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.

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.