I wasn’t planning on speaking this morning, but the opportunity has arisen, and this is actually the first time that I’ve been able to speak since being re-elected by the good people of Timiskaming–Cochrane. I, as everyone else here, would like to thank the people who worked to help me get elected, but I would also like to thank the candidates who ran against me, and the people who helped them, because democracy doesn’t just take people from one side to work; it takes people from all sides to work. In Timiskaming–Cochrane, there was a record number of candidates this year. We had eight candidates, and I’m going to say some people were confused because we’re used to, you know, three, four—but more choice.

I have to go on the record, Speaker: I was vehemently opposed to some of their positions, extremely vehemently opposed to some of their positions, but not to them as people. And I would like to be on the record as saying, in Timiskaming–Cochrane, we have a long tradition of being able to be vehemently opposed to one thing and being able to work together on another thing. By and large, we maintained that tradition, and I think it’s very important that we all do that.

I’ve said to a few people when I came back that we all have—and, to the new members, from all sides, you will have days in this place you wonder why you won and why you ran. I have also had those days, and I’ve had days when I’ve said, “Why would I run again?” I never knew how much I relished the opportunity to be able to speak on behalf of the people of Timiskaming–Cochrane until this election, when I almost didn’t get that opportunity again. It didn’t come that close, but it came much closer than we were used to, and that’s not a bad thing—it isn’t—because it’s really important that you listen to people’s voices, that you listen to people who you are philosophically opposed to, and you explain to them why—what your position is, what their position is. I would like to make sure that the people of Timiskaming–Cochrane know that, regardless of their individual positions and individual issues, my office door is open. It always will be open, and we will work very hard for them on the issues that we can agree on. That’s why I’m here, it’s always been why I’m here.

There are many days—I had no childhood dream of ever becoming a public official. All I ever wanted to do was be a farmer, and that’s the first thing I thought of on election night: “I might have to go back to that quicker than I thought.” So I thought, “It’s lucky I kept the farm.” I actually kept a large part of our farm for my kids, in case they ever wanted to come back. It’s near and dear to our family, but on election night, I was thinking I might have to come back. But having said that, on that night, when the results were over, I’ve never felt so honoured to be able to have this opportunity. I think we all feel this: How many people have the opportunity to speak in this House and, in large part, say what they believe in a safe space?

We have just heard an inaugural speech from the member from Toronto Centre, and it was incredibly moving. I haven’t faced the issues that the member has faced, but in some ways, my family could relate. I was born in Canada, but I didn’t learn English until grade 1, because we always spoke the language of our family. I can remember my mom making soap. There’s a reason I hate liver: We were always on a farm. We raised cattle. We sold all the good meat, and we bought liver. My mom bought pig heads, and she made headcheese. I’m not a big fan of headcheese, either. I remember those things.

Immigrants, no matter where they come from, have a drive. The drive isn’t just colour or creed; it’s family. It’s pride in where you came from but also pride in where you’re going to. And except for the First Nations, we’re all immigrants. It’s just the degree of how long ago our families came. My kids won’t remember the liver and the headcheese; I do. We all work very hard so our kids don’t have to remember the bad things. Some people might love liver; I don’t. We all work very hard so our kids don’t have to face the same issues that we did. It’s a balancing act, because we also want our kids or our friends to keep the good things from our histories, because that’s what also makes Ontario and Canada very strong.

Speaker, you come from a much different background than I come from. The member who just spoke comes from a much different background than either of us come from. Yet the fact that we’re all here and we can all express, I would hope, in this place, without fear and without fear of retribution is incredible. The reason that we’re all here is to be able to do that so that others who don’t have the ability to speak without retribution can see themselves in us and so that they can approach us and tell us what their issues are so that we can help them overcome those issues. That’s one of the reasons we’re all here.

And the member from Sault Ste. Marie, I appreciate his comments too, because in every one of our lives, I am sure, there is a moment that you go, “Whoa, that’s not cool, and I don’t want that to happen to anyone else.” We have all had that, and so have I.

But actually, what we’re here to talk about is the Strong Mayors, Building Homes Act. I have listened to most of the debate on this bill, and the government is focusing on an issue, housing, but it isn’t actually addressed in the bill. So if the answer to housing is changing the power of two mayors in Canada, it’s pretty simplistic.

I was a councillor in a very small township for a long time, and we had incredible frustrations with the length of time for planning. Some of the planning issues—there are just not enough planners. Changing the powers of two mayors isn’t going to change that.

One of the issues we heard at the AMO conference is that building permits are given and developers sit on them—they sit on them. Maybe if we put an expiration date on building permits—and I’m not saying it’s just that; this is just one issue—so that if you, the developer, get a building permit, you can’t just sit on it until the price goes up high enough so you can make a bit more money. And that’s not evil; that’s private business. I’ve been in private business my whole life, but you don’t need to change the power of two mayors to do that. There’s all kinds of things you can do.

I listened very intently to the member from Peterborough. He’s a great speaker. We were elected—I think you were elected after I was. But anyway, great speaker. I actually agree with a few things with the member from Peterborough—not a lot, but a few. We get along. But he spoke very eloquently about how this was going to change, and how the schedules were going to change. There’s absolutely none of that in this bill—nothing. Nothing. This bill is about changing the power structure of the mayors for two cities.

One thing he did say which was very interesting, I thought, was that the purpose of this bill was so the municipalities would align more with the will or the wishes of the province of Ontario. That’s really what this bill is about.

Interjection: Priorities.