1. On what date were the following parcels of land from the Muskoday, John Smith Indian reserve No. 99 leased: Wj of lot 8, 40-48-24/A -W2nd; WJ of Jot 12, 40-48-24A -W2nd, containing approximately

160 acres each?

2. Who obtained the lease, and what was the bid per acre over and above the quarter crop required in the lease?

1. May 30, 1952.

2. Zachow Brothers, as represented by Carl H. and Edward H. Zachow, of Birch Hills, Saskatchewan-$2.50 per cultivated acre.

3ELLERIVE, QUE., WHARF

1. Was a wharf constructed at Bellerive, county of Labelle, during the fall of 1951?

2. If so, at what cost?

3. Was the work done by contract or by day labour?

4. Under whose direction was such work carried out?

1. Yes.

2. $4,187.05.

3. Day labour.

4. J. C. Mailloux, (foreman).

1. Are any steps being taken by the Department of Public Works with respect to the rebuilding or extension of the Roberval and Dolbeau post offices?

2. If so, when will each of these projects be carried out?

1. (a) Yes; (b) No information.

2. (a) It is expected that work will commence in 1953 on the Roberval post office; (b) Answered by No. 1 (b).

1. Are arrangements being made by the Department of National Health and Welfare to issue old age pension cheques in both languages to all recipients in whatever part of Canada they may reside?

2. If so, when will such measure take effect?

1. As was indicated in an answer tabled on June 26, 1952, (.Hansard, page 3753) in reply to an inquiry of the ministry, all cheques issued on behalf of the government of Canada, including those for old age security, are-produced and issued by the office of the comptroller of the treasury, Department of Finance.

2. As indicated in the House of Commons, on May 6, 1952 (Hansard, page 1906) this matter is under continuous study.

Mr. George A. Drew (Leader of the Opposition):

Perhaps it would be appropriate, Mr. Speaker, if I were to mention the questions that have still not been answered at this point. There are some of those questions that have been standing on the order paper for some time. I agree that there has been a substantial reduction in the number of outstanding questions. Several of these, however, are questions which it would seem could have been answered. I would ask if the government could either give an undertaking or accept a motion that would have the effect

of making any question still outstanding when this part of the session terminates an order for return.

Mr. Fournier (Hull):

So far as my department is concerned, I gave nearly all the answers to questions, except those that were on the order paper under the date of June 25, and today is only June 28. Question No. 17 on today's order paper reads as follows:

1. Has any department of the government received a request for drainage work in the municipality of Mistassini, Quebec?

2. If so, has consideration been given to such request?

3. Will this work be carried out in the near future?

My impression is that drainage works come under the provincial government. I suppose I would have to look over the files to see whether, in the last ten or twenty years, we had any correspondence on the subject. I think that question should be dropped. Clearly, it is not under federal jurisdiction. In so far as the other two subjects are concerned, I can try to give answers on Monday. I shall do my best.

Mr. Drew:

The minister, who is the house leader for the government, has referred to his own department. I would point out that the comments he has made in regard to one of those questions are comments that would, in the ordinary course of events, be put forward as reasons why particular questions should or should not be answered.

What I am really raising at the moment is the fact that some of those questions relate to subjects which may have demanded more extensive inquiry than others. I would point out that if the government is prepared to make them orders for returns, then they can be dealt with in the ordinary way during the period when we are recessed. Having regard to what I have said and to the indication the minister has given that he will review the questions relating to his department, may I ask that he have a review made of the other questions, and then it may be possible on Monday morning to indicate the willingness or otherwise of the government to make these orders for returns. If there are questions which in the opinion of the government cannot be answered, that could be pointed out and dealt with appropriately.

Mr. Fournier (Hull):

I shall undertake to discuss the matter with my colleagues. I would ask that question No. 17 be dropped, because it does not come under our jurisdiction at all.

Inquiries of the Ministry

Mr. Speaker:

It is agreed that question No. 17 be dropped?

Dropped.

Mr. Speaker:

Dropped.