I will say to the member, he’s right; I did speak on the opposition side, but they were not the same speeches, let me tell you that. They were very good, but they were not the same speeches. But I will say this: We have two different views. They want to do what they want to do to prevent building from taking place. If it isn’t the greenbelt, it will be something else.

But what it comes right down to, Speaker, is that they are standing in the way of actual progress and building for the future. If they aren’t going to build on the greenbelt, then they will find someplace else we’re not going to build.

But the reality is this: We’re actually expanding the greenbelt. Speaker, the greenbelt will be bigger after we’re done than it was when we got here, and there won’t be 17 separate reductions on the greenbelt—

It’s always an honour for me to rise and add the voices of the great people of London North Centre, especially on a topic that I know my community is passionate about and one that I am passionate about as well, which is housing. I believe strongly that the government needs to take a leading role. They need to lead from the front. The government needs to make sure that they are fulfilling their historic responsibility for providing an adequate supply of affordable housing in the province.

You see, housing is a human right. But housing is even so many more things. Housing is also health care. Housing is a social determinant of health. Housing is foundational for every single person in this province in order to enjoy their life.

We also need to see a government that is concerned with the creation, the building of non-market homes instead of a private, market-based approach that focuses on tax cuts, deregulation, sprawl across our treasured greenbelt. Their solutions are ones that simply make it harder for people to pay the bills and to put food on the table. There are also no guarantees of enough new affordable homes within this province’s flawed plan.

I would also like to take a look at some proactive measures that the NDP has brought forward to this government, ones that are sitting on the table right now that this government could pass to protect tenants immediately, ones that would be supported by the official opposition, ones that we could get through this House in record time. Those include Bill 25, the Rent Stabilization Act, one that I was proud to co-sponsor to make sure that we are plugging the hole of vacancy decontrol that was brought forward during the last Liberal government.

You see, this Conservative government has continued a system of exploitation on tenants. They’ve made a system of unaffordability even worse by removing rent control from buildings first occupied after November 2018. It’s a system where people are paying more and more and more every year with no signs of relief, and that is on this government. They have chosen to allow unethical corporate landlords to exploit people for something that is a basic human right, which is housing.

We also have introduced other measures, such as Bill 48, to plug that vacancy decontrol hole, to have rent control for all tenants. There’s also Bill 58, which is currently on the table, the Protecting Renters from Illegal Evictions Act. These are proactive steps, Speaker, that would effectively safeguard and protect tenants. But yet we see a government that isn’t concerned about proactive measures; instead, they have looked towards reactive measures through Bill 97.

What is deeply concerning, Speaker, is that only this government could turn a Human Rights Tribunal ruling into a rent hike. What they have allowed is landlords to increase rent on people for having the right of air conditioning. How is that right? At a time of unprecedented unaffordability, they want to let unethical landlords reach deep into people’s pockets and take their hard-earned money. That’s on this government. They want to reach into people’s pockets by this decision. People who have had air conditioning units in the past will now have to pay for them; that’s on this government. That is a choice.

We have proposed so many solutions to problems of unaffordability and the problems facing tenants, but this government has said no every single time. We’ve brought forward opposition day motions. We’ve dedicated entire days to debating this within the Legislature, and this government shuts their ears and doesn’t want to listen to the voices of people who are struggling. They don’t want to listen to the voices of tenants.

They have this ironically titled legislation which does little to help homebuyers and protect tenants. It does so little. They are talking about increasing fines, but we know that fines are not levied in many cases at the Landlord and Tenant Board. The Ombudsman has even called the Landlord and Tenant Board “moribund.” My goodness.

This government has defended rent increases as high as 57%. In London, in my community, they were hit by the biggest average rent increase in all of Canada last year, 33%. And now, this year, it’s 27%. People cannot afford that. They have continued the Liberal loophole of vacancy decontrol, keeping that incentive for unethical corporate landlords to kick good people out, who have been there for many years, so that they can jack up the rent because the market will allow it.

I’ve travelled to 1270 and 1280 Webster Street, where I heard from seniors, people who were in their golden years who just want to enjoy some time in their home. And yet, this building has been sold, Speaker, and because this government does not stand up for tenants and did not plug vacancy decontrol and that loophole, these people have been served with eviction notices. Those are eviction notices that have not gone through the Landlord and Tenant Board; they’re deliberately misleading and threatening. These people are concerned about where they’re going to go. They’re concerned about possibly living in their car. It’s unconscionable, Speaker, that this government has the opportunity to stand up for tenants and chooses not to.

And if that weren’t bad enough, these people—and I’m very thankful for the leadership of the MPP for London–Fanshawe, who has canvassed these buildings; she has told people about their rights, making sure they’re informed, letting them know that these notices are ones that are not correct and an eviction order can only be ordered by the Landlord and Tenant Board. But now, Speaker, this landlord has tried to deliver a charge for parking spaces. They want to charge these residents $200 per month for a parking space—absolutely unbelievable. This government wants to open up people’s pockets so that unethical landlords can jam their hand in as far as they can.

Now, this government briefing on this bill and their ironic title—they say it’s going to make life easier for renters, help homebuyers, streamline policies to build more homes, but there’s no guarantee that their plan is actually going to create the affordable homes that people need. What is concerning is that they can raise fines all they want, but unethical landlords are not afraid of these fines, because it has failed to deter this illegal behaviour. The example at 1270 and 1280 Webster Street is an example of that. NDP legislation would protect them; Conservative legislation does not.

Many tenants are simply unaware of their rights. If this government truly wanted to stand up for tenants and wanted to protect them, they would make sure that the vacancy decontrol hole was plugged. I have heard from so many tenants who have repeatedly reported serious maintenance issues with their units—pests, lack of heat, basic services. At 1270 Webster Street and 1280 Webster Street, residents were telling me just a week ago that they’re responsible for cleaning their own lobby, their hallways and their laundry room because the landlord doesn’t do it. But they care for their place, they love their home, they love their neighbours and they look after one another.

I’d like to also add the voice of the Advocacy Centre for Tenants Ontario, who says, Bill 97 “does not go far enough to protect renters and fix the dysfunction at the Landlord and Tenant Board.” This is just “a band-aid solution.” This bill is only as good as—it’s simply not good enough. It’s just a band-aid solution.

It falls short because it fails to mandate a maximum temperature in the summer, similar to the mandated minimum temperature in the winter. This is something that our housing critic, the MPP for University–Rosedale, has called for. Last summer, I was canvassing on this very issue before it came before the Human Rights Tribunal. I canvassed an east London apartment complex where people who are busy, who are seniors, single parents, people working multiple jobs, were saddled with the choice: They were told that they could not install air conditioning units, which they had done for years. They were told that that was not allowed, that they would have to purchase an air conditioning unit from the landlord and they could have a payment plan to then pay it off. People were told that this was a must, this was the law, and many people made that choice. I shudder to think about the price that the landlord charged for these air conditioning units. It’s unconscionable.

Now, this government in their wisdom has seen fit to let people who have had air conditioners, people who even have the sleeves that are in their units because the builder understood that there would be a necessity to have air conditioning units—those people now have to pay. They’ve never had to pay before, but this government wants them to pay. This government wants to reach into their pockets and take their money.

This government also has really done a disservice to local councils by their removal of development charges—$5 billion, as has been estimated by the Association of Municipalities of Ontario.

They’ve also opened up large swaths of the greenbelt, auctioning it off to the highest donor and their insider friends, the people who actually pull the government strings in the backrooms. That is not something that is going to create the affordable housing that Ontario needs.

What is also really quite shocking is the systems that this government has in place that are supposed to protect homebuyers. For many years, when this government was in opposition, they railed against Tarion. They said how it was a system that was unacceptable. The Premier himself said that it was a monopoly, which it is, and they said that they would repair it. But now, since they’ve gone over to the government side, suddenly the song they’re singing has changed. Instead of overhauling and reforming Tarion, they’ve actually created yet another bureaucratic nightmare.

What is disturbing about this is that the information—when homebuyers have concerns with a builder, they report that, and it should be information that is posted on the Ontario Builder Directory. Unfortunately, that information is not being posted, so consumers are not being protected. Consumers don’t know when a builder who they may be seeking to invest in—it’s the biggest investment of their entire life. They don’t have accurate information provided on the Ontario Builder Directory. It’s deeply, deeply concerning.

It’s something as well that people are forced to pay for. Homebuyers are obliged to pay provincially mandated warranty fees, and it’s factored into the price for new home buyers. They’re stuck paying for it. For a long time, the entire composition of the Tarion board has been suspect. It has been one that has been controlled by the Ontario Home Builders’ Association. There are no consumer advocates on it. There is just a deep, huge concern. The official opposition has brought forward legislation again to help protect people who are making the largest investment of their life, with our consumer watchdog. But this government chooses not to stand up for homebuyers at all.

I think as well of so many people who have had absolutely horrendous stories. I think of Earl Shuman, who lost his life after making the biggest investment of his life and battling with Tarion for years and years and years.

I think of Daniel Browne-Emery, who, again, had mould in his basement the size of pizzas. Finally, after battling for years and years and years, he succumbed to cancer. He took a paltry amount of money as a buyout so that he could at least give something to his family, so that he could leave some sort of legacy.

I think as well of Gayle and Gary Dudeck, who have reached out to every single member in this House. I know you’ve received the letter—every single MPP did. They are from Oshawa. They described how their daughter and partner were fighting with a home builder who was engaged in some really disturbing behaviour. They said there was a weasel clause in the contract that stated that all of the lots had to be serviced by January 13 and if not the builder could cancel. The lots weren’t serviced by January 13—no surprise there; that was probably their intention the entire time—they were serviced on the 28th, 15 days later. That allowed them to renegotiate the contract with the purchaser. They added $200,000 to the purchase price.

Now, through HCRA, this government claims that renegotiations are illegal, but there’s been no enforcement. HCRA took 15 months reviewing the Dudecks’ complaint and they emphasized in their code of ethics that price renegotiations are unacceptable. They still did nothing. In their summary, they said that the builder could have communicated better, but there were no penalties and no negative repercussions for the builder. How is this government, through HCRA, standing up for homebuyers? They are not.

Typically, as well, when people enter into these issues with an unethical home builder, they are subject to having to sign non-disclosure agreements. It silences people. They’re stuck in a situation where their only option, after making the biggest investment of their lives and having their rights taken away and being subject to these massive increases—they then have to sign an NDA.

Whenever the minister for MGCS is questioned on this, there’s always a repeated, canned response. There’s been no positive action for purchasers. This government has known about this for many years. They’ve known about it for 15 years while they were in opposition. They promised to do something and they chose not to. It’s heartbreaking that people are stuck with this.

Many folks have reached out from the Ottawa area who had concerns with Greatwise Developments, which engaged in that very same sort of renegotiation of price. They said, “Well, the market has changed. The cost of materials is up.” That does not change the contract that they legally committed to.

I’d like this government, if indeed they want to stand up for homebuyers and protect tenants, to consider the proactive measures that they need to do. Increasing fines after someone’s rights have been taken away is not enough. That is not getting ahead of the problem. In fact, they ought to know, with the Ombudsman’s report and the backlog of cases at the Landlord and Tenant Board and all of the voices of people across Ontario who have struggled with that system, that Bill 97 is nowhere near enough.

In this bill, as well, they could end exclusionary zoning, a measure that their own Housing Affordability Task Force Report has called for. Their own budget shows that they are not on track to meet the 1.5 million homes they are pretending they’re going to reach.

Instead, this government really needs to focus on adequate housing as a human right. They need to make sure young people have an affordable, safe place to call home. They need to make sure that there’s a rights-based approach to housing, that there’s a variety of public policy tools to make sure that these housing units are being created.

There needs to be investment from this province. There needs to be a focus on non-market housing. Too often, we see a government that is overly reliant on the private market. They believe they can simply make a policy change and that the private market will magically create affordable housing. That is not the case. There is no way that a private, profit-motivated organization is going to create the affordable housing that Ontario needs. Their motive is profit. They have to deliver value to their shareholders between 10% and 15% of investment. Their motive is not going to be creating the affordable housing that Ontarians need.

You see, the NDP has always been and will always be the party of housing. Despite all of the flaws of the Rae government in the 1990s, that government created the greatest amount of social and affordable housing of any government before it. Much of that housing still exists to this day, Speaker, despite the attempts of the Liberal government to redevelop some of that housing into luxury condos.

We see also this government allowing huge holes through Bill 23, allowing these real estate investment trusts to snap up rental buildings to redevelop them into luxury housing. That is backwards. The Non-Resident Speculation Tax has loopholes big enough to drive a truck through.

If this government wants to truly focus on affordable housing, they need to build and provide that affordable housing. Don’t expect someone else to do the heavy lifting for you. The official opposition is here to work with you. Use us, and we will build it together.

We’re going to move to questions.

I’d like to thank the member from Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound for the question. I think there has been some misunderstanding on the government side about what we’re suggesting as the official opposition. We do not believe that a private, market-based approach will succeed in creating the truly affordable housing that Ontarians need.

We believe Ontario needs to actually invest. They need to have a public builder who will deliver those non-market homes, so that people have a safe place to call home. Crossing your fingers and hoping for the best and expecting that a private, for-profit industry will do the work the government needs to do is not a plan. Hope is not a plan. There are no legislative guarantees in any of the housing bills that this government has had to really control the number of affordable units or the rate of affordability that will be delivered.

Their plan is not going to succeed. Their budget already shows that they’re not going to succeed with their 1.5 million homes.

This government could pass NDP legislation to protect tenants. It’s on the table right now. We could pass it today. But instead this government chooses to have ironically titled bills that will not protect tenants, that will not do enough.

But the member is absolutely right: The onus, the burden is placed upon tenants, who have to be their own private investigator, and that is wrong. We need to protect tenants before there is an issue rather than having these reactive solutions that simply won’t work.

There is always room for the private market. What the NDP is suggesting is that we have a public builder who is responsible for the funding, delivery, acquisition and protection of truly affordable housing. That’s something that people need. That will also make sure that people have a place to call home because, as I said, housing is health care. This government has responsibility to provide it. Housing is a human right. Housing is a social determinant of health, and this government needs to take proactive steps to make sure that it’s actually being created, not crossing their fingers and hoping for the best, like so many ironically titled pieces of legislation do.

Developers should be responsible for paying for the services that are required for all of these new homes, whether it’s electricity, sewers—all of the utilities that are necessary. But there’s no guarantee in Bill 23 that any affordable housing will actually be created. That is the biggest gap. It’s unbelievable that this government even uses the word “affordable.”

The member from London North Centre spoke about 1270 and 1280 Webster Street, which is really another example of how legislation right now is failing tenants when it comes to renovictions and other ways landlords get creative on how to evict tenants.

An example I have is Lori and Ron. I’ve spoken about them before. They lived in a two-bedroom apartment for 11 years. They were told by the landlord they were going to have renovations for seven to eight months. They’ve been trying to get hold of the landlord. They can’t contact the landlord. They’re renting a hotel room in the meantime, hoping to get back in.

In this piece of legislation, again, with the renovictions, it’s left up to the tenant to do all the investigating and creating a case. Why has the government allowed this piece of legislation to be a loophole, where tenants can’t get justice if they’re the ones acting as the investigators?

I want to thank the member for London North Centre for his comments today. He always brings the experience of his residents to the Legislature here and it’s wonderful to hear those experiences. Hopefully the government side will actually listen and take some lessons from you so that they can improve their legislation.

When we’re talking about affordable housing, this government passed Bill 23, which downloads the cost of development charges onto municipal taxpayers to the tune of $5 billion, and this is being paid for—this Bill 23 is nicknamed the “building fewer homes slower” act—by municipal taxpayers through what is being deemed as the “Ford tax.” But will this $5-billion tax handout to for-profit developers actually build affordable housing for Ontarians?

I thank the member for his comments. I also heard the broad agreement to build more homes. I’ve heard that from several speakers across the aisle, which is great news, and we agree. That’s why we’re committed to building 1.5 million homes.

This is a tough task. If this was easy, it would have been done in the past and we wouldn’t have this problem. But housing, if you look at policy directives that need to happen, is up there among the toughest, in my opinion, because it requires many governments working together, industry, all sorts of different factors, and that’s why we haven’t had this problem. But we need to do it. The young generation needs it. That’s why this bill, as well as many others, will increase the housing supply. I ask the member, are he and his party willing to support this bill to get that job done?

My question for the member for London North Centre is this: We know that we have to plan for incredible and wonderful growth here in Ontario. Ontario’s share of newcomers to Canada was 39% before we took office. Now, as of 2021, it is almost 50%. By 2025, by mid-decade, 60%, or 300,000 or more newcomers per year, will make Ontario home.

Is it not a moral imperative to plan for this growth and embrace the newcomers who will contribute to Ontario’s prosperity? If the member agrees that we should plan for growth and that it is a moral imperative, why will the opposition not support this bill?

Growth is absolutely a moral imperative. But do you know what is also a moral imperative? Making sure that people have protections. The NDP has suggested a number of different things. This government, if they had morals, would protect tenants. They would pass the NDP legislation that will re-establish rent control, plug vacancy decontrol to make sure that all the places that were built after November 2018 have rent control again. That would be a moral choice.

But this government has instead made a different choice. They’ve made a choice not to protect tenants. We have a number of different solutions on the table which could be passed immediately. It’s really shocking to think that this government is talking about growth. Growth without protection is unsustainable. People will be in a situation where once their lease is up, they will be subject to massive rent increases because of this government’s neglect, this government’s willful ignoring of the affordability issues that affect newcomers, that affect young people, that affect families, that affect seniors. This government has ignored people, and I think it’s deeply immoral.

Next question?

I absolutely, categorically support increased protections for tenants. It’s a little bit hypocritical to hear from the other side that they support those protections when they have, for example, done away with rent control and implemented policies that have resulted in unprecedented economic hardship for my constituents in Don Valley East.

I’m proud to stand here on behalf of those same constituents to hold this government to account, to point out that they have made life more difficult for tenants, more difficult for renters, more expensive for renters, and to point out that, unfortunately, to call these piecemeal efforts that are unclear—it’s inappropriate to do so.

I was just in St. Catharines and in the Niagara region within the last few days. I’ve heard from your constituents—who thank you for your advocacy, by the way—but who point out that housing is out of control for them, that rent is out of control for them and that this government, the present government, hasn’t done anything for them in order to make that issue go away. This bill certainly won’t.

I rise today to speak about the Helping Homebuyers, Protecting Tenants Act, 2023, also known as Bill 97. This legislation is a cornerstone of our latest housing supply action plan which aims to create a solid foundation for growth while providing enhanced protection for renters and homebuyers.

Ontario is experiencing remarkable growth, with 445,000 new residents in 2022 alone. Our province is growing, attracting newcomers, job creators and entrepreneurs from all around the world who seek to make Ontario their home. However, this rapid growth has exacerbated an ongoing and severe shortage of housing options.

Madam Speaker, our growth plan is a provincial plan. More growth means more people, more opportunities. The previous Liberal government miserably failed for 13 years of planning and managing growth in our cities and the region and the province, especially the growth plan for the greater Golden Horseshoe area. However, for the greater Golden Horseshoe, there is an additional set of planning rules contained in A Place to Grow, the growth plan. That’s why they call it the greater Golden Horseshoe.

The greater Toronto area, which is just one area in the greater Golden Horseshoe, is expected to grow by 2.9 million people by 2046. I want to say that again. We will need homes to accommodate an additional 2.9 million people within the next 23 years, Madam Speaker.

This is not just a housing issue. The member opposite talked about the housing issue as a human rights issue. It’s also an economic problem that can affect the entire country. The greater Golden Horseshoe generates more than 25% of Canada’s gross domestic product. It is the economic engine of Ontario. But this economic engine needs workers who, in turn, need a place to live.

We are also asking our municipality to plan for 25 years’ growth. It’s never happened before. If you don’t plan, you can’t get it. We would also continue to encourage the municipality to build where it makes sense, such as major transit corridors and residential development near transit areas.

We are streamlining the land use planning policy and working on key priorities to increase the housing supply.

Madam Speaker, our government is fighting back. The people of Markham—I come from Markham and the Markham–Thornhill riding, a wonderful riding—are not immune to these challenges. Markham is the fastest-growing municipality in all of Canada. It’s also the most ethnically diverse riding in all of Canada, and 61% of Markham residents were born outside of Canada. What does that mean? They need more housing, more opportunity to fulfill their dreams.

Markham is also a thriving hub of innovation and advanced technologies in the greater Toronto area. The demand for housing has changed alongside the influx of residents and businesses. As such, our government recognizes the urgent need to address the housing supply crisis, not only in my beautiful riding of Markham–Thornhill and the city of Markham, but in the entire province, ensuring that our residents have access to affordable and accessible housing options.

Through the Helping Homebuyers, Protecting Tenants Act, we are taking bold steps to ensure that more homes are brought online, directly benefiting the people of Ontario. This legislation will lay the groundwork for an increased housing supply, offering relief to those struggling to find suitable and affordable housing in our vibrant communities.

Our Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing stated, “Too many Ontarians have been priced out of the housing market through no fault of their own.” We acknowledge the challenges faced by Ontarians and are committed to providing them with the opportunity to access affordable housing.

Unfortunately, Madam Speaker, the opposition New Democratic Party has shown a concerning disregard for the urgent needs of our province’s housing crisis. Shockingly, they have voted against housing supply plans put forward by our government on four separate occasions, disregarding pressing needs of Ontarians. We recognize the importance of supporting new homebuyers and safeguarding the rights of tenants in Ontario.

In my riding of Markham–Thornhill, we have received numerous complaints from our residents regarding the slow hearing process at the Landlord and Tenant Board. One of my constituents who submitted his application in November 2021 was originally scheduled for an early September 2022 hearing. Unfortunately, due to a delay in combining his two applications, he has been forced to wait for over four months. This extended waiting period has significantly impacted his well-being as he has been facing mental and medical health issues. Madam Speaker, it is crucial that we prioritize our people’s urgent need for a stable living situation.

Under the leadership of our Premier and the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, our government is unwavering in our commitment to truly listen to the voice of our people. The proposed changes to the Landlord and Tenant Board, driven by the feedback we have received from both landlords and tenants, are specifically designed to address the unique needs of our local communities. By enhancing the legal protections for tenants and clamping down on bad landlords, we are a fostering a safe and secure environment for all residents in this province.

Additionally, our government’s commitment to investing an additional $6.5 million to hire new adjudicators—

If you care about renters, then how is it that the average rent in Toronto is $3,000? What new Canadian or young person can afford $3,000 for their rent right here in Toronto? What are we doing? You’re not protecting renters. You’re not protecting young people. You’re not protecting families in the province of Ontario when $3,000 is the average of rent here in Toronto.

My question is—in my riding in Niagara Falls, I’m hearing from residents that are facing significant rent increases because they live in units built after 2018. In some cases, they can’t afford to rent anymore. Do you think we should have rent controls for all units built in the province of Ontario?

The member for Don Valley East I’m sure is aware that there are thousands of residential tenants—families in rental accommodation—that they call home. Our government has in the past brought in measures to strengthen protections for tenants, including fines for bad landlords and measures to prevent evictions. Unfortunately, the opposition chose to vote against those measures. This time, there’s an opportunity for the member opposite to support better protections for tenants in this province once again.

My question to the member from Don Valley East: On behalf of his constituents, will he join us in supporting these enhanced protections for tenants?

We’re going to move to questions.

I thank the member for his comments. As I think about all the housing initiatives that our government is doing, I think of my own family situation where I’ve got three sons—twenties and early thirties. They don’t have the opportunity in housing that us older baby boomers have had. Back in the last millennium, when I started my first job, you could get a job and find a place to live. That math worked. For this generation, our generation of young folks and many who are coming, that math does not work. For me, that is what’s fundamental about what we’re doing. As I said in the previous question, none of this is easy. If it was easy, we wouldn’t have this problem.

Will the member join us in this goal of getting 1.5 million homes built so that those young people can find a place to stay?

Sri Varasiththi Vinaayagar Hindu Temple in Scarborough–Agincourt is an outstanding institution providing spiritual, educational and cultural guidance to many diverse generations of the Tamil and Hindu communities. Their 17th annual cultural day festivities were one such forum to showcase their work. The Sri Varasiththi Vinaayagar Hindu College students, aged four to 14, performed more than 20 cultural displays to celebrate Tamil culture and heritage. About 200 students participated in this day-long celebration. I commend the chief priest, the teachers, the clergy and the organizers for bringing together the community and passing the torch to the next generation. Scarborough–Agincourt is proud to host such a great organization.

A week later, I had the honour of participating in a sombre Tamil Genocide Remembrance Day commemoration to uphold the memory of the victims, pay tribute to the survivors and send a message to deniers that their efforts to negate the facts will not be successful. The most impressing aspect of the night was the visit to the genocide memorial wall—

Over 1.5 million Canadians are battling sight loss. An estimated 5.6 million Canadians across our country suffer from eye disease that could lead to blindness. The annual cost of vision loss in Canada is approximately $32.9 billion. Vision is vital, as it synergizes with our other senses, amplifying hearing, touch, taste and smell to enrich our perception of the world.

Madam Speaker, with great admiration and gratitude, I would like to acknowledge the visionary leadership of Senator Dr. Asha Seth, who is here today, for proposing the designation of May as the national Vision Health Month a decade ago. Dr. Seth’s tireless efforts and unwavering commitment to this cause were recently recognized in Ottawa, and her exceptional contribution.

Dr. Seth’s current focus involves promoting comprehensive eye exams for children to detect and intervene at an early age, safeguarding their future. Thank you, Dr. Seth, for your unwavering dedication and impactful contributions. Your efforts have profound impact on the lives of countless individuals, and we are grateful to your leadership. You are a true vision champion. May God keep giving you the energy to serve the community. Thank you so much.

I apologize to the member from Markham–Thornhill. It is 10:15. We need to move to members’ statements.

Third reading debate deemed adjourned.