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.

It’s my honour to speak on Bill 188, the Supporting Children’s Futures Act, 2024. Before I begin, I would like to thank my colleague the Minister of Children, Community and Social Services for bringing forth this crucial bill. This bill, if passed, would significantly enhance the safety, security and well-being of children and youth in care across our province.

Speaker, our government stands firm in its commitment to ensure that no one is left behind. We are working towards a province where all children, youth and families, including those getting support through Ontario’s children and youth services sector, have the resources and support they need to thrive. This bill is all about stepping up to better protect the rights of children and youth, enhancing the quality of services and improving the accountability of service providers.

Since 2022, our government has been working hard at redesigning Ontario’s child welfare system. We’re focusing on early intervention, improving outcomes for children and tearing down barriers to support. We did that because every child and youth deserves a decent start in life and a safe and stable home, regardless of their circumstances.

This bill is packed with initiatives aimed at ensuring quality care and services for children and youth in care. We are talking about introducing new offences and administrative penalties to boost oversight of out-of-home care. We’re expanding who is responsible for reporting concerns, with better information sharing to keep our kids safe. Plus, we are levelling the playing field by strengthening privacy provisions for youth formerly in care.

Since launching the comprehensive redesign of child welfare in Ontario, we have put many new measures in place. This includes, just to name a few, developing a new framework for what out-of-home care looks like; increasing and enhancing oversight and accountability for out-of-home care, and supporting that oversight by adding 20 new positions across the province to support the management, inspection and oversight of out-of-home care for children and youth; and launching the Ready, Set, Go Program, which provides youth in the care of children’s aid societies with the life skills they need, starting at 13, and financial support when they leave care up to the age of 23.

Speaker, transforming child and family services is a significant undertaking, and it takes time. Many of the reforms proposed in this bill are designed to better support youth and provide the skills and knowledge that will help them transition to adulthood. The changes also build on the Ready, Set, Go Program, which we launched back on April 1, 2023. This program represents another significant step coming out of the Child Welfare Redesign Strategy. The Ready, Set, Go Program provides youth transitioning out of care with life skills and supports they need to pursue post-secondary education, skilled trades training and employment opportunities.

Under the new program, children’s aid societies will begin focusing on helping children plan for their future at an earlier age. Starting at 13, they will begin learning practical life skills and planning education goals. At age 15, the emphasis will expand to financial literacy and preparing for the workforce, including managing personal finances, setting up a bank account, grocery shopping, résumé building, and how to access social services and other supports.

The Ready, Set, Go Program is a game-changer for youth transitioning out of care. We have increased the financial assistance, raising it from $850 to $1,800 a month at the age of 18, gradually decreasing to $1,000 by age 20. Those staying in care at 21 receive $1,000, and at age 22, $500. Plus, they can work up to 40 hours a week without losing support. And for those pursuing education or training, we are providing an extra $500 monthly from age 20, ensuring they have the resources to thrive. These monthly financial support increases will provide youth better quality of life and safer housing opportunities so that they can focus on their studies or work. By extending care until 23 and increasing financial support, we are giving these youth a solid foundation for their future.

The Ready, Set, Go Program, developed with input and advice from former youth in care, child welfare advocates, partners, and informed by research, has a three-year, $170-million funding commitment from the government. In addition, we are expected to support more than 4,000 youth this year as they prepare for adulthood. It’s a great start to support the transition from being a youth in care to becoming a young adult.

Speaker, at its core, the Supporting Children’s Futures Act, 2024, is all about looking out for the children and youth in Ontario who need our support the most. It’s about putting measures in place to make sure they’re safe, well cared for, and have the opportunities they deserve to succeed. If this bill passes, it’s going to make a real difference. We are talking about strengthening oversight and enforcement tools for out-of-home care, ensuring that our kids’ privacy is respected, and updating our laws based on what we have learned since they were first put in place.

These changes aren’t just about the here and now; they are about setting our children up for success in the long run. In the short term, it means safer and more consistent services for those living away from home. But in the long term, it means preparing them for adulthood and giving them the tools they need to succeed.

Our government is committed to making life better for all children and youth in Ontario, especially those in care. Some examples of these measures include:

—mandating information-sharing between children’s aid societies and the ministry about specific health and safety risks to children in licensed out-of-home care settings;

—requiring children’s aid services to visit children placed in out-of-home care more frequently: every 30 days, instead of every 90 days;

—requiring unannounced, in-person visits by children’s aid societies in certain circumstances; for example, if a visit cannot be scheduled because the society was unable to contact the child or the caregivers, or if there are concerns related to the well-being of the child; and

—requirements that give youth in children’s residences and foster homes greater guarantees of privacy.

These measures may seem small, but they add up to big changes that will make a real, tangible difference in the lives of our most vulnerable youth. And that is something worth fighting for.

In closing, the passage of Bill 188 would bring us closer to our vision of an Ontario where every child, youth and family has the resources they need to thrive. Our children and youth are the future, and it is our responsibility to ensure that they have the support they need to succeed. I urge all the members of this House to support this bill as we continue to strengthen families and communities across this great province.

My question to the government with regard to Bill 188, the Supporting Children’s Futures Act: There are immediate steps that you can do today to advance the futures and keep safe and well the children and youth of Ontario.

One of those things is to pass Bill 174, the Missing Persons Amendment Act. That would really help protect vulnerable people, especially those with disabilities. This is a bill that I understand the member from Hamilton Mountain has put forth. This government has said yes to this and yet you have not delivered.

Another thing to help our children and youth: bring back the provincial child and youth advocate so there can be a voice, an independent non-partisan voice, in this Legislature speaking on behalf of children and youth. Don’t do it for the NDP; do it for the kids. Do it for the family. Do it for the people who feel down and out and betrayed by the care system.

I’m happy to have a few minutes to talk to Bill 188, An Act to amend the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 and various other Acts.

It has been a long time coming, Speaker. We have known of horrific situations in the child welfare system for a long time. The children’s aid societies have come forward, telling us, asking us, begging us to make changes, and I’m happy to see that some of those changes have been incorporated into this bill. But there are other big asks that have been there for a long time that are not in the bill, and I’m sorry that they are not there.

When you look at child protection, you have to look at the continuum of it. You start with: How do you protect them? How do you make sure that they do not end up in care? How do you make sure that they do not end up having to be cared for by the children’s aid society and cared for in residential care in different parts of the province?

I can tell you that in Nickel Belt, for the people who I represent, the number one reason why the children’s aid society goes in and takes the child away from the family for the protection of the child is the lack of mental health services. In my community, first of all, 40,000 people do not have access to primary care, so they cannot go see their family physician or their nurse practitioners because they are on the wait-list for Health Care Connect for years on end.

Their child that they love, that they want to support—they are good people who want to do good for their children—develops a mental illness. The child will be admitted into the hospital. After you wait for 36 hours in the emergency room, your child will finally be seen. He or she may be admitted and then get discharged, and they say he needs or she needs to have follow-up in the community. The average wait time for community-based mental health services for children in my community is 18 months. It used to be 12 months, which was way too long; 18 months is a lifetime when you’re a child facing mental illness. During that 18 months, Speaker, the family will fall apart.

We are not mental health experts. They don’t know what’s good to do for the child. One parent will say, “We should do this”; the other one will say something else. Then the child starts to act up in school, and the school sends the child back home and calls the children’s aid society because they can see that there’s something going on. Those are good families who want to care for their kids; they just don’t know what’s the right thing to do when the kid starts to act out, when the kid starts to be sick and there’s no way for them to access care, so the kid eventually will fall into the protection of children’s aid.

The good thing, if there’s ever a good thing when a child is taken away, is that the children’s aid will have access to intensive children’s mental health services and the kid will gain access. That access will not be in our community; that access will be hundreds of kilometres away, where the child will be sent.

For the family, it is extremely difficult. They will continue to have visiting access to their child, but it’s not obvious to drive 400 kilometres away for a two-hour visit in person with the child. It becomes really, really difficult. The family will fall apart; most of them will end up in divorce.

When the child gets the treatment he or she needs, comes back to northern Ontario, their life will be completely different. There’s no more mom and dad. There’s no more family. The family has fallen apart.

None of those working up front to support children, to support families so that we don’t end up needing children’s aid services are addressed in the bill. What is addressed in the bill is residential, group and foster homes, and believe me, Speaker, there is a lot of room for improvement at that end.

There are quite a few First Nations families in my riding. I’m proud to say that Wahnapitae First Nation, Atikameksheng Anishnawbek and Mattagami First Nation are all in my riding. There are quite a few First Nations around Bisco, Westree, Shining Tree etc.

You will have seen in the news a report that was done about children from First Nations who are in care. This report was really hard to read. There was a most serious allegation involving one of the biggest for-profit residential care providers, Hatts Off. The investigation showed that the privately run group home had, as a profit model, First Nations kids from northern Ontario communities. Those kids are called “cash cows.” They’re called “bread and butter.” One of the children who was in one of those homes asked a First Nations social worker if she had come to rescue him—this is how poorly.

I can also talk about Connor Homes in eastern Ontario, which were kept in a state of disrepair. The kids in care were left with few resources, while the owner amassed a personal fortune in real estate holdings. Some of the people who worked there would tell you that you knew that the owner had money, but it wasn’t the kids who saw that money or saw the care that should have come with it. The homes frequently used physical restraints on the kids in their care. And the story goes on—that goes from bad to worse.

There are steps in this bill that would help. One of the big ones is that every child in care will know that they can call upon the Ombudsman. Don’t get me wrong; I, like every member on this side in my caucus, in the NDP—we want the child and youth advocate to come back. The child and youth advocate was the one telling us where the complaints are coming from, and of the—I forgot the numbers—roughly 19,000 serious occurrence reports, a quarter of them were produced from group residential homes. We’ve known about this for quite a few years. The special task force on residential care is several years old. The time to act was years ago. But I’m happy that some steps are being taken so that every child who is in a residential, group or foster home will know that if they feel something is wrong, they will be able to call the Ombudsman. This is one part of the bill that I support—make it readily available so that children can call out for help.

I would have liked to see more protection for whistle-blowers. Everybody who holds a health professional licence in Ontario—we have a mandate to call a children’s aid society the minute that we suspect that a child is in need. We don’t have to have any proof. If we suspect that a child is in need, everybody who holds a licence in Ontario has a mandatory obligation to call. This mandatory obligation to call will now be for people who work in our schools; it should have been there way before, because every kid in Ontario goes to school. They are our eyes and ears as to what’s going on with the children, and they should not have to amass a proof big enough to get a police officer to look at the case. If they suspect something, call the children’s aid society and let them do the investigation to make sure that the child is safe rather than amassing enough proof to show that the child has been abused. This is something else in the bill that I’m more than willing to support.

It’s an honour to stand up and speak on Bill 188. It’s a bill about taking care of children in foster care. This is an issue that’s pretty near and dear to me. A good friend of mine was raised in foster care. When she was 11, she and her sister were removed from their family because the father was sexually abusing them. She ended up in foster care, and she was being shuffled from foster care home to foster care home with all of her possessions in a garbage bag.

By the time she was 14, one of her friends on the street realized that she needed some money, so he gave her some speedballs to sell and a gun to protect herself, so at 14 she was standing on a street corner with a gun and selling drugs. The next decade and a half of her life was just one horrific nightmare, but somehow, she came out of it and she’s a wonderful mother. She’s an advocate for children. She’s a counsellor to young children. She has taken her pain and turned it into purpose.

If anybody’s interested in reading a book, the book is called If You Played in My Playground, and it’s about growing up in downtown Toronto. When I read the book, I was shocked because I had no idea that things like she describes happened in the city of Toronto. It’s amazing how different our realities can be from somebody you sit next to and the nightmare that they might be living with.

Getting foster care right saves lives, and we’ve seen that over and over again.

In 2022, the Aboriginal Peoples Television Network and Global News launched an investigation, and the reports in the investigation showed pretty clearly that for-profit care providers were terribly abusing their charges, the children in their care. Hatts Off was one of these large, for-profit residential care providers. The media investigations included details about one young First Nations woman who had run away, and her disappearance was not reported in a timely way by the provider, and she became a victim of human trafficking.

This should not be happening. The most vulnerable people in our society are children in care, and as a government, as a society, we have a responsibility to make sure that they get the best care that’s possible.

On the other hand, these for-profit corporations look at these children not as charges, not as a huge responsibility, but as the words they actually use to describe—particularly First Nations children from northern communities. They get paid more for looking after those children. They call them cash cows, and they describe them as being the bread and butter of their business model.

One First Nations social worker visited a First Nations child in one of these for-profit homes, and the child asked the social worker, “Are you here to rescue me?”

What’s happening to children in some of these homes is absolutely appalling.

There’s one company called Connor Homes; it has been under investigation by children’s aid societies. The report said that the group homes run by Connor Homes in eastern Ontario were kept in a state of disrepair, and the kids in care were left with few resources, while the owners amassed personal fortunes in real estate holdings.

So these for-profit homes are getting tax dollars to look after these children, but instead of looking after the children, the children are left in rundown homes while they amass a fortune.

One of the staff members from Connor Homes said, “You knew that (the owners) had the money but it wasn’t in the home(s).” He said that they’re—actually, sorry; this person is not being identified for fear of reprisal. He said, “The kids didn’t see that money.”

So the solution that came out of this report and what the child advocates were saying is that we need a fundamental change in the system—and the first recommendation they said was to take profit out of caring for kids. A for-profit corporation exists to make profit; it doesn’t exist to look after children. If a corporation existed to look after children, it wouldn’t be for-profit. That was the first recommendation. So one of the biggest disappointments of Bill 188 here, which this government is introducing, is that it doesn’t get rid of the for-profit care model.

There’s a long history coming up to this legislation, and I’ll just quickly go through it. In 2008, the former government created the Ontario child advocate office. This was to be an independent office for children and youth, including those with disabilities as well as Indigenous children and youth. Irwin Elman, the first director of the child and youth advocate office, was motivated by a case that some people will remember was in the media in 2008. A little girl, Katelynn Sampson, seven years old, was horribly abused, and she was killed by her foster parents, who were charged with murder in her case. There were a number of changes that were recommended, that came out of the inquest into her death, including whistle-blower protection, and a second bill, Bill 57, called Katelynn’s Principle Act, and these were both introduced by my colleague from Hamilton Mountain in 2015 and 2016. So, almost 10 years ago, she introduced this legislation for whistle-blower protection, and it’s finally in this bill. So there are some good things in Bill 188, and the NDP will be supporting this bill, but we would like to see a lot more because what’s at stake is the lives and well-being of children.

I would say also that one of the biggest mistakes this government made was, in 2018, they shut down the child and youth advocate office. The argument was that they were trying to reduce the deficit. The Conservative MPP at the time who was the child and youth minister—and I can’t remember what riding she’s from.

Through you, Speaker, there are new enforcement tools with Bill 188 intended to hit at the finances of service providers who choose to provide poor-quality care. This bill takes critical steps towards making sure there’s no profit in providing poor care to children and youth in this province.

One of the measures of the bill is to provide an order that funding be returned when a child in care has not received the level of service expected, so this is providing a better outcome. This measure would be supported and strengthen the financial record-keeping. Does the member opposite agree that measures such as these put children first by making sure that every dollar invested in this care results in high-quality care?

There are some good aspects of Bill 188, the Supporting Children’s Futures Act.

I want to share a statistic in this House from a few years back: 44% of youth in care graduate from high school compared to 81% of their peers. I think that speaks loudly to the lack of supports that we have both in the care system and also in the education system.

I will say it over and over again: Mental health has to be a priority here in Ontario. And how do we do that? We do that by having the caring adults, the caring professionals in place who also have culturally relevant training to support our diverse Ontario youth.

Will the government commit to more funding for our education system and our care system so it can actually care and function—