I’m pleased to be here today to speak in support of this bill.

As a mom, I can only imagine what it must be like to lose a child. It’s an awful tragedy that no parent or caregiver should ever have to experience.

As a social worker, I’ve walked with many families who have lost their children, and it’s nothing that people easily recover from. The grief journey is unlike anything else.

My sincere condolences go to Garrett’s parents. I appreciate their advocacy. To make meaning of such a tragedy is really hard. I know lots of families find it in themselves to be advocates, to ensure that no other child is lost in this way. I admire very much how Garrett’s parents have worked with our member across the aisle to make sure that no other parents have to experience this kind of loss.

I have to admit that I didn’t know a lot about the type of risk involved in this sporting equipment, so I thank you for that, as well. I’ve learned a lot about how it’s a growing concern across North America, with 40 individuals losing their children. That’s 40 families who go home without their child every day and live the rest of their lives grieving and trying to make meaning of that loss.

Today we have an opportunity to bring real therapy and relief, to find value in an awful tragedy, to try to make sure that no other child is lost in such a way.

I am a hockey mom. There are many kinds of hockey moms, I’ll say. My kids play hockey, so I appreciate all the efforts that have gone into our sporting organizations over the years. Whether it’s baseball, hockey, lacrosse, cricket, dance etc., we have so many wonderful ways in which kids can be active in our province. We have to find ways to make sure that when we send our kids out into our play spaces, out into these sporting environments, they come back whole, without concussions, without injuries, and without losing their life. I’ve participated in webinars, I’ve signed all the forms, but I also acknowledge that we are putting the onus on caregivers and families and young people to stay safe, and that’s not okay. We need to start ensuring that the systems and the organizations and the landscapes where we send our kids to play sports are safe implicitly, that we send them out knowing that that safety is woven into the landscape, woven into the environment. We can do that by preventing harm and not putting the onus on a hodgepodge of individuals and play spaces and organizations to do this work, but putting the onus on the institutions to get this work done and ensure that there’s safety there. We always say “safety first,” and we’ve seen our society evolve over the years to embed safety. Whether it’s through stop signs on the back of jerseys, or helmets, or seat belts, we’ve done so much to try to keep our kids safe and make sure that lives aren’t lost. So I appreciate very much the spirit of this bill and its efforts to prevent life—and make meaning from tragedy that has, unfortunately, happened.

I do want to see us properly fund not-for-profit sports. Sometimes when we create more red tape, which I know we are all against—and this isn’t red tape; it’s meaningful, important legislation, but if we don’t properly fund it, it can equate to a cut. I go home to my riding, as we all do, and we experience the feedback from these not-for-profit organizations that are not only struggling to get donations back but are struggling with volunteerism. We don’t need to impose cuts on these organizations if we can help it, so we need to back up any new legislation with proper funding to make sure that these organizations can continue to thrive.

Just last night, I was at the Athlete of the Year awards. It was a beautiful moment in my region, and I think it’s because we’ve created opportunities for all young people to get involved in athletics and shine and find bright spots in their lives and achieve great heights to make us all proud.

As a city councillor, I have been in lots of conversations about playgrounds and play spaces.

We haven’t just underfunded our not-for-profit sector, but we’ve also underfunded cities and regions to create more opportunities for green space.

Kitchener Centre is densifying. I come from a region where we are putting up high-rises like never before, especially in the downtown core, where I live. We haven’t done a commensurate investment in the green spaces, so we’re looking at overpopulated, intense green spaces in our city.

So not only do I hope the government can fund the not-for-profit sector, who are looking to make sport accessible, but I hope that we can make that same investment in our green spaces and our public spaces like schools.

I know a lot of the soccer nets that we are putting up that are accessible to the public are on school playgrounds and school soccer fields. But what we hear from schools is that they are struggling to pay the bills. They are struggling to fund these things. So if we need this safety measure in place, we need to fund it, and that equates to funding schools, as well.

I appreciate this very much. I appreciate the effort to make our kids safe when they go out of our homes, when they go to play sports.

I also urge the government to invest in athletics to make sure that we can pay the bills and keep this opportunity available.

Finally, I’d like to talk a little bit about the use of these soccer pitches and how Garrett’s life ended. I know it was through doing a chin-up. He was using a soccer net to do chin-ups, and it wasn’t anchored down.

I hope we can enforce this bill. I hope we can find that these public spaces—not only during when sports are happening, whether that’s a soccer practice, that it’s anchored down; but we have the ability to make sure they’re anchored down and secured and safe 24 hours a day, because I know that these soccer pitches, whether they’re at a school, whether they’re at a city park, are used by our public on a regular basis. We have many layers of people who make access of these public spaces. So let’s make sure that the efforts we’re making today include all of these voices, whether it’s city sports, the education sector, minor sport organizations. Include them in the conversation to be sure that we can all be vigilant and we can all ensure that this effort is enforced overall.

I appreciate the bill, as a sport lover myself. I see it as a mental health tool. Sport is not just physical activity and fun. We see young people facing severe mental health challenges at this moment in time. I truly believe that we can ensure every child in Ontario, whether they’re low-income, racialized or from various cultural backgrounds, has access to affordable and safe athletics in the province of Ontario.

Thank you to the member opposite and to our many MPPs in this House. I appreciate this bill. I will support it.

I urge the government to keep working towards safe, accessible and equitable access to athletics in the province of Ontario.

Meegwetch, Speaker. It’s always an honour to be able to speak on behalf of the people of Kiiwetinoong.

As you know, Kiiwetinoong is a very unique riding—294,000 square kilometres. We are so rich when we talk about land and resources.

I rise today to speak on Bill 188, Supporting Children’s Futures, again, on behalf of the people of Kiiwetinoong.

Last time I spoke about this bill, I spoke about the colonial history, and the care system reminds us of what it is like, in Kiiwetinoong.

I’ll talk about in my remarks—we still see examples of these practices that are implemented and imposed upon our children in the care system. And I talk about that because—particularly when they are forced to relocate from the north, far northern Ontario, to southern Ontario for care.

When I look at this bill, Bill 188, even with its supportable steps moving in a better direction, I know we can do so much more. We can always do more. Why take half-measures on this bill? As the province and as the government, it’s your responsibility to fix problems left unaddressed.

I want to be able to highlight some of those issues. I want to be able to highlight some of those problems that come with the bill and the many, many recommendations, most of which are not new, to help resolve these issues.

A few years ago—it was the summer of 2019—there was a cabinet shuffle that happened, and Minister Todd Smith looked at that file. One of the things that he had done was to show up in Thunder Bay, at the door, and introduce himself as the Minister of Children, Community and Social Services. He bumped into one of the directors of social services who looks after that children’s file, and they sat down for about half an hour or 45 minutes. That director of social services at Nishnawbe Aski Nation was able to tell Minister Smith at that time what he could do. There was a jurisdiction issue between two First Nation agencies, where they were fighting over the resources, fighting over the children, because when you have children in care, it means money.

And I know that, I think about two weeks after, Minister Smith, at that time, in the summer of 2019, made a letter to ensure that children in northwestern Ontario, in the Tikinagan area—that the Tikinagan children’s services have jurisdiction over their children. I share that story because I remember listening to a chief saying, “There are five kids who are under the age of five. I don’t know where they are. They’re somewhere in the system. I don’t know where they are. They could be all over Ontario somewhere.” She had no idea where they were. That’s the welfare system that exists for us today.

Going back, there was a letter that was provided by, at that time, Minister Smith under MCCSS. He made a decision to make sure that the people of northwestern Ontario, in that specific area, had the jurisdiction over their children and there was no more fighting over the children. Of course, the other agency was not happy, because of where they were located. That’s how you make change, and I encourage the current Minister of Children, Community and Social Services to meet with Nishnawbe Aski Nation to ensure he learns what the issues are that they are facing in the north.

Speaker, I know that in the north, First Nations are experiencing tragic death after tragic death. I say that because I’m thinking of Amy Owen, who died by suicide while she was in government care. She was 13 years old. And she was from Poplar Hill First Nation, which is part of my riding.

I am thinking of Kanina Sue Turtle, also from Poplar Hill First Nation, who filmed herself as she ended her life, getting care in Sioux Lookout, where I live. She was grieving the death of her friend, Alayna Moose, who had taken her life two weeks earlier.

I am thinking of so many others, so many other children from our communities, from our First Nations, who died in state care—but not all died by suicide.

What I’m talking about here tells us so much, Speaker, but to start taking away our children and pulling them into these places is hurting our kids. It’s hurting our families. It’s hurting our communities. They are not getting the care that they need.

I want everyone in this House to be aware of the overrepresentation of Indigenous children in the care system, which should also be top of mind when we discuss issues related to care. In their inquiry in 2016, out of the 27 agencies looked at by the Ontario Human Rights Commission, Indigenous children were overrepresented in 25—for example, in 93% of the agencies. They are also admitted into care at a rate 2.6 times higher than their proportion of the child population. But these numbers are very low estimates, because the Ontario Human Rights Commission’s sample was comprised of only mainstream or non-Indigenous children’s aid societies.

Speaker, we need to put an end to these policies that take our children away from our communities and put them into settings where these assimilationist practices are imposed on them. First Nations’ right to self-determination and jurisdiction over how our children are raised needs to be respected and supported by this government.

Just about a year ago, Ombudsman Paul Dubé published a report titled Missing in Inaction: Misty’s Story, which was an investigation into the adequacy of measures related to ensuring the safety of an anonymous child referred to as “Misty,” an Indigenous child living with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and fetal alcohol spectrum disorder, who by 15 years of age had interacted with the child welfare system a number of times and had already experienced tremendous amounts of trauma.

Speaker, she was sent to southern Ontario by the children’s aid societies in northern Ontario because of their difficulty finding the appropriate resources closer to home. She was only in care in southern Ontario for 47 days, but these 47 were the focus of the Ombudsman’s investigation, because “over the course of the 47 days Misty spent in the care of Johnson Children’s Services in southwestern Ontario, she went missing seven times, including one period of 19 days. There is evidence that during these absences, she was physically and sexually assaulted, suffered injuries requiring medical treatment, used methamphetamines, fentanyl, cannabis, cocaine and Xanax—and overdosed.”

The investigation into this inadequacy of the three organizations’ fulfillment of their responsibilities towards Misty was very revealing. It showed us that the system failed Misty in many ways, in more ways than one, and left her vulnerable to harms, including human trafficking.

It also highlighted the need for agencies in southern Ontario to be educated in the learnings provided by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls, which should inform how they understand and make decisions regarding the risks surrounding Indigenous children in care: “It is particularly pressing that agencies in southern Ontario such as Johnson Children’s Services Inc. educate themselves and their staff on the learnings from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls. They should also consider the risk factors unique to Indigenous children and their decision-making around their care.”

Speaker, I could go on, but due to the limitations of time, I just want to emphasize how important it is that all legislation and policy change takes into account the recommendations in the Ombudsman’s report but also the calls to action, and the justice, from the TRC, the very first of which is “to commit to reducing the number of Aboriginal children in care.”

In the MMIWG inquiry, it emphasizes the need for Indigenous communities to have their inherent jurisdiction and self-determination respected when it comes to child welfare and service design/delivery.

Among their critical recommendations are to prohibit the apprehension of children on the basis of poverty and cultural bias; fully investigate deaths of Indigenous youth in care; and establish a child and youth advocate in each jurisdiction with a specialized unit with the mandate of Indigenous children and youth within a period of one year of this report.

So you might ask, where is the children and youth advocate in Ontario today? I remember back in 2019, this government closed down the Child and Youth Advocate office, and the Ombudsman has not been given power equivalent to those that the Child and Youth Advocate once had.

The story of what happened to Mindy, as well, is from 2020, but the grim details of how First Nations children are treated in the care system keep emerging. This is only four years ago, but since 2022, we have seen investigations from APTN and Global News that shared about the terrible abuses First Nations children have faced in for-profit, privately run care homes.

For some of these group homes, First Nations kids from northern Ontario are seen as necessary for the profit model where they have been called cash cows and the bread and butter, and First Nations in the north paid so much more to place children in these homes—cash cows.

I don’t have enough time, but I want to conclude my remarks by talking about the life and the tragic death of Devon Freeman, whose story should remind us all of the impact that the implementation of our legislation has. We know that Devon Freeman should be an adult today, a man somewhere around the age of 22 or 23. He should still be here, a member of the Chippewas of Georgina Island First Nation. He should still be able to ride his bike. But that concludes my time for now. Meegwetch.

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.