Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):

Mr. Speaker, I understand that the provincial government has made a cash offer to the Indians for certain land for the purpose of building this bridge but I do not believe any permission has been asked to build the bridge. Permission was asked and granted to a provincial surveyor to make a survey.

Mr. Jones:

Is the minister aware that Indians armed with shotguns are keeping government employees from the property?

Mr. Pickersgill:

No, I was not aware of that. In fact I would have been very alarmed if I had been.

Mr. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):

Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of National Defence if the Department of National Defence is continuing the policy of automatically laying off civilian employees when they reach the age of 65 years and, if so, how does that fit in with the program of the Department of Labour for the continued employment of senior citizens.

Hon. R. O. Campney (Minister of National Defence):

Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the hon. gentleman for giving me notice of his question. In answer to the first part may I say that the Department of National Defence does not automatically lay off people at 65 years, but we do regard 65 years as the normal age for retirement. However, when an employee reaches the age of 65 years and indicates that he wishes to continue working, each particular case is

IMr. MacNaught.J

considered on its merits, the man's usefulness, his ability to discharge his duties and whether a favourable decision would be helpful to him. I may say in this connection that a fairly high proportion of civilian employees who wish to continue working after 65 years of age are in fact retained by the department.

In reply to the second part of the question, I would say that I think the policy of the Department of National Defence in this regard is in accord with the program of the Department of Labour and with the practice in other government departments.

Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo):

Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs if he can inform us whether the question of postponing further thermonuclear tests until the report of the United Nations committee on the genetic effects of fall-out is received was discussed at the recent meeting of the United Nations assembly. If so, what was the attitude of the government of Canada to such a proposal?

Hon. L. B. Pearson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):

The question of the postponing of thermonuclear tests was discussed at the recent meeting of the assembly of the United Nations and the committee referred to by my hon. friend was set up. However, I am afraid it will take the committee some time to present its report.

The position taken by the Canadian delegation, headed by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin), was that we would agree to any postponement or cessation of tests of this kind, but only as part of a satisfactory disarmament scheme which would include adequate provisions for inspection and control. As the house knows, the Canadian delegation to the United Nations has been doing its best to bring about such a satisfactory scheme, especially through its membership on the subcommittee of the disarmament commission, the meetings of which will be resumed shortly.

Mr. J. A. Smith (Battle River-Camrose):

Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Would the

Minister of Agriculture inform the house as to whether or not the privilege of purchasing butter at 21 cents a pound below the support price has been extended to all welfare institutions operated by provincial governments across Canada?

Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture):

Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. member for having given me notice of his question, and in reply to state that the answer would be yes if it were not for one phrase used. The phrase used is "has been extended". I am not certain that they have all made application but, if the word "available" were substituted for "extended", butter at 21 cents less has been made available for any institution, whether government or otherwise.

At the same time I should like to say that the fact that it is 21 cents a pound cheaper has made very little, if any, difference to the consumption of butter at those institutions.