No, not puffins. On other islands along the shore there are puffins and whales, just along the east coast of the Avalon peninsula. There is wild life and biodivisity in incredible quantities.
If someone in Newfoundland decided to shoot all those birds or kill the whales found along that coast, or maybe develop the islands where the puffins breed, would the people in B.C. care? Would they be affected? I suggest that every Canadian would care if this type of environment in Newfoundland were destroyed. I would say every Canadian would care. The world would lose something but Canada would lose something most of all. Even if we do not see it and even it is not in our province it is important to us.
I move to Lake Ontario. Just off Welland there are two ships that lie in about 500 feet of water. They are called the Hamilton and the Scourge . They are American vessels from the War of 1812 which were actually seized from the Canadians and refurbished into American men of war. A storm came up and the ships capsized and sank in about 500 feet of water in Lake Ontario.
About 12 years ago they were located and an expedition was mounted to go down and examine them. These are two War of 1812 warships that are in absolute pristine condition on the floor of Lake Ontario. They are absolutely perfect. They are a wonderful snapshot of a period in all our history that determined the future of Canada when we were under threat and at war with the United States.
The legislation covers the preservation of that type of historical situation at the bottom of Lake Ontario. It is under threat because all those artifacts on the lake floor are a tremendous attraction to scuba divers and relic hunters.
That is a classic case where the heritage ministry has a role in this kind of legislation. We have to protect that kind of thing. It is of interest. It is of value. People do care in British Columbia, Quebec and Newfoundland about that kind of archeological treasure in Lake Ontario because it is Canadian.
Let us go to Victoria. Let us go to British Columbia and look at Long Beach for example. Long Beach on Vancouver Island is one of the most splendid marine environments we could ever hope to see. For miles there is surf rolling up. We can walk along the shore and find shells of every diversity. The waters off British Columbia are as equally famous as the Red Sea for their biodiversity. Scuba divers come from all over the world to British Columbia to dive in those waters.
The city of Victoria is noted for its very long sewage pipe which dumps raw sewage into the ocean. I would ask members on the opposite side of the House, especially the B.C. members, if they seriously want to tell me that the federal government has no role because we can trust the provinces and the municipalities. We can see for ourselves, and Victoria is the classic example, that in order to save a few dollars or perhaps to save jobs, Victoria is dumping raw sewage into the sea. And it does float back, I have to say, and all they do is make the pipe longer. That is the type of problem that exists when we leave environmental issues solely to the provinces and the municipalities.
The real thrust of my talk is that we have choices in this country. We can believe that what pulls together a country of this size and this diversity is its diversity. It is its difference in its cultures, its environment, its forests and its sheer beauty. Perhaps the fundamental difference between members on this side and members on the opposite side is that I feel very strongly that all of it belongs to me, not just what exists in my municipality which is at the head of Lake Ontario, not just what exists in my province, but the entire country.
I come from a riding near the city that had the Plastimet fire. The Plastimet company came under Ontario and municipal fire codes and environmental laws and what did we have? Hamilton had one of the worst toxic fires in this century, at least in Canada. The provincial controls were there on paper but they were not there in action.
The fundamental difference between members on this side and members on the other side is, be they Bloc Quebecois or Reform members, they do not appreciate—the NDP have indicated that they do not want to be included with the Bloc and the Reform Party and I appreciate that, and I did not notice a reaction from the Conservatives. The fundamental point is simply that the difference politically that exists in this country is exemplified by this legislation. One side wants the legislation for the entire nation and the other side does not want the legislation for provincial parochial reasons.
The Bloc Quebecois members although they do not like the nationalist component in this legislation have certainly indicated that they agree in principle with the general idea of preserving these ecosystems. I know it is impossible for the Reform Party but I would suggest that the Bloc Quebecois remember that this is second reading, agreement in principle. Therefore support it in principle and vote with the government on this occasion.