Thank you, Mr. Chair. I agree with this idea of using extended families for the placement of an apprehended child. I just have two caveats or concerns about that. I think that extended families should receive the same remuneration to care for that child as would a foster family that would not be related to that child. The reason being is that sometimes, just because it is an extended family, it doesn't mean that they don't have other obligations, a job or may need to procure childcare or support. I think sometimes it has been the thinking of the system that if you put a child with an extended family member, automatically there should be no financial assistance for that family member to take care of that child. I think that is maybe one of the reasons why there has been some resistance, because it can create quite a change in the family dynamics to take in especially younger children that need some supplementary care or babysitting. That is one thing that I would say about that.

Another thing is that I don't think that extended family members should automatically be considered a viable placement either. I know there is always the overriding thought that they will do what is in the best interests of the child, but I think that the extended family should still, even though they are related, be subject to the same kind of home study, stability study, that any foster family caring for a child would undergo. It can be done fairly quickly. It can be done on an emergency basis. It can be done and assessed fairly quickly, but there have been some pretty publicized cases where children were being cared for by grandparents or extended family members that it was not a good situation for that kid. I don't think you can just categorically say because this person is a relative, they are an ideal placement. It should be subject to the same kinds of criteria that you would use in approving any home for a child that has been apprehended. Those are just my two comments and concerns on that. Thank you, Mr. Chair.