Hon. Pierre Sevigny (Associate Minister of National Defence):

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. Yesterday during the orders of the day the hon. member for Laurier, in a supplementary question asked of the Minister of Public Works, stated that during a speech I made at Dorion last Friday I had protested the proposed route which is tentatively planned to go through lie aux Tourtres instead of lie Perrot in Vaudreuil-Soulanges.

The point of privilege, Mr. Speaker, is that I never protested this proposed route. In fact the only comment I made during the speech was that I would say nothing about this proposed route in view of the fact that I knew nothing about the matter. As usual the former member for Stormont was misinformed, and I wish to correct this matter.

Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege in reference to a statement I made in debate as reported at page 2214 of Hansard of yesterday in connection with my remarks about Mr. Clarence Fines, former Saskatchewan provincial treasurer. I want to make it clear to all that I did not imply or intend to imply that any money which Mr. Fines may have made was made from his job or position as provincial treasurer of Saskatchewan.

Mr. Benidickson:

I think the hon. member has made a necessary statement.

Hon. Howard C. Green (Secretary of State for External Affairs):

Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement concerning oil pollution off the Atlantic coast of Canada. On

September 1 of last year I issued a press release announcing that the government intended, under the international convention for the prevention of the pollution of the sea by oil, 1954, to extend to 100 miles, the maximum allowed under the convention, the zone off the Atlantic coast of Canada within which ships may not discharge oil. At the present time the zone is 50 miles.

I am pleased to inform the house that no other contracting government has opposed the extension, and consequently extension of the prohibited zone from 50 to 100 miles off the east coast of Canada will take effect on February 25.

It is to be sincerely hoped that the extension will have the effect of substantially reducing oil pollution on the Atlantic coast. Reports of oil pollution have indicated that hundreds of thousands of sea birds are being killed annually by floating oil in the Newfoundland area; that beaches, piers and craft are being fouled, and that damage is being done to lobster fisheries. The situation will be closely watched by the Department of Transport, the department responsible for administering the oil pollution prevention regulations, to see whether a diminution of pollution takes place after the extension comes into force. If not, more stringent international controls may be required to cope with the problem. In this connection it is proposed that a conference to revise the 1954 convention for the prevention of pollution of the sea by oil be held in the spring of 1962 under the auspices of the intergovernmental maritime consultative organization. This conference would permit Canada to suggest any changes to the convention which we deem to be necessary.

The intergovernmental maritime consultative organization is being kept fully informed of the degree of oil pollution in Canadian waters. I should like to mention that included with the official reports we have transmitted to the organization are reports prepared by the Canadian wildlife service and the Audubon society of Canada.

Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):

Mr. Speaker, I want to comment briefly on the statement made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs. The members of this group were pleased to hear of the further measures being taken by this government to prevent the pollution of our coastal waters, and we support them wholeheartedly. We hope that the government will also use its

Inquiries of the Ministry best efforts and give some leadership in cooperation with the provinces in preventing the pollution of international and inland rivers and lakes.

Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):

Mr. Speaker, all of us are very conscious of the reason the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) is not with us today. At this sad time for him, I would ask the Acting Prime Minister if he will convey to the Prime Minister the deep and sincere sympathy of the members of the official opposition in the loss of one who has meant so much to him over so many years.

Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the C.C.F.-New Party group may I say that we should like to be associated with the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition. I am sure our thoughts go out to the Prime Minister, to Mr. Elmer Diefenbaker and the other relatives at this time of their great loss. We realize that the Prime Minister and his mother remained very close until the end. I am sure we speak for all Canada in expressing to the Prime Minister our deepest sympathy at this time of bereavement.

Hon. Howard C. Green (Acting Prime Minister):

Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Prime Minister will be highly appreciative of these thoughtful remarks by the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Assiniboia. This is indeed a very sad time for the Prime Minister, but at the same time I am sure he has very many happy memories and derives a great deal of comfort from the wonderful relationship which existed between his mother and himself. We are very, very grateful to hon. members for their expressions of sympathy this afternoon.

Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):

Mr. Speaker, may I make a suggestion, which I put forward in all humility. The office of prime minister is of the utmost importance; the mother of the prime minister is pretty wonderful too. I should like to ask the Acting Prime Minister whether, out of respect for the Prime Minister and his mother, on the occasion of her funeral next Wednesday the house might adjourn. Perhaps we might adjourn during those hours out of respect to her memory and to honour the office of prime minister.

Mr. Green:

I appreciate the thought behind the suggestion made by the hon. member for

Vancouver East, but I think the Prime Minister would wish the house to carry on with its business and would not wish a course of this kind to be followed.