Mr. David Berger (Laurier):

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to hear that this Government, following the example of its predecessor, has decided to further reduce immigration levels for 1985. It is a tragedy for our country as a whole and for the thousands of people who would like to settle in Canada.

The present act and the immigration levels set each year are based on the false assumption that immigration ought to depend on the state of the economy. This is merely a pretext to close the gates. We are trying to stimulate the economy in every possible way, and Canadians should know that immigrants create jobs. They bring with them a very special genius which is their determination to succeed. They want to show that their adopted country was right to admit them. Since 1982, we have in effect closed our doors to independent immigrants who do not have pre-arranged employment and are not entrepreneurs. These people often have relatives in Canada but may not enter the country because they are over 20 or 21.

1 hope the day will come when the Minister of Employment and Immigration will be worthy of her title and stop acting like a border guard.

Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):

Mr. Speaker, the Pinochet dictatorship in Chile held its 11th anniversary in September, celebrating the blood-bath in which it drowned half a century of constitutional democratic government in Chile. Canada's ambassador joined in the celebrations, thus making Canada party to the vicious repression that Pinochet has renewed during the last three weeks of government terror.

Over 1,100 people have been arrested, and 467 people have been exiled internally. That means that they have been banished to isolated towns where they lack family, means of livelihood, and medical care. In other words, that is a sentence of slow death. Police have ignored habeas corpus orders made by the courts, have apparently killed one prisoner by beating, and have arrested 11 civil rights lawyers. Dr. Fanny Pollarolo, an internationally-known psychiatrist, was seized from a taxi and disappeared. In addition, 8,000 people have been arrested in police raids on the poor districts.

I call on the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) to censure Canada's ambassador for implicitly endorsing such systematic terror and violation of human rights, and to demand information as to the whereabouts and well-being of Dr. Fanny Pollarolo.

Mr. Jean-Guy Hudon (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Employment and Immigration):

Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw to the attention of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski) and the House a serious incident that occurred in my riding a few days ago.

The liftbridge over the St. Lawrence Seaway at Valley-field is now stuck half-way.

According to the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority, the bridge cannot be made operational again before the middle of December.

As a result, road traffic between the two shores of the Seaway is blocked as well as all traffic on a waterway that is extremely important to the Canadian economy.

Mr. Speaker, the economic repercussions are obvious.

However, there is also the social impact, because for all practical purposes, most of my riding is now cut off from the services it usually depends on, and especially the Valleyfield hospital.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out to the Minister that this problem is not a recent one. The bridge has been out of commission in the past, for more or less extended periods, and I am sure that unless the Minister intervenes this time, there will be another recurrence.

November 23, 1984

Mr. Speaker, I therefore urge the Minister to take the necessary action as soon as possible with a view to finding a definite solution to the problem.

Solutions proposed in the past included building an elevated bridge or digging a tunnel. These proposals should now be made the subject of a serious and thorough study.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I want to say that it is unthinkable that in 1984, users-

Mr. Speaker:

I am sorry to interrupt the Elon. Member-

Mr. Alan Redway (York East):

Mr. Speaker, according to the background paper released last Monday by the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald), if our birth rate remains constant, then 35 years from now deaths will exceed births and Canada's population, which is presently 25 million, will decline over time to only 10 million. This will happen unless we have an annual net immigration of approximately 125,000 people. This presents us with the need to make a major policy decision. Just how large should our population and our immigration quota be?

Years ago we had an open-door immigration policy, but today there is a great difference of opinion in Canada on the subject of immigration. On the one hand the unemployed, their families and friends, quite understandably advocate restricting immigration at least until the economy improves. On the other hand, equally understandably, new Canadians want to reunite their families in this country.

The study of the immigration policy announced earlier this week by the Minister will deal with all of the immediate problems that concern Canadians. I urge the Minister to take the study one step further and to begin to address the larger and longer-term question of whether our population should increase, decrease, or remain stable, and what impact each of these options may have on the economy and on the delivery of government services.

Mr. Fernand Robichaud (Westmorland-Kent):

On many occasions during the last parliamentary session, Mr. Speaker, several Members of the Opposition took the former administration to task for failing to implement a coherent tourism policy for the various departments and organizations of the

federal government. Specifically, I am referring to the Opposition Member who stated in this House last February 8:

There is a lack of co-ordination between the various government Departments regarding regulations which end up being detrimental to the tourist industry.

And another Member said this last March 22nd:

-but our message should be that we as politicans realize we cannot raise taxes without first knowing what effect they will cause.

The same day, another Member stated:

"We will ensure departmental co-operation so that all federal decisions are arrived at with the complete understanding of their effects on tourism."

Now that they form the government, Mr. Speaker, where is that coherent policy? It would seem that there has been no consultation whatsoever between departments. First, the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources increases oil prices, the Department of the Environment hikes user fees in our national parks, Transport Canada charges more for VIA Rail services, raises the air transportation tax and reduces ferry services.

The Department of Employment-

Mr. Speaker:

Order, please. I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member, but the time alloted to him has expired.

The Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom).

[DOT] (mo)

Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):

Mr. Speaker, last May, June, and probably July, there was considerable flooding in northeastern Saskatchewan. At that time the Prime Minister said that assistance would be provided for the farmers in that province and indicated that the assistance would be on a two-to-one basis from the federal Government. In other words, some $16 million would be provided by the federal Government.

There was an election campaign and the current Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) promised that he would keep that commitment. In fact the Conservative candidate, who is now the Hon. Member for Mackenzie (Mr. Scowen), said that it would not be on the basis of two-to-one, or $16 million, but that it would be on the basis of three-to-one, or $24 million.

November 23, 1984

A lot of time has passed and there has been no pay-out. The farmers should have received money in September, but they did not. They should have received money in October, but they did not. As yet, the farmers have not received the money in November. Where is that money? Why is there not a pay-out? The farmers are waiting. They are telephoning our offices to ask where is that money and what has happened to the promise which was made by the Conservative Party. The farmers were flooded out last May and June, now they are being frozen out by the Conservative Party.

Mr. Gus Mitges (Grey-Simcoe):

Mr. Speaker, in the last few weeks I have received a fair amount of mail from constituents concerning pornography and the necessity of passing meaningful legislation to help stamp out this cancer from our society. It is my opinion that we will never deal seriously with pornography until we have substantial fines and other penalties, such as loss of licence for those who profit from this scourge.

Recently there have been new initiatives to fight pornography in the United States. This is certainly welcome in Canada. A crack-down on pornography in the U.S. will have a positive reaction here, as the United States is the chief source of our pornography.

In the United States, increasing fines to a $100,000 possible maximum for a first offence and $200,000 for a subsequent offence will, I believe, take the profits out of this industry, and industry is what pornography is all about. In Canada, by comparison, the fines in recent cases have been at the level of a few hundred dollars-not enough to be a deterrent.

In the United States, federal and state authorities are working together to get offenders more speedily to court. This is not happening in Canada.

Some of us who were here in the last Parliament pressed the former Government, without success, to deal with pomogra-phers more swiftly and with greater clout, by having amendments passed to the Broadcasting Act and to the obscenity provisions of the Criminal Code. It is my hope that the Government will soon bring the proposed changes before Parliament. I feel confident that, if appropriate legislation is brought forth, it will result in swift passage and will be supported by all Members of the House.

Mr. Reg Stackhouse (Scarborough West):

Mr. Speaker, the announcement that the United States and the Soviet Union will meet in January to negotiate an agenda for talks on

limiting nuclear arms gives Canada an opportunity for leadership in the cause of arms reduction.

In view of the American announced willingness to discuss all issues, Canada has an opportunity to recommend that items of special concern to this country be on the agenda. One should be to strengthen existing non-proliferation agreements. A second should be the reaching of a comprehensive test ban treaty. More important still should be an agreement on mutually verifiable reductions of nuclear weapons. Most significant in the long run should be a pre-emptive ban on satellite and anti-satellite weapons in high altitude orbits.

To show our commitment as a country, Canada should continue its current reasearch on arms control verification techniques and make no expenditure reductions in this area.

In view of the disappointing history of previous arms control talks, Canada can contribute to the potential success of these discussions by calling now on both superpowers to commit themselves to continue the negotiations until adequate agreements have been made.