Mr. Speaker, at least I will get the last word this way.
I want to basically develop a case for the importance of water. Many of the speakers who have gone before agree this is certainly an important commodity in this country. We have to really address the question of protecting Canada's sovereignty over this water. Again it is an example of where Canada has shown leadership but needs to continue its vigilance and its leadership.
The member for Vancouver Quadra introduced some of our leadership in the law of the sea, the Great Lakes clean-up and all of those examples. However, he then closed by saying that we do not need any action. I really disagree with that comment. Action is essential to ensure this valuable resource maintains its position and that we retain our sovereignty over it.
We should not take this commodity for granted. In the future demand is going to do nothing but increase. Anybody who has gone to California might know, as the member who introduced this bill mentioned, the aquifer being drained at 50 times its replacement in California and the central U.S. is a major problem. Anyone can look at the Colorado River and see what has happened there to realize that California is short of water. California has a population of 32 million and because of that the demand for water is only going to increase. I think it is reasonable to say that the price of water will be greater than the price of oil or gas down the road some time.
Since Canada has a major supply of fresh water, it is essential for humans, for agriculture, for industry, for our future well-being that we preserve this water.
I would like to talk a little bit about the preservation and then what I see as being threats to the sovereignty and control of this water. It is a renewable resource but it is only renewable if it is managed properly. Groundwater is renewed by rainfall and by snow melt. It can, however, be very quickly overused and the aquifers can disappear. There are many examples where aquifers that were once very productive have gone down dramatically. I mention the central U.S. as the biggest example.
Certainly agricultural and industrial uses put a severe drain on aquifers. In many cases, permits are given without looking at the big picture. One more project is approved and then one more project and then another. No management is involved until a disaster occurs.
One of the contaminators of our water supplies is industry. It has improved a lot, but we can see what happens when we do not manage it simply by looking at the Great Lakes and what we did there.
Of particular interest to me are landfill sites. All across Canada we are implementing more and more landfills. We have the time bombs from the past that are leaching into our groundwater. We are installing new landfills but we say they are okay because we are putting liners in them. The only problem is the liners are only good for 25 years. The leachate collection system plugs up and we do not know what will happen after 25 years. Experts are now telling us that contaminants could leach from those landfill sites into our groundwater for 800 years. Cana-
dians had better take note of this and had better start managing this resource much better.
I foresee a federal umbrella organization to provide the information, the technology, the collection of that technology. The provinces would then be involved in the actual distribution of this information, with the municipalities delivering the service. We must have this organization or this resource will be lost.
We need to look at our rivers and our streams. We need to look at the protection of our watershed areas. Logging, recreation and development are having a great impact on our watersheds. Above all, I again emphasize the government's involvement in this.
We are not moving very far in this direction and I would encourage the Minister of the Environment to get involved now. I am glad the member put this forward so we can talk about water again. The last member who spoke indicated how significant he felt it was. Certainly the member from the Bloc who spoke indicated a real understanding of this as a resource.
Let us manage it then and let us not let things like pollution, sewage problems, industrial waste problems, landfill problems and the lack of planning that destroyed the Great Lakes literally and will take who knows how long to revive, happen in the future.
What are the two major problems facing Canada in 1995? They can be related to the sovereignty of water. Two things should be thought about here. Number one is the Quebec situation. One might ask how that relates to water and its sovereignty.
One thing I have heard very little talk about is the St. Lawrence Seaway and the St. Lawrence River. Who controls this waterway? Who has sovereignty over it? Is it Canada? Could it be Quebec? Could it be the U.S.? This is something that the Quebec people should be asking Mr. Parizeau and the federalists. Let us talk about this issue. Let us talk about the potential threat that the negotiations over this major seaway could have in relation to the whole issue of Quebec. I see that as being a threat.
Hydroelectric power could relate to water. The member from the Bloc mentioned there have been proposals for draining water from Quebec and Ontario into the United States.
The second major issue relating to this is the debt and deficit. That has already been touched on. How does that affect water sovereignty? Let me put this scenario to you.
If the Minister of Finance fails to make the necessary cuts or raises taxes causing a financial crisis, and there will be a financial crisis if he fails to deal with the problems we have right now, what might be the reaction? A great deal of our debt is held by U.S. creditors. The IMF literally becomes a receiver if Canada becomes insolvent. We have seen what happened to Mexico. That has been mentioned as well. The Americans are tough to deal with, they are hard dealers. They put on conditions and say: "You will perform this way". Mexico has lost its sovereignty because of the $50 billion bailout that Mr. Clinton arranged.
These are concerns we should be thinking about. It is fairly obvious that if our creditors decide to call their loans the one thing that 32 million people in one state in the United States need is water. It seems kind of far fetched and does not seem possible.
We have heard about inter-basin transfers but that is not possible. Fifty years ago there was a project in Alberta called Prime that I was a bit involved with. It was a plan to drain water from Alberta down to California. The idea is there, it is on the table. If we in fact do become insolvent water will be one thing that will be called for as a way to repay some of our debt. When you are in debt you really do not have much choice. I see that as a threat to our sovereignty.
In conclusion, Canada must deal with its debt and deficit. It must deal with the Quebec situation and ask about the St. Lawrence Seaway. We must not sign long term deals.
The British Columbia power situation where long term deals were signed is a good example of what happens if you sell the farm too soon. A side deal must be negotiated in NAFTA so that we will never start shipping water to the U.S. As has been pointed out although there is no obligation to start, once started there is no cutting back. It cannot be reversed. The Prime Minister promised but he did not keep that promise.
I believe we must control this resource. We are going to leave future generations a debt. Let us not leave them the loss of a valuable resource like water.