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

It’s my pleasure to rise today to speak about and discuss a matter of great importance, the Supporting Children’s Futures Act, 2024. This act is crucial to the commitment that demonstrates our unwavering dedication to the well-being and future of the children across this province. The act stands for a fundamental belief that every child deserves a fair chance at life, no matter their background. We must come together to provide them with the support and protection they need to thrive. Every child deserves the opportunity to reach their full potential, and it’s up to us to ensure that they do. Let’s work together to create a brighter future for our children and ourselves.

The Supporting Children’s Futures Act, 2024, holds the power to shape the lives of countless children and young people in our province, and the legislation is a sincere commitment to protecting the well-being and future of some of our most vulnerable citizens: our children and our youth. In a world where the innocence of childhood is often overshadowed by the harsh realities of life, it’s our duty to ensure that every child, regardless of their circumstance, has access to care, protection and the opportunities they deserve. This bill, if passed, will be a beacon of hope, bringing improved safety and quality to our children and youth services.

Our government has worked diligently to create this bill, consulting far and wide across the child welfare sector. Ministry staff held over 30 virtual engagements with various stakeholder groups, including youth with lived experience. These extensive consultations have ensured that this bill addresses the real and pressing needs of children and youth in Ontario’s care.

At its core, the Supporting Children’s Futures Act is about protecting children and youth in Ontario’s care today, through new measures for safety, service, oversight, accountability and privacy. It’s also about providing better opportunities for these children and youth to thrive as adults tomorrow.

If passed, this bill will protect children and youth in care and provide them with a better future by strengthening oversight and enforcement tools for out-of-home care, protecting the privacy of youth formerly in care and updating the Child, Youth and Family Services Act with lessons learned since it became law. The changes proposed in this bill will improve safety and independence for children and youth in care and moving on from care. In the short term, this will mean safer and more consistent services for those who need to live away from home. In the long term, it will prepare these children and youth for adulthood and set them up for success. They deserve a chance to grow up safe and happy.

Speaker, to ensure applicants are fit to provide quality care, this bill proposes a more thorough application process and new powers to refuse a licence on several grounds, most importantly the public interest. To ensure all children and youth in care receive safe, high-quality services, this bill proposes to increase accountability for operators. This includes requiring inspectors to take certain actions when they find non-compliance and a better range of penalties, including compliance orders, administrative monetary penalties and enhanced charges with larger fines.

All members of this House know of shocking instances where some providers have failed to provide the high-quality care that we expect them to deliver, and our government has been clear: There is no room in our province for providers who don’t operate in compliance with the law.

This bill proposes new high-impact enforcement tools to root out non-compliance, such as:

—an order for funding to be returned where a licensee has failed to use funds in accordance with the terms-of-service agreement for a child;

—an order for new management for an out-of-home care setting;

—restraining orders to restrain individuals who pose an imminent threat to the health, safety or welfare of any child or young person; and

—compliance orders to instruct the licensee to achieve compliance; for example, arranging staff training within a specific time frame if reoccurring non-compliances are identified.

These are critical changes that will reshape the way the rules and regulations are implemented and monitored throughout the program. We’re creating new provincial offences for violations of a youth’s rights against corporal punishment, physical and mechanical restraints, and detention—all positive changes, making it better and easier for youth to thrive.

We’re enhancing the penalties for provincial offences under the act: up to $250,000, imprisonment for up to one year, or both; and for corporations, fines of up to $250,000 and new administrative monetary penalties of up to $100,000. This is how seriously we’re taking this.

Bill 188 also proposes new processes for inspectors, requiring documentation of findings and, in the inspection report, the ability to conduct investigations with a warrant when an offence is suspected. Changes to the appeal process for licensing decisions, conditions, suspensions and revocations are also proposed, ensuring the appeals do not automatically result in a stay.

The appeal process to require more information from the applicant or licensee, improving the rules for evidence before the tribunal, and clarifying the tribunal’s orders following an appeal: These crucial new tools will hold service providers to the standard of care that youth deserve and our government expects. These new enhanced penalties will give ministry inspectors a more responsive and useful range of tools to use when they find a service provider that isn’t consistently complying with requirements.

We understand that the safety and well-being of our most vulnerable youth are our top priorities. The Supporting Children’s Futures Act is a comprehensive and necessary step forward in protecting and empowering the children and youth in Ontario’s care. Let’s work together to provide better care and a better future for all Ontario kids, because when we take care of them, we’re taking care of the heart of our community, Speaker.

You can see in the great work done by the ministry and done by the great minister that put forward this bill the amazing effort that they put in to capture all of those details that were given to them in consultation throughout their various ministry consultations and throughout the consultations that took place in committee as well. It shows the government’s dedication and understanding of what needs to be changed. I’m so proud that it’s this government that has taken action, after years and years and years, that’s finally delivering for these children and youth to ensure that they’re in a safe environment, they’re encouraged to grow, they’re encouraged to succeed. That’s the Ontario that we all grew up in and we all want to see, where that Ontario dream, where that Canadian dream is instilled in every single youth and child, where they’re able to dream to become anybody they want to be.

Speaker, we hear these amazing stories across the province of people who grew up in very, very harsh poverty situations, and today have some of the biggest corporations or run some of the biggest non-profit organizations. Those are the types of inspiring stories that we look up to as children, as we continue on in our daily lives. I remember even when I was a kid visiting, with a grade 8 or grade 7 class, Queen’s Park way back when. And I got to sit in the public gallery up there and watch members debate. It really generates a form of vision and encouragement for children that this too can one day be achieved by anybody who puts their heart on their sleeve and works hard for the people. Not only does that apply for parliamentarians, but that applies for anybody working in the private sector. Inspiration for youth is so important, because when we follow our dreams and work hard at it, we’re able to achieve them.

This bill helps support children and helps ensure that they are able to succeed in Ontario and grow in Ontario. As we continue to approve services—I know the minister has been working very hard to continue to improve services and ensure that children and youth are being supported across the province—we’re looking at new examples and new conversation pieces of where children felt that they were left behind and they needed more support. That’s what our government is doing: bringing in those changes to help support them, help grow their futures and ensure that we live in a society where each and every child in this province can grow up to live their absolute full potential.

I’m so proud to be a part of a government that takes this so seriously and is moving forward on these swift changes, and not only when it comes to the Ministry of Children, Social and Community Services. I believe all my colleagues that are ministers, parliamentary assistants and MPPs are doing amazing jobs in their portfolios to ensure that we have a better future for Ontario, a future where we all thrive and that Ontario dream continues to live on where we can all have a home, where we can all afford to raise a family and have a good life.

I recognize the member from Brampton East.

Questions?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now where did this all come from?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I’ll stop there. Thank you.

I want to thank both the speakers for their remarks.

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

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

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

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

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

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?

I appreciate the opportunity to rise this afternoon for the third reading of Bill 188. As well, I’ll be sharing my time with the member from Windsor–Tecumseh.

The Supporting Children’s Futures Act was introduced by my friend and my former colleague at the Treasury Board, and now the Minister of Children, Community and Social Services. I want to thank him and his team, including his parliamentary assistants from Thornhill and Markham–Thornhill, for all their work on this bill, including over 30 consultations right across the entire child welfare sector, including children’s aid society service providers, but also youth and families with experience in the system, from every part of Ontario.

Before I begin my remarks, I just want to take the opportunity to congratulate Sabra Desai, a registered social worker from Mississauga–Lakeshore, on winning the Attorney General’s Victim Services Award of Distinction yesterday. Sabra is chair of the board at the Gatehouse in Etobicoke, which provides support to victims of childhood sexual abuse. Many years ago, she helped to establish the Embrave Agency to End Violence in my community, which was originally known as the Interim Place. I was honoured to join the virtual awards ceremony last night. Again, I just want to congratulate Sabra and all the other award winners yesterday.

Speaker, most of the witnesses who appeared at the consultations and at the committee hearings on Bill 188 were former youth in care or people like Sabra with direct work experience in the child welfare system. As the minister said, they told us that the province needed new rules to better protect the rights of children and youth, to improve the quality of child welfare services and to hold service providers accountable for the quality of services they provide. I know that this feedback was invaluable to the minister and his team in developing Bill 188.

I also want to thank my friend from Sarnia–Lambton, who has been an incredible advocate for children and youth in care, and for the improvements to the child welfare system. I know that some of the key measures in his private member’s bill on this issue are now included in Bill 188.

Speaker, together, the measures in Bill 188 would build on all the work that we began four years ago to modernize Ontario’s child welfare system and to ensure that Ontario’s children and youth in care have all the support they need so that no one is left behind. That includes a $170-million investment in the new Ready, Set, Go Program that we launched a year ago to help connect youth who are transitioning out of care with skills they need to succeed, including post-secondary education or training in the skilled trades. Last year alone, this program supported over 4,000 youths across the province.

And it includes a new $310-million investment, as part of the 2024 budget, in community organizations that support children and youth in care, and other vulnerable Ontarians. In Peel region, it includes the Child Welfare Immigration Centre of Excellence program—the first of its kind in Canada—which helps children’s aid societies address immigration status issues for children and youth.

If passed, Bill 188 would build on that work by modernizing the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, enhancing ministry oversight and introducing new and improved enforcement tools. Because, as the minister said, while it is true that the vast majority of service providers deliver the highest-quality care for children and youth, we also have to deal with the fact that there are a few who are not acting in good faith, and others who should never have been allowed in the system in the first place.

I want to thank Carly Kalish, the executive director of Victim Services Toronto, for her recent testimony at the Standing Committee on Justice Policy in support of Bill 188, including heartbreaking stories about human trafficking of foster children in Ontario who were exploited by their own foster parents. As she said, this is a demonstration of the urgent need for reform, and there are stories like this right across Ontario, including in Mississauga, with victims as young as 13 years old.

That’s why the changes provided in Bill 188 would allow us to expand background checks beyond the formal police record checks in order to better protect children and youth in care. As well, I know that the minister is working on new regulations to standardize the requirements for police record checks across the province and to allow the college of social workers to share information with other colleges in other provinces, or with children’s aid societies, in order to confirm when a social worker is under investigation or to address any other serious risk that a child or youth may be harmed. At the same time, the bill will help restrict access to records about children and youth once they leave care in order to protect their privacy.

Bill 188 would also provide strong enforcement tools to hold bad-faith providers accountable, including new orders to comply and larger fines. In some cases, fines would increase from $5,000 to $250,000. As well, the bill would clarify that early childhood educators can be guilty of an offence if they fail to report child protection concerns to a children’s aid society. This would be similar to the rules for other professions including social workers and teachers.

I’d like to conclude by reading some of the feedback that we have received on Bill 188 from experts in the child welfare sector.

Susan Wells, the CEO of Family Service Ontario, said that Bill 188 would enhance “the safety, privacy and rights of children and youth. Family Services Ontario strongly supports this legislation for its commitment to safeguarding the well-being of our children and youth.”

John Fleming, the chair of the Ontario College of Social Workers, said Bill 188 is a “step towards” strengthening “protection for the public, including the province’s most vulnerable children and youth.”

Valerie McMurtry, president of the Children’s Aid Foundation of Canada, said, “We value the government’s commitment to making sure young people receive information on the high-quality supports that are available.”

Speaker, as I said, the voices of Ontarians with direct experience in the system have been the most important in developing Bill 188, so it is appropriate for me to close with the words of former foster child Diana Frances. She said, “Speaking from my life experience, I believe with all my heart that these improvements to the safety, well-being, and privacy of children and youth in care are of vital importance.”

Again, I want to thank the minister and his team and everyone from the child welfare sector who has come forward to share their story and their recommendations on Bill 188. This isn’t a partisan issue; it’s a looking-after-our-children issue. I also want to thank my friends from across the aisle for their remarks and for their support for this important bill.

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?