I truly enjoyed listening to the member from Sudbury today in his debate. What he was very clearly pointing out was schedule 1 and the 30-day waiver of the environmental assessment. We have seen time and time again this government faltering when it comes to the environment and not really caring about what our future looks like, and I think that there was a clear tale of the direction that they were going to take on April 1, 2019, when they fired the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario. Maybe that’s what the member was talking about when they talked about fiscal responsibility, making sure they cut out that office that was actually in charge of ensuring that we had a safe, growing province here in the province of Ontario. Would the member like to comment on that?

I just want to thank the member from Durham for his speech. It was short but to the point. The member in front of me, he gets it. We all ran to get things done for Ontario, and this legislation is just another step in fulfilling our promise to Ontarians about good government, good fiscal responsibility and a plan to build.

As I mentioned earlier to the member for Sudbury, we talked about fiscal responsibility and fiscal responsibility as we’re building key infrastructure like schools, hospitals, transit, renovating Ontario Place—which is so exciting, to see that Ontario Place is going to be rebuilt. I drive by it every day, and I see the rust on all the buildings, so that’s something that’s very important to our community and all of Ontario as a whole.

My question for our member here in front of me is, can you tell me a little about how this legislation will help cut red tape and make things more efficient for government?

We’re going to move to further debate.

We’re going to move to further debate. Further debate? Further debate?

Miss Surma has moved third reading of Bill 69, An Act to amend various Acts with respect to infrastructure.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? I heard a no.

All those in favour of the motion, please say “aye.”

All those opposed, please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Interjection: On division.

This morning, in response to questions about the failure of government to share information with the public about the Eglinton Crosstown line, the minister argued basically that haste makes waste. Yet in this bill, in Bill 69, the government can’t wait to override due process, especially in regard to environmental assessments. Now, we know that the government has repeatedly cut short debate and discussion on environmental issues.

So my question is—really, 30 days is a blink in time. What is the problem with leaving that open for public input?

I stand proud and ready to support Bill 69. I am proud of the plan to reduce inefficiencies and reduce red tape because, as we have said time and time again in this House, it is important for governments to lead, to build Ontario by creating an environment for growth and prosperity, and that means getting out of the way when it’s appropriate to do so.

Now, I’ve listened carefully to the members opposite. The environmental assessment process is not being compromised. The proposed legislative amendments are minor and they will not have any impact on the existing class environmental assessments or environmental protection. This government stands committed to protecting the environment while building Ontario. The EA process requires proponents to assess potential environmental impacts, identify mitigation measures and consult with Indigenous communities in accordance with the duty to do so and the charter provision for doing so, that being section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

The public and stakeholders can have confidence because consultation can and will occur with Indigenous communities, all members of the public and relevant stakeholders before any project can proceed. So the NDP is not characterizing this bill fairly or appropriately, I respectfully submit, Speaker.

Ontarians expect our government to practise good governance. That is what we propose to do. That is the track record of this government. That is why we were elected with a strong majority with our pledge to do so in 2018 and that is why we were re-elected with an even greater mandate in 2022. We were re-elected with a pledge, a promise and a commitment to work for the people.

This legislation proposes to cut red tape further by streamlining the oversight of 14 agencies. This will reduce the waiting period in the environmental assessment process and it will save taxpayer dollars and reduce inefficiencies that the people expect us to deliver.

Specifically with respect to the 14 agencies pertaining to real estate: Centralizing the real estate oversight of these 14 different agencies will help the government optimize office space and reduce red tape. Ontario has one of the largest and most complex real estate portfolios in Canada, and we have been working toward establishing a more holistic approach to managing this real estate. This legislation, if passed, would help remove or modify the real estate authority of 14 entities and provide the Minister of Infrastructure with the ability to oversee and manage real estate previously under the control of the entities.

With that, Speaker, I conclude my submission for this afternoon, and I do plan to very, very proudly vote to support Bill 69.

I ask the NDP to consider, are you in favour of funding core public services in health care, education, social services and public infrastructure without going further into debt? Are you not in favour of cutting red tape to create the environment for growth and prosperity for all? Because if you’re not, then I understand it, but then you truly are the party of—

We have to start with this proposition. This government was elected and then re-elected on the mandate to clean up the mess after 15 years of Liberal mismanagement. Under that previous government, 15 years—and for one of those terms of the Liberal government within the 15 years, they were supported by the NDP. During that time, we had hydro rates skyrocketing, taxes soaring, taxpayer dollars mismanaged.

Bill 69, in contrast, like so many other bills laid before this House by this government, is about good governance. It’s about cutting red tape and streamlining oversight. So I don’t understand how it cannot be supported unanimously, but the member’s question calls for this simple answer: We’re getting it done, because we believe in targeted measures to bring about growth and prosperity and—

Thank you to the member from Durham. He talked about environmental protections not being weakened and he said it very loudly, as if loudly makes it true.

One of the things he said is that Indigenous consultations will happen, but what we saw with the mining bill is that they didn’t happen and that they haven’t been happening. And then when we tried to pass an amendment to ensure that environmental free, prior and informed consent consultations happened, it was voted down. So I’m wondering, to the member opposite, if it’s going to happen with this bill, why isn’t it happening before this bill?

Carried on division.

Be it resolved that the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.

Third reading agreed to.

Ms. Ghamari moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 93, An Act to enact Joshua’s Law (Lifejackets for Life), 2023 / Projet de loi 93, Loi édictant la Loi Joshua de 2023 sur le port obligatoire du gilet de sauvetage par les enfants.

I rise today to speak about my private member’s bill, Bill 93, Joshua’s Law (Lifejackets for Life) Act.

I would like to start off by thanking my friend and colleague, the former MPP for Parry Sound–Muskoka, Mr. Norm Miller, who tabled this legislation in the previous session.

Applause.

I’m going to begin by speaking about my constituent Cara McNulty, who is far too familiar with the type of tragedy that Joshua’s Law aims to prevent. Her 11-year-old son, Joshua, whom this bill is dedicated to, tragically passed away in September of 2018 when the boat he was on with his father, brother and two other children capsized near Rockport, Ontario. Joshua was wearing a life jacket during the day, but at that moment, he was not. Since then, Cara has been advocating for governments at all levels to make wearing a life jacket mandatory for children in small vessels through her initiative, Life Jackets for Life.

To quote Cara McNulty, “We’re thrilled to hear about this bill. Any progress on mandatory wear legislation is a step in the right direction.” I’d like to thank Cara for her tireless advocacy and for her support of this legislation.

I’m so honoured to continue working on the efforts that MPP Miller started in the previous session. When I tell friends, constituents and even some of my colleagues here in the Legislature about this bill, many are shocked that it’s not already the law for children to wear life jackets or personal floatation devices, also known as PFDs, on small personal vessels. They have a hard time believing that we’re not already doing all that we can to protect children from these preventable tragedies.

Accidents are the leading cause of death for children in Canada, and not wearing a life jacket is the number one risk factor for drowning while boating. In 2021, Drowning Prevention Research Centre Canada found that 80% of people who died in boating-related accidents between 2008 and 2017 were not wearing a life jacket, and another 5% were not wearing one properly.

According to the 2018 Canadian Drowning Report by Drowning Prevention Research Centre Canada, 67% of children aged five to 14 who died from drowning were not wearing a personal floatation device. Behind each of these statistics is a life lost, and that leaves a family broken and a community broken.

Greg Wilkinson, a former board member of Safe Quiet Lakes, said, “The fact that 87% of drownings in Ontario involve people who were not wearing a life jacket tells us all we need to know.”

Pamela Fuselli, the president and CEO of Parachute Canada, said, “Evidence shows that legislation, and the enforcement of legislation, is an effective approach to prevention.” Parachute’s The Cost of Injury in Canada 2021 report showed that drowning was the third-leading cause of death in children aged 14 and younger.

The Ottawa Drowning Prevention Coalition says online that “drowning is one of the leading causes of injury-related incidents for Canadian children under the age of five.”

Matt Cox, president of the Ottawa Police Association said in a statement, “The introduction of Bill 93, Joshua’s Law, which requires children under the age of 12 to wear a personal flotation device or a life jacket while boating or using recreational water equipment is long overdue....

“The city of Ottawa like many places in Ontario” has “many waterways, and we truly hope Bill 93 will prevent any boating tragedies this summer. Life jackets save lives.

“We as the policing community are committed to finding ways to keep the city of Ottawa safe. The Ottawa Police Association will support any level of government to attain this goal.”

I’d now like to talk about the bill itself, Madam Speaker, and explain some of the details and describe how this bill will protect Ontario’s children from accidental drowning while boating.

If passed, Bill 93 would make it mandatory for any child aged 12 years or younger to wear a life jacket or a PFD while on a pleasure boat nine metres in length or less that is under way or while being towed behind a boat: for example, water-skiing, wakeboarding or tubing. A “pleasure boat” is defined as any vessel used or designated to be used in navigating water, propelled by any kind of power, including human power, sail or motorized power, that is used exclusively for pleasure.

The federal rules that lay out what safety equipment is required on boats are based on the length of the boat, and there are different requirements for boats of six metres, six to nine metres and nine to 12 metres etc. This legislation applies to boats nine metres or less because this would cover most runabouts and water-skiing/wakeboarding boats.

Under Bill 93, it is the responsibility of the parent or guardian to ensure that their child is wearing a PFD or a life jacket. If the child is under the supervision of another person 18 years of age or older who is not their parent, then that person is responsible for ensuring the child wears a life jacket. Failing to ensure that child is wearing a life jacket or a PFD would result in a fine of no more than $200 on conviction.

This responsibility is consistent with other provincial safety legislation. For example, the law surrounding the use of seat belts in cars make it the responsibility of the driver to ensure that all passengers under the age of 16 are wearing seat belts, and the law requiring young cyclists to wear a bike helmet put the responsibility on the child’s parent. The proposed bill allows for an exception for children in an enclosed cabin where there is no danger of falling overboard.

This legislation also includes a clause to give the government, through the Lieutenant Governor in Council, the ability to create exemptions. This is because life jackets can interfere with some activities. Life jackets and PFDs have come a long way, but for athletes involved in competitive paddling or rowing, life jackets could get in the way. So, if the bill passes, I would encourage the government to work with groups like Row Ontario to create an exemption for young athletes involved in formal, supervised training or competition.

I mentioned the federal rules around boat safety. Some people might question whether this bill is within provincial jurisdiction. To that I would say that protecting the health and safety of our children is the responsibility of all levels of government.

I would also like to point out the city of Calgary’s water safety bylaw which requires any person in a vessel or other device used as a means of water transportation to wear a life jacket while they are within the boundaries of the city. When this bylaw was challenged to say that waterways fell under federal jurisdiction, Judge Judith Shriar ruled the bylaw was constitutional.

Looking beyond our borders, this legislation is extremely similar to laws that have been enacted by our neighbours in the United States. All 50 states have laws mandating life jacket use for children, and at least 30 of these states specifically require children aged 12 and under to wear a life jacket while in small recreational vessels.

In Ontario, this law could be put into place with no additional cost to boaters. That’s because it’s already required under the small vessel regulations that boat operators ensure there is an appropriately sized life jacket or personal flotation device for every passenger. No law-abiding boater should have to go out and purchase additional life jackets. The only difference is that instead of being stored somewhere on the boat, the child’s life jacket is already on their body, and that could make all the difference in the world.

In an emergency, there’s not always time to grab a life jacket and put it on properly. This is especially true of children. As the president and CEO of Canada Safety Council said, “Too frequently, we see people drown without intending on even dipping their toe in the water, and these types of tragedies are entirely avoidable.”

If you’re in a boat and accidentally fall into the water, there’s not always time to locate the life jacket you have on board and put it on. Between 2008 and 2017, 34% of people known to have not been wearing a PFD when they drowned had a life jacket or a PFD present on the boat, but they were unable to put it on at the time of the incident.

Parents, guardians and all adults are responsible for protecting the health and safety of children. This bill, if passed, would clarify that ensuring children in their care wear a life jacket or a PFD while on a small pleasure boat is a part of that responsibility. This bill won’t prevent all drownings, but I see this as a common-sense law that would reduce the chances of children drowning in boating accidents.

Every child we lose because they were not wearing a life jacket is a tragic and preventable loss of life. It permanently scars parents, families and communities, and it has a terrible impact on our first responders. That is why I’m asking my fellow members to protect the children of Ontario from avoidable harm by supporting Bill 93, Joshua’s Law (Lifejackets for Life).

Once again, I would like to thank the former member for Parry Sound–Muskoka, MPP Norm Miller, for working so hard on this legislation, for working so hard to introduce this legislation in 2021. It’s an honour to re-introduce this bill on his behalf. It is my hope that not only does this legislation pass second reading but that it passes third reading and becomes law in Ontario.

Further debate?

I want to welcome my good friend Norm Miller back to Queen’s Park. Let me tell you that we miss you. You were here for over 20 years. You were here for the whole time that I was here—his riding is just below my riding—and it was a pleasure working with you. I hope you’re enjoying your time in retirement from politics, but I know that you’ve stayed really, really busy.

It was a pleasure to talk about this bill when Norm first brought it forward, and it is just as much a pleasure to talk about this bill this time. This is something that we wholeheartedly support.

I was just talking to my colleague, who said, “I’m surprised this is not the law already.” You can go anywhere, on any docks, on any waterfront, and ask Ontarians, and most of us think that this is already the law, but it is not.

We are legislators. We have a chance to change this today. This is a change that I guarantee you will save lives.

The member went through a lot of statistics, but the statistics really tell the story of real people who lost loved ones, who lost their lives, simply because they were not wearing a life jacket.

I want to quote—“there were 54 boating fatalities in Ontario. According to the OPP, life jackets could have been the difference in 42 of those drownings.” Let this sink in a bit: 54 boating fatalities; 42 could have been prevented had people been wearing a life jacket. They were either not wearing a life jacket or not wearing them properly.

My colleague Gilles Bisson was here when we first debated that bill. He shared with us the story of his father. Gilles’s family has had a camp—what the people in the south call a cottage, we up north call a camp. It’s beautiful, on a beautiful body of water. The lake he’s on has tons of fish. So, like many northerners, after supper, you go for a boat ride and you go for a fish, and you go fishing. His dad was 600 feet from the dock in the boat that he had been in for years and years and years. He fell off the boat while he was catching a big one and drowned.

In the case of Gilles Bisson’s father, he had a life jacket but a 40-year-old life jacket that had been bought for kids, not for adults, and that basically was way past its best-before date. So not only is it important for all of us when we’re in a boat to wear a life jacket, it is important to make sure that they’re not extremely old and they are fit for our size and weight, which was not the case for Gilles Bisson’s father.

We’ve also seen, and this is directly linked to the COVID pandemic—every child who goes to school in Ontario has to take swimming lessons, and a child needs to learn how to swim. But with COVID and with the school closures and the online learning, a lot of kids missed those swimming lessons. We’re talking about three years of kids. We know many more of them now do not know how to swim. They are telling us, the Lifesaving Society report—preliminary research says that there has been a 13% increase in drownings amongst children since 2020. That’s because of less children knowing how to swim.

We should make sure that not only do we pass this bill and make it mandatory for every child under the age of 12 to wear a life jacket when they’re in a boat, but that we go back and look at those three cohorts of children who did not have a chance to take swimming lessons through the school, make sure it doesn’t matter if they age out of that particular school year. Let’s make sure that they have an opportunity to learn how to swim, because learning how to swim is also a good way to prevent drowning.

But back to the bill: Like everybody else here, I always thought that it was the law. When I was in university, I worked in a big national park, teaching people how to canoe. We would have people from all over the world, mainly Americans coming to Canada, to the national park, and we would teach them how to canoe. I didn’t know at the time; I thought it was the law, but it was in the regulations of the national park that everybody, the minute they came onto the dock, no matter their age, had to wear a life jacket. So for my entire life, I have been saying to everybody who gets in a boat, “No, no, it’s the law. You have to wear a life jacket.”

Like 18% of the people in Nickel Belt, I live on a lake. We have many boats, and we have many docks, and nobody comes onto the docks without wearing a life jacket. It’s as simple as that. If you intend to go into the boat, you put your life jacket on. I have three kids and seven grandkids. If the grandkids are not old enough to know how to swim, in the summer, I don’t let them get out of the car without putting a life jacket on them. They keep their life jacket on for the entire day, because we live on a lake, and you never know when a two-year-old or a three-year-old is going to take off at the end of this dock and jump in, which pretty much all of them have done at one point or another because they saw a turtle go by and they wanted to touch it, and in they go, etc.

So this is kind of the law in my backyard, but I thought, when I told this to everyone, I was telling the truth. Now since Norm brought this bill forward, I realized that it is not the law that people have to wear a life jacket when they’re in a boat, but I certainly hope that we use today’s opportunity to change this.

I also like the fact that there are provisions in there for people who row. I don’t know if you knew I’m a competitive rower. When you are rowing, there’s not much room for life jackets, but we have special life jackets that we tie around our waist with a little string and when you flip, which happens lots with rowers, all you have to do is pull it and it goes on. The only exceptions that I would say to this is when you are racing, you want as little weight as you can in your boat, even if it’s a boat with two, four, eight people. But when you’re racing, there’s always a safety boat that follows you. So as long as there’s a safety boat that follows you and the conversation has been had with Row Ontario, I would be comfortable with letting competitive rowers or kayakers or canoeists go without a life jacket if there is a rescue boat that follows them. But if there isn’t, there is such a good variety of life jackets that exist right now that, as I said, even for rowers, we have life jackets—same thing with canoes, same thing with kayaks—that are very light. I use them at home. There is no reason not to wear a life jacket.

For this particular bill, it would be for people 12 years of age and under, but I can tell you that the fact that we will make sure that every child wears a life jacket will have an impact on their siblings and on their parents. It is a whole lot easier to convince a cranky five-, six-, seven-year-old to wear a life jacket when you are wearing one yourself. So for every parent who has been there before, trying to convince their kid to wear a helmet to go for a bike ride, it is a whole lot easier, if Grandma puts her helmet on, to convince your grandchild to put his helmet on to go for a bike ride. The same thing will happen with the life jackets. And the more people wearing life jackets, the more lives will be saved.

I appreciate the member sharing all of the statistics. Drownings are real. The percentage of people, young people, people under the age of 12, who drown every year could be brought down immensely if, today, we pass second reading. But like the member said, I hope that this bill will see third reading and will become enacted in Ontario. Pretty much every state in the United States has laws, either for 12-year-olds—some are 14-year-old and down. It exists in many, many other jurisdictions, and it works. It saves lives.

We have an opportunity here today to save the lives of children. I cannot see how somebody could be voting that down. I know that Norm had done a ton of work before bringing this bill forward. He also had a few interns who worked on this bill. The body of evidence is strong. Let’s pass this bill.

Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking MPP Ghamari for identifying this gap in the legislation. Many of us are aware that Canada requires appropriately sized life jackets or personal flotation devices to be in the boat. However, there is in fact no law requiring children or anyone else to wear those life jackets or flotation devices.

What’s more, we do not even require children to wear a life jacket while water-skiing or tubing. This is an existing gap in our legislation that we need to close to better protect children’s safety on water. Parents, guardians and other persons supervising children playing have an important role to keep children safe while on provincial waters. As a parent and a member of my community, I am in full support of this bill.

This bill is an important and timely one, especially when summer is just around the corner. This bill will ensure that children are safe on our provincial waters. It will also raise awareness of water safety and prevent drownings. For the physical safety of Ontario’s children, I look forward to the passing of this bill.

We’ll move to further debate.

It has been said a couple times here today already that it’s hard to believe that this actually isn’t a law that’s in existence right now in Ontario. When we take a look at some of the statistics—my friend from Carleton mentioned a number of them—there’s one that stands out to me, and that’s from the Lifesaving Society: 87% of drownings from boating occur because someone wasn’t wearing a life jacket. That 87% is a big number, a big percentage that’s really easy to change.

If you take a look at what has happened with some other safety devices that we use in Ontario—bicycle helmets were not something that, as a kid growing up, people ever wore, and we had a lot of brain injuries from it. One of the things that changed is that now when you go biking, everyone is wearing a helmet and no one complains about wearing a helmet. That’s because we started with kids and we showed kids how wearing a bicycle helmet would make a big difference. Now, as adults, they wear bicycle helmets and think nothing of it.

That 87% of people who drowned in a boating accident, who weren’t wearing their life jackets—if we start with kids and normalize wearing your life jacket, rather than having it tucked up under the front of your runabout, we’ll get to a point where it’s not uncommon, then, for adults to be wearing a life jacket, and that 87% number will drop significantly as a result of it.

This is a bill that we need to pass. This is a bill that will make a big difference in a lot of people’s lives, because I would hazard to guess that anyone who lives near the water knows of a family who has lost a family member because of a preventable drowning accident like that. My hope is that everyone here today will pass this on voice, and we’ll go straight to committee and then turn it into a law at third reading.

Summer will soon be upon us, and so is the time to enjoy Ontario’s great outdoors, and that includes having fun with our family on the water. Ontario has so many great rivers, so many great lakes, and I know I’m going to be out there this summer on a boat on a lake. We have such beautiful settings to enjoy the water in this great province.

The bill we are speaking to this evening will ensure that Ontarians enjoy this activity in a safe manner, specifically young children who are out with their families. Many of the statistics have already been stated. What I think is important is, not wearing a life jacket is the number one risk for drowning while boating.

That being said, Speaker, I love boating. I have to admit that I was also surprised, just like the member from Nickel Belt, and others have said it here—I was extremely surprised when I heard it wasn’t mandatory. I was very fortunate growing up by a lake in the summer. I remember my mom and dad, who could not swim, always had their life jackets on. The four of us kids hopped in the boat. We called it the Batmobile. Everybody wore their life jacket. It was mandatory for us to wear our life jackets. That carries through to now my generation, my child and all my nieces and nephews. It’s mandatory. You must wear your life jacket. So I was shocked when I found out it wasn’t mandatory. This is just good common sense.

I would like to thank the member from Carleton for bringing forth this private member’s bill. I would also like to thank her for carrying this forward from the previous member from Parry Sound–Muskoka, Norm Miller. Thank you.

As a government, we are taking the common-sense steps to lower the risk of drowning and ensure our children can safely enjoy water sports while on any type of pleasure boat as well as while being towed by that said pleasure boat. This bill makes sure that every parent or guardian knows this is mandatory.

We all agree that this life-saving requirement is a necessity. Let’s have fun out on the water in the safest manner.

It’s my pleasure to represent the residents of Barrie–Innisfil in support of Bill 93, Joshua’s Law (Lifejackets for Life), presented by the MPP for Carleton, and I want to thank her for reintroducing this bill. I want to thank MPP Norm Miller, who I learned quite a lot from, since we represent a similar region of the province. He well knows that I’m surrounded by Lake Simcoe, the jewel of our region, but with Lake Simcoe comes responsibilities like water safety. I want to thank both those members.

The fact that this bill will save lives on the water—as many people get out to the boats on Lake Simcoe for the great summer season and take their kids out, they can have the peace of mind that their children will be saved by this law that requires children under 12 to wear life jackets. So I wholeheartedly support this private member’s bill on behalf of the residents of Barrie–Innisfil, because it will save lives.

I’d just like to start off by thanking my legislative assistant, Daniel Jolic. Today is his last day, and he has been working with me on this PMB and making sure everything is organized. So thank you, Daniel, and I wish you all the best in your law school journey. I know you’re going to do us proud.

I’d like to take a moment to thank all the members who spoke about this legislation today, including the members for Nickel Belt, Barrie–Innisfil, Markham–Unionville, Peterborough–Kawartha, Newmarket–Aurora, Burlington and, of course, the member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke. Thank you very much for your support. Thank you very much for the kind words.

The message that I’m getting from everyone when I’ve heard you speak is that it’s almost a shock that this isn’t law. It’s almost like a surprise, and that was my initial gut reaction too, when I first heard about this legislation. And that’s why it’s always kind of stuck with me, and why I’m pleased to bring this forward. This is something that Cara McNulty, my constituent, has spoken about with me several times after it was first introduced, so I’m pleased to reintroduce it.

Finally, Madam Speaker, last but not least, I would like to once again thank the former MPP for Parry Sound–Muskoka, Mr. Norm Miller, for his tireless advocacy on this behalf, for the hours of work that he has put in, for his dedication to not just making Ontario the best place in the world but, as the member for Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke said, the safest place in the world. And I want to thank the member for working hard to protect Ontario’s children.

It’s an honour for me to speak to this, and I want to thank everyone for their support. It’s such a common-sense bill and I look forward to seeing this become law.

Further debate?

Ms. Ghamari has moved second reading of Bill 93, An Act to enact Joshua’s Law (Lifejackets for Life), 2023. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Second reading agreed to.

All matters relating to private members’ public business having been completed, we now have a late show.

Interjection.

There being no further business, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, April 26, 2023, at 9 a.m.

The House adjourned at 1710.

Speaker, I rise in the House today to speak in support of Joshua’s Law. As an MPP with a significant body of water bordering my riding, it is imperative that we consider water safety. With the weather getting warmer in Burlington, water sports and activities become a popular way to beat the heat and get outdoors. Children especially love the water in the summer, but accidents are the leading cause of death for children in Canada, and not wearing a life jacket is the number one reason drowning can occur while boating.

We can teach our children how to swim and the importance of water safety. We know life jackets and proper use of a flotation device can reduce the number of children who drown each year. The statistics from Drowning Prevention Research Centre Canada are staggering: 67% of children between 5 and 14 who have died from drowning were not wearing a life jacket or a flotation device.

Ontario law requires children to wear seat belts while in vehicles and helmets while riding a bike. These are safety precautions to ensure children stay safe. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for water sports and recreation. Although boats are required by law to have flotation devices or life jackets on board, it is not a requirement for children, or anyone else for that matter, to wear them. Furthermore, it is not a requirement in Ontario for children to wear a flotation device or life vest while water-skiing, tubing or being towed behind a boat.

Joshua’s Law would protect children and prevent tragedies like Joshua’s from happening. Wearing a life jacket or a personal flotation device can save and protect countless lives.

I am grateful to have been able to speak to this private member’s bill, and I fully support my colleague on this important piece of legislation. Thank you for your time and the opportunity to speak to Joshua’s Law.

It is a pleasure for me to stand and speak on behalf of Bill 93, in support of Bill 93. I want to thank the member from Carleton for bringing this forward. I know she’s done this not only because she believes in it passionately herself, but she also believes in our old friend Norm Miller, who is here in the gallery today.

I had the pleasure of being in this House when then-MPP Miller brought this bill forward, and it’s a bill we can all easily stand behind because it is such absolutely—you don’t have to think about it. Why would we not want to do everything we can to protect our children or grandchildren or any young person when they’re in a watercraft?

It was the kind of bill that you would expect Norm to bring forward originally, because that’s the kind of person he is. In his over 20 years in this House, he was always looking, “How can I use my voice as an MPP to do better things and do positive things for people in the general population?” He saw an opportunity and he saw something where it was lacking, and that was, why are we not actually doing something to ensure that our children are actually wearing that personal flotation device when they’re in a boat?

So I want to thank, again, my colleague from Carleton and welcome my friend Norm Miller here once again, and thank him for his original idea of bringing this forward so we can make Ontario not only the best place to live, work and raise a family, but the safest place for our children.