Mr. Thompson:

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the remarks of the minister in regard to the situation as it has existed, but the situation in which the bargaining is taking place today is different from what it was the day before yesterday. In regard to the time limit, it seems to me that if the government restricts the time period it will force the parties into an impossible situation particularly if agreement is not reached as the minister expects it to be reached.

It is assumed that we are on the threshhold of an election. When an election is held, 30 days elapse before the writs are returned. In the event that the environment is such that the two parties are carrying on their negotiates! Coast Ports Operations Bill

tions in a more relaxed situation because the strike issue is not there, and the disputes not settled before Christmas, then not only would parliament and the government of the day but the whole economy be placed in an impossible situation, one that would be very difficult to manage. It seems to me that it would aid, not hinder, that it would encourage, not restrain, the situation that exists now, and will continue to exist until final agreement is reached, if such an impasse could be avoided. I think the hon. member for Crowfoot took a very practical approach to this problem when he suggested that the date be extended by another two months or 30 days after Parliament had reassembled. This would be an advantage to everyone concerned.

I think it is important to remember that by the end of this year the economy will have lost some 400,000 man days in the area of federal jurisdiction due to strikes and lockouts. This is nearly double the figure for 1971 when we lost 219,360 days, and three times the figure for the year before when 152,030 man days were lost due to strikes and lockouts. Therefore it would seem practical to extend the time in order to make sure that Parliament can deal with this strike effectively, and I would urge that the minister reconsider his position when we come to clause by clause consideration of the bill.

Mr. Thompson:

Mr. Speaker, I wish to draw to your attention that we have been called here to deal with a very

urgent situation which has almost become an economic catastrophe for western Canada. We have been called here at some inconvenience to the members of this House and a great deal of cost to the taxpayers. We have just listened to a positive and worthwhile comment from the Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition dealing with this issue, and we see the front row of the government benches practically empty. Those who do occupy it, including the Prime Minister, with the exception of the Postmaster General, have not even given us the courtesy of listening to the Leader of the Opposition. Instead they have carried on a series of conferences. This is intolerable and a disgrace.

Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):

Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister and it probably involves his own position as Secretary of State for External Affairs. Is any further report available-to the House on the recent charge that the wearing of Canadian maple leaf lapel buttons was prohibited at Quebec House in Paris? Does the minister intend to make a full statement to the House about this very serious matter?

Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Privy Council. On June 2 I asked, in the government House leader's absence, a question regarding item No. 25 on the order paper, a measure to amend the British North America Act standing in the name of the Minister of Transport. I asked when it would be brought forward for action by the House. At that time the acting House leader promised a reply at the next sitting.

To date there has been no reply. Could the minister give the information today?

Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):

Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to that asked by the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre. Will the Minister of Justice use his good offices to advise the Minister of Manpower and Immigration that a deserter from another country such as South Viet Nam should surely have just as much right as a deserter from the United States? In dealing with this situation there is some element-

June 2, 1972