Jim Jordan

[Petitions, June 1st, 1994]

Madam Speaker, my second petition is from citizens in my riding from places like Brockville, Maitland, Spencerville and Prescott petitioning against the importation and sale of killer cards. They applaud in this petition the action already taken by the Minister of National Revenue in announcing that his officials would seize shipments at the border.

One paragraph describes it quite well. It says: " We abhor crimes of violence against persons and we believe that killer trading cards offer nothing positive for children or adults to admire or emulate but rather contribute to violence".

[Petitions, June 1st, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I have two petitions, both from constituents in my riding.

In the first one petitioners are asking the government to maintain the present exemption on the excise portion of ethanol for a decade, 10 years, to allow this industry to establish itself.

We think the ethanol industry certainly in eastern Ontario would make a great contribution to the farm industry.

[Rideau Canal, June 1st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, on May 22 I had the pleasure of assisting at the opening of the Rideau Canal for another season.

Completed in 1832 to give access to the Great Lakes from the nation's capital, the canal today offers 202 kilometres of clear, pristine waters through a total of 47 locks. Hundreds of pleasure craft annually move leisurely along through the canal and pages and pages of Canada's history.

As the holiday season starts in Canada in a few weeks I encourage Canadian boaters who are looking for a relaxing holiday to try travelling the Rideau this summer. It is not a fast way to get to Kingston from the capital, but it is one which will take them through a beautiful part of Canada and one they will always remember.

[D-Day, May 30th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, 50 years ago on June 6, 1944 thousands of Canadians with their allies stormed the beaches of Normandy in an exercise that became known as D-Day. On the 50th anniversary of the beginning of the downfall of the Nazi regime in Europe, Canadians will be paying tribute to thousands of their fellow Canadians who took part in the invasion.

I encourage all Canadians to take part in the upcoming D-Day ceremonies in their respective communities so that the pride of country and the great courage displayed by Canadians 50 years ago are not allowed to fade from our memory.

[Petitions, May 27th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from citizens in my riding asking the government to place a ban on serial killer board games.

The people who design these games must indeed be sick. Here is a description, it is very short, on one game: "This game comes with a body bag, 25 babies and four serial killer figures". The object of the game is to commit murder and the person who has the highest body count in the body bags is the winner.

The game is not in the best interest of children; indeed it is not in the best interest of the community or the nation. The petitioners are asking that the government ban serial killer board games in Canada immediately.

[Petitions, May 12th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege this morning to present this petition on behalf of citizens of my riding, places like Mallorytown and Athens and Addison and Smiths Falls and Lyn, asking for the government to amend the laws of the country to prohibit the importation, distribution, sale and manufacture of killer cards, and to advise the producers of these cards that their product, if destined for Canada, will be stopped at the border, seized and destroyed.

[National Defence, May 10th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence.

In its recent study the Canada 21 Council refers to the reconfigured armed forces. It would suggest a new and distinctly Canadian structure for Canada's army.

Does the minister see a revitalized reserve force in Canada's military, or what role does he envisage for Canada's reserves? If there is a new role for the reserves when will it be announced to the public?

[Trade, April 29th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the haranguing continues with Canada and the United States over trade disputes on everything from beer to softwood lumber. Sometimes it reaches the level of near harassment.

The minister of trade in the last government was correct when he said in the House one day: "It is too bad that we could not have agreed on a definition of what a subsidy is". This government should take a much needed initiative and call a meeting of trade reps of Canada, United States and Mexico and arrive at a definition of subsidy before things further disintegrate.

[Income Tax Act, April 26th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to participate in the adjournment proceedings tonight in accordance with Standing Order 37(3) on the subject of ethanol.

The ethanol gasoline mixture to replace regular gasoline has been highly successful in western Canada and for many years highly successful in the United States. The proposed ratio of mix here in Canada is 90 per cent gasoline and 10 per cent ethanol, that is a 90 per cent non-renewable source of energy and a 10 per cent renewable source of energy.

This fuel mix has been available in western Ontario and is now becoming available in eastern Ontario. There is talk of a plant, and hopefully it will materialize, in my own riding of Leeds-Grenville. The manufacture of ethanol started with a group of farmers, about 135 farmers, who got together and each threw in $2,500. I think it shows commitment.

We can talk about the advantages of using ethanol mixed with gas and we can do it from various viewpoints, but a former colleague of mine, the hon. Ralph Ferguson, was a pioneer of blended fuel in this House in the last Parliament. I became interested in blended fuel from listening to the hon. Ralph Ferguson, the former Minister of Agriculture, because he spoke on it many times. I think maybe we could name it Fergie's fuel because whenever you got talking to Fergie he would want to promote the idea of ethanol. He really believed in it as a source of energy for Canadians.

Because of the time restraints I have to summarize a bit. The biggest winner in the blended fuel business is the environment. There is no question about that. The exhaust from a car using blended mix will contain 30 per cent less carbon monoxide and 6 to 10 per cent less carbon dioxide. The manufacture of ethanol from grains, primarily corn but it can be other grains, makes a great market for corn farmers and for farmers in general.

One gets about 10 litres of ethanol from a bushel of corn. The byproduct, once the starch is removed from the corn to make the ethanol, is an excellent source of feed for beef and dairy cattle. The ethanol is manufactured from a renewable resource, so there is a real plus for everybody. That is not the case with fossil fuels.

What prompted my original question to the Minister of Finance is the cost of production. That is the problem. If we applied the federal excise tax to ethanol and put the provincial excise tax on ethanol, the product would be just out of the question. It would be too costly. People would not buy because of the price. Nobody would choose it as an alternative fuel.

We would miss the manufacturing of it, the sale of it and everything that is associated with it but most important, we would miss the environmental advantages of this friendly product. The assurance I got from the Minister of Finance was okay as far as it went, that the government would not impose an excise tax on ethanol.

Governments come and governments go and these people are looking for a little more assurance than that. What the ethanol industry wanted was assurance similar to the one that Ontario gave the industry not too long ago. The Government of Ontario announced that if a future provincial government wanted to reimpose the provincial excise tax on ethanol, the manufacturers would be compensated. The ethanol industry is asking for that kind of assurance from the federal government.

[Highway 16, April 19th, 1994]

moved:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should enter into an agreement with the province of Ontario to expand Ontario highway 16 south from Ottawa to highway 401 at Johnstown, into a four lane highway in order to ensure road safety and enhance travel in and out of the nation's capital.

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to this motion. I have been trying to move it along this far and get it discussed at this level ever since I have been in the House of Commons. I feel I have made one small gain on this.

I want to give a short history and geography lesson for the people across Canada who may need some familiarizing with the location of this highway and hopefully elaborate sufficiently so that people will see that it does have a national interest.

Highway 401 is the main east-west highway through south central Canada. If you have ever travelled through Ontario by motor car you have probably been on the 401. That is the main thoroughfare.

The 401 passes about 80 kilometres south of metropolitan Ottawa, Ottawa-Hull. It is about 100 kilometres from where we are right now to highway 401, the main busy thoroughfare that passes through southern Ontario. The link to get to that highway, however, is highway 16. My hope would be to some day see it a four lane highway, a north-south link between this part of Canada and the 401 and the northern United States.

My riding is not very far away. It has two bridges coming in from northern New York. I would like to think that some of the people would be interested in the nation's capital. However when they look at a two lane road, having been accustomed to four lane roads, they would be more inclined to stay on the four lane highway and move out of this area either to Toronto or Montreal.

I want to make it clear that the northern stretch of this highway, about 15 to 20 kilometres, is being constructed at this time into a four lane highway but the remaining 60 kilometres will be still only a two lane highway. There was pressure for the highway to be built to four lanes about 15 years ago and the layout is there for four lanes.

They have expropriated almost all the land that would have to be expropriated. They have bypassed the towns and the villages. Very often those are points of great dispute when one is bypassing a community. That has all been done. The right of way is there for four lanes. It just needs the political will to move on with it.

The only way you can get from the nation's largest centre, Toronto, to the nation's capital by a four lane highway is to go to Montreal. Then you can come back to Ottawa on a four lane highway. That lack of access to the nation's capital should be of national interest because of the ever increasing traffic flow on the existing road into the capital from the south. First and foremost is the safety aspect.

In the seven year period from 1985 to 1992, there were 39 deaths on that highway. There were 721 reported accidents and probably minor accidents that were not reported. Ninety per cent of the accidents occurred in the southern portion of the highway, in other words, the part that is not being constructed into four lanes, the part where there is no plan currently to improve the highway.

The federal government has some responsibility because it is the road into the nation's capital. That is why I presented this motion. There is nothing novel about spending federal funds to construct highways. Indeed, we announced a great infrastructure plan not too long ago. A lot of federal government money has been spent on highways.

I have a list here starting back in March 1993 during the previous government, I will admit, of federal funds going into the highways in Alberta, Manitoba, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. There were no funds for Ontario. No arrangement was made for federal government funds to be spent on highways in Ontario. That is what I am asking for now. I am asking members to support the idea of a four lane highway into the nation's capital.

I could support this motion with further documents if it were appropriate. I could table those with maps and so on. I have statistics showing the great increase in traffic flow that has occurred on that part of the highway since the first part was completed many years ago.

We hear a lot about the information highway these days and I am sure it is very important to Canada. We hear a lot in eastern Ontario about Pearson airport. It is the busiest-the best some would say-and the largest in Canada. Its needs are very important and they have to be addressed. I am sure they will be addressed.

We have not heard very much about access into the nation's capital by means of a four lane highway. A better access road linking the capital area with highway 401 would make the whole Ottawa area more accessible to all Canadians who travel by road. Just as important, as a citizen of eastern Ontario, it would make more accessible our biggest and best trading partner, the United States. It is less than 100 kilometres away but you cannot get to the United States on a four lane road from the nation's capital.

The infrastructure program was announced with great enthusiastic support from all provinces. It was to create employment, give jobs to unemployed Canadians and stimulate the economy of the nation.

It is estimated that the completion of the highway from 401 to the nation's capital would create over 12,000 person years of direct employment. It would create an awful lot of jobs for a few years while it is in the construction stage.

The infrastructure program is to get our country and our communities ready for the time when the nation's economy is moving ahead and a good deal of what constitutes a moving economy I think in the minds of most Canadians moves by highway traffic.

As far as I know the current provincial government in Ontario has never even considered completing the access road from the nation's capital to 401 except in the north end. Mr. Speaker, if you examine the political map of Ontario you will understand why that part is being done. The current Ontario government has one MPP from this part of eastern Ontario and she is from Ottawa. The highway is being built to four lane standards in this part of Ontario but as far as I can tell no plan has been made to extend it. The only part of the highway that is being done is adjacent to Ottawa and it is for a political reason.

I know that the usual partnership arrangement with the three levels of government does not quite fit the infrastructure plan. The cost of one-third of the highway would be far too great for the small rural townships. Small rural townships in Ontario have never had to build major highways. They just do not have the tax base to do it.

When I asked people to show an interest in my motion, a lot of people from outside the Ottawa area were interested in speaking to it. This suggests to me that fixing this highway has a broader appeal than just to selfish people like myself who live in eastern Ontario. It does have a national flavour to it.

Also with reference to the infrastructure program, the time line would be far too restrictive. It could not be completed by 1997. I cannot imagine it being done that quickly. However that is a minor thing. Apart from those variances the main criteria of the infrastructure program would be met and far exceeded in building highway 416; the creation of jobs-I have given the statistics on that one-and accessing eastern Ontario to markets both domestically and internationally.

The priorities of the current provincial government have to be changed and that is the reason for my private member's motion. I think perhaps one-third federal funds; I am not suggesting the provincial government exceed the plan for more infrastructure funds. I am suggesting it arrange its priorities differently, one-third federal funds, two-thirds provincial funds. I am sure that would make a satisfactory arrangement and there would not be any more money spent. It would just be redirecting the money.

The plans for the project have been in place for years. What we need now is the political will in the province to move on with this.

Before its defeat three years ago, the previous Liberal government of Ontario had announced a plan. It said it would complete the project by 1999. I was there for the press announcement. The media were there and they said it was a long way into the future, 1999. I will tell you it would look pretty good to eastern Ontario right now if somebody said the highway would be completed by 1999. That date would look extremely good because it might still be possible, but do not hold your breath.

Let me make it clear again, it is a rearranging of priorities that I am asking for in the infrastructure program, with the federal government's involvement being one-third. I am asking the provincial government to be a little flexible, rearrange its priorities and spend two-thirds on this much needed project. I know how important and how very much needed the infrastructure programs are to all communities, but we have infrastructure

needs beyond those local levels. I think this one warrants being addressed as almost an emergency need.

If the government of the province of Ontario misses this opportunity by not putting highway 416 on its priority list, we who live here and are interested in the economic development of eastern Ontario will have to wait once again to see even the start of a project which is already 20 years overdue. It has been 20 years since the original plan was set and nothing has been acted upon since.

I am asking in my motion for the two levels of government, the federal level and the provincial level, to get together to make the infrastructure program fit the needs of eastern Ontario and the capital region, the capital region of Canada being the fourth largest metropolitan area in Canada, by constructing a four-lane highway in order to ensure road safety and enhance travel in and out of the nation's capital. I am sorry it is not a votable motion, but I have sensed a great deal of support for it.