homes, can also be fined $250,000. I should state there are not also limits on other, more serious offences.

Speaker, I want to think as well about privacy and about how this impacts children who have aged out of the crown ward system. After having lived potentially a very difficult youth and potentially a very difficult upbringing, these young people didn’t actually have access to their own information. That, to me, is unconscionable.

Oftentimes, when we are young people, we are formed by the people we meet and the experiences that we have as we grow up. I can imagine that many young people who have aged out of the crown ward foster system would want to then go into a caring role, go into a role supporting other people who are facing that same sort of childhood that they were in. It’s unconscionable to think that that person who might be working with young people in the foster system has access to children’s information, but even though they have aged out as a crown ward, can’t have access to their own information. That is something that is addressed with Bill 188, and I think it is long overdue.

I also want to think about how horrific and how disturbing it might be that a young person who has aged out of the foster system and is now working within the foster system as a caring person might be working alongside people who can access information about them—private information about them as a young person—without their knowledge. That is something that Bill 188 will seek to circumvent, and I think that is something that is long overdue. The information about us should be a possession of the person alone, not possessed by the system, especially when that person has become an adult.

As I begin to close my remarks, I just want to thank all of the education providers from Brescia University College, Huron University College, King’s University College and Western University as well as Laurentian for seeing the value in supporting young people as they seek to improve themselves, as they pursue their dreams. Education is the great equalizer. Education is the great democratizing force.

I’m so proud that I was able to work on this. I know that, many years from now, I will probably look back on this life in politics, and as I consider what might be the things that I am most proud of, this will definitely be one, because it was an opportunity to help, to participate, to advocate, to make sure that these young people—who had a very difficult childhood, who had never been adopted, who have created a chosen family—would be able to pursue their dreams, and to also know that they had the support of these post-secondary institutions; to know that there are people out there who care about them, who want to see them achieve their dreams.

Speaker, this is life-changing work. But first and foremost, I want to thank, I want to congratulate and I want to honour Jane Kovarikova for her tremendous work. She’s a force of nature. She’s unstoppable. Jane, it was an honour to work with you. Thank you so much for everything that you continue to do.

I’d like to thank my friend from Chatham-Kent–Leamington for a truly excellent question.

As trained educators, we learn within teachers’ college that the duty to report is paramount. It is not a matter of telling someone you are next to, it is not a matter of going to an administrator, it is not a matter of going to anyone except to report any suspicions straight away. There’s no exception to that rule, nor should there be. If there’s any thought that a child has been harmed, is in danger now or is in danger in the future, it has to be reported straight away. Adding early childhood educators absolutely makes good sense.

I don’t think that there’s much within Bill 188 that I could criticize, that I could talk down about.

I think the more that we do for children—it speaks about us as a society, as a Legislature, as a province, and, quite frankly, as the human beings we are.

We need to make sure that the people who are at the beginning of their lives and at the end of their lives receive more support than the rest of us in between, with some exceptions, naturally speaking.

I want to thank the member for the question. It is something that is—

It’s an interesting thing; I had an opportunity to meet, through Jane, a number of people who, despite numerous challenges and despite so many arbitrary obstacles they faced as well as obstacles that were placed within their path, were able to achieve the heights of education. Jane has received her PhD. I think of other people who were able to receive their doctorates, as well. I think of one young person who had tremendous problems with their birth family, was told so many things—that they would never succeed. Of course, there were mental health issues within that family, and that is incredibly unfortunate. They entered the foster care system. Despite all of that, despite their young mind being filled with so many words of judgement, of criticism, of setting the bar so low, they succeeded.

I also want to come back to the courses that are often given to these crown wards. Often, these courses are such things as how not to get pregnant and how to apply for social assistance. How are we, as a province, setting the bar so low that we’re telling young people who want to live out their dreams how to apply for social assistance? That doesn’t—

We can easily say that there are many children within the crown ward system who have encountered tremendous difficulties and have endured likely quite a bit of trauma. And to think that that information might be available to people after they have become the age of majority or after they have become an adult is simply disturbing.

Imagine, Speaker, having experienced trauma yourself and having that spectre hanging around you, above you, at all times, that there are people who could know that about you and have access to that information. That would be tremendously disturbing and upsetting. It would almost be like reliving that trauma. So I do applaud Bill 188 for its changes to privacy as it regards the history of former crown wards.

I’d like to thank the member from Ottawa South for the question. There is no question: I strongly, strongly believe, that we need independent officers of this Legislature, first and foremost, but especially as it pertains to the welfare of young people. We require a child and youth advocate.

I think the removal, the firing, of Irwin Elman was a mistake. I think children who are encountering what are sometimes insurmountable difficulties and tremendous barriers and obstacles need that one person, that one trusted adult they can reach, and that would be realized through the re-establishment of the child advocate. I can’t understand why that was ever removed in the first place. I think that was a mistake. I think there’s an opportunity to re-establish it and the government should and must take it.

We absolutely need more investments in mental health and support services such as this to make sure that young people are able to live their best lives.

We also do need more inspections. I know that from the Children’s Aid Society of London and Middlesex. They are running out of spaces for kids. Many of these unlicensed places will take kids into hotels, where the child is staying in a hotel room and the care worker is staying in another room. These kids are vulnerable. These kids could potentially be trafficked. There are so many different issues with this. We need to crack down on unlicensed care placements. We need to make sure that we’re buttressing the system by providing supports for care and for mental health.

It’s my honour to present the following petitions on behalf of Sally Palmer, professor emeritus, school of social work in the faculty of social sciences at McMaster University. The petition is entitled “To Raise Social Assistance Rates.”

Within this petition, it talks about how deeply in poverty people receiving social assistance are in Ontario. It points out that it’s inadequate to cover the rising costs of food and rent, that individuals on Ontario Works receive $733, whereas those on ODSP receive $1,308. But I’d also like to point out that OW has been frozen since 2018.

It also points out about the CERB program and how it was determined that the basic income of $2,000 per month was adequate for people. It raises and begs the question why we have people on social assistance so deep below that as well as the poverty line.

I fully support this petition, will affix my signature and deliver it with page Emirson to the Clerks.

It’s my honour again to present the following petitions on behalf of Dr. Sally Palmer, professor emerita at the school of social work in the faculty of social sciences at McMaster University. The petition is “To Raise Social Assistance Rates.”

This petition speaks about how Ontario’s social assistance rates are well below Canada’s official Market Basket Measure poverty line. They do not cover the cost of food. They do not cover the cost of rent. Ontario Works rates have been frozen for six years, and the small increases this government would pat itself on the back for for ODSP are leaving people below the poverty line. The fact that they have indexed it means that they have kept people below the poverty line.

This petition recommends the doubling of social assistance so that people can live with dignity, people can buy food that is healthy and have a safe place to call home.

I fully support this petition, will affix my signature and deliver it with Ruby to the Clerk.

Thirty.

When you’re speaking about mental health and children’s mental health, a statistic that’s disturbing which was shared by Children’s Mental Health Ontario at the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs was that four of the top 10 reasons for the hospitalization of children and youth are for mental health challenges.

Particularly, I’d like to hear the member comment about wage parity, because mental health care workers in hospitals make 50% more than someone in community-based mental health services. As well, mental health workers in the youth justice sector haven’t seen an increase in over 17 years. Would you care to comment about the importance of wage parity and how that will help children receiving mental health services?