Bob Mills

[Supply, February 21st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to talk about this most serious topic, the most serious thing to threaten Canada as we know it, our debt and deficit.

I can state in no uncertain terms that this is the number one problem facing our country and that the citizens of Canada are demanding action. As I speak our federal debt alone is over $550 billion. It is increasing at almost $40 billion per year.

This is a financial crisis. We have to stop kidding ourselves and we have to start facing reality. The sheer size of these numbers is so gigantic that most Canadians, myself included, have a tough time really understanding what they mean to us. When we bring things down to an every day level, we see just how dramatic this problem really is.

The interest on our debt is a staggering $80,000 a minute. All of that money goes up in smoke, most of it to foreign investors. If the government were allowed to spend that money more productively on necessary services, on all of the jobs that are being threatened, on the social programs now threatened by this loss, if we could just put that money toward those things, how much more productive this country could become.

To put that in common terms, if we were to give away 288,000 colour television sets every day, after a month every home and apartment in this country would have one of those colour television sets. If the month has 31 days instead of 30 days the money for that one extra day of government could buy 4.431 million cases of beer, even more if it does not have alcohol content in it. That poor suffering taxpayer could have a few cold ones while watching "Hockey Night in Canada" on his new colour television set.

The numbers are simply astounding. By the time I finish my 10-minute speech the money shelled out in interest on our debt could have paid a year's worth of university tuition for 270 Canadian students.

What is the government going to do about this ridiculous situation? What is its plan? According to the red book the government is aiming to reduce the deficit to 3 per cent of GDP by the end of its term. The finance minister says with pride that he will meet his targets come hell or high water. What does it really mean to Canadians?

It means an unspeakable high debt of over $600 billion. It means we will still be overspending by $25 billion per year. It dooms Canadians to higher taxes and it begs for a financial crisis of epic proportions. I think it is safe to say that the government was not elected to do any of these things. If it wants to prevent a crisis, it had better start setting some realistic targets.

I have no doubt that the government will claim that it has inherited a legacy of the past, the accumulated mismanagement of nine years worth of Tory rule. Not only is this an unacceptable case of passing buck, it is also completely irrelevant. The government must play the hand that it has been dealt and do it to the very best of its ability. The citizens of Canada are demanding that the government take action.

It is a disgrace that on election day we had a debt of approximately $489 billion and today we have over $550 billion, $61 billion higher than it was the day we started this Parliament. That is a disgrace.

How should the government deal with the deficit? Because the Reform Party cares we have asked the people of Canada through electronic national town hall meetings, many town hall meetings across the country, in curling rinks, service clubs, chambers of commerce and people on the streets. They have told us clearly what should happen. The people of Canada are willing to bite the bullet and take their medicine. They are willing to do this because they know the price today, though painful, will be much less than if they slide and go deeper and deeper into the hole.

If only the finance minister had that message a year ago. Since his disastrously weak budget last year our dollar has dropped steadily, our interest rates have soared and now our credit rating is being reviewed.

Last year the finance minister refused to take on a role of leadership and it has now cost all Canadians dearly. I hope that this will never happen again. The budget must make the tough decisions and it must make them now.

Throughout the prebudgetary process the Reform Party has not only emphasized that the government targets were ridiculous, but that they were ridiculously low and inadequate. We have come up with our own suggestions as to where the cuts should be allocated. That is because we wanted to be constructive and not just adopt the traditional opposition role of criticizing the government after the fact.

Therefore this morning we have released the taxpayers' budget-

[Cuba, February 20th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me pleasure to talk to M-281. I have had a long interest in foreign affairs and certainly in bringing Cuba into the modern world and the OAS.

I visited Cuba, travelled around and realized some of the great potential of that country.

This motion asks us to make a strong statement against the U.S. policy on Cuba. I do have problems making a strong statement which directly relates to the foreign policy of another country.

The U.S. is one of our most important trading partners. Even if it were not, how would we like to have another country, let alone our closest neighbour, threatening us and demanding we change our foreign policy? The preservation of one's sovereignty has been and always will be an important part of any country's foreign policy.

Let us examine Cuba. The hon. member wishes to support and commend the actions of Mr. Castro and the country. If we are going to try and change the U.S. point of view it should be done by negotiation, not by threats or innuendo from Canadian members of Parliament. Threatening the U.S. will certainly guarantee a negative response and slam the door on what else might have occurred.

Let us examine a few of the facts regarding Cuba. Why do the Americans feel so strongly threatened by that country? The history, the Kennedy missile crisis, the fact that it is 90 miles away from their boundary, the fact that the mafia used this as a headquarters for gambling, prostitution and laundering money are examples. However, when it comes to present history we must recognize that Cuba is ruled by a dictator. Cuba was not part of the summit of the Americas in Miami in December because it is the only country in the Americas that has not moved toward democracy.

Human rights abuses abound in that country. My experience in that country was there was totally no freedom of expression except that controlled by the government. The people love to talk; they are friendly, great people, but they had to talk out on the water where they were sure that their secret service would not be listening to the conversation.

I was able to visit a jail. I watched the prisoners working in a cane field and going back to their crowded conditions. It is quite different from the country club atmosphere of Canadian prisons.

I attended a three-hour speech given in Varadero by Mr. Castro. I found it very interesting that for the three hours the people were told when to cheer, when to be quiet and exactly what to do. That is not exactly freedom of expression.

People in Cuba are prepared to sacrifice almost anything to get on a board and cross 90 miles of shark infested waters just to get out. If the country had any kind of human rights or any kind of freedom of expression, I doubt that would be the case.

There are severe shortages because Russia stopped its aid because it collapsed. Sugar cane production has decreased dramatically. In 1991, seven million tonnes; in 1994, down to four million tonnes. As I have mentioned, the infrastructure is in decay. The black market is running rampant throughout the country.

I found it very interesting to visit the Tropicana show and see the people finally expressing themselves in terms of music and their culture. They were wearing 40 and 50 year old costumes. They certainly deserved some credit for at least trying to express themselves. How about a Sunday in Cuba when they take out the 1950 cars for a drive? It is just more for show than for any practical means of transportation. What about the little kids who love to play baseball? They find that one way they might have to get off the island. There are ice cream stands on every corner. People told me that milk from Canadian Holstein cows was used to make the ice cream.

The friendship toward Canada is certainly very obvious throughout that country. Anyone travelling around the country can see just how primitive the country really is. The last speaker said it was still in the 1950s. I would put it there or below.

There are flight irregularities. Nothing seems to work properly. The hotels are acceptable, usually without toilet paper, white and sterile in nature.

The management is also very typical of a true communist country. There is really no incentive, no pride of ownership. There is really no drive left in the country because of the socialist way.

The sanctions are not hurting the Cuban people as much as the dictator who holds them captive by military force. The hon. member should make the motion to condemn dictator Castro and demand his removal if he wants to interfere in another country's foreign affairs.

The U.S. and Canada certainly have interests in Cuba. That country could prosper. In terms of Canadian, American and South American tourist business there would be no better place. If that were instituted the jobs and money would return. There would be an incentive to work. The ideal location of that country I have mentioned before.

This sort of motion sends the wrong message. It is the mosquito approach versus the diplomatic approach to solving the really big problem. We can work and hold our own with the Americans. I do not think we have a problem. We have to help other OAS countries to deal with that American elephant.

This motion makes us sound like spoiled kids with a temper tantrum. It is full of holes and would only be accepted by those who believe socialism would ever work any place in the world. We must work to gain respect and equal status with the Americans. We can show leadership. Certainly in the OAS we have a great opportunity to show leadership.

Most of the South American countries are looking to us to show leadership in dealing with the powerful U.S. In NAFTA we have taken a role and will take an increasing role. The WTO will only increase our trade. Hopefully some day Cuba will be part of that.

It would be nice if Cuba would join the other 34 members of the OAS, joining the 21st century in the whole UN reform and the new global community we are going to create. Cuba will be left in the dark ages if it does not change the infrastructure, the government within.

As we have talked about many times, when it comes to trade there are three world areas: the European community; the Americas and Asia-Pacific. Cuba is part of the Americas and we should make it a part. Cuba is a part of our world and therefore we have a responsibility to help it get out of the dark ages of socialism. We do not have sanctions on Cuba now, never will have, and should never have.

Remember, Castro is a dictator. People are held hostage. Socialists have tunnel vision, only seeing one side of the issue. They will never reach a solution by their antagonistic approach. It is like a horse with blinders. One thing the member can take to heart is that sanctions do not really work anyway. They are probably not as effective as he might think.

Finally, to attack a neighbour, our largest trading partner, and strain our relationship for an aging dictator who persecutes his own people for the sake of the impossible socialist utopia makes no sense. I expect the next thing the hon. member might suggest is a special day for Che Guevara.

[Financial Administration Act, February 16th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, basically what I want to talk about in Bill C-263 is the openness, accountability and transparency that I think these agencies should have. I want to talk specifically about IDRC. That organization is often confused with CIDA. It is wrong that this should happen.

Throughout many of the discussions I have been involved in we have heard what the people of Canada are saying about CIDA. They are saying that there is inefficiency, that they want accountability there. However, they quite often mix IDRC into that same ball of wax. I think that is rather unfair.

This bill asks for accountability. I think that will do nothing but benefit that organization because the Canadian public wants to know it is getting good value for its dollar.

Under the current system IDRC is not getting audited the same way as other government institutions. It does not follow all of the provisions of the Financial Administration Act. Therefore, Canadians have a hard time really knowing whether they are getting value for money.

In a time of serious spending cuts and serious budgetary constraints, we can make an awfully good case for getting some kind of regular, accountable audit procedure. In terms of this, I know this year IDRC has done a budget. I have certainly talked

to the organization. I would say it is a very well run organization. I know a member across who would agree with me on that.

If there were support for this bill we would have to separate IDRC from CIDA. Going through most of my notes, in many cases the people in IDRC I have talked to would totally agree with this. In private conversation they would say that. We have an agency, a crown corporation, that may or may not do an audit. Only because of good management would it do an audit, becoming accountable.

We also have the public saying this agency is the same, it gives out aid or it is something involved with aid, and what are we going to do about that, maybe we should subject it to the same treatment that we subject an organization like CIDA to.

As I pointed out, that is totally wrong. For that reason I would strongly advise members to read the member's bill, to take a look at what it is trying to accomplish and the fact that it is allowing this organization to get its dollars and cents out on the table and to make them open to the public, thus achieving the accountability and transparency that I believe people are demanding.

Obviously I had a lot of other areas I would have liked to have covered, but for the sake of time I will stop at this point. I ask members to reconsider their support of Bill C-263. When it comes to an area like the IDRC they would welcome that as much as any of us would in this House.

[Firearms Act, February 16th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I will make my question very brief. I will not try to answer or discuss any of the claims which have been made. However, what I would like to do-and you know the facility that I am talking about in central Alberta, between Edmonton and Calgary-is challenge the minister to stand in front of the thousands of people who would come out to hear the facts about this whole gun control legislation and tell them why they should vote for it. That is an open challenge to the minister to come to tell the people the facts. There will be thousands.

I just brought down a petition which had 5,000 signatures. That gives us an idea of the interest which exists. These people want to hear answers, they want the truth and they want the facts.

I challenge the minister to take me up on that.

[Supply, February 14th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, certainly we agree with a lot of the things that were said.

More important, what I have learned from visiting Quebec a number of times is that the problems in Quebec are the same as the problems in Alberta or in any other part of Canada. We are all the same. We are concerned about the debt and deficit. We are concerned about crime. We are concerned about all of the same things. We are the same. That is the first myth that we have to dispel, that there is any difference between us because there is not.

The people in my part of the country do not hate the people of Quebec. The people in Quebec certainly do not hate the people of Alberta. We need to dispel these myths.

Economically, I believe firmly that as members of the G-7, in negotiating world trade as we are now actively doing, that the bigger the unit the better we are going to be economically.

I hope that the people of Quebec look at the big picture. We are going to be a trading unit of the Americas. I have said that in this House a lot of times. North and South America together are a trading unit. The smaller the unit the more difficult it will be balancing our budgets and taking care of our people.

We have to look at the big picture. The big picture says that the EU is going to get common currency and is going to come together more and more, that the seven tigers of the Orient are going to come together more and more and that the Americas are going to come together more and more. Rather than thinking of little units we should be thinking about bigger units. That is really the success of this country. This is the best country in the world and we need to save it with Quebec.

[Supply, February 14th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question.

I agree with him 100 per cent that we should not be tinkering around the edges and that we should look at some major reforms, certainly a flat tax system, a new system of taxation that is much

fairer than the present tax system with all its exemptions and exceptions. This is something Canadians are asking for and the House should be entertaining as soon as possible. It should be a part of the exercise as we look to fix our finances.

[Supply, February 14th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, if I were the finance minister I would say to wait until next week, but I will try to answer the question.

The member can wait until next week but he will see that those in need have to be totally taken care of. People at the upper end who do not need it are quite willing to accept their share of the responsibility to get the country going. They are saying that as long as it is equal and fair they will take those cuts. However the people at the bottom will have to be taken care of. The most needy can never be out on the streets, as the member would like to portray. Next week he will see the exact details of what we are talking about.

[Supply, February 14th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, what I challenge is that the government, our Prime Minister and our finance minister go

on national television with the leader of our party and our finance critic and talk about and compare the two budgets, the budget of the finance minister and the budget that we are going to put out as an alternate. I challenge them to compare those in front of the Canadian people. That is what has to be done.

Let us go back to some of the history behind our problem. I have heard a lot here today. I have not heard a lot of people who seem to really understand very much or certainly could not communicate it to the people who really matter, the taxpayers.

In 1945 we had it pretty good. Europe was in shambles. Asia was in shambles and we were able to grow. We had no competition and we learned the good life. By 1965 we were well into the social experiment programs that we now all feel are threatened and are threatened because of the serious problem we are in.

We allowed government to replace family. We allowed government to replace individual initiative and we said government will take care of each of us. We will lead this good life. We will never have any problems.

What also happened then was that the other parts of the world rebuilt and started to compete. As they started to compete we had a cash shortfall. We had developed a system that we could no longer afford and therefore we started to borrow.

We continued to borrow. Members know where that has taken us today. We have a crisis. In 1984 we said we must change this government. Right across this whole land everybody said we have to change it. Except for a few of those sure seats, the Liberals were literally annihilated.

The belief was that the $289 billion would be dealt with and it would be dealt with now. By 1988 it was up over $390 billion and we were told we did not have time, it was a worse mess than we thought it was, et cetera. However, we were no longer believers in that sort of analysis, and so the birth of our party.

In 1993 we had a $489 billion debt and we were told the Liberals will come up with a plan, and so they did. From October 25, 1993 when the debt was $489 until the budget comes out this month it is going to be $550 billion. We have added another $61 billion to our debt. That is totally unacceptable. The people of Canada will not accept that. They are demanding that action be taken.

It is not good enough to say we will just add another $100 billion and then we will plan to get it under control some time in the future. That is not good enough. We have precipitated a crisis which we are being told about. The dollar is a good indicator. It was about 80 cents U.S. a year or so ago. Look where it is today and where it is going. We know where the interest rates were and where they are going today. Those are simply symptoms and warnings that we had better take action and it had better be soon.

The biggest threat to our social programs is from this debt and that is why we must deal with it. We must passionately convince the government that it must deal with it.

The double talk we have heard today, I am glad it was not from the finance minister or people from the finance committee. Hopefully they understand things better.

We are going to lose pensions, UIC, social programs and education. All of those things are going to be threatened. Not because of any party or because some members take the slash and burn position. They learned that about a year ago and they have not stopped saying it. We are going to lose those programs because of the debt and those interest payments. Then what happens?

There is foreign control. I think we should talk about that. We should look at what just happened to Mexico. Mexico has lost its sovereignty for probably 50 years into the future. Does Canada want to lose its sovereignty? Does Canada want to give up its control of water? We have to look at all of those things. Our sovereignty is being threatened by that debt and deficit.

What do our good friends across the way propose? They have floated trial balloons. They talked about raising gas prices 1.5 cents per litre. That should hit just about everyone, including those poor families trying to earn a living. It is going to hit everybody. That comes from the finance committee.

Taxing RRSPs, that is pretty good. We are encouraging people to take care of themselves and all of a sudden we are going to tax something that goes against this. Dental and medical plans, surtaxes and surcharges on income. Changing the GST to a VAT. Are we going to change that? How high is it going to go? A lot of people predict it will go to 12 per cent. Maybe 15 per cent would be a better number. That is going to hit everybody, not just the rich we so often hear about.

What about a carbon tax? Give it any name you like, I do not think it is dead yet. If any kind of unity is to be promoted in this country it had better be put to rest once and for all.

What are the solutions? There has to be a light at the end of the tunnel. There has to be. That cab driver we talked about has to know there is a solution. He cannot simply say there is no hope, I hate politicians, I hate politics, I have no use for them all. In a couple of ridings only 30 per cent of people voted. That is a disgrace. That is the frustration of people who are saying it does not matter anymore, you are all the same, you are not dealing with the issue. That is not fiscal management. That is no management at all.

The money markets are telling us very clearly to get our act together. They are telling us by the dollar. They are telling us by interest rates. They are telling us to cut spending, do not raise taxes, do whatever to encourage the country but do something.

The public is telling us a lot also. Listen to the messages the public is getting. On February 11 in the Vancouver Sun , a quote from the revenue minister: Protest all you want, Canadians, but you are not going to change the final look of the coming federal budget''. They are saying that they will listen to what the people are saying, but here is someone saying:Protest all you want, Canadians. We are not going to change our minds. We are not going to listen to you''.

We might just ask the member from Transcona what message the people gave him in Winnipeg the other day as they drove him from the stage. What was the message yesterday? What was the message in Toronto? What was the message in Vancouver? What was the message in Halifax?

The message is for the government to get its act together and cut spending. We hear: "Yes, we are going to. Yes, we will". We have heard that before. We have heard that for years and years and it has not happened. The public is saying that the government should cut spending, stop listening to special interest groups and stop waste.

I knocked on doors in some of the poorer sections of Montreal, for the benefit of the member who was talking about that, and the universal thing everybody said was: "Get rid of the Senate. Get rid of that waste. It is an embarrassment". I should have said the other place. They asked us to get rid of it or change it because it is not working.

Another item was MPs' pensions. They asked us to have the courage to lead from the top. They want us to do something and not get stand around making promises. For 15 or 16 months we have been talking about doing something. We cannot go after the public of Canada without doing something here.

They are asking us to do something about the perks and the GST the Liberals promised they would change. How about the international travel that goes on in this place and the parliamentary associations that are going on junkets every other week, heading off all over the place and maybe taking their wives for cost? That touches a nerve ending. Nobody wants to talk about it because it is something we can get away with; it is one of the perks because we have such low pay.

We could try to tell the poor people about whom the minister was talking about the pay MPs receive. How about the eight or nine levels of management versus those levels in a company? Companies right sized long ago. Companies got down to two or three levels of management. I challenge anybody here to go to big corporations and ask them how much management they have. They have two or three levels while this place has eight or nine levels of management protecting themselves. They are not going to be cut. A few at the top will go but they will not be cut down to anything.

Let us look at the other waste that goes on here. All of us go downstairs in the Confederation Building. Has anyone ever wondered why we have a round of marble seven feet in the air in the new renovations over there? Does anyone know how much marble costs? Why is it there? It is there because the bureaucrats are not use to trying to save any money.

A lot of waste goes on in this place. Let us talk about it. Anything would be better than the kind of waste we have. That is what taxpayers are demanding. They want us to get waste under control. The public has lost confidence in the government and politicians. It is saying that we should cut spending and have no new taxes. That message is everywhere.

That message is not just in Canada. That message is in all democratic countries around the world. They are sending the same message. We can learn that lesson. There are lots of places from where we can take examples. People are demanding results. People have finally taken control of the situation.

What would happen if we had a government that would listen and bring about those massive spending cuts that are essential and eliminate the waste that is going on? We would have the confidence of the people, of businesses and of international investors. We would have jobs. We would have growth and the economy would boom. There would be extra income, more money coming in from taxation, and we would be able to start dealing with the real problem, namely our huge debt.

Above all, to get the trust of the general public of Canada back we must enact legislation, a taxpayer protection act that puts a cap on government spending so that this can never happen again. We can never let government do this to the Canadian people again. We have had 30 years of this and it has to stop.

Let us examine what might happen in this situation. There has been a lot of speculating on the other side so I will speculate for a minute. Look at the old line parties first. Let us start with the PCs. To examine the PCs there are three books that might help us. I would suggest that Beyond the Law might be a place to start. On the Take might be another interesting piece of reading. Underground Nation by Diane Francis might be good reading too for finding out what has happened because of extra taxes. That pretty well takes care of the PCs. I guess last night confirmed that.

What about the Liberals? The Liberals started this whole thing. Of course they still feel good and are happy. They are saying: "Maybe we can grow our way out of this problem. It should be fine. Hopefully we will be okay".

Then we have the NDP. Its socialist Utopia has not worked any place in the world so we can dispel that.

We know the Reform Party must be different. We have a situation wherein it is the people versus the elite. Who are the elite? We have talked about the elite a lot before. It is the national media. Certainly it is the old line political parties, the bureaucrats at the top and in many cases big business and banks. Those kinds of people are all part of the elite.

What are the people saying about all of this? They are saying: "We won't take it any more. If you keep spending you are going to pay". The message should be loud and clear. The people's power should be obvious to everyone here but it is not. The last message was in the referendum. The elite to the very last person said: "Vote yes. It will be good for you". However the people said: "No way". The people found out about it. They worked on it, got information and made their decision. They were not heard that well, though.

In 1993 there was another message. We know what that resulted in. What do we have to look at? The people are saying reduce and the government is saying increase. On pensions the people are saying eliminate and the government is saying modify. On the Senate the people are saying abolish and the government is saying ignore and promote. On RRSPs the people are saying raise and promote and the government is saying: "Maybe we will tax them". On jobs the people are saying: "More money should be in the hands of people" and the government is saying: "We will have infrastructure and more bureaucracy. The government can, after all, still take care of you".

In conclusion I quote from Terry Moore, a radio announcer in Calgary:

We have had it, and you have got to get a handle on this and attack the debt and deficit in Canada and quit playing political games with our future, our children's future, our grandchildren's future and our great-grandchildren's future-because if you don't pull it together, this country will go down the tube.

[Supply, February 14th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I will be taking the full period of time.

I have to start by addressing the last speaker and speakers before this. Nowhere is there any fact saying that we are not going to take care of the poorest of poor. We are talking about a whole plan, having a plan. The economic management that the member talks about, economic management that is going to add $100 billion to the debt in the next three years, is not management, it is suicide. That is going to hurt those poor and that is what is going to lose these programs more than anything else we might do.

It is like the cab driver said last night when I was in the cab. He said: "I have heard it all before. It doesn't matter what happens in these elections. It doesn't matter because they are all the same. They get there and they are not going to change a thing. They don't have a plan. They are not dedicated. They don't mean it. They just go and do the same thing".

While we hear all this double talk and all this talk about the poor and the tears roll down the eyes, they do not have a plan. There is nothing there. There is nothing behind it. It is just all more talk and I agree with that cab driver.

I heard another speaker say that these were simplistic approaches. Voters want it simple once in a while. They want somebody with a plan they can understand, not a bunch of legal double talk, a bunch of on in the future some place we are going to handle this problem of our debt and deficit. They want it done now and they mean now, right now, and that is what we are here talking about.

I come back to why I even came to this job. There are times we all wonder why we are here. The reason is the government was not listening. It was a top down kind of process that we had here. There was spending and waste. All of us knew about it and all of us were disgusted by the waste that we talked and heard about.

It does not really matter, we thought, what party one elects and I am coming to believe that. It does not matter whether it has the PC tag or the Liberal tag. They are all so much the same.

We send good people from home and those good people all of a sudden come back and tell us what the party says is best for us, it is what the party wants us to do. We are so hung up on this undemocratic party process in this place.

Probably the worst day since I have been here was February 22 last year. I felt like wearing a black arm band. We had a finance minister who gave us a budget or whatever it was, but it did not address anything that the people had been saying since 1984. It did not say anything about the debt and deficit, about what our foreign creditors were telling us. It did not address anything.

The government members said it did not have time, that it had only been here for three months. It should have had that plan in place long before the election was ever called.

We each had that sunken feeling on the 22nd and we said we are not going to let that happen again. You are going to see our alternate budget. You are going to see it before you see the finance minister's budget. You are going to get a chance to compare.

I challenge-

[Fresh Water, February 8th, 1995]

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.